Kı ̄lauea Point

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies 

needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best 

estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels 

that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, 

as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program 

prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding 

for future land acquisition.

Refuge Vision 

Shrouded in a salty mist, the steep cliffs of an ancient volcano plunge into a pounding north swell as Kı ̄lauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge stands as an oasis where abundant seabirds blanket the pali and ride updrafts. Here a 

symphony of sounds reverberates — from the whinny of mo ̄lı ̄ to a chorus of rattling squawks from thousands of ‘a ̄. 

Ne ̄ne ̄ nestle within thriving native plant communities that blanket the red soil throughout the Refuge. 

‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu bask in tranquil solitude at the edge of the turquoise waters teeming with marine life. 

The dynamic and awe-inspiring experiences of Kı ̄lauea Point provide kama‘a ̄ina and visitors alike a sense of place 

and lasting interconnectedness with the natural world. Interwoven with cultural heritage, environmental education 

links the island’s keiki and the youth beyond with the Refuge’s unique ecosystems and native wildlife. Through 

strong community support, the Kı ̄lauea lighthouse endures, telling its story, and remains a beacon promoting 

stewardship of the Refuge’s resources for future generations. 

He nu‘ukia no ka pu‘uhonua 

Kau maila ka ‘ehukai i ka pali ku ̄ o ka luapele, a papa ̄ mai ka nalu po‘i. Ku ̄ kilakila ‘o Kı ̄lauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge ma ke ano he kı ̄puka no ka manu o ka moana ku ̄hohonu, a ma ane‘i la ̄kou e kı ̄kaha a ka‘aniu ai. 

Ku ̄pina‘i a‘e ka leo o ka mo ̄lı ̄, ua lau. Hauwala‘au mai ka leo o ka ‘a ̄, ua mano. Nonoho iho ka ne ̄ne ̄ i ka na ̄hele ‘oiwi 

e uhi ana i ka lepo ‘ula‘ula o ne‘i. Lalala mehameha ka ‘ı ̄lio-holo-i-ka-uaua a me ka honu ma ka‘e o ke kai pa ̄pa‘u 

piha o ka i‘a.

Poina ‘ole ne ̄ia wahi ke ho‘okipa ‘ia e ke kama‘a ̄ina, pau pu ̄ me ka malihini i ke ‘ano o na ̄ mea a la ̄kou i ‘ike ai, i la‘a 

me ka pilina ma waena o ko ̄ a uka, a ko ̄ a kai. ‘O ka nohona kanaka a me ke aloha ‘a ̄ina ke kahua o ka ha‘awina e a‘o 

aku ai i ka po‘e ‘o ̄pio, i moa ̄kaka ia mau mea i ka ‘ike a ko ̄ la ̄kou mau maka ma ke ̄ia mua aku. Ma o ke ka ̄ko‘o a ke 

kaia ̄ulu, ku ̄ mau ka hale ipu kukui ‘o Kı ̄lauea i lama kuhikuhi o ka ma ̄lama ‘a ̄ina no na ̄ hanauna e hiki mai ana.

Mo ̄lı ̄. Amanda Gladics/USFWS

 ̄
Kīlauea Point

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge

3500 Kīlauea Road

Kīlauea, Hawaiʻi 96754

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region One Planning Team

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

May 2016 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of No Significant Impact iii

Finding of No Significant Impact

for the

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Kaua‘i County, Hawai‘i 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). 

The CCP/EA describes our proposals for managing the Refuge and their effects on the human

environment under four alternatives, including the “no action” alternative. 

The need for the CCP is derived from the overall National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)

mission, goals, and policies, as described in or promulgated by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 688dd–688ee, et seq.), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Developing the CCP provides the Refuge

with a management plan for conserving fish, wildlife, plant resources, and their related habitats, 

while providing opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. The CCP, when fully

implemented, should achieve Refuge purposes, help fulfill the Refuge System mission, maintain, 

and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of the Refuge and the Refuge System, and 

meet other mandates. The CCP will guide management of the Refuge for 15 years, or until it is

revised, and actions will be implemented as funding becomes available.

Features Common to All Alternatives 

Features common to all alternatives include considering climate change effects in all management

actions; monitoring and control of invasive species; coordinating with State, county, and other 

partners; protecting cultural resources; fishing; allowing traditional cultural practices by native

Hawaiians; volunteer opportunities; re-evaluating public use visitation days at Kīlauea Point; and 

continuing land protection within the approved Refuge boundary. Operational and infrastructure 

changes for better management of transportation issues associated with Kīlauea Point proper (Point) 

or at the Kilauea Road terminus (Overlook) were evaluated.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A (Current Management): Under Alternative A, current wildlife and habitat management

aimed at long-term protections and population and habitat enhancements for migratory seabirds and 

endangered nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis) would continue. Strategies include invasive

species control, outplanting native plants, mowing and weeding grassland-shrubland habitat for nēnē, 

maintaining or replacing fencing, enhancing the threatened ‘a‘o (Newell’s shearwater, Puffinus 

auricularis newelli) population, and inventories, monitoring, and research. 

The majority of public use activities offered at the Refuge would continue to revolve around wildlife

observation and photography, environmental education (EE), and interpretation located on the Point 

or at the Overlook. The Kāhili Quarry area would remain open to wildlife-dependent uses (fishing, 

wildlife observation, and photography) and for access to off-Refuge areas (Kīlauea River, Kīlauea

Bay, and Kāhili Beach) for boating and other stream, beach, and ocean uses (e.g., surfing, swimming,

sunbathing, snorkeling, and dog walking). 

Alternative B: Under Alternative B, wildlife and habitat management activities would continue in

existing areas and be expanded on Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point. In addition, native plant 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

iv Finding of No Significant Impact

communities would be restored to provide recovery habitat for threatened and endangered coastal

plants. Priority research, inventories, monitoring, and other scientific assessments would be 

expanded. 

Public use changes, compared to Alternative A, include different uses of some existing buildings, as

well as improving public parking, traffic flow, and visitor activities on the Point. Strategies include

offering an optional shuttle, a public/tour bus stop, and bike parking at the Overlook; increasing

onsite public parking; and expanding outreach, EE, and volunteer programs. 

 

Public access to the Kāhili Quarry area would remain open; however, there would be new

stipulations for anglers on temporary shelters and fires, and for all visitors, new stipulations on dogs. 

Additionally, nonanglers would be limited to daytime use only. 

Alternative C: The chief distinctions between Alternative C and Alternative B are the relocation of 

non–site-dependent functions (e.g., fee collection, restrooms, bookstore, administrative offices,

parking) off the Point to a new visitor welcome and orientation center on the southwestern corner of 

Crater Hill, the use of a shuttle system to provide public access to the Point and Overlook, and the

addition of guided interpretive hikes on Crater Hill. The main administrative offices and a new

maintenance baseyard (e.g., storage sheds, bays, pole barns, and nursery) would be built in the same

area as the new visitor welcome and orientation center. 

 

Wildlife and habitat management under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B. However,

approximately 3–4 acres of nēnē and seabird habitat would be lost due to construction of the new 

facilities on the southwestern portion of Crater Hill. Public use and access of Kāhili Quarry under 

Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B. 

Alternative D: In response to public comments received on the draft CCP/EA, elements of the 

facilities and transportation strategies were modified. As a result, the main differences between this

alternative and Alternative C are the options for relocating welcome and orientation, non–sitedependent functions, and maintenance facilities off current Refuge lands but within 1 mile of the 

Refuge boundary. Other medium- to long-term strategies that may be implemented include the 

removal of public parking on the Point, development of a mandatory shuttle system, and 

reconfiguring the use of existing buildings. The success of short- to medium-term strategies, such as

operational and infrastructure changes, may preclude implementation of the described medium- to

long-term strategies. Wildlife and habitat management would be similar to Alternative C. 

Public use and access of Kāhili Quarry under Alternative D were modified based on public 

comments received on the draft CCP/EA. The Quarry area will continue to be open to wildlifedependent uses and for access to off-Refuge areas 24 hours per day. There will be new stipulations 

for visitors on temporary shelters, fires, and dogs. Additionally, the Refuge will work in partnership 

with local nonprofit organizations and community leaders of Kīlauea on promoting community

stewardship of the Quarry through habitat protection, monitoring, and managing threats to natural

and cultural resources; outreach; and environmental, cultural, and historical interpretation. 

Summary of Effects 

Alternative A (Current Management): Under Alternative A, the overall effects of current 

management on the physical environment within the Refuge would generally be negligible to minor 

negative due to erosion and water quality degradation. Impacts to wildlife would generally be 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of No Significant Impact v 

negligible to intermediate positive. However, we project minor to intermediate negative impacts to

sea cliff and beach strand habitats primarily due to human trespass and disturbance (e.g., at Kāhili

Quarry). 

Impacts to the social and economic environment within and surrounding the Refuge would generally

be negligible to minor positive due to public use, volunteer, and outreach programs. However,

impacts related to transportation would be intermediate negative, primarily due to traffic-related

effects from visitation at the Point and Overlook (e.g., congestion, noise, public safety, and 

pollution). 

Alternative B: Management actions in Alternative B would generally result in long-term minor to

intermediate positive effects to the physical environment due to increased restoration of native

habitats and removal of nonnative vegetation, and efforts to stabilize areas of accelerated erosion. In

the short term, individual actions may have negative effects on soils, water resources, and air quality;

however, due to the limited duration, area, and intensity of these activities, the effects would be 

negligible to intermediate. Overall, a long-term minor to intermediate beneficial effect would be

expected for Refuge habitats and associated species from these habitat management actions. 

Overall effects to the social and economic environment would be expected to be minor positive due 

to expanded public use, volunteer, and outreach programs. The availability and quality of wildlifedependent recreation on the Refuge would have minor to intermediate improvements under 

Alternative B. Alternative B would alleviate some parking limitations at the Overlook and traffic

congestion at the Point (due to the optional shuttle) and would provide more transportation options to

the Overlook (bicycle, pedestrian, and bus access), leading to minor positive effects to transportation 

and the general visitor experience. The effects from implementing Alternative B would not be

expected to have any significant beneficial or adverse effects on Refuge resources or other elements

of the human environment. 

Alternative C: Impacts to the physical environment from Alternative C would be comparable to

Alternative B. However, under Alternative C, the development of new facilities at the southwestern 

corner of Crater Hill would have long-term, minor, negative effects. Regarding effects to Refuge

habitats and associated species, Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B; however, the

construction of new facilities at Crater Hill and a trail from the new facilities to the Overlook would 

reduce the quality and quantity of habitat for nēnē and seabirds. Thus, the net result of Alternative C 

would be an intermediate negative impact, specifically to the coastal mixed woodland-grassland

habitat, and minor to intermediate negative impact to seabirds and nēnē. 

Overall effects to the social and economic environment would be expected to be similar to

Alternative B; however, the availability and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation on the Refuge

would be slightly higher compared to Alternative B. Alternative C would have minor to intermediate

positive impacts to transportation and general visitor experience by reducing traffic congestion at the 

Overlook and Point from the use of a mandatory shuttle. The effects from implementing Alternative

C would not be expected to have any significant beneficial or adverse effects on Refuge resources or 

other elements of the human environment. 

Alternative D: Impacts to the physical environment will be comparable to Alternative B. Regarding 

overall effects to Refuge habitats and associated species, Alternative D will be similar to Alternative

B, except there will be more restoration at the Point and, compared to Alternative C, wildlife habitat

in the southwestern corner of Crater Hill will remain intact.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi Finding of No Significant Impact

Overall effects to the social and economic environment are expected to be minor positive. Due to

improvements on the Point and increased community engagement and stewardship at Kāhili Quarry, 

the availability and quality of wildlife-dependent recreation on the Refuge will have minor to

intermediate improvements. Alternative D will result in a reduction of traffic-related effects at the 

Point from visitation and, overall, minor to intermediate positive effects to transportation and the 

general visitor experience. The effects from implementing Alternative D are not expected to have any 

significant beneficial or adverse effects on Refuge resources or other elements of the human 

environment. 

Comparison of Overall Effects across Alternatives: Effects to the physical environment would be 

most beneficial under Alternatives B or D. Regarding wildlife and habitats, Alternative D will have

more beneficial wildlife management effects than Alternatives A, B, or C. Impacts under both 

Alternatives B and D would be minor to intermediate positive; however, Alternative D is considered 

slightly more beneficial due to the strategies for addressing parking and visitor experience on Kīlauea

Point without the loss of habitat at Crater Hill under Alternative C. 

Effects to the social and economic environment would be more beneficial under all action

alternatives compared with Alternative A. However, Alternative D will lead to more benefits to

wildlife, visitor opportunities, including wildlife-dependent recreation, and more positive impacts to

transportation and the general visitor experience than Alternatives A, B, or C. 

Public Involvement

The Service incorporated a variety of public involvement techniques in developing and reviewing the 

CCP/EA. This included talk story sessions; public open houses during scoping, draft alternatives

development, and the draft CCP/EA review; three planning updates; meetings with various county, 

State, and Federal partners and interested parties. The draft CCP/EA was available for a 44-day 

period of public review and comment from February 12, 2015, to March 27, 2015. During that 

period, the Service received comments from over 70 entities. The details of our public involvement 

are described in Appendix I. The Service prepared responses to all substantive comments, which are

in Appendix K.

Selection of Management Alternative for the Final CCP

Based on our review and analysis in the CCP/EA and the comments received during the public 

review of the draft CCP/EA, we selected a slightly revised Alternative D for implementation due to

the positive benefits of addressing parking and visitor experience on Kīlauea Point and improved 

visitor experience and wildlife management on the Refuge. In response to comments, strategies

regarding wildlife and habitat, transportation, public uses, and cultural and historic resources 

management were added, modified, or deleted. Corrective, clarifying, and editorial changes were also

made. Implementing the selected alternative will have no significant impacts on the environmental 

resources identified in the CCP/EA. Refuge management under the selected alternative will protect, 

maintain, and enhance habitat for priority species and resources of concern and improve the public’s 

opportunities to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation. 
KIiauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Conclusions 

Based on review and evaluation of the information contained in the supporting references, I have 

determined that implementing Alternative D as the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kilauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)( c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we are not required to prepare an environmental 

impact statement. 

Pacific Region 

SEP 17 2015 

Date 

Note: This Finding of No Significant Impact and supporting references are available for public 

review at the Kaua'i National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 3500 Kilauea Road, Kilauea 96754; and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232. 

These documents can also be found on the Internet at www.fws.gov/refuge/kilauea _point. Interested 

and affected parties are being notified of our decision. 

Finding of No Significant Impact vii
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

viii Finding of No Significant Impact
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents ix

Table of Contents

Finding of No Significant Impact ...................................................................................................... iii

Readers’ Guide ................................................................................................................................... xv

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................... 1-1

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

1.2 Significance of the Refuge ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................. 1-7

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance ................................................................................................ 1-7

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................ 1-7

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ............................................................................... 1-7

1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates........................................................................................... 1-9

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ................................................................................ 1-10

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose(s) ............................................................ 1-10

1.6.2 Purpose and History of Refuge Establishment ......................................................... 1-10

1.6.3 Land Status and Ownership ...................................................................................... 1-11

1.7 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts ............................................................................ 1-17

1.7.1 Relationship to Refuge Plans .................................................................................... 1-17

1.7.2 Other Plans and Assessments .................................................................................... 1-18

1.8 Special Designation Lands ............................................................................................... 1-22

1.8.1 Important Bird Areas (IBA) ...................................................................................... 1-22

1.8.2 National Register of Historic Places ......................................................................... 1-22

1.9 Planning Process and Issue Identification ....................................................................... 1-23

1.9.1 Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 1-23

1.9.2 Key Issues Addressed in the CCP ............................................................................. 1-24

1.9.3 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP ........................................................................ 1-24

1.10 Refuge Vision and Goals ............................................................................................... 1-24

1.10.1 He nu‘ukia no ka pu‘uhonua (Refuge Vision) ........................................................ 1-24

1.10.2 ‘O nā pahuhopu o ka pu‘uhonua (Refuge Goals) ................................................... 1-25

1.11 References ...................................................................................................................... 1-26

Chapter 2. Management Direction ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Management Directions Considered but not Developed ................................................... 2-1

2.3 Description of Management Direction .............................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .................................................................................... 2-18

2.4.1 Goal 1: Protect, enhance, and manage the coastal ecosystem to meet the life-history 

needs of migratory seabirds and threatened and endangered species. ............................... 2-19

2.4.2 Goal 2: Restore and/or enhance and manage populations of migratory seabirds and 

threatened and endangered species. ................................................................................... 2-25

2.4.3 Goal 3: Gather scientific information (surveys, research, and assessments) to support 

adaptive management decisions. ........................................................................................ 2-28
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

x Table of Contents

2.4.4 Goal 4: Ensure that visitors and kama‘āina of all ages and abilities feel welcome, 

enjoy a safe visit, and are provided high-quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation which allows them to connect with, while having limited impacts to, the wildlife, 

habitats, and cultural and historic richness of the Refuge.................................................. 2-31

2.4.5 Goal 5: Identify, protect, evaluate, and interpret the cultural (including historic) 

resources and heritage of the Refuge while consulting with Native Hawaiian organizations 

and preservation partners and complying with historic preservation legislation. .............. 2-49

2.4.6 Goal 6: Ensure that all visitors enjoy safe and well-maintained operations that 

contribute to a positive visitor experience. ........................................................................ 2-50

2.5 References ........................................................................................................................ 2-53

Chapter 3. Physical Environment ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 General Climate ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 3-3

3.2 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry ............................................................................................. 3-9

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology .......................................................................................... 3-10

3.5 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.6 Fire ................................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.7 Environmental Contaminants .......................................................................................... 3-11

3.8 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.9 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 3-13

3.10 Visual Quality ................................................................................................................ 3-13

3.11 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................................. 3-14

3.12 References ...................................................................................................................... 3-15

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats ................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ............................................... 4-1

4.2 Priority Resources of Concern ........................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Analysis of Resources of Concern .............................................................................. 4-4

4.2.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern ................................................................ 4-4

4.3 Primary Habitats ................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.3.1 Coastal Mixed Woodland-Grassland ........................................................................ 4-13

4.3.2 Cliff ........................................................................................................................... 4-13

4.3.3 Beach Strand ............................................................................................................. 4-13

4.4 Threatened and Endangered and Other Native Wildlife .................................................. 4-14

4.4.1 ‘A‘o (Puffinus auricularis newelli) or Newell’s Shearwater .................................... 4-14

4.4.2 Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis) or Hawaiian Goose ...................................................... 4-14

4.4.3 ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) or Hawaiian hoary bat .............................. 4-16

4.4.4 ‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Monachus schauinslandi) or Hawaiian monk seal ................. 4-16

4.4.5 Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) or Hawaiian Short-eared Owl ....................... 4-17

 4.4.6 Honu (Chelonia mydas) or Green Turtle ................................................................. 4-18

4.5 Breeding Seabirds ............................................................................................................ 4-19

4.5.1 Mōlī (Phoebastria immutabilis) or Laysan Albatross .............................................. 4-19

4.5.2 ‘Ua‘u kani (Puffinus pacificus) or Wedge-tailed Shearwater ................................... 4-20
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents xi

4.5.3 Koa‘e kea (Phaethon lepturus) or White-tailed Tropicbird ...................................... 4-21

4.5.4 Koa‘e ‘ula (Phaethon rubricauda) or Red-tailed Tropicbird.................................... 4-22

4.5.5 ‘Ā (Sula sula) or Red-footed Booby ......................................................................... 4-23

4.6 Other Seabirds .................................................................................................................. 4-24

4.7 Migratory Waterfowl and Shorebirds .............................................................................. 4-25

4.8 Threatened and Endangered Plants .................................................................................. 4-26

4.8.1 Pokulakalaka (Munroidendron racemosum) ............................................................. 4-26

4.8.2 Alula (Brighamia insignis) ....................................................................................... 4-27

4.8.3 Dwarf Naupaka (Scaevola coriacea) ........................................................................ 4-27

4.8.4 Lo‘ulu (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii) ................................................................... 4-27

4.8.5 Lo‘ulu (P. napaliensis) ............................................................................................. 4-28

4.9 Native Plant Communities ............................................................................................... 4-28

4.9.1 Naupaka Kahakai (Scaevola sericea) or Beach Naupaka ......................................... 4-29

4.9.2 ‘Ilima (Sida fallax) or Yellow Ilima ......................................................................... 4-29

4.9.3 Hala (Pandanus tectorius) or Screw pine ................................................................. 4-29

4.9.4 ‘Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides) .......................................................................... 4-30

4.9.5 Pōhinahina (Vitex rotundifolia) ................................................................................. 4-30

4.10 Invasive Species ............................................................................................................. 4-30

4.10.1 Mammals ................................................................................................................. 4-31

4.10.2 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 4-34

4.10.3 Amphibians ............................................................................................................. 4-35

4.10.4 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................ 4-36

4.10.5 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.11 References ...................................................................................................................... 4-40

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment ....................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.2 Kīlauea Point NWR .................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Refuge Facilities ................................................................................................................ 5-7

5.3 Public Use Overview ....................................................................................................... 5-11

5.3.1 Visitation Trends ....................................................................................................... 5-11

5.3.2 Volunteer Program .................................................................................................... 5-13

5.3.3 Visitation and Visitor Experience ............................................................................. 5-15

5.3.4 Visitor Services Management Challenges ................................................................ 5-18

5.4 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses ..................................................................................... 5-22

5.4.1 Hunting ..................................................................................................................... 5-22

5.4.2 Fishing ....................................................................................................................... 5-22

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography .................................................................... 5-23

5.4.4 Environmental Education .......................................................................................... 5-23

5.4.5 Interpretation/Outreach ............................................................................................. 5-25

5.4.6 Cultural Resources Interpretation ............................................................................. 5-26

5.5 Other Refuge Uses ........................................................................................................... 5-26

5.6 Illegal Uses ...................................................................................................................... 5-26

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends .................................................... 5-27

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities ........................................................................... 5-27
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xii Table of Contents

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends ...................................................................... 5-28

5.8 Social/Economic Environment ........................................................................................ 5-33

5.8.1 Population, Housing, and Income ............................................................................. 5-35

5.8.2 Employment and Business ........................................................................................ 5-37

5.8.3 Refuge Impact on Local Economies ......................................................................... 5-40

5.8.4 Additional Economic Contributions ......................................................................... 5-40

5.9 References ........................................................................................................................ 5-41

Appendices

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings ..................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations ............................................................................... B-1

Appendix C. Implementation ...................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. Wilderness Review for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge ......................... D-1

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern ........................................................................... E-1

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance ........................................................................................ F-1

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ...................................................................... G-1

Appendix H. Common Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................ H-1

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement ......................................................... I-1

Appendix J. Kīlauea Point NWR Species Lists ........................................................................... J-1

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses ............................................................. K-1

Figures

Figure 1-1. Regional Area, Kaua‘i County. ................................................................................. 1-3

Figure 1-2. Local Area, Kīlauea Point NWR, Kaua‘i County. .................................................... 1-5

Figure 1-3. Land Status, Kīlauea Point NWR. ........................................................................... 1-15

Figure 2-1. Management Direction for Wildlife and Habitat Management, Kīlauea Point NWR. 2-

57

Figure 2-2. Management Direction for Public Use and Maintenance/Facilities, Kīlauea Point 

NWR. ......................................................................................................................................... 2-59

Figure 3-1. Kīlauea Assets Map (County of Kaua‘i 2006). ...................................................... 3-14

Figure 4-1. Overview of the process to prioritize resources of concern and management priorities 

for a refuge (USFWS 2010) ......................................................................................................... 4-6

Figure 4-2. Habitat, Kīlauea Point NWR. .................................................................................. 4-11

Figure 4-3. Nēnē reproduction at Kīlauea Point NWR, 2005–2011. ......................................... 4-16

Figure 4-4. Mōlī reproduction at Kīlauea Point NWR, 2002–2012. ......................................... 4-20

Figure 5-1. Public Use and Maintenance and Facilities, Kīlauea Point NWR. ........................... 5-9

Figure 5-2. Monthly visitation to Kauaʻi and Kīlauea Point NWR (USFWS unpublished data).5-

12

Figure 5-3. Likelihood of visiting Kīlauea Point NWR versus management options (Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2006)..................................................................................................................... 5-18

Figure 5-4. Percentage of visitors from the western U.S. participating in certain recreation 

activities on Kaua‘i over time.1 .................................................................................................. 5-30

Figure 5-5. Percentage of visitors from the eastern United States participating in certain 

recreation activities on Kaua‘i over time. .................................................................................. 5-31

Figure 5-6. Percentage of visitors from Japan participating in certain recreation activities on 

Kaua‘i over time. ....................................................................................................................... 5-32
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents xiii

Figure D-1. Land Status, Kīlauea NWR. .................................................................................... D-7

Figure K-1. Easements on Crater Hill, Kīlauea Point NWR. ................................................... K-33

Tables

Table 2-1 Summary of Management Direction. ........................................................................ 2-11

Table 4-1. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health........................................ 4-2

Table 4-2. Priority Resources of Concern.................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-3. Spring surveys of ‘ā breeding pairs, Kīlauea Point NWR (USFWS files) ............... 4-24

Table 4-4. Shorebirds of primary conservation importance in the Pacific islands region (Engilis 

and Naughton 2004). .................................................................................................................. 4-25

Table 5-1. Number of areas providing specific recreation activities on Kaua‘i. ....................... 5-28

Table 5-2. Number of people participating in wildlife-related recreation in Hawai‘i over time. .. 5-

29

Table 5-3. County and state population estimates. .................................................................... 5-36

Table 5-4. State and county income, unemployment, and poverty statistics, 2011. .................. 5-37

Table 5-5. Full-time employment by sector, 2011, Kaua‘i County. .......................................... 5-39

Table B-1. Summary of Compatibility Determinations. ............................................................. B-1

Table C-1. One-time Costs (in Thousands). ............................................................................... C-3

Table C-2. Operational (Recurring) Costs (Annual in Thousands). ........................................... C-8

Table E-1. Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex comprehensive resources of concern. ... E-2

Table E-2. Kīlauea Point NWR priority resources of concern. ................................................... E-7

Table G-1. Ecotoxicity Tests Used to Evaluate Potential Effects to Birds, Fish, and Mammals to 

Establish Toxicity Endpoints for Risk Quotient Calculations .................................................. G-17

Table G-2. Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish, and Mammals (USEPA 1998) .. G18

Table G-3. Average Body Weight of Selected Terrestrial Wildlife Species Frequently Used in 

Research to Establish Toxicological Endpoints (Dunning 1984) ............................................. G-19

Table I-1. List of Preparers (in alphabetical order)....................................................................... I-1

Table I-2. List of Reviewers and Advisors (in alphabetical order). .............................................. I-3

Table I-3. Summary of Scoping Comments. ................................................................................ I-5

Table K-2. Recovery Species for Kīlauea Point NWR. .............................................................. K-9
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xiv Table of Contents
Readers’ Guide

Native species discussed in this document are referred to by their Hawaiian names. Common English

names and scientific nomenclature can be found in Appendix J. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

endeavors to be accurate in its use of the Hawaiian language and correctly spell Hawaiian words, including 

the diacritical marks that affect the meaning and aid in pronunciation. This guide is provided to simplify 

pronunciation for the reader and provide examples of some of the species found in the CCP.

When Captain Cook arrived in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, the Hawaiians had a totally oral tradition. In 

1820, western missionaries standardized a written version of the Hawaiian language that features eight

consonants and five vowels

Special Symbols 

Two symbols appear frequently in Hawaiian words: the ‘okina and the kahakō. These two symbols change 

how words are pronounced. The ‘okina itself looks like an upside-down apostrophe and is a glottal stop – 

or a brief break in the word. An example of this in English is in the middle of the expression “uh-oh.” The 

‘okina is an official consonant – just as any of the other consonants

The kahakō is a stress mark (macron) that can appear over vowels only and serves to make the vowel 

sound slightly longer. The vowels ā, ē, ī, ō, and ū sound just like their non-stressed Hawaiian vowels with 

the exception that the sound is held slightly longer. Missing the ‘okina or kahakō can greatly change not 

only how a word sounds, but also its basic meaning. A popular example of how an ‘okina and a kahakō can 

change the meaning of a word is “pau”:

• pau = finished, ended, all don

• pa‘u = soot, smudge, ink powder

• pa‘ū = moist, damp

• pā‘ū = skirt

Refuge Place Name

Kāhili	 	 	 	 (Kah-HEE-lee) 

Kīlauea (KEE-loh-WAY-ah) 

Mōkōlea	 	 	 (Moh-koh-LEE-ah) 

Consonants

H - as in English

K - as in English

L - as in English

M - as in English

N - as in English

P - as in English

W - after i and e pronounced like v

 - after u and o pronounced like w

 - at the start of a word or after a, 

 pronounced like w or v

(‘) - ‘okina - a glottal stop

Vowels

A - pronounced like the a in far

E - pronounced like the e in bet

I - pronounced like the ee in beet

O - pronounced like the o in sole

U - pronounced like the oo in boot

Readers’ Guide xv

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
‘Ā (AHH)

Brown booby Sula leucogaster

‘Ā (AHH)

Red-footed booby Sula sula rubripes

ʻAʻo (AH-oh)

Newell’s Shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli

Federally listed as threatened

‘Iwa (EE-vah)

Great frigatebird Fregata minor palmerstoni 

Ka‘upu (kah-OO-poo)

Black-footed albatross Phoebastria nigripes 

State-listed as threatened

xvi Readers’ Guide 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Seabirds

Mark MacDonald Brenda Zaun Charles Sharp HarmonyonPlanetEarth HarmonyonPlanetEarth
Koa‘e kea (Koh-ah-eh-KEE-ah)

White-tailed tropicbird Phaethon lepturus

Koa‘e‘ula (Koh-ah-eh-oo-lah)

Red-tailed tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda

Mōlī (MOE-lee)

Laysan albatross Phoebastria immutabilis 

‘Ua‘u (OO-ah-oo)

Hawaiian petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis

Federally listed as endangered 

State-listed as endangered

‘Ua‘u kani (OO-ah-oo-kah-nee)

Wedge-tailed shearwater Puffinus pacificus (Ardenna 

pacifica)

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Readers’ Guide xvii

Seabirds

Michael Lusk ©Jim Denny Sean Hoyer Forest and Kim Starr kansasphoto
‘Akekeke (ah-kay-KAY-kay)

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Hunakai (hoo-nah-KYE)

Sanderling Calidris alba

Kioea (kee-oh-AY-ah)

Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis

Kōlea (KOHH-lay-ah)

Pacifi Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva

‘Ūlili (OOO-lee-lee)

Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

xviii Readers’ Guide

Migrant Shorebirds

Vadim Kreynin Forest and Kim Starr Patrick_K59 Aaron Maizlish Kat Vitulano Photos
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Readers’ Guide xix

‘Īlio holo i ka uaua (EEE-lee-oh HO-loh EE 

kah OO-ah OO-ah)

Hawaiian Monk Seal Monachus schauinslandi

Federally listed as endangered

State-listed as endangered

Nēnē (NAY-NAY)

Hawaiian Goose Branta sandvicensis

Federally listed as endangered

State-listed as endangered

‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (OHH-pay ah-PAY ah)

Hawaiian Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus semotus

Federally listed as endangered

State-listed as endangered

Pueo (poo-AY-oh)

Hawaiian Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 

sandwichensis

State-listed as endangered on O‘ahu

Other Native Animals

©Tom Dove USFWS Linda Martin Forest and Kim Starr
ʻAkoko (ah-KOH-koh)

Chamaesyce celastroides 

Hala (HAH-lah)

Screw pine Pandanus tectorius

ʻIlima (ee-LEE-mah)

Hibiscus Sida fallax

Naupaka Kahakai (now-PAH-kah kah-HAHkye)

Scaevola sericea 

Pōhuehue (POHH-hoo-ay-HOO-ay)

Beach morning glory Ipomoea pescaprae

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Readers’ Guide xx

Native Plants

USFWS USFWS USFWS USFWS USFWS
USFWS

Chapter 5Social and Economic Environment

Chapter 4Refuge Biology and Habitats

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

A-K

Chapter 1

Introduction and

Background

Chapter 2Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). It is one of three 

refuges that make up the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex (KNWRC or Complex): Kīlauea 

Point, Hanalei, and Hulē‘ia (Figure 1-1). This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) applies only 

to Kīlauea Point NWR. 

The 199-acre Kīlauea Point NWR, located on the northernmost tip of Kaua‘i 2 miles north of Kīlauea 

Town (Figure 1-2), was established on February 15, 1985, becoming the 425th refuge in the Refuge 

System. Originally established to preserve and enhance seabird nesting colonies, the Refuge also 

provides habitat for the endangered nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis), other migratory 

birds, endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi), and native 

coastal plant communities which include naupaka kahakai (Scaevola taccada), ‘ilima (Sida fallax), 

‘akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides) and others. The focus of Refuge management is to expand and 

enhance existing habitat for these species while combating the primary threats of invasive species 

and predators and allowing for public uses that are compatible with Refuge purposes and the Refuge 

System mission. 

The Refuge is also home to a historic lighthouse that was once owned and operated by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. The lighthouse, as well as easy access to wildlife viewing and dramatic ocean and cliff views, 

makes this Refuge a top attraction on the island. Kīlauea Point NWR has among the highest visitation

within the entire Refuge System with up to 500,000 people visiting annually. 

1.2 Significance of the Refuge

Kīlauea Point NWR is one of the few places in the main Hawaiian Islands with an abundant diversity 

of seabirds, and it provides a high-island refugium for seabird populations potentially affected by 

climate change (e.g., rising sea levels impacting low-lying nesting areas on the islands and atolls of 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). ‘Ua‘u kani (wedge-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) are 

the most numerous species on the Refuge, with an estimated 8,000–15,000 breeding pairs. The 

colony of ‘ā (red-footed boobies, Sula sula) may be the largest in the main Hawaiian Islands, with a 

maximum of 2,536 nests counted in 2006. About 200 pairs of mōlī (Laysan albatross, Phoebastria 

immutabilis) nest on and near the Refuge, the largest colony outside the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. 

An estimated 150–350 pairs of koa‘e ‘ula (red-tailed tropicbirds, Phaethon rubricauda) nest on the 

Refuge, as well as smaller numbers of koa‘e kea (white-tailed tropicbirds, Phaethon lepturus). The 

Refuge harbors at least 11 prospecting or breeding pairs of ‘a‘o (Newell’s shearwater, Puffinus 

auricularis newelli), whose numbers are dwindling on Kaua‘i. The Refuge is the only easily 

accessible location where this threatened species nests and thus is a source of much information on 

its breeding biology. A remarkable total of 33 seabird species have been observed at Kīlauea Point 

over the years, making it one of the premier sites for seabirds in Hawai‘i. Additionally, there are 300 

nēnē in the Kīlauea Point area, making the Refuge one of the largest nēnē concentrations on the 

island.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Dedicated in 1913, the Kīlauea Point Lighthouse Station guided ships and boats along Kaua‘i’s 

rugged North Shore for 63 years before being deactivated by the Coast Guard in 1976. In 1979, the 

structure was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The lighthouse was renamed in 

honor of the late Senator Daniel Inouye in May 2013. 

1.3 Proposed Action

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, manage wildlife refuges as part of the Refuge System. This 

document is the Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife 

Refuge. A CCP sets forth management guidance for a refuge for 15 years, as required by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 688dd–688ee, et seq.) (Refuge 

Administration Act) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Public Law 105-57) (Improvement Act). The Refuge Administration Act requires CCPs to identify 

and describe: 

• The purposes of the Refuge; 

• The fish, wildlife, and plant populations, their habitats, and the archaeological and cultural 

values found on the Refuge; 

• Significant problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitats and ways to 

correct or offset those problems; 

• Areas suitable for administrative sites or visitor facilities; and 

• Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

The Service developed and examined four alternatives for future management of Kīlauea Point NWR 

and disclosed anticipated effects for each alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347). The Service selected Alternative D for 

implementation. The goals, objectives, and strategies under Alternative D best achieve the purpose 

and need for the CCP while maintaining balance among the varied management needs and programs. 

The selected alternative represents the most balanced approach for achieving the Refuge’s purposes, 

vision, and goals; contributing to the Refuge System’s mission; addressing relevant issues and 

mandates; and managing the Refuge consistently with sound principles of fish and wildlife 

management. 
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-3

Figure 1-1. Regional Area, Kaua‘i County.

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

 Hanalei NWR Kīlauea Point NWR

Hulē‘ia NWR

Hulē‘ia River

Wa mi ea River

Lum aha‘i River

Kalih wi ai Ri v er

Hanalei River

Wai lua River

Mt Kawaikini

5243'

Kilohana

Crater

Na Pali Coast

Waimea Canyon

Hanalei

Kalāheo

Kapa‘a

Kekaha

Kīlauea

Līhu‘e

Wailua

Â$56

Â$51

Â$560

Â$50

Hawai‘i

Maui

Moloka‘i

O‘ahu

Kaua‘i 

Kaho‘olawe

Lāna‘i

Ni‘ihau

Map Date: 9/16/2014 File: 11-022-1.mxd

Sources: Hawaii Office of Planning (Reserves, April 2011, Gov't Ownership, 2009)

0 4 8

Miles

LEGEND

Protected Areas

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Hawai‘i Division of Forestry & Wildlife

Hawai‘i Division of State Parks

The Nature Conservancy

Other Federal, State or County Ownership

(Not Protected)

Main Hawaiian Islands

0 4 8

Kilometers

E

Title: Regional Area, Kauai County

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-4 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-5

Figure 1-2. Local Area, Kīlauea Point NWR, Kaua‘i County.

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Kīlauea

Rd

Pacif ic Ocean

Makanaano Rd

‘I walani Rd

Wailapa

Rd

Kalihiwai Rd

Kauapea Beach

Makapili Rock Mōkōlea Point

Kāhili Beach

Kī lauea Point

Moku‘ae‘ae

Kīlauea 

Kīl auea River

Kahilholo

Stream

Pu‘ u

Ka Ele

Strea m

Waiakalua Reservoir

Kīlauea Elementary

School

Kāhili

Quarry

?!

Crater

Hill

Moloa‘a

Forest

Reserve

Pu‘u Ka Ele

Reservoir

Morita

Reservoir

Wailapa Stream

Â$56

Kï a u e a

K ä hili

N äm ä h a n a

K ali hiw ai W e s t

W ai a k al u a *

E a s t

W ai k a l u a

Pïl a ÿ a

Le p e uli *

W ai a k al u a *

Map Date: 9/16/2014 File: 11-067-3.mxd

Image: NAIP 2004

LEGEND

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Perennial Stream or River

Intermittent Stream or River

Ahupua‘a (traditional Hawaiian land division)

Roads

Highways

!(

!( !(

Kīlauea Point NWR

Kaua‘ i

Kekaha Līhu‘e

Hanalei

Overview Map

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

0 500 1,000

Meters E

Title: Local Area, Kilauea Point

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-6 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-7 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of developing the CCP is to provide the Refuge Manager with a 15-year management 

plan for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats, while 

providing opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The CCP, when fully 

implemented, should achieve Refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of the Refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve 

the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The CCP must 

be specific to the planning unit and identify the overarching wildlife, public use, or management 

needs for the Refuge (602 FW 3.4C1d). The need for the CCP is derived from the overall Refuge 

System mission, goals, and policies, as described in or promulgated by the Refuge Administration 

Act. 

1.5 Legal and Policy Guidance

1.5.1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

All national wildlife refuges are managed by the Service, an agency within the Department of the 

Interior (DOI). The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, 

and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. 

The mission of the Service is “working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” Although we share this 

responsibility with other Federal, State, Territorial, tribal, local, and private entities, the Service has 

specific trust responsibilities for migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, 

interjurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals. The Service has similar trust responsibilities for 

the lands and waters we administer to support the conservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats. The Service also enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties 

for importing and exporting wildlife, assists with State and Territorial fish and wildlife programs, and 

helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs. 

1.5.2 National Wildlife Refuge System

A refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System within a framework provided by legal and policy 

guidelines. The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set aside 

specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems.

The needs of wildlife and their habitats come first on refuges, in contrast to other public lands that 

are managed for multiple uses. Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and Executive orders, 

Service policies, and international treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the Refuge 

System and the designated purposes of the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, 

Executive orders, or other documents establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. 

Key concepts and guidance of the Refuge System are derived from the Refuge Administration Act, 

the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW). The Refuge 

Administration Act is implemented through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-8 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Title 50, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general 

administration of units of the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals 

The mission of the Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans” (Refuge Administration Act). 

The goals of the Refuge System, as articulated in the Mission, Goals, and Purposes policy (601 FW 

1) are:

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; 

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life-history needs of these species across their ranges; 

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts; 

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); and 

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

Of all the laws governing activities on National Wildlife Refuges, the Refuge Administration Act 

undoubtedly exerts the greatest influence. The Improvement Act amended the Refuge Administration 

Act in 1997 by including a unifying mission for all national wildlife refuges as a system, a new 

process for determining compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge be managed 

under a CCP, developed in an open public process. 

The Refuge Administration Act states that the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats within the System as well as ensure that 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained.

House Report 105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘... the fundamental mission of 

our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health are critical components of wildlife conservation. As 

later made clear in the Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health (BIDEH) Policy 

(601 FW 3) “the highest measure of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health is 

viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed during 

historic conditions.”

Under the Refuge Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System 

mission as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Refuge Administration Act 

requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-9 

Additionally, the Refuge Administration Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses for 

the Refuge System. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Under the Refuge Administration Act, the Service is to 

grant these six wildlife-dependent public uses, when compatible, special consideration in the 

planning for, management of, establishment, and expansion of units of the Refuge System. The 

overarching goal of the wildlife-dependent public uses program is to enhance opportunities and 

access to quality wildlife-dependent visitor experiences on refuges while managing refuges to 

conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific 

basis, these six uses assume priority status among all uses of the refuge in question. The Service is to 

make extra efforts to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. 

When preparing a CCP, Refuge Managers must re-evaluate all general public, recreational, and 

economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) proposed or 

occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or 

continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use is 

one that contributes to fulfilling a refuge’s purposes, the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in an approved refuge management plan. A compatible use is a use that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purpose(s) of the refuge. Appropriate 

use findings and compatibility determinations for existing and new uses for Kīlauea Point NWR are 

in Appendices A and B of this CCP. 

The Refuge Administration Act also requires that, in addition to other formally established guidance, 

the CCP must be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by 

the public play a role in guiding alternatives considered during the development of the CCP, and 

together with the formal guidance, can play a role in selection of the preferred alternative. It is 

Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open public process and that the Service is committed 

to securing public input throughout the process. Appendix I of the CCP details public involvement 

that has been undertaken during this CCP process. 

1.5.3 Other Laws and Mandates

Many other Federal laws, Executive orders, Service policies, and international treaties govern the 

Service and Refuge System. Examples include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). For additional information on laws and other mandates, a 

list and brief description of Federal laws of interest to the Service can be found in the Laws Digest at 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html. 

In addition, over the last few years, the Service has developed or revised numerous policies and 

Director’s orders to reflect the mandates and intent of the Improvement Act. Some of these key 

policies include BIDEH; Compatibility (603 FW 2); Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 

(602 FW 3); National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes (601 FW 1); 

Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1); General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation (605 

FW 1); Wilderness Stewardship (610 FW 1-5); and the Director’s Order for Coordination and 

Cooperative Work with State Fish and Wildlife Agency Representatives on Management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. These policies and others in draft or under development can be 

found at http://refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-10 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

In developing a CCP, refuges must consider these broader laws and policies as well as Refuge 

System and ecosystem goals and vision. The CCP must be consistent with these and Refuge 

purposes. For Kīlauea Point NWR, specific examples of these broader laws include: 

• ESA; 

• MBTA; 

• NHPA; 

• Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1935. 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

1.6.1 Legal Significance of the Refuge Purpose(s)

The purpose(s) for which a refuge was established or acquired is of key importance in refuge 

planning. Purposes must form the foundation for management decisions. Refuge purposes are the 

driving force in the development of the refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in a 

CCP and are critical to determining the compatibility of existing and proposed refuge uses. 

The purpose(s) of a refuge is specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit. 

Unless the establishing law, order, or other document indicates otherwise, purposes regarding the 

conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plants, and the habitats on which 

they depend, take precedence over other purposes in the management and administration of any unit. 

Where a refuge has multiple purposes related to fish, wildlife, and plant conservation, the more 

specific purpose will take precedence in instances of conflict. When an additional unit is acquired 

under an authority different from the authority used to establish the original unit, the addition takes 

on the purpose(s) of the original unit, but the original unit does not take on the purpose(s) of the 

newer addition. When a conflict exists between the Refuge System mission and the purpose of an 

individual refuge, the refuge purpose may supersede the mission. 

1.6.2 Purpose and History of Refuge Establishment

Since 1985, the Refuge has continued to undergo expansion and as such, there are several authorities 

related to its establishment. They are as follows: 

• The Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d, 

May 19, 1948, as amended 1949, 1972, and 1995). This act provides authority to the 

Administrator of the General Services Administration to transfer real property no longer 

needed by a Federal agency to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for 

migratory birds. 

• Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 460k through 460k-4, September 28, 1962, as amended 

1966, 1972, 1973, and 1978). This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow public 

recreation in Federal conservation areas when compatible with the purposes of these areas, 

acquire lands that are suitable for incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational 

development, protect natural resources, and conserve endangered or threatened species.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-11

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 

1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1997). The ESA provides for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal 

action and by encouraging the establishment of State programs. It supersedes and strengthens 

two earlier endangered species acts, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and 

The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. Section 5 of the ESA provides guidance 

for the Service to use its existing authorities to acquire lands to conserve those species listed 

as endangered or threatened. It also provides for the determination and listing of endangered 

and threatened species and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 of the ESA requires 

refuge managers to perform consultations before initiating projects that affect or may affect 

endangered species. 

• Kīlauea Point Expansion Act of 2004 (Expansion Act) (16 USC 668dd December 23, 2004). 

The Expansion Act, Public Law 108-481, directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by 

donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, all or a portion of 

approximately 234 acres of land adjacent to the Kīlauea Point NWR to be managed for the 

protection and recovery of endangered Hawaiian water birds and other endangered birds, 

including nēnē (Hawaiian goose), and the conservation and management of native coastal 

strand, riparian, and aquatic biological diversity.

As a result of the various establishment authorities above, there are several purposes for Kīlauea 

Point NWR: 

• ... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.16 

U.S.C. § 667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or 

other purposes) 

• ... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ...16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 

• ... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be 

accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ... 

16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended) 

• ... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened

species .... or (B) plants ... 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

• (1) the protection and recovery of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and other endangered 

birds, including the nēnē (Hawaiian goose); and (2) the conservation and management of 

native coastal strand, riparian, and aquatic biological diversity. Public Law 108-481 (Kīlauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004). 

1.6.3 Land Status and Ownership

The Refuge approved boundary is made up of lands owned in fee by the Service, non-Service owned 

lands (in-holdings), and easements (Figure 1-3). The following provides a summary of major land 

status and ownership actions from past to present. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

• 1976–Agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard allowed the Service to use Kīlauea Point to 

administer its other refuges on Kaua‘i (Hanalei and Hulē‘ia); 

• 1985–Under Public Law 80-537, the U.S. Coast Guard transferred 31-acre Kīlauea Point 

(Tract 10) and a 3.75-acre road easement (Tract 10R) to the Service (negotiations began in 

1984); 

• 1988–With assistance from the Trust for Public Lands, the Service added Mōkōlea Point 

(Tract 11), a 4.55-acre road easement (Tract 11R), and Crater Hill (Tracts 12, 12C, 12R, and 

12R-1; 91 fee acres, 8.52 easement acres) to the Refuge under the authority of the ESA: 

o Mōkōlea Point was purchased in fee with the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 

$1.6 million dollars. There is an access easement in favor of Seacliff Plantation 

(formerly the Pali Moana Corporation) for beach access and parking over and across 

Kāhili Quarry Road (Tract 11) as well as for emergency and maintenance operations. 

This access is subject to reasonable rules and regulations for the protection of 

wildlife;

o The Crater Hill parcel was donated by Pali Moana Corporation (which is now 

Seacliff Plantation) through the Trust for Public Lands. Seacliff Plantation retained 

two access easements for pedestrian and equestrian access within the Refuge 

boundary; the easements are 20 feet wide, with only 10 feet of this allowed for 

improvements of an unpaved surface. Both easements enter the Refuge from a gate at 

the northeast end of Makana Ano Place and continue to the eastern boundary of Tract 

12. The use of these properties is highly regulated under the conveyance documents; 

general unsupervised public use and construction of any buildings or other structures 

are prohibited on Tract 12. In addition, the State retained the mineral and metallic 

mines rights and easements for utilities maintained. The Service also has a right of 

ingress and egress for emergency and maintenance purposes over portions of Seacliff 

Plantation’s property; 

• 1993–Tract 14 (7 acres) was purchased at $2.7 million dollars from ARC Partners, Ltd., with 

existing utility easements and State rights for mineral and metallic mines intact;

• 1994–Tracts 13a (7 acres) and 15 (7 acres) were also purchased. Tract 15, at $1.975 million, 

was purchased from an individual, subject to existing utility and irrigation ingress and egress 

easements and State rights for mineral and metallic mines intact. Tract 13a was acquired by 

exchange from Pali Moana Company for the release of a conservation easement on 3.154 

acres (small triangle protruding from the south of Tract 13) and an equalization payment of 

$200,000. There is also an Open Space Easement area within Tract 13a; 

• 2004–Congress approved the expansion of the Refuge boundary by up to 234 additional acres 

(Kaua‘i county council passed a resolution in support of this expansion). A Land Protection 

Plan and Environmental Assessment were conducted and completed in 2007. The Service 

selected the alternative that expanded the Refuge boundary by 202 acres. However, no land 

in this expanded boundary area has been acquired by the Refuge (though a landowner did 

donate 5 acres to the Kaua‘i Land Trust (now part of the Hawaiian Islands Land Trust) to 

hold as an addition to the Refuge). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-13

The following is a list of additional easements on the Refuge not identified above: 

• Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative currently has easement rights under a Special Use Permit to 

allow placement of electric utility lines underground; 

• The U.S. Coast Guard reserved an access easement over the existing roadway for 

maintenance and repair of the beacon and aids-to-navigation light. They also reserved a 

visual easement to provide an unobstructed view from the sea to the beacon. Additionally, 

they have jurisdiction over a 30x30-foot inholding on Kīlauea Point.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-14 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

This page intentionally left blank. 
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-15

Figure 1-3. Land Status, Kīlauea Point NWR.

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Kīlauea

Road

Kīlauea

River

Pacific Ocean

Â$56

ST15

ST ST12

14

ST12R

ST11R

ST10

ST13a

ST11

ST12R-1

ST10R

ST12C

159°23'0"W

159°23'0"W

159°24'0"W

159°24'0"W

22°14'0"N

22°14'0"N

22°13'0"N

22°13'0"N

22°12'0"N

22°12'0"N

Map Date: 9/16/2014 File: 11-065-3.mxd

LEGEND

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Inholding

Acquired: Fee

Acquired: Road Easement

Highways

Rivers

The spatial and positional accuracy of land status features vary depending 

on the elements of the legal description and the accuracy of the source data. 

We strive to improve the accuracy of our boundaries and do so when better 

base data or surveys are available.

Approved acquisition boundaries represent the extent of lands authorized by 

Congress for purchase by the USFWS for inclusion into the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Inholdings are lands within this boundary that have not been, 

and might not ever be, acquired.

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

0 500 1,000

Meters E

!(

!( !(

Kīlauea Point NWR

Kaua‘ i

Kekaha Līhu‘e

Hanalei

Overview Map

Title: Land Status, Kilauea Point

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-16 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-17

Under the State Land Use Law (Act 187), Hawai‘i Revised Statute Chapter 205, all lands and waters 

in the State are classified into four districts: Agriculture, Rural, Conservation, and Urban. 

Conservation Districts, under the jurisdiction of the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, are further divided into five subzones: Protective, Limited, Resource, General, and 

Special (Hawai‘i Administration Rules, Title 13, Chapter 5). The other three districts are under the 

jurisdiction of the counties. 

According to the land use classifications, the fee portion of Kīlauea Point NWR is zoned mostly as 

agriculture, though not considered prime agricultural land according to the State’s agricultural lands 

of importance. Areas along the coast are zoned as conservation. A majority of the Refuge (everything 

east of the Overlook, a turnaround at the end of a road) is also zoned as a special management area 

according to the Coastal Zone Management program. 

1.7 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts

When developing a CCP, the Service considers the goals and objectives of existing national, 

regional, State, Territorial, and ecosystem plans, and assessments. The CCP is expected to be 

consistent, as much as possible, with existing plans and assist in meeting their conservation goals and 

objectives (602 FW 3). This section summarizes some of the key plans reviewed by members of the 

core team while developing this CCP. 

1.7.1 Relationship to Refuge Plans

Kīlauea Point NWR 

• Draft Public Use Management Plan (1989);

• Complex-wide Draft Plant Restoration Strategy (1999);

• A Handbook for Outreach (2001);

• Visitor Uses Study (2002);

• Visitors Services Evaluation Report (2003);

• Complex-wide Wildland Fire Management Plan (2004);

• Alternative Transportation System Study (2006);

• Kīlauea Point NWR Alternative Transportation Systems Study, Refuge Visitor Projections 

Report (March 2006); 

• Kīlauea Point Light Station Historic Structures Report (April 2006); 

• Kīlauea Point NWR Alternative Transportation Systems Study, Final Report (September 

2006) 

• Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Expansion of Kīlauea Point National Wildlife 

Refuge (August 2007); 

• Complex-wide Invasive Species Management Plan (2008);

• Transportation Assistance Group Report (2009); 

• Environmental Assessment for the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project (2014).
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-18 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.7.2 Other Plans and Assessments 

A Conservation Action Plan for Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan 

Albatross (P. immutabilis) (Naughton 2007). This plan is intended to provide a framework for 

partnership-based conservation and management actions and facilitate a collaborative, proactive 

approach to albatross conservation. Recommendations focused mainly on population monitoring and 

management; fisheries bycatch mitigation and monitoring; habitat restoration and invasive species 

control; contaminant and disease monitoring and abatement; at-sea habitat utilization; and education 

and outreach. 

Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Nēnē or Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis) (USFWS

2004). The nēnē was declared a federally endangered species in 1967. It is considered one of the 

most endangered geese in the world. The recovery plan aims to restore and maintain multiple selfsustaining nēnē populations on Hawai‘i, Maui Nui (Maui, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘i, Kaho‘olawe), and 

Kaua‘i. The recovery of the nēnē focuses on the following objectives: 

• Identify and protect nēnē habitat, focusing on the identification and protection of sufficient 

habitat to sustain target population levels; 

• Manage habitat and existing populations for sustainable productivity and survival 

complemented by monitoring changes in distribution and abundance; 

• Control alien predators, which addresses control of introduced mammals to enhance nēnē 

populations; 

• Continue captive propagation program, which describes techniques and priorities for the 

captive propagation and release of nēnē into the wild; 

• Establish additional nēnē populations, which focuses on partnerships with private 

landowners; 

• Address conflicts between nēnē and human activities, which includes potential management 

and relocation of nēnē that are in unsuitable areas; 

• Identify new research needs and continue research, which describes general categories of 

research needed to better evaluate threats to nēnē and develop and evaluate management 

strategies to address these threats; 

• Provide a public education and information program, which describes important outreach and 

education activities; and

• Validate recovery actions, which calls for formalizing the Nēnē Recovery Action Group and 

evaluating management and research projects to determine if recovery objectives have been 

met.

Newell’s Shearwater and Hawaiian Petrel Recovery: A Five-year Action Plan (Holmes et al. 

2011). This action plan provides specific recovery objectives for the ‘a‘o. Although the nature of the 

threats (e.g., mammalian predators, habitat degradation and loss) to this species has not changed 

appreciably since the recovery plan was issued in 1982, the severity of these threats (e.g., increased 

development) and thus the urgency of addressing them have increased as shearwater populations 

have declined. The recovery strategy for the ‘a‘o includes five components to reduce mortality, 

maintain or increase suitable nesting habitat, and to fill in gaps in our knowledge of the species: 

1. Minimize adult/breeder mortality and maximize fledgling production by developing and 

implementing effective predator control methods in colonies; 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-19

2. Reduce the potential for collisions with power lines, towers, and other structures; 

3. Protect existing colonies from degradation due to invasive plants and pigs; 

4. Reduce fallout associated with lights; 

5. Improve monitoring methods, initiate studies to determine the effects of the tuna fishery on 

Newell’s shearwater populations, and collect needed demographic data. 

Interim Recovery Objectives include: 

1. Implement predator control in at least two colonies and install ungulate fencing around at 

least two colonies;

2. Determine or estimate the number of adults that collide with power lines and structures; 

3. Collaborate with the Kauaʻi Invasive Species Committee to identify priority areas where 

invasive alien plants are a problem and help develop effective techniques for their control and 

interdiction;

4. Encourage Kauaʻi County to adopt a light pollution ordinance, and shield all remaining lights 

around hotels, playing fields, shopping centers, and other areas determined to be a hazard to 

shearwaters; 

5. Develop and implement effective monitoring techniques in at least two colonies that would 

facilitate the estimation of the effects of recovery actions;

6. Continue broad-scale monitoring to assess population-wide trends throughout Hawaiʻi to 

better understand threats and guide recovery efforts; 

Develop studies to address fishery-related questions and collect demographic data. 

From these interim recovery objectives, the five-year action plan focuses on predator control, light 

attraction and collision, invasive plants and pigs, Save Our Shearwaters program, and monitoring. 

Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) (NMFS 2007). The ‘īlioholo-i-ka-uaua has the distinction of being the only endangered marine mammal whose entire species 

range–historic and current–lies within the United States. The majority of the population of seals now 

lies in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands with six main breeding subpopulations. The species is also 

found in lower numbers in the main Hawaiian Islands where the population size and range both 

appear to be expanding. The main terrestrial habitat requirements include haul-out areas for pupping, 

nursing, molting, and resting. These are primarily sandy beaches, but virtually all substrates are used 

at various islands. The goal of this revised recovery plan is to assure the long-term viability of the 

‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua in the wild, allowing initially for reclassification to threatened status and, 

ultimately, removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Recovery Plan for the Kaua‘i Plant Cluster (USFWS 1995). This plan covers 37 plant taxa, 34 of 

which are federally listed as endangered and 3 listed as threatened. The recovery actions identified in 

the plan include protecting current populations, controlling threats, and monitoring; expanding 

current populations; conducting research essential to conservation of the species; establishing new 

populations as needed to reach recovery objectives; validating and revising recovery objectives; and 

devising and implementing a public education program. 

Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) (NMFS and 

USFWS 1998). The honu is listed as threatened throughout its Pacific Range, except for the 

endangered population nesting on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which is covered under the Recovery 

Plan for the East Pacific green turtle. By far, the most serious threat to these honu is from direct take 

of turtles and eggs, both within U.S. jurisdiction, and on shared stocks that are killed when they 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-20 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

migrate out of U.S. jurisdiction. In Hawai‘i, honu populations appear to have a somewhat less dire 

status, probably due to effective protection at the primary nesting areas of the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands and better enforcement of regulations prohibiting take of the species. However, an 

increase in the incidence of the tumorous disease, fibropapillomatosis, in the Hawaiian honu 

threatens to eliminate improvements in the status of the stock. Human development is also having an 

increasingly serious impact on nesting beaches. 

Recovery Plan for the ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus) (USFWS 

1998). The ‘ōpe‘ape‘a is the only native land mammal in the Hawaiian Islands. There is a general 

lack of historic and current data on this subspecies, and its present status is not well understood. The 

Service’s recovery objective is delisting from the ESA, with the interim goals of determining present 

population status and downlisting to threatened status. Distribution and abundance of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a will 

also provide information on specific roosting habitat associations and food habits. With basic 

information on the location of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a and their resource needs, threats can then be identified and 

managed. Management actions that may be needed to address threats include protection of key 

roosting and foraging areas, particularly if ‘ōpe‘ape‘a or their food resources depend on native 

vegetation. Predation, the potential impacts of pesticides to bats or their food resources, and other 

threats may also need to be addressed.

Kaua‘i Island-wide Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS in prep.): This draft recovery plan is being 

developed to incorporate all listed and candidate species on the island of Kaua‘i, including those in 

other recovery plans. In total, it will address 173 species. For multi-island species, this recovery plan 

will only address the recovery needs and actions for Kaua‘i populations. Recovery goals for Kaua‘i 

island endemic species will be developed in this recovery plan. 

Hawai‘i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Mitchell et al. 2005). The U.S. Congress 

mandated each State and Territory to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 

(CWCS) in order to continue to receive State Wildlife Grants, which assist states with wildlife 

management. Hawai‘i’s CWCS reviews the status of the full range of the State’s native terrestrial and 

aquatic species (over 10,000 of which are found nowhere else on Earth) and provides management 

recommendations for their continued conservation. Hawai‘i’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

include all native terrestrial animals, all endemic aquatic animals, additional indigenous aquatic 

animals identified as in need of conservation attention, a range of native plants identified as in need 

of conservation attention, and all identified endemic algae. This list includes a terrestrial mammal 

(1), birds (77), terrestrial invertebrates (~5,000), freshwater fishes (5), freshwater invertebrates (12), 

anchialine pond-associated fauna (20), marine mammals (26), marine reptiles (6), marine fishes 

(154), marine invertebrates (197), and flora (over 600). 

U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (Engilis and Naughton 2004).

Conservation and restoration of shorebird habitats is essential for the protection of endangered and 

declining shorebird populations. Wetlands, beach strand, coastal forests, and mangrove habitats are 

particularly vulnerable on Pacific islands due to increasing development pressures and already 

limited acreage. Monitoring and research needs include assessment of population sizes and trends; 

assessment of the timing and abundance of birds at key wintering and migration stopover sites; 

assessment of habitat use and requirements at wintering and migration areas; exploration of the 

geographic linkages between wintering, stopover, and breeding areas; and evaluation of habitat 

restoration and management techniques to meet the needs of resident and migratory species. 

Education and public outreach are critical components of this plan. Resource management agencies 

of Federal, Territorial, Commonwealth, and State governments will need to work together with 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-21

military agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the scientific community. On a larger scale, 

coordination at the international level will be key to the conservation of vulnerable species, both 

migratory and resident. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Seabird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2005). The purpose 

of this plan is to identify Service priorities for seabird management (maintenance, protection, 

enhancement, and restoration); threat management; inventory and monitoring; research; outreach and 

education; planning; and coordination. The most serious threats to seabirds identified in this regional 

plan involve invasive (nonnative) species, interactions with fisheries, oil and other pollution, habitat 

loss and degradation, human disturbance, and global climate change. 

Kaua‘i Seabird Habitat Conservation Plan (KSHCP) (in prep.). The KSHCP is currently being 

developed by the Service and the State of Hawai‘i's Department of Land and Natural Resources 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DLNR-DOFAW) to provide interested businesses and agencies 

with a streamlined, cost-effective way to attain legal authorization and coverage for unavoidable 

incidental take of endangered and threatened seabirds on the island of Kaua‘i. While both the CCP 

and KSHCP planning efforts seek to benefit endangered Hawaiian seabirds through similar actions, it 

should be noted that the KSHCP is focused on mitigating the effects of current and future take of 

endangered seabirds. 

North Shore Community Development Plan (1980). The North Shore Development Plan is intended 

as a statement of policy that reflects the community’s desires, intentions, and aspirations for the area. 

The last update was completed in 1980. The plan emphasizes preserving the rural atmosphere of the 

area and conserving land and water resources. 

Kaua‘i General Plan (County of Kaua‘i 2000). The General Plan fulfills legal mandates of State law 

and the Charter of the County of Kaua‘i. More importantly, it provides guidance for land use 

regulations, the location and character of new development and facilities, and planning for County 

and State facilities and services. The General Plan states the County’s 20-year vision for Kaua‘i and 

sets policies for achieving that vision. The policies are intended to guide County decision-making by 

mapping the direction of future development; by describing what kind of future development is 

desirable; and by setting priorities for public improvements. The policies will guide the County in 

making revisions to land development regulations; in deciding on zone changes and development 

permits; and in setting strategies for capital improvements. The General Plan also establishes a 

framework and priorities for future community-level planning and long-range planning for public 

facilities.

Kīlauea Town Plan (County of Kaua‘i 2006). This plan was adopted as an amendment to the Kaua‘i 

General Plan. The plan addresses concerns related to agricultural lands, resident housing and 

services, and future expansion. Recommendations were made concerning regional and town form, 

housing development, and the town character. 

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, update 2008 (DLNR 2009). In order to continue to 

receive Land and Water Conservation Fund support, states must prepare a State Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The SCORP is a tool for statewide outdoor recreation planning, 

leadership, and action. It is intended to guide Federal, State, County and private agencies in the 

planning, development, and management of Hawai‘i’s outdoor recreation resources. The SCORP 

directs LWCF grant funding into facilities that best meet the public’s outdoor recreation needs. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-22 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans. Though these plans have yet to be developed, 

several public meetings have already taken place on Kaua‘i to discuss possible routes and areas for 

pedestrian and bicycling. 

1.8 Special Designation Lands

1.8.1 Important Bird Areas (IBA)

The Important Bird Areas (IBA) program is a global effort to identify the most important areas for 

maintaining bird populations and focusing conservation efforts on protecting these sites. Within the 

United States, the program has been promoted and maintained by the American Bird Conservancy 

(ABC) and the National Audubon Society (NAS). The ABC is coordinating the identification of 

nationally significant IBAs while NAS is working to identify sites in individual states. The NAS is 

working within each state to identify a network of sites across the U.S. that provide critical habitat 

for birds. This effort recognizes that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious threats to 

birds across North America and around the world. By working through partnerships, principally the 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, to identify those places that are critical to birds during 

some part of their life cycle (breeding, wintering, feeding, migrating), the effects that habitat loss and 

degradation have on bird populations could be minimized. The IBA program has become a key 

component of many bird conservation efforts. More information is available at 

http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/index.html. 

The goals of the IBA program are to identify the sites that are the most essential for long-term 

conservation of birds and to take action to ensure the conservation of these sites. An IBA is a site that 

provides essential habitat for one or more species of birds. The IBA selection process examines sites 

based on the presence and abundance of birds and/or the condition and quality of habitat. IBAs are 

chosen using standard biological criteria and expert ornithologists’ review. All sites nominated as 

potential IBAs are rigorously evaluated to determine whether they meet the necessary qualifications.

IBAs represent discrete sites, both aquatic and terrestrial, that are critically important to birds during 

their annual life cycle (e.g., breeding, migration, and/or wintering periods). 

Kīlauea Point NWR is identified as an IBA because it regularly holds significant numbers of a 

globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern (criterion A1) and 

because the site is known or thought to support, on a regular basis, 1 percent or more of the global 

population of a congregatory seabird or terrestrial species simultaneously, or 5 percent over a season

(criterion A4ii). The A4ii category applies to those species that are vulnerable as a consequence of 

their congregatory behavior at regularly used sites. 

1.8.2 National Register of Historic Places 

Established under the NHPA, the National Register includes over 77,000 districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, 

engineering, and culture. The register’s entries were identified and documented in partnership with 

State, Federal, and tribal preservation programs. The documentation provided for each property 

consists of photographs, maps, and a registration form which provides a physical description of the 

place, information about its history and significance, and a bibliography. Documentation is now 

available online through the National Register Information System at http://www.nr.nps.gov. The 

Kīlauea Point Lighthouse Station is on the National Register of Historic Places. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-23

1.9 Planning Process and Issue Identification

The CCP planning team evaluated the issues and concerns raised both by staff and the public during 

public scoping, as well as throughout the multi-year planning process. Issues are defined as matters 

of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities, the environment, 

land uses, or public use activities. Issues are important to a refuge’s planning process because they 

identify topics to be addressed in a CCP, pinpoint the types of information to gather, and help define 

alternatives for a CCP. It is the Service’s responsibility to focus planning and analysis on the major 

issues. Major issues typically suggest different actions or alternative solutions, are within the 

Refuge’s jurisdiction, and have a positive or negative effect on the resource. Major issues influenced 

the decisions the Service made in selecting Alternative D for the CCP. Key issues that were analyzed 

are presented below.

1.9.1 Planning Process 

The core planning team for Kīlauea Point NWR consists of a project leader, deputy project leader, 

biologist, visitor services staff person, and conservation planner. The full list of core and extended 

team members and their roles is provided in Appendix I. The extended team assisted in the 

development of this CCP, particularly in providing comments at key milestones. 

The initial CCP planning process for the Complex began in 2007. Public scoping began in the fall of 

2009 with a notice in the Federal Register (September 28, 2009, 74 FR 49399), and public meetings 

and talk story sessions were held in Hanalei, Hulē‘ia, Kīlauea, and Līhu‘e from October 2009 to 

January 2010. Public input was also solicited through planning updates (Planning Updates 1 and 2) 

distributed to our mailing list. Additionally, workshops/meetings with local, State, Federal agencies, 

community groups, Refuge users, nonprofits, and others were held. In all, over 80 people 

participated. The comments and suggestions made through this process helped further develop and 

refine the management alternatives for the CCP. 

The draft CCP/EA was issued for public review and comment on February 12, 2015. The availability

of the plan was announced through a notice in the Federal Register (February 12, 2015, 80 FR 7876) 

and via direct contact with approximately 800 people on our mailing list. The plan was made 

available for downloading on the Refuge website and was made available upon request in CD or 

printed format. Printed copies of the draft CCP/EA were available at local public libraries, and upon 

request. Public meetings were held in Kīlauea on February 24 and 25, 2015. A total of over 50 people 

attended. Additionally, the planning team met separately with specific partners and interested parties 

including DLNR-DOFAW, the County of Kaua‘i, one County council member, the Kīlauea

Neighborhood Association, and kūpuna. Comments were received from over 70 entities during the 

44-day public comment period held February 12, 2015, through March 27, 2015. All changes made 

as a result of public and agency comments were documented. A summary of public involvement is 

included in Appendix I; public comments on the draft CCP/EA and the Service’s responses to 

comments are included in Appendix K. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-24 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.9.2 Key Issues Addressed in the CCP

Wildlife and habitats. What is the most important ecological contribution the Refuge can make? 

How can we expand and improve habitat for priority species? What are our priority research and 

survey needs to support management? What can be done for nonpriority species and habitat areas 

given limited personnel and resources? 

Facilities and maintenance. What facilities and maintenance are needed to support greater Refuge 

management? Where should such facilities and maintenance be located?

Cultural/historic resources. How can cultural and historic resource management be improved? How 

can they be woven together with public interpretation? 

Visitor services and wildlife-dependent recreation. What is the appropriate use and level of wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and recreational fishing? 

Law enforcement. How can trespass, illegal activity, and human-caused disturbance to wildlife be 

managed more effectively given limited personnel? 

1.9.3 Issues Outside the Scope of the CCP

While CCPs are comprehensive plans, no single plan can cover all issues. The planning team has 

compiled a list of issues which are currently considered to be outside the scope of this CCP or as 

actions considered but not developed (see Chapter 2 for further detail on these issues): 

Kīlauea Town bypass. Kīlauea Town, through its plan development, has concluded a need for 

establishing a bypass road in order to alleviate traffic through the main part of town along Kīlauea 

Road. The role of the Refuge in securing such a bypass has been discussed with local officials. 

However, the lead for such an initiative would fall under the authority and jurisdiction of both the 

State Department of Transportation as well as the County. As such, this action would not be a 

Service-led initiative as it falls outside our jurisdiction. However, given that 25 percent of traffic 

utilizing Kīlauea Road results from vehicles destined for the Refuge, we recognize the potential 

impacts a bypass may have for visitors to the Refuge and will continue to be engaged and involved 

with the Kīlauea Neighborhood Association (KNA) and other partners (e.g., private landowners), 

where appropriate, to discuss feasibility of a bypass if initiated by State or County agencies. 

1.10 Refuge Vision and Goals

The following vision and goals for Kīlauea Point NWR were developed during the planning and 

public scoping process. 

1.10.1 He nu‘ukia no ka pu‘uhonua (Refuge Vision) 

Shrouded in a salty mist, the steep cliffs of an ancient volcano plunge into a pounding north swell as 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge stands as an oasis where abundant seabirds blanket the pali 

and ride updrafts. Here a symphony of sounds reverberates—from the whinny of mōlī to a chorus of 

rattling squawks from thousands of ‘ā. Nēnē nestle within thriving native plant communities that 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-25

blanket the red soil throughout the Refuge. ‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu bask in tranquil solitude at 

the edge of the turquoise waters teeming with marine life. 

Kau maila ka ‘ehukai i ka pali kū o ka luapele, a papā mai ka nalu po‘i. Kū kilakila ‘o Kīlauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge ma ke ano he kīpuka no ka manu o ka moana kūhohonu, a ma ane‘i lākou e 

kīkaha a ka‘aniu ai. Kūpina‘i a‘e ka leo o ka mōlī, ua lau. Hauwala‘au mai ka leo o ka ‘ā, ua mano. 

Nonoho iho ka nēnē i ka nāhele ‘oiwi e uhi ana i ka lepo ‘ula‘ula o ne‘i. Lalala mehameha ka 

īlioholoikauaua a me ka honu ma ka‘e o ke kai papa‘u piha o ka i‘a. 

The dynamic and awe-inspiring experiences of Kīlauea Point provide kama‘āina and visitors alike a 

sense of place and lasting interconnectedness with the natural world. Interwoven with cultural 

heritage, environmental education links the island’s keiki and the youth beyond with the Refuge’s 

unique ecosystems and native wildlife. Through strong community support, the Kīlauea lighthouse 

endures, telling its story, and remains a beacon promoting stewardship of the Refuge’s resources for 

future generations. 

Poina ‘ole nēia wahi ke ho‘okipa ‘ia e ke kama‘āina, pau pū me ka malihini i ke ‘ano o nā mea a 

lākou i ‘ike ai, i la‘a me ka pilina ma waena o kō a uka, a kō a kai. ‘O ka nohona kanaka a me ke 

aloha ‘āina ke kahua o ka ha‘awina e a‘o aku ai i ka po‘e ‘ōpio, i moākaka ia mau mea i ka ‘ike a kō 

lākou mau maka ma kēia mua aku. Ma o ke kāko‘o a ke kaiāulu, kū mau ka hale ipu kukui ‘o Kīlauea 

i lama kuhikuhi o ka mālama ‘āina no nā hanauna e hiki mai ana.

1.10.2 ‘O nā pahuhopu o ka pu‘uhonua (Refuge Goals) 

Refuge management goals are descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future 

conditions that convey a purpose, but do not define measurable units. Goals must support the Refuge 

vision and describe the desired end result. The following are goals for Kīlauea Point NWR: 

He mau mana‘o laulā nā pahuhopu no ke ‘ano o ka nohona i kēia mua aku. Kāko‘o a ho‘ākāka nā 

pahuhopu i ka nu‘ukia o ka pu‘uhonua. Ua helu ‘ia lākou ma lalo nei:

Goal 1: Protect, enhance, and manage the coastal ecosystem to meet the life-history needs of 

migratory seabirds and threatened and endangered species. 

‘O ka pahuhopu 1: E mālama a ho‘omāhuahua i ka ‘aekai i pa‘a ka nohona o ka manu o ka moana, 

pau pū me ka lā‘au ‘oiwi o ka ‘āina.

Goal 2: Restore and/or enhance and manage populations of migratory seabirds and threatened and 

endangered species.

‘O ka pahuhopu 2: E ho‘ola a mālama i nā pū‘ulu manu o kēlā ‘ano a kēia ‘ano, pau pū me nā mea 

kāka‘ikahi o ka ‘āina.

Goal 3: Gather scientific information (surveys, research, and assessments) to support adaptive 

management decisions. 

‘O ka pahuhopu 3: E ‘ohi i ka ‘ike hunehune a ka po‘e akeakamai i mōakāka ke ‘ano o ka mālama 

pono ‘ana i ka ‘āina.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-26 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Goal 4: Ensure that visitors and kama‘āina of all ages and abilities feel welcome, enjoy a safe visit, 

and are provided high-quality opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation which allows them to 

connect with, while having limited impacts to, the wildlife, habitats, and cultural and historic 

richness of the Refuge. 

‘O ka pahuhopu 4: E ho‘okipa pono i ka po‘e kama‘āina, pau pū me ka po‘e malihini i hiki iā lākou 

ke “aloha aku, a aloha mai” i nā mea waiwai o nēia wahi.

Goal 5: Identify, protect, evaluate, and interpret the cultural (including historic) resources and 

heritage of the Refuge while consulting with Native Hawaiian organizations and preservation 

partners, and complying with historic preservation legislation. 

‘O ka pahuhopu 5: E kuhikuhi, mālama, nānā, a a‘o aku me ka pono i nā waiwai ‘āina, pau pū me nā 

waiwai kanaka; ‘oiai e hoa‘oa‘o ana kahi ‘ahahui Hawai‘i a me nā ke‘ena ‘aupuni i ‘ole kākou e hū 

hewa aku. 

Goal 6: Ensure that all visitors enjoy safe and well-maintained operations that contribute to a positive 

visitor experience. 

‘O ka pahuhopu 6: Ponopono kō mākou hale, a mālama pono ‘ia ka po‘e e kipa mai ana me ke 

aloha. 

1.11 References

County of Kaua‘i. 1980. North Shore development plan update. Prepared by Wilson Okamoto and 

Associates. 106 pp. 

County of Kaua‘i. 2000. The Kaua‘i general plan. Available at 

http://www.kauai.gov/default.aspx?tabid=130. 

County of Kaua‘i. 2006. Kīlauea Town Plan. Available at

http://www.kilauealighthousevillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/KilaueaTownPlan.pdf. 

DLNR (Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources). 2009. Statewide comprehensive 

outdoor recreation plan (SCORP) 2008 update. Available at 

http://state.hi.us/dlnr/reports/scorp/SCORP08-1.pdf. 

Engilis, Jr, A. and M. Naughton. 2004. U.S. Pacific Islands regional shorebird conservation plan. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 66 pp. 

Holmes, N., H. Freifeld, F. Duvall, J. Penniman, M. Laut, and N. Creps. 2011. Newell's shearwater 

and Hawaiian petrel recovery: a five-year action plan. Available at: http://www.kauaiseabirdhcp.info/background/documents/NESHHAPEAction_Plan_June2011_FINAL.pdf. 

Mitchell, C., C. Ogura, D.W. Meadows, A. Kane, L. Strommer, S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A. 

McClung. 2005. Hawaiʻi’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. 722 pp. 

Naughton, M. B., M. D. Romano, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2007. A Conservation action plan for blackfooted albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan albatross (P. immutabilis), Ver. 1.0. Available at

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seabirds/albatross_action_plan1007.pdf. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-27

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998 

Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 97 pp. 

NMFS. 2007. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), second 

revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 165 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Recovery plan for the Kaua‘i plant cluster. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 270 pp. 

USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 50 pp. 

USFWS. 2004. Draft revised recovery plan for the nēnē or Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 148 pp. 

USFWS. 2005. Regional seabird conservation plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 264 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1-28 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
USFWS

Chapter 1 Introduction and Background

Chapter 5Social and Economic Environment

Chapter 4Refuge Biology and Habitats

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

A-K

Chapter 2

Management

Direction

Chapter 2Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-1 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 

2.1 Overview 

During development of this CCP, the Service reviewed and considered a variety of local and regional 

physical and biological resource conditions, as well as social, economic, and organizational aspects 

important for managing the Refuge. This background information is described more fully in Chapters 

3, 4, and 5. As is appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, resource considerations were fundamental 

in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 accompanying the Improvement Act states “...the 

fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must 

come first.” Toward this end, the planning team reviewed relevant plans, studies, and past and 

current research to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations for 

species and habitats. 

Public involvement was an important part of the planning process. Federal, State, and local agencies, 

community groups, Refuge users, nonprofit organizations, and others were contacted by Refuge staff 

to ascertain priorities and issues. Public scoping meetings and workshops were held during 2009–

2010 and involved more than 80 people. We also provided planning updates throughout the 

development of this CCP, which allowed for comment opportunities. The CCP planning team 

reviewed and evaluated all of the comments received during the 44-day draft CCP/EA public 

comment period held from February 12, 2015, through March 27, 2015. Alternative D within the 

draft CCP/EA was selected for implementation. In some cases, the management direction has been 

either clarified or modified based upon public feedback. Appendix K, Public Comments and Service 

Responses, includes descriptions of the major changes between the draft and final CCP. The details 

of public involvement and participation can be found in Appendix I. 

2.2 Management Directions Considered but not Developed

During development of the alternatives, the planning team considered the actions detailed below. All 

of these actions were ultimately eliminated from further consideration for the reasons provided. 

Recreational hunting. Part of the Improvement Act identifies compatible hunting as a priority 

public use for consideration on national wildlife refuge lands. Though hunting has been discussed in 

the past, due to the endangered species present on the Refuge, recreational hunting is not a use that 

would align with the purposes of this Refuge. Hunting would cause unacceptable disturbance and 

potential take of these endangered animals and plants. Additionally, a Refuge hunt program would 

create public safety concerns due to an insufficient buffer acreage. Recreational hunting opportunities 

are allowed on other parts of the island such as State forest reserves. 

Sunset viewing opportunities. In past discussions as well as during public scoping, residents 

expressed interest in having more opportunities to view the sunset from the Refuge. Suggestions 

included building a parking lot or providing more access via Crater Hill for sunset trail hikes. 

However, providing sunset viewing opportunities via the Refuge does not align with the mission of 

the Refuge System nor would it contribute to the fulfillment of Refuge purposes. Additionally, 

people are currently allowed to access Crater Hill during daytime hours via the Seacliff Plantation 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-2 Chapter 2. Management Direction

entrance gate. Sunset viewing opportunities are also provided elsewhere on the island and in areas 

that would not adversely impact wildlife or their habitat.

Co-locating a visitor welcome and orientation center at the proposed new Hanalei NWR 

overlook site. In 2004, the Service expanded the refuge acquisition boundary of Hanalei NWR by 6 

acres (USFWS 2004a and 2004b) to accommodate parking and facilities for a new Hanalei Valley 

scenic overlook. The site, facility design, and operations were described in the final EA and Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Hanalei Valley/Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge Scenic 

Stop developed by the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) and Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) (HDOT and FHWA 2003). Currently, the Service is continuing to work 

with willing landowners to acquire interests (fee title, conservation easements, or cooperative 

agreements) within the proposed new overlook site. Should land acquisition occur, the Service would 

work with other agencies, partners, the local community, and others on the design, construction, and 

management of any visitor-support facilities at this site. 

The new Hanalei NWR overlook site is located approximately 7 miles, or 15 minutes driving time 

without traffic, west of Kīlauea Point NWR. Thus, visitors traveling from the east along Kūhiō 

Highway (State Route 56) would have to overshoot the Refuge to get to the visitor welcome and 

orientation center and then double back in order to get to the Refuge. In order to ensure that visitor 

access to the Refuge remains convenient and tied to a sense of place (e.g., proximal to the wildlife 

and habitats occurring on the Refuge), co-locating a visitor welcome and orientation center with 

opportunities at the new Hanalei overlook site was considered but not developed. 

2.3 Description of Management Direction

A brief description of the management direction follows. Table 2-1 contains additional details 

regarding actions associated with the CCP. Maps displaying management direction for the Refuge 

are located at the end of this chapter (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). 

Wildlife and Habitat Management. Management programs aimed at long-term protection and 

enhancement of migratory seabird populations and their habitats will be expanded to larger areas on 

Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point, including exploring the expansion of or additions to predator-proof 

fenced units. The Refuge currently supports six species of breeding seabirds, including the threatened 

‘a‘o, and at least 30 species of non-breeding migratory birds on or adjacent to the Refuge. As sea 

levels rise over the next century, protected areas on high islands will become increasingly important 

to seabirds that currently nest primarily on the low islands and atolls of the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. In addition, the Refuge will protect and enhance habitat for the endangered nēnē population 

and restore native plant communities to provide recovery habitat for threatened and endangered 

coastal plants. 

Management activities, including weed control and outplanting native plants by volunteers, mowing 

and weeding grassland-shrubland habitat for nēnē, and controlling introduced predators, will 

continue. Biological programs also include maintaining a 7-acre predator-proof fence (Nihoku 

Ecosystem Restoration Project), enhancing and monitoring the threatened ‘a‘o population through 

social attraction and other devices, exploring with partners the feasibility of translocation techniques 

to support declining ‘a‘o populations, and banding and monitoring reproductive success and survival 

of seabirds and nēnē. Additionally, a combination of ‘ua‘u chick translocation and social attraction, 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-3 

artificial burrows, and decoys to lure prospecting ‘ua‘u to the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project 

site will be used to reduce the potential for extirpation of this endangered seabird from Kaua‘i 

(USFWS 2015). Priority research, inventories, monitoring, and other scientific assessments will

support management objectives. 

Public Use and Access. With an estimated 500,000 people annually visiting the Refuge, accounting 

for visitors who may stop at the Kīlauea Road Overlook (Overlook) as well as those who visit 

Kīlauea Point proper (Point), public use of this Refuge is high. A 100-year-old lighthouse once used 

by the U.S. Coast Guard and currently on the National Register of Historic Places is the number one 

attraction at this Refuge. A majority of activities offered revolve around wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental education (EE). 

Current Refuge infrastructure cannot adequately support this high level of public use at the Overlook 

and Point. As a result, there is traffic congestion at the Refuge entrance; inadequate access, parking, 

and EE and visitor center (VC) infrastructure to provide a quality visitor experience; and impacts to 

endangered species. To address these issues, the Service will implement, in a phased manner, short-, 

medium-, and long-term strategies. In the short- to medium-term, the Refuge will adopt an 

incremental approach and experiment with small-scale operational and infrastructure improvements 

based on recommendations from the interagency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG). The 

recommended changes provided in the TAG report (TAG 2009) include, but were not limited to, the 

following: improving off-Refuge signage directing visitors to the Refuge; testing a parking 

reservation system; arranging a transit demonstration service; implementing transportation system 

management, transportation demand management, and intelligent transportation system strategies to 

encourage visitation at nonpeak dates and times; making changes to the parking areas and internal 

vehicle and pedestrian circulation system on the Point to improve flow and efficiency; and/or moving 

the fee booth further out on the Point. When implemented on an experimental or demonstration basis, 

the Service will include an evaluation component for these initiatives to determine efficacy and to 

document a basis for moving forward or not. These initiatives may be tested individually or in 

combinations. 

Strategies which will require a large capital investment and extensive planning process are 

considered medium- to long-term. These strategies, to relocate welcome and orientation and non–

site-dependent functions (e.g., bookstore, administrative functions, fee collection, parking) off the 

Point, include options to construct a new visitor welcome and orientation center, modify an existing 

facility, or co-locate the Refuge welcome and orientation center with a partnering conservation 

organization within 1 mile of the Refuge boundary. Other medium- to long-term actions may include 

the development of a transit hub and mandatory shuttle system. The success of short- to mediumterm strategies may preclude implementation of the described medium- to long-term strategies.

The Kāhili Quarry (Quarry) area will continue to be open to wildlife-dependent uses (fishing, 

wildlife observation, and photography) and as general public access to off-Refuge areas (Kīlauea 

River, Kīlauea Bay, and Kāhili Beach) for boating and other stream, beach, and ocean uses (e.g., 

snorkeling, sunbathing, surfing, swimming, and walking, including dog walking). The Refuge will 

work in partnership with local non-profit organizations and community leaders of Kīlauea on 

promoting community stewardship of the Quarry through habitat protection; monitoring and 

managing threats to natural and cultural resources; outreach; and environmental, cultural, and 

historical interpretation. Other strategies related to reducing impacts to wildlife and habitats due to 

public use at the Quarry include posting the Refuge boundary, replacing and re-aligning the predator-
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-4 Chapter 2. Management Direction

resistant fence, adding bollards, exploring the possibility of cooperatively managing with the State, 

and requiring all dogs to be on a short leash and under direct control at all times. 

Kīlauea Point NWR will remain open for recreational fishing per Refuge-specific regulations for 

hunting and fishing, Hawai‘i, 50 CFR 32.30. Fishing on the Refuge occurs in the ocean at Kāhili 

Quarry and in the estuary of Kīlauea River. Fishing will be allowed on a 24-hour basis in accordance 

with State regulations and will include harvest via hook and line, throw net, spear, or shellfish 

gathering. Fishing is not limited to any designated location. However, access to the northernmost

portion of Mōkōlea Point will be by foot as the most sensitive bird nesting area will be closed to 

vehicles. 

The Service will continue to work with the County of Kaua‘i and the Kīlauea community to allow a 

passable road to the beach and shoreline; the road will be repaired and maintained to a standard 

approved by both the Service and the County (e.g., using crushed coral). The Service does not plan to 

place a gate at the entrance to Kāhili Quarry. 

Traditional cultural practices including native Hawaiian fishing at Kīlauea (East) Cove will also 

remain open. See Appendix B for compatibility determinations.

Various events will continue to be offered throughout the year such as Lighthouse Day and National 

Wildlife Refuge Week. Guided interpretive hikes will be offered on Crater Hill. Outreach and 

volunteer programs will be expanded. 

Cultural and Historic Resources Management. The emphasis for cultural and historic resources 

management will be to develop relationships and better partnerships with Native Hawaiian 

organizations, historical institutions, and other preservation partners to identify and prioritize 

resources to protect and manage. We will share information on methods of resource protection and 

preservation. Nomination of the Refuge (or portions thereof) as a Traditional Cultural Property will

be investigated. The Crater Hill radar station and Mōkōlea Point sugar loading complex will be reinventoried and re-evaluated for designation to the National Register of Historic Places. The Refuge 

will integrate cultural and historic resources into outreach, interpretation, and planning, including 

specific focus on the Kīlauea Point Light Station and Kāhili Quarry. A cultural interpretive guided 

trail walk to Mōkōlea Point will continue to be offered during National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

Historic interpretive events will also be offered during the same event as well on Lighthouse Day. 

Maintenance and Law Enforcement. The Refuge will continue to maintain current infrastructure 

such as the VC, historic buildings, walkways and other historic structures, interpretive displays/signs, 

pedestrian walkways, parking area, fences, gates, roads, and signs. A step-down Master Site Plan will 

be developed to evaluate and detail building use and remodeling/maintenance needs. There currently 

is no covered building or parking for large Refuge equipment and vehicles (e.g., maintenance 

baseyard) and the Refuge has only two small storage areas for equipment and a native plant nursery. 

Under the CCP management direction, a new maintenance baseyard (e.g., storage sheds, bays, pole 

barns, and nursery) will be developed off current Refuge lands. Options include leasing, purchasing, 

or co-locating with another entity. 

The construction of a new visitor welcome and orientation center and maintenance facilities within 1 

mile of the Refuge boundary would be associated with several actions that would need to occur prior 

to or in conjunction with the actual construction. Those actions could include (1) completion of a 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-5 

transportation implementation study; (2) expansion of the Refuge boundary to encompass the new 

site; (3) land acquisition, easement, or interim lease; (4) complete design of the new building and 

associated infrastructure; and (5) complete development of an associated transportation system. An 

alternative to off-Refuge land acquisition and construction of a new building would be to modify an 

existing facility or co-locate the Refuge welcome and orientation center with a partnering 

conservation organization located within 1 mile of the current Refuge boundary (e.g., in Kīlauea 

Town, near the proposed Kīlauea Town Bypass), as described in the site selection criteria listed 

under Objective 4.2, which would preclude several actions listed above. Within this CCP, these 

actions are addressed at a conceptual level. Thus, more detailed land acquisition planning, facility 

and transit design, and appropriate evaluation would be undertaken, including additional effects 

assessment in compliance with NEPA, evaluation and consultation under Section 7 of ESA, and 

surveys and consultation under Section 106 of NHPA. 

KNWRC law enforcement personnel will continue to patrol all three Refuges comprising KNWRC. 

Law enforcement will also develop an enforcement monitoring system. More partnering, workshops, 

outreach, and training on law enforcement will be conducted for Refuge staff and volunteers, 

partners, and the community. 

Acquisition of Inholdings and Cooperative Agreements. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill 

the Refuge System mission as well as the specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. In 

order to protect high quality coastal and lowland areas (wetlands, coastal strand, aquatic habitats, and 

their associated uplands), contribute to the recovery of endangered or threatened species, support 

other native plants and animals, and enhance opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent public 

use, the Service will continue to work with willing sellers and other partners to acquire interests (fee 

title, conservation easements, and/or cooperative agreements) in inholding lands within the approved 

Refuge boundary. 

The Service will explore the possibility of working with the State to cooperatively manage the 

tidelands adjoining Kāhili Quarry through interagency cooperative agreement or other mechanisms. 

Cooperative management of this area will contribute to achieving the Service’s mission, the Refuge’s 

purposes, and will help meet several of our goals by allowing us to protect wildlife resources through 

oversight of public use activities and Refuge law enforcement.

Adaptive Management. Based on 522 Departmental Manual (DM) 1 (Adaptive Management 

Implementation), Refuge staff shall utilize adaptive management for conserving, protecting, and, 

where appropriate, restoring lands and resources. Within Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 46.30, adaptive management is defined as a system of management practices based upon 

clearly identified outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether management actions are achieving 

desired results (objectives). Adaptive management accounts for the fact that complete knowledge 

about fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and the ecological processes supporting them may be lacking. 

Adaptive management emphasizes learning while doing based upon available scientific information 

and best professional judgment, considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on Refuge lands 

and waters. In the presence of accelerated climate change, adaptive management is an increasingly 

important management decision process. The Refuge will employ adaptive management as a 

standard operating procedure. Part of measuring the success of and adaptively managing the Refuge 

includes 5-year reviews and a 15-year revision of the CCP, which will be initiated by the Service and 

involve many of the same steps and engagement with partners and the public as the original CCP. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-6 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Appropriateness and Compatibility. Consistent with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, prior 

to allowing any public use of the Refuge (including commercial use), each use will first need to be 

found appropriate and determined compatible (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, 50 CFR 25, 26, and 29; and 

603 FW 1 and 2). The findings and determinations regarding the appropriateness and compatibility of 

each use described in the CCP are further discussed in Appendices A and B. 

Climate Change. The Refuge will participate in and contribute to climate change assessment efforts,

including those underway at a landscape scale. These efforts may include collaboration with the 

Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC), which is a landscape conservation cooperative 

(LCC). The LCCs are formal science-management partnerships between the Service, Federal 

agencies, states, tribes, NGOs, universities, and other entities to address climate change and other 

biological stressors in an integrated fashion. LCCs provide science support, biological planning, 

conservation design, research, and design of inventory and monitoring programs. As needed, 

objectives and strategies will be adjusted to assist in enhancing Refuge resources’ resiliency to 

climate change. The Refuge will also continue to pursue and engage in mechanisms to conserve 

energy in Refuge operations, including the use of fuel-efficient vehicles. 

Cultural and Historic Resource Protection and Section 106 Compliance. Cultural and historic 

resources on refuges receive protection and consideration in accordance with Federal cultural 

resources laws, Executive orders, regulations, and policies and procedures established by the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Service. Actions with the potential to affect cultural and 

historic resources will undergo a thorough review before being implemented, as is consistent with the 

requirements of cultural resource laws. Refuge management actions will support the State of 

Hawai‘i’s vision statement “to promote the use and conservation of historic and cultural resources for 

the education, inspiration, pleasure and enrichment of the public in a spirit of stewardship and 

trusteeship for future generations” (DLNR HPD 2009). All ground-disturbing projects will undergo a 

review (including, but not limited to, archaeological and cultural surveys) under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

The Service will provide our Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) a description and 

location of projects and activities that affect ground and structures, including project requests from 

third parties. Information will also include any alternatives being considered. We will also coordinate 

and consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and seek assistance from Native 

Hawaiians on issues related to cultural resources education and interpretation, special programs, and 

NHPA. Examples of projects identified in this CCP include fencing and building new maintenance 

and visitor services (VS) facilities, and acquisition of inholdings. 

Native Hawaiians believe that the mana, or spiritual essence and power of a person, resides in the 

bones, their iwi. Unmarked Native Hawaiian burial sites have been exposed in the coastal 

strand/dunes area of the approved Refuge boundary but can be encountered almost anywhere. Care of 

inadvertently discovered iwi is an important issue for Native Hawaiians and the entire community in 

Hawai‘i. The Service has the responsibility to care for the iwi with utmost respect for Hawaiian 

protocol, the laws of the state of Hawai‘i, and all of the recognized cultural descendants. Strict 

protocols come into force whenever human skeletal remains are encountered inadvertently, through 

maintenance activities or through natural erosion. 

When human remains are encountered, all work in the immediate area is stopped and the police are 

notified, as well as the DLNR. A qualified archaeologist then examines the burial context to assist in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-7 

determining jurisdiction. If the remains appear to have been in place for less than 50 years, or appear 

to be a possible homicide victim or missing person, the local police secure the scene and investigate. 

If the remains appear to have been in place and interment for more than 50 years, they may be a 

burial. The DLNR, in consultation with the Service, the island burial council, and any identified 

descendants, determines whether the burial can safely remain in place where discovered or whether 

relocation may be needed. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability. After the CCP is completed, actions will be 

implemented over a period of 15 years as funding becomes available. Project priorities and projected 

staffing/funding needs are in Appendix C, although special funding initiatives, unforeseeable 

management issues, and other budget issues will likely require adjustments to the implementation 

schedule in the future. The CCP will be reviewed at least every 5 years and updated as necessary. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). In accordance with DOI and Service policies 517 DM 1 and 

569 Fish and Wildlife (FW) 1 respectively, an IPM approach would be utilized, where practicable, to 

eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on the 

Refuge. IPM would involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal ecological 

disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to nontarget species and the Refuge 

environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural, and biological methods, or 

combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or 

containment. If a pesticide is needed on Refuge lands or waters, the most specific (selective) 

chemical available for the target species will be used unless considerations of persistence or other 

environmental and/or biotic hazards would preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide 

usage would be further restricted because only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA may be applied on 

lands and waters under Refuge jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species refers to a biologically substantial decrease in environmental 

quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors, including declines in native species populations 

or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered ecological 

processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species, including 

preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from reproducing or 

killing their young; out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites, or other vital resources; 

or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations few, if any, truly native 

individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest species. 

For example, decreased seabird use may result from pest plant infestations reducing the availability 

and/or abundance of suitable habitat for breeding. 

Environmental harm may involve detrimental changes in ecological processes. For example, Guinea 

grass infestations can alter fire return intervals by displacing native species and communities of 

bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Environmental harm may also cause or be associated with 

economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal health. For example, invasions by firepromoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities by eliminating or sharply reducing 

populations of many native plant and animal species can also greatly increase fire-fighting costs.

Predator control is aimed at minimizing entry of introduced predators to the Refuge using exclusion 

(e.g., hog wire fences), habitat modification (e.g., removal of trees used by cattle egrets for roosting), 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-8 Chapter 2. Management Direction

and control/eradication (eradicating or reducing and maintaining low numbers of rats, mice, cats, 

dogs, pigs, and mongooses if they are detected). Live trapping and use of bait stations (e.g., 0.005 

percent diphacinone) will continue to be used to control rats and mice. These species are euthanized 

when live-trapped. Live traps are used to capture cats, dogs, and pigs on the Refuge. 

When other methods are impractical, use of firearms is employed to humanely dispatch introduced 

predators and other pests such as pigs, chickens, and cattle egrets. Given the need to minimize stress 

on animals, gunshot at times is the most practical and logical method for wild or free-ranging 

animals. Personnel and public safety override any dispatching of animals by gunshot. 

Shooting follows protocols for humane dispatch (AVMA 2007) and is only performed by highly 

skilled personnel trained and federally certified in the use of firearms. Predator and pest control will 

be conducted by Service personnel or contractors. 

See Appendix G for the Refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP. Along 

with a more detailed discussion of IPM techniques, this documentation describes the selective use of 

pesticides for pest management on refuges, where necessary. Throughout the life of the CCP, most 

proposed pesticide uses on the Refuge will be evaluated for potential effects to biological resources 

and environmental quality. These potential effects will be documented in “Chemical Profiles” (see 

Appendix G). Pesticide uses with appropriate and practical best management practices (BMP) for 

habitat management as well as nursery/facilities maintenance will be approved for use on the Refuge

where there likely will be only minor, temporary, and localized effects to species and environmental 

quality based upon non-exceedance of threshold values in Chemical Profiles. However, pesticides 

may be used on the Refuge where substantial effects to species and the environment are possible 

(exceed threshold values) in order to protect human health and safety (e.g., mosquito-borne disease). 

Migratory Bird Protection and Conservation. Statute and policy at several levels mandate the 

protection and management of migratory bird populations at the Refuge. The primary Federal 

protective measure for these species is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), which 

prohibits hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or selling of migratory bird species, and also fully 

protects eggs, nests, and feathers from collection or destruction. Additional directives from 

international treaties, domestic legislation, Executive orders, State law, and Service policy require the 

protection, monitoring, and assessment of migratory nongame birds, determination of the effects of 

environmental changes and human activities on migratory birds, and active protection of colonies, 

roosts, and adjacent waters for seabirds. At least 35 species of migratory birds, primarily seabirds, 

occur on or adjacent to the Refuge. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities. The Service will 

actively participate in planning and studies pertaining to future agricultural, industrial, and urban 

development, transportation, recreation, contamination, and other potential concerns that may affect 

Refuge resources. The Service will continue to cultivate working relationships with County, State, 

and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and community groups to stay abreast of 

current and potential developments. We will utilize outreach and education as needed to raise 

awareness of Refuge resources and dependence on the local environment. 

Implementation of transportation strategies, in particular, will require coordination with Kaua‘i 

County, Kaua‘i Bus, Hawai‘i Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, and 

other stakeholders (e.g., Kīlauea Neighborhood Association and the public). The transportation 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-9 

elements of the CCP will also take into consideration the Kīlauea Town Plan, the Kaua‘i North Shore 

Development Plan, the County of Kaua‘i General Plan, the State Transportation Improvement Plan 

and Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Service’s Region 1 LRTP, and other plans. 

Partnerships. Partnerships are critical components in maintaining and continuing efforts to 

implement resource management improvements, such as restoring habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, or enhance recreational opportunities. These partnerships typically involve 

joining forces with Federal, State, and local agencies, organizations, schools, and Refuge Friends 

groups. 

Reevaluation of public use visitation days at the Kīlauea Point. Due to flat and declining budgets, 

starting in February 2014, the Service reduced the days that Kīlauea Point proper is open to the 

general public from 7 to 5 days a week. The Refuge is closed each Sunday and Monday. The 

visitation days will be reassessed to see if it would be possible to reopen on a 6- or 7-day a week 

schedule. However, closures will continue to be a management option depending upon the 

availability of staff and resources.

Refuge Revenue Sharing. Annual payments to local governments under the Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) would continue according to the established formula and subject to 

congressional appropriations.

Regulatory compliance. The draft CCP/EA provided descriptions of the affected environments and 

resources, potential environmental consequences of certain types of activities, and general themes for 

management alternatives. Consequently, this document can be incorporated by reference into future 

proposals to avoid lengthy recital and repetitive information. However, since this document is 

programmatic in many issue areas, it may not contain the necessary detail on every future action 

outlined to adequately present and evaluate all physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts. 

Some of these details are dependent on funding and implementation schedules. Therefore, prior to 

implementation, all activities will undergo appropriate reviews and consultations, and permits and 

clearances will be secured, as necessary, to comply with legal and policy requirements. This includes 

appropriate evaluations and documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

evaluation and consultation required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and review 

and consultation required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

State Coordination. KNWRC will continue to coordinate with Hawai‘i State agencies regarding 

areas of mutual interest.

Step-down Management Plans (SDMP). The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, 

objectives, and strategies for several Refuge program areas, but may lack some of the specifics 

needed for implementation. Step-down plans will be developed to implement strategies. For example, 

the CCP may note that signage is needed to accomplish a certain management objective. However, it 

will take a Refuge Sign Plan to specifically define design standards. 

All step-down plans require appropriate NEPA compliance and implementation may require 

additional County, State, and Federal permits. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA 

compliance, may be prepared outside of these step-down plans. The following SDMPs have been 

identified for the Refuge (implementation schedule can be found in Appendix C): 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-10 Chapter 2. Management Direction

• Refuge Sign Plan

• Facilities, Equipment, and Vehicle Maintenance Plan 

• Safety Plan

• Visitor Services Plan (for entire KNWRC) 

• Inventory and Monitoring Plan 

• Cultural/Historic Resource Management Plan 

• Master Site Plan

• Wildland Fire Management Plan

• Habitat Management Plan

• Plant Restoration Strategy 

Sustainability. For any projects that identify either new building or enhancements to existing 

structures or the transportation system, the Service will use, to the extent possible, sustainability 

measures, such as alternative transportation options, reusing materials, utilizing renewable 

technology such as solar power, and acquiring goods and services in the most environmentally 

friendly way possible in order to minimize our footprint and effects to climate change as outlined in 

Executive Order 13514. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Protection and Recovery. The protection of federally listed 

species is mandated through the ESA, which provided establishment authority and was one of the 

purposes for this Refuge. It is also Service policy to give priority consideration to the protection, 

enhancement, and recovery of these species on national wildlife refuges. To ensure adequate 

protection, Section 7 of the ESA requires the Service to review all activities, programs, and projects 

occurring on lands and waters of refuges to determine if they may affect listed species or modify 

their designated critical habitat; this is known as an informal consultation. If the determination is that 

an action may affect and is likely to adversely affect a listed species or modify designated critical 

habitat, then we conduct a formal consultation and prepare a biological opinion to identify those 

negative effects and the means to offset those effects. 

Transportation Implementation Study. The Refuge has received funding from the Federal Transit 

Administration’s Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program to assist in planning for the 

implementation of the transportation components that emerge from the CCP. The study will provide 

recommendations on how to implement components, such as data collection, coordination with other 

entities, and as necessary, service planning for any proposed shuttle services.

Volunteer Opportunities. Volunteers are key components of successful management of public lands 

and are vital to refuge programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of static or declining 

budgets. Currently the Refuge makes extensive use of volunteers in habitat restoration and public use 

programs. In the future, successful implementation of native habitat restoration, survey and 

monitoring activities, and environmental education (EE) and interpretation programs will require the 

use of volunteers and partnerships. 

Wilderness Review. The Service’s CCP policy requires that a wilderness review be completed in all 

CCPs. If it is determined that the area meets the minimum requirements for wilderness, the process 

moves on to the wilderness study phase. The CCP planning team completed a wilderness inventory 

which can be found in Appendix D. This review concluded that the Refuge is not suitable for 

wilderness designation. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-11

Wildlife and Habitat Management Review. The Improvement Act directs that each refuge shall be 

managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System and the specific purposes for which the refuge 

was established. Modifications are made to Refuge wildlife and habitat management programs based 

on periodic informal or formal evaluations that ensure these programs are consistent with national, 

regional, ecoregional, and administrative policies and reflect consideration of current scientific 

knowledge. These evaluations provide feedback, determine if wildlife and habitat management goals 

and objectives are being met, and guide the Refuge in setting CCP priorities. 

More formal evaluations, such as the wildlife and habitat management review, are conducted by 

Regional Office biological staff with refuge managers and biologists and a multi-disciplinary team of 

biologists and natural resources specialists. The Refuge conducted a habitat review in February 2013. 

In addition to a report summarizing the habitat review team’s recommendations, the review will also 

inform development of the Final Plant Restoration Strategy for KNWRC and the step-down Habitat 

Management Plan. 

Table 2-1 Summary of Management Direction. 

Objective Management Direction

Coastal ecosystem

1.1 Enhance coastal 

mixed woodlandgrassland habitat for 

seabird breeding and 

roosting 

Manage 97 acres and enhance 2–5 acres per year (within the 97 acres).

Strategies include: 

- Reduce pest ironwood and other species in priority areas.

- Mowing to set back invasive shrub succession. 

- Small-scale outplanting of native plants. 

- Integrated pest management. 

- Ensure no obstacle or light hazards occur onsite; work with community 

to promote bird-friendly lighting. 

- Public use access restrictions.

- Maintain or replace 2.7 miles of existing hogwire fence.

- Keep area under fence at the Point free from weeds.

- Evaluate the potential for restoration of some portion of the parking areas 

on the Point. 

- Explore the use of a predator control index based on the loss of mōlī eggs 

and chicks, on a 5-year average. 

- Maintain predator-proof fence east of Crater Hill. 

- Explore expansion of or separate additions to the Nihoku Ecosystem 

Restoration Project.

1.2 Enhance coastal 

grasslands for nēnē 

foraging, breeding, and 

roosting 

Manage 32–34 acres and enhance 5–7 acres per year (within the 32–34 

acres). Strategies include:

- Mowing to stimulate vigorous growth of grasses. 

- Rehabilitate and maintain irrigation system at Crater Hill for native plant 

establishment. 

- Enhance grasslands with native shrubland plant communities that provide 

suitable habitat structure and function for nēnē. 

- Integrated pest management.

- Public use access restrictions.

- Maintain or replace 2.7 miles of existing hogwire fencing. 

- Evaluate the feasibility of redesigning the Overlook area in order to 

provide a corridor for nēnē transiting between the Point and Crater Hill.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-12 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Objective Management Direction

1.3 Protect sea cliff and 

beach strand habitat

Protect approximately 59 acres. Strategies include:

- Conduct a road and trail assessment and analysis and identify problem 

areas and solutions. 

- Stabilize areas of accelerated erosion identified in the road and trail 

assessment and analysis. 

- Design and implement a monitoring program for 1–2 indicator species to 

detect natural or anthropogenic variation in habitat conditions. 

- Continue to support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)’s 

Marine Mammal Response Network. 

- Public use closure.

- In partnership with the community, work to reduce wildlife disturbance 

and habitat degradation due to public use at Kāhili Quarry.

2.1 Restore/enhance 

breeding populations of 

‘a‘o and other seabirds 

- Maintain ‘a‘o colony on the Point, while increasingly putting emphasis 

for ‘a‘o recovery on Crater Hill/Mōkōlea Point areas. 

- Manage suitable habitat for seabirds including a control of vertebrate and 

invertebrate pests and habitat-modifying plants, minimal human activity, 

and no flight or light hazards. 

- Use social attraction techniques to enhance the ‘a‘o and other seabird 

populations; monitor for bird and predator responses to stimuli. 

- With partners, determine feasibility of the Refuge as a potential ‘a‘o 

and/or ‘ua‘u chick translocation site.

2.2 Restore/enhance 

native coastal plant 

communities (including 

endangered plants) 

- Restore and/or enhance 10–30 acres.

- Maintain the current onsite greenhouse while exploring options for 

creating an offsite greenhouse and/or partnerships to support outplanting 

of native plants. 

- Within 2 years, develop a Restoration Working Group (RWG) and 

finalize draft Plant Restoration Strategy for KNWRC. 

- Expand involvement of both volunteers and native plant organizations. 

- Work with RWG and others to implement Final Plant Restoration 

Strategy. 

- Integrated pest management.

- Time and conduct restoration activities to minimize disturbance to 

breeding birds.

Inventory and monitoring, research, and assessment

3.1 Conduct highpriority inventory and 

monitoring (survey) 

activities

- Re-evaluate, develop, and implement a prioritized inventory and 

monitoring program within regional framework. 

3.2 Conduct highpriority research 

projects and scientific 

assessments

- Develop a collaborative research program for priority research projects 

and scientific assessments that directly support management objectives. 

Visitor Services

4.1 Improve visitor 

access

- Coordinate transportation network with existing public transport options.

- Continue to integrate Refuge planning efforts with Kīlauea Town 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-13

Objective Management Direction

planning efforts.

- Develop a data collection plan.

- Within the first 5–10 years, implement recommendation from the 

Transportation Assistance Group (TAG), suggesting testing operational 

changes to determine their effectiveness in reducing congestion.

- Improve parking safety and efficiency.

- Provide bicycle parking at Overlook.

- Explore options for a mandatory shuttle which would prohibit private 

vehicles from traveling into the Refuge. 

- Explore options for removing parking currently on Refuge and renovate 

area for shuttle stop from the visitor welcome and orientation center. 

- Improve pedestrian circulation. 

- If a shuttle system is implemented, examine the feasibility of allowing 

pedestrian and/or bicycle access from the Overlook into the Point.

4.2 Improve visitor 

information and 

orientation 

- Develop a Refuge Sign Plan within 3 years.

- Improve directional signage and signs to reduce impacts to wildlife.

- Identify and develop methods to provide greater information to visitors 

prior to entering the Refuge. 

- Every 5 years, evaluate Refuge fees and conduct a visitor survey.

- Ensure public use facilities, interpretive materials, and programs are 

accessible to and usable by persons with various disabilities.

- Explore options for redesigning and enhancing the scenic Overlook at the 

entrance to the Refuge. 

- Explore establishment of a new offsite visitor welcome and orientation 

center on lands adjacent to or within 1 mile of the Refuge (~3–4 acres) 

which would include the following: visitor contact, orientation and 

information, fee collection, restrooms, bookstore/retail, multipurpose 

room, outdoor spaces, administrative offices, private vehicle and tour bus 

parking, public bus stop, and shuttle pick up/drop off. 

- Continue to provide on an on-call basis golf carts to transport visitors 

who may need assistance getting to the VC or Lighthouse.

- Provide for greater site orientation.

- Re-examine the site layout at Kīlauea Point and evaluate non–sitedependent functions currently located there and move as many as is 

feasible and possible off the Point.

- Explore options for remodeling the existing VC for either EE or new 

interpretive exhibits and displays. Maintain bookstore operations at the 

new visitor welcome and orientation center, if constructed.

4.3 Enhance/expand 

environmental 

interpretation

- Within 5 years, prepare an interpretive chapter of the KNWRC Visitor 

Service Plan.

- Develop orientation materials and/or train Service staff, volunteers, 

partners, and tour operators on interpretive messages.

- Develop themes for interpretation areas. 

- Explore options to provide greater flexibility in interpretive exhibits and 

signage.

- Expand opportunities to provide limited access to the interior of the 

Lighthouse.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-14 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Objective Management Direction

- Explore possibilities for increasing the frequency of lighting of the 

Lighthouse. 

- Expand current and new partnerships. 

- Continue to evaluate items sold in the bookstore. 

- Regularly evaluate visitor perceptions of resources and interpretive 

programming. 

- Develop methodologies for evaluation of interpretive programs. 

- Every 5–10 years, conduct visitation trends analysis. 

- Continue to provide guided interpretive activities.

- Remodel the VC for interpretative displays.

- Remodel the Contact Station. 

- Explore the restoration and conversion of Quarters #1. 

- Offer a limited number of guided interpretive hikes to Crater Hill. 

- Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community 

leaders of Kīlauea to develop environmental, cultural, and historical 

interpretation materials for Kāhili Quarry.

4.4 Enhance/expand EE - Utilize interns and volunteers to assist in facilitating the EE program.

- Continue to partner with KPNHA. 

- Enhance current partnerships and explore new partnerships. 

- Continue participation in Statewide natural resource interpretation and 

EE initiatives. 

- Annually disseminate current EE program guidelines and activities.

- Ensure EE programs are accessible to and usable by children of various 

abilities.

 - On a yearly basis, define and measure results of all EE programs and 

modify as needed. 

- Review the Refuge’s EE programs on a regular basis with a focus group.

- Update curricula and materials as necessary.

- Develop a multifaceted Junior Ranger program.

- Design and implement a training program. 

- Work with partners to provide teacher training workshops. 

- Maintain the KNWRC’s Website to promote current educational 

opportunities, post curricula, and other learning resources. 

- Re-examine the site layout of Kīlauea Point to improve the facilitation of 

EE.

- Convert an existing structure to a designated facility/facilities for EE.

4.5 Enhance/expand 

wildlife observation and 

photography 

- Continue to provide free viewing scopes and binoculars for loan, and 

expand to include quality field identification guides.

- Continue to work with KPNHA to provide wildlife viewing tools and 

books for purchase. 

- Continue to work with existing partners and explore new partnership 

opportunities. 

- Provide current and accurate wildlife viewing information online and 

onsite. 

- Promote wildlife observation and photography opportunities through 

various media.

 - Clearly identify closed areas and direct visitors to comparable alternative 

sites.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-15

Objective Management Direction

- Promote the Refuge’s designation as an Important Bird Area (IBA) and 

explore further designation.

- Work with the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and the County of 

Kaua‘i to identify the Refuge as a watchable wildlife location on direction 

signs. 

- Expand program offerings, workshops, activities, and exhibits. 

- Increase compatible opportunities for up-close and personal viewing of 

wildlife.

- Expand citizen science opportunities.

- Increase staff visibility among wildlife clubs/organizations.

- Offer guided interpretive hikes to Crater Hill designed (location of trail, 

timing, group size) to have negligible negative effects on breeding birds 

yet provide a quality experience for visitors. Impacts to Seacliff Plantation

residents and their roads will be considered as access options are 

developed.

4.6 Reduce wildlife 

disturbance, habitat 

degradation, and user 

conflict potential while 

increasing public safety 

at Kāhili Quarryi 

Quarry

- The Service will continue to work with the County of Kaua‘i and the 

Kīlauea community to allow a passable road to the beach and shoreline; 

the road will be repaired and maintained to a standard approved by both 

the Service and the County (e.g., using crushed coral). The Service 

does not plan to place a gate at the entrance to Kāhili Quarry. 

- Post jurisdictional boundary, as appropriate, within the Quarry area. 

- Explore the possibility of cooperatively managing tidelands with the 

State. 

- Replace the existing fence with a predator-resistant fence in a modified 

alignment for approximately 600 feet, following the base of vegetation 

growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point. 

- Install bollards at the northeast end of the Quarry area to protect seabird 

nesting areas. 

- Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community 

leaders of Kīlauea on promoting community stewardship of the Quarry 

through habitat protection; monitoring and managing threats to natural and 

cultural resources; outreach; and environmental, cultural, and historical 

interpretation

- Partner with community groups to develop welcome and orientation, 

educational, and interpretive signage and messaging. 

- General public access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea 

River through the Kāhili Quarry area will be allowed 24 hours a day. 

- Allow visitors to bring and use portable stoves or self-contained 

barbeques (e.g., off-the-ground portable enclosed fires), or fires within a 

Refuge-designated fire ring or pit. Refuge-designated fire rings or pits will

be sited to minimize the potential spread of uncontrolled fires. Visitors will

need to bring charcoal or firewood. Fires must be attended at all times.

- All dogs brought into the Quarry area will be required to be leashed on a 

short (8-foot maximum) leash and under control at all times and will not 

be allowed to run free. 

- Explore opportunities for an overnight site host program through Special 

Use Permits to provide resource protection, outreach and interpretation, 

and compliance monitoring.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-16 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Objective Management Direction

- Work with the community stewardship partnership to explore 

opportunities for providing camping. Stipulations would need to ensure 

that camping opportunities are compatible. 

- Allow temporary shelters in the Quarry area during daylight hours only.

4.7 Enhance/expand 

outreach

- Identify key themes and messages that support Refuge goals and related 

conservation priorities. 

- Identify target audiences.

- Explore various outreach tools and strategies, including new media 

technology.

- Invite elected officials and their staff to an annual site visit and face-toface meeting.

- Provide the news media with accurate and current information. 

- Provide media with Refuge-related stories.

- Partner with offsite opportunities. 

- Review current and potential onsite special events.

- Increase visibility in the community. 

- Ensure outreach and information programs are accessible to and usable 

by persons with various disabilities. 

- Review all existing and potential publications. 

- Monitor and evaluate results of outreach by obtaining feedback and 

modify as needed. 

- Engage all staff in regular face-to-face visits with organizational leaders 

and decision-makers. 

- Encourage employees to join professional organizations and community 

organizations. 

- Evaluate all outreach products. 

- Provide staff with opportunities for outreach training. 

- Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community 

leaders of Kīlauea to develop outreach materials for Kāhili Quarry.

4.8 Enhance/expand 

volunteer and Friends 

group opportunities

- Develop a general orientation packet and orientation checklist.

- Regularly review and update handbooks and training materials.

- Expand efforts and explore various tools and strategies to provide 

effective, up-to-date, and accurate communication to volunteers, interns, 

and KPNHA staff.

- Regularly recognize volunteers, interns, as well as KPNHA, for their 

contributions. 

- Continue coordination with KPNHA. 

- Review and amend, as necessary, the KPNHA Cooperative 

Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding. 

- Enhance and expand existing volunteer/intern program. 

- Develop a volunteer program that combines resource management with 

interpretation.

- Expand current and new partnerships. 

- Design and implement a training program. 

- Every 5 years, obtain feedback and suggestions from volunteers and 

interns through a feedback form, survey, or other instrument. 

- Provide an orientation for Refuge staff on how to effectively work with 

volunteers and interns.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-17

Objective Management Direction

- Host at least 2 community work days per year.

- Strengthen coordination with KPNHA through an annual whole-day 

planning meeting.

- Strengthen coordination with KPNHA to implement relevant CCPrelated goals, objectives, and strategies.

Cultural and historic resources

5.1 Implement a 

proactive cultural 

(including historic) 

resource management 

program

- Comply with Section 106 of the NHPA when conducting grounddisturbing activities. Identify cultural resources that coincide with existing 

and planned roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. Consult 

with Native Hawaiian organizations and interested parties. Evaluate 

cultural resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Avoid or offset impacts as necessary.

- Develop and maintain liaison with Native Hawaiian organizations, 

historical institutions, and other preservation partners. 

- Conduct archival research and communication with Native Hawaiian 

organizations, kūpuna, communities, and institutions. 

- Prepare a cultural resource overview of the Refuge and step-down 

management plan. 

- Conduct a field inventory and evaluation of cultural resources.

- Establish a Refuge-specific protocol for handling discoveries of human 

remains, burial objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony in 

partnership with Native Hawaiian organizations within 1 year of CCP 

completion. 

- Orient and train staff to recognize and be sensitive to cultural resources.

- Investigate and evaluate nomination of the Refuge as a Traditional 

Cultural Property (TCP).

 - Re-inventory and re-evaluate for designation to the National Register of 

Historic Places the Crater Hill radar station (State Historic Site 50-30-04-

1810), and Mōkōlea Point sugar loading complex (State Historic Site 50-

30-04-1811).

5.2 Create and 

implement with 

partners a program for 

Kīlauea Point Light 

Station

- Prepare or update historic structure reports for each element of the 

Kīlauea Point Light Station within 3 years of CCP completion. 

- Prepare a historic structure treatment plan within 5 years of CCP 

completion. 

- Consult with historical societies, and other preservation partners to 

identify and prepare interpretive media.

- Develop an outreach program and materials.

Operations

6.1 Replace, maintain, 

enhance visitor/

administrative/

maintenance facilities

- Prepare a step-down Master Site Plan to evaluate and detail building use 

and remodeling/maintenance needs.

- Include main administrative offices with new offsite visitor welcome and 

orientation center, if constructed.

- Develop new maintenance baseyard (storage sheds, bays, pole barns, 

nursery) off the Refuge. Options include leasing, purchasing, or colocating with another entity. 

- Remodel Quarters #3 for basic administrative and volunteer offices.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-18 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Objective Management Direction

6.2 Enhance law 

enforcement

- Continue to work with partners and other law enforcement agencies to 

protect natural resources, eliminate criminal activity, and disturbance to 

sensitive areas. 

- Explore concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Hawai‘i. 

- Ensure the Refuge Sign Plan developed integrates law enforcement 

signage.

- Develop a law enforcement monitoring system. 

- Develop outreach tools specifically for Refuge protection and safety 

issues and circulate.

- Provide law enforcement expertise at workshops, community/partner 

meetings, and public talk opportunities. 

- Provide annual training to non-law enforcement Refuge staff and 

volunteers on law enforcement incident reporting, monitoring, and 

procedures. 

- Orient new Refuge staff, including law enforcement officers and refuge 

managers, and volunteers to the local culture and community.

2.4 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and 

focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the 

Refuge System mission.

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, 

and larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, 

followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving 

those goals. Strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. 

The goals for the Refuge for the 15 years following completion of the CCP are presented on the 

following pages. Each goal is followed by the objectives that pertain to it. All objectives are for the 

lifetime of the CCP unless otherwise specified. Some objectives pertain to multiple goals and have 

simply been placed in the most appropriate spot. Similarly, some strategies pertain to multiple 

objectives. The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. Priority actions are identified in 

the staffing and funding analysis (see Appendix C). 

Below each objective statement are the strategies that could be employed in order to accomplish the 

objectives. 

Other symbols used in the following tables include: 

 ~ Approximately 

% Percent sign; 

> Greater than;

< Less than;

 ≥ Greater than or equal to; 

 ≤ Less than or equal to. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-19

2.4.1 Goal 1: Protect, enhance, and manage the coastal ecosystem to meet the 

life-history needs of migratory seabirds and threatened and endangered 

species. 

Objective 1.1 Enhance and manage coastal mixed woodland-grassland habitat for seabird 

breeding and roosting.

Annually manage 97 acres and enhance 2–5 acres per year (within the 97 acres) mixed woodlandgrassland habitat for seabird breeding and roosting with the following attributes: 

• Safe flight corridors free of obstacles (e.g., pest trees, signs, and antennas) and light hazards; 

• Broad habitat characteristics of seabirds currently breeding on Refuge:

o Large grasslands (<6 inch vegetation height) or open-canopy, open-understory woodlands 

next to open windward runways for take-off and landing (mōlī); 

o Substrates with rock and root crevices or good soil/root structure or sub-canopy layer for 

burrowing (‘ua‘u kani); 

o Hala/naupaka woodlands with an open understory or dense subcanopy layer (e.g., hala leaf 

litter) for burrowing (‘a‘o);

o Rocky ledges and crevices of steep cliffs (koa‘e kea);

o Open-understory woodlands, rock and root crevices (koa‘e ‘ula); 

o Large patches of woodlands >3.0 feet tall (‘ā); availability of small woody debris (‘ā)

• Minimal human disturbance in areas designated for seabird breeding (time varies by species); 

• Predation by introduced predators (e.g., dogs, cats, rats) zero for threatened ‘a‘o; ≤20 adults per 

year for ‘ua‘u kani; ≤1 adult per year for all other species. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Reduction in pest ironwood and other species by 2–5 acres/year in priority areas (e.g., obstacles to 

flight, limiting nesting)

b. Mowing an additional 2–3 acres of grasslands per year to set back invasive shrub succession (<6 

inch vegetation height) 

c. Small-scale outplanting native plants (e.g., ‘āheahea, hala) that provide suitable habitat structure and 

function for seabirds 

d. Use IPM strategies including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing, brush-cutting, excavation, 

prescribed fire), cultural, chemical (e.g., herbicides), biological, and other suitable techniques to control 

Christmasberry, lantana, ironwood, and other pest/undesirable plants (see Appendix G)

e. If insect threats (e.g., mosquitoes, ants, scale insects) to breeding seabirds are detected during 

monitoring, use IPM control techniques (e.g., removing potential breeding sites for mosquitoes, ant bait 

stations (e.g., Fipronil), approved biocontrols, hand removal of infected leaves, granular and spottreating plants with insecticides (e.g., Sevin ®))

f. Ensure no obstacle or light hazards occur onsite; work with community (e.g., Town of Kīlauea, 

Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)) to promote appropriate, bird-friendly lighting, 

lighting including downward shielding, seasonal reduction in outdoor lighting, and window shades 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-20 Chapter 2. Management Direction

g. Complete public use closure around threatened ‘a‘o burrows

h. Partial public use access in designated public use areas (parking lot and trail to Lighthouse on the 

Point) and on Crater Hill for a limited number of guided interpretive hikes; complete closure in all 

other parts of the Refuge 

i. Maintain or replace 2.7 miles of existing hogwire fencing (same as in Objective 1.2 and also includes

Objective 4.6, strategy c) 

j. Keep the area under the chain-link fence at the Point free from weeds to prevent bird entrapment

k. During implementation planning for the shuttle system, evaluate the potential for restoration of some 

portion of the parking areas on the Point focusing on shrubland revegetation for the benefit of 

shearwaters

l. Live-trapping, shooting, and bait stations to reduce predation on migratory birds by introduced 

vertebrate pests

m. Explore the use of a predator control index based on the loss of mōlī eggs and chicks on a 5-year 

average

n. With partners, maintain predator-proof fence east of Crater Hill (Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration 

Project; Anden Consulting 2014) 

o. Explore the possibility of expansion of, or separate additions to, the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration 

Project predator-proof fence (e.g., adding fence panels) 

Rationale: Safe habitats for breeding and foraging are essential for all migratory seabirds using the 

Refuge. While most seabirds exhibit some flexibility in their habitat requirements, features of the plant 

community (species and structural characteristics) favor or limit populations. Thus, control or 

eradication of pest plants will be focused mainly on areas where they have a negative effect on seabird 

survival and reproduction. The Refuge consists of degraded coastal grasslands and woodlands (scrub, 

shrub, and forest) dominated by pest plants which require annual maintenance. For example, rapid 

growth of ironwood trees at the base of Mōlī Hill creates obstacles within primary mōlī flight corridors. 

In 2010, a mōlī fledgling taking its first flight crashed into an ironwood tree and was grounded cliffside for a day. This will be an annual occurrence if ironwoods are not removed. In addition, when wind 

direction shifts, mōlī land from the west (versus north) where there is a large pest oleander patch 

obstructing this secondary flight corridor. 

The Refuge will prioritize problem areas for pest control based on bird habitat requirements, human 

safety, and plant species’ aggressiveness, and enhance approximately 2–5 acres each year. Pest insect 

species can affect survival and reproduction of migratory seabirds by causing mortality through 

predation or parasitism or by modifying habitat to make it less suitable. Ants can attack seabird chicks 

or pipping eggs and have short-term but widespread detrimental effects (Plentovich et al. 2008, 

USFWS 2005). Urban lights can disorient seabirds, particularly ‘a‘o fledglings making their first flights 

to sea. Subsequently, birds crash into vegetation or obstacles and die, get crushed by vehicles, or get 

killed by predatory animals (Ainley et al. 2007). 

The total acreage managed for seabirds is estimated to be 97 acres where additional management 

activities include controlling introduced predators and other pest species, such as ants, around ‘a‘o 

burrows, minimizing human disturbance during breeding, removing debris from artificial ‘a‘o and 

‘ua‘u kani burrows prior to breeding season, and ensuring safe onsite flight corridors free of obstacles 

and light hazards. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-21

Opportunities for restoring native habitats for seabirds exist when there is a high likelihood of restoring 

native-dominated plant communities (e.g., human-caused factors contributing to the spread of pest 

species have ceased, invasive competitors have been eradicated, or there is a commitment for long-term 

pest control). Translocation, propagation, and outplanting appropriate native plants to improve habitat 

for migratory seabird nesting. For example, ‘ā are known to nest on the native shrub ‘āheahea and use 

its foliage to line nests. Restoring native plant communities may also provide more stability within the 

plant community to suppress new weed invasions. Small-scale outplantings will be conducted 

following recommendations in the draft Plant Restoration Strategy for KNWRC. The Plant Restoration

Strategy will be finalized within 2 years of CCP completion. 

Studies show that even passive human activities like birdwatching or photography could be harmful to 

some birds by altering normal feeding and breeding patterns. Birds are particularly wary of large 

groups, loud noises, and rapid movements. When people are present, birds may spend less time tending 

their young and more time on the lookout for danger, or may leave the area expending time and energy 

that could have been spent successfully foraging and raising young. Human disturbance of breeding 

birds could result in increased desertion of nests, reduced hatching success, and decreased chick 

survival (Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992, Staine and Burger 1994). Although effects on chick survival 

were not examined, a Refuge pilot study comparing ‘ua‘u kani chick stress hormone levels near and far 

from the Lighthouse Trail, which receives high visitor usage, found smaller chicks and elevated stress 

hormones (up to 100 times higher) in trailside chicks (Kitaysky et al. unpublished). Thus, stress affects 

animals in different ways (physical, physiological) and may not be expressed outwardly by changes in 

their behavior. Studies such as these could assist in determining whether or not human activities at the 

Refuge are affecting bird survival and reproduction (see Objective 3.2). 

On the other hand, seabird viewing provides an opportunity for people to gain first-hand experience, 

learn about wildlife, and take an active interest in wildlife conservation. The Refuge is required to 

consider compatible public uses, particularly those that may provide long-term benefits for wildlife. 

Thus, the Refuge will continue to allow wildlife viewing in designated public use areas (parking lot and 

trail to Lighthouse) but continue to limit visitation hours to limit negative effects on breeding birds 

(e.g., 10:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m.) and prohibit entry to other areas of the Point, including the breeding areas 

of listed species. The Refuge will allow a limited number of guided interpretive hikes on Crater Hill. 

Hikes will be routed and scheduled to avoid key breeding areas and seasons by seabirds and 

endangered nēnē. Interpretive and other activities on Crater Hill will be compatible with the Refuge 

System mission and Refuge purpose, and will be continually monitored and adapted to minimize 

negative effects on native wildlife. At this time we do not have specific guidelines for other species 

because sensitivity varies by species, life stage, and many other factors. Specific guidelines for 

minimizing disturbance to native birds will be developed in a step-down Visitor Services Plan (see 

further discussion in Objective 4.5 Rationale). 

Monitoring migratory seabird populations and habitats is necessary to detect changes in excess of 

natural variation that might be attributed to human activities. Refuge activities such as biological 

monitoring, maintenance, vegetation management, and predator control will be timed to minimize 

disturbance on breeding birds. Such techniques for natural resources management activities include 

limiting the number of visits to once per week, minimizing physical contact with birds, moving slowly 

in colonies, keeping voices and noise levels low, and approaching birds tangentially (Carney and 

Sydeman 1999). See Appendix B for Compatibility Determinations. 

The foremost threat to adult seabirds on land is introduced predators, including cats, rats, mongooses, 

dogs, and barn owls. In the Pacific Region, cats and rats have been responsible for colony extirpations 

and range-wide population declines of numerous species (USFWS 2005). Seabird eggs and chicks are 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-22 Chapter 2. Management Direction

easy prey for pigs, mice, and introduced cattle egrets, and unattended (or abandoned) eggs can be eaten 

by common mynah (Byrd et al. 1984), chickens, and red-crested cardinals. Cats, rats, mongooses, dogs, 

and barn owls regularly prey on adult seabirds. In 2010 at the Refuge, >75 adult ‘ua‘u kani were found 

preyed upon by owls (compared with 5 in 2009 and an average of 4.2 over the 4 years from 2011–

2014), and carcass recoveries subsided after removal of 4 introduced barn owls. Also in 2010, dogs 

entering the Refuge at the unfenced end of Mōkōlea Point killed at least nine adult ‘ua‘u kani on the 

Refuge. Even when this number is low, such losses could affect local populations because adult 

survival is an important factor regulating seabird populations. All of those introduced predators also 

regularly prey on nestling seabirds, goslings, and seabird and nēnē eggs (Zaun and Weathers 2009). 

Thus, it is critical to control predators to reduce seabird mortality and increase reproductive success and 

survival, which will also benefit migratory waterfowl and shorebirds and endangered nēnē and is 

important to achieve Refuge purposes. 

In collaboration with several partners, including the American Bird Conservancy, the Kaua‘i 

Endangered Seabird Recovery Project (a Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife and Pacific 

Cooperative Studies Unit effort), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and others, construction of 

an approximately 2,400-foot long predator-proof fence around 7 acres of the Refuge slightly east of 

Crater Hill (i.e., the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project) was completed in September 2014 (Anden 

Consulting 2014). The Service will explore the possibility of expansion of or separate additions to the 

Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project fence. It is hoped that the creation of predator-free refugia will

improve nesting success for nēnē and mōlī, facilitate natural re-colonization by other seabirds, such as 

the ka‘upu or ‘ou, and support future plans to potentially translocate the threatened ‘a‘o and/or 

endangered ‘ua‘u and reintroduce rare and endangered plants. 

Objective 1.2 Enhance and manage coastal grasslands habitat for nēnē foraging, breeding, and 

roosting. 

Within 2 years, annually manage 32–34 acres and enhance 5–7 acres (within the 32–34 acres) of 

coastal grassland habitat for nēnē foraging, breeding, and roosting at Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point 

with the following attributes:

• Mosaic of grassland and native shrublands including large contiguous patches (>3 acres) of 

Kikuyu-Spanish clover grasslands;

• Kikuyu-Spanish clover grasslands managed <4–6 inches vegetation height; 

• 15–20% native-dominated shrublands (canopy >75% cover; e.g., naupaka (Scaevola) coastal 

dry shrubland); 

• <10% cover of pest woody vegetation (e.g., lantana, Christmasberry, ironwood); 

• Minimal human disturbance during the peak breeding season (approximately October–March); 

• Predation levels by introduced predators (e.g., dogs, cats, rats) ≤2 adult nēnē per year.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Mowing at a frequency to stimulate vigorous growth of grasses; maintain <4–6 inches tall

b. Rehabilitate and maintain irrigation system at Crater Hill for native plant establishment
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-23

c. Enhance grasslands with native shrubland plant communities that provide suitable habitat structure 

and function for nēnē (e.g., naupaka, ‘akoko, nehe for nēnē food and cover)

d. Use IPM strategies, including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing, brush-cutting, excavation, 

prescribed fire), cultural, chemical (e.g., herbicides), biological, and other suitable techniques, to 

control lantana, Christmasberry, ironwood, and other pest/undesirable plants (see Appendix G)

e. Public use closures and Refuge activities will be timed to minimize disturbance on breeding birds

f. Maintain or replace 2.7 miles of existing hogwire fencing (same as in Objective 1.1 and also includes 

Objective 4.6, strategy c)

g. Live-trapping, shooting, and bait stations to reduce predation on migratory birds by introduced 

vertebrate pests

h. In conjunction with transportation planning, evaluate the feasibility of redesigning the Overlook area 

in order to provide a corridor for nēnē transiting between the Point and Crater Hill 

Rationale: Nēnē are browsing grazers of grasses, sedges, forbs, and shrubs and typically nest in edges 

of open-understory woodlands. No studies have been conducted on nēnē lowland foods or habitat use 

(see Objective 3.2). However, research conducted in mid-elevation Hawai‘i Island found nēnē fed 

mainly on cultivated grasses and that legumes and grass leaves had more protein than berries and grass 

seeds; pasture grasses had more protein than shrubland grasses; mowed or livestock-grazed grasses had 

more protein than rank grasses; and breeding success was higher for nēnē with more grasses in their 

diet (Black et al. 1994). Birds selected forage with high water and protein content, which indicates high 

forage quality, such as the young shoots of a Kikuyu grass-Spanish clover grassland, and preferred 

sward-forming (turf-like growth) over bunch grasses, and short (2–4 inches) over tall grasses (Woog 

and Black 2001). 

Currently, approximately 27 acres of Kikuyu grasslands are managed for nēnē at Crater Hill yearround. Kikuyu grass was introduced for cattle forage prior to acquisition by the Refuge. Removal of 5–

7 acres of pest Christmasberry, lantana, and other aggressive weeds to open up existing historic Kikuyu 

grass-Spanish clover grasslands will increase habitat managed for nēnē to 32–34 acres total. 

Enhancement of these grasslands by planting patches of native shrublands to create a mosaic will

provide additional food, cover, and close-proximity nesting, escape, and thermal cover. Although 

Kikuyu grass is considered an aggressive pest, the species originates in tropical Africa at elevations of 

5,000–10,000 feet and appears to be less aggressive in the coastal zone. Currently, there are no known 

native grasslands that could be restored to provide the same nutrition as Kikuyu-Spanish clover 

grasslands. 

In lieu of artificial water features for nēnē, the Refuge will improve mowing regimes to manage short 

grasslands with high moisture and enhance areas with native shrubs such as naupaka, which provide 

moisture in berries. Managed grasslands at Crater Hill also provide habitat for prospecting seabirds 

such as mōlī and stopover or wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, including 

cackling goose, kōlea, and the candidate species kioea. Small-scale outplantings will be conducted 

following recommendations in the draft Plant Restoration Strategy for KNWRC. The Plant Restoration 

Strategy will be finalized within 2 years of CCP.

Nēnē eggs and goslings are vulnerable to introduced predators including rats, mongooses, dogs, cats, 

and pigs. Adult nēnē are vulnerable mainly to dogs and cats, especially during their synchronous molt 

of flight feathers, which renders birds flightless. It is critical to control predators to reduce mortality 

and increase reproductive success and survival. Controlling introduced predators will also benefit 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-24 Chapter 2. Management Direction

migratory seabirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds and is important to achieve the Refuge purpose (USFWS 

2004c).

In conjunction with the step-down transportation planning, we will evaluate the feasibility of 

redesigning the Overlook area in order to provide a corridor for nēnē transiting between the Point and 

Crater Hill. The objectives are to provide a better connection for nēnē adults and their young to travel 

for forage and to reduce the risk of vehicle impacts while crossing Kīlauea Road. 

Objective 1.3 Protect sea cliff and beach strand habitat. 

Protect approximately 59 acres of sea cliff and beach strand habitat for seabird breeding and roosting 

and ‘īlio-holo-i-kauaua basking year-round, with the following attributes:

• No signs of accelerated human-caused erosion;

• Minimal or no human disturbance year-round; 

• Seabird populations stable or increasing.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Conduct a road and trail assessment and analysis and identify problem areas (e.g., accelerated 

erosion, compaction) and solutions (e.g., water bars, erosion matting, re-vegetation) (Objective 3.2)

b. Stabilize areas of accelerated erosion identified in the road and trail assessment and analysis

c. Design and implement a monitoring program for 1–2 indicator species (e.g., ‘ā) to detect natural or 

anthropogenic variation in habitat conditions (Objective 3.1) 

d. Continue to support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Department of Land 

and Natural Resources (DLNR)’s Marine Mammal Response Network

e. Public use closure

f. In partnership with the community, work to reduce wildlife disturbance and habitat degradation due 

to public use at Kāhili Quarry (Objective 4.6)

Rationale: Sea cliff habitat is characterized by nearly vertical or vertical cliff faces (>45% slope) with 

highly erodible soils exposed to wind and sea. Given the vertical topography and unstable substrates of 

these areas, access is very difficult to hazardous. This area is important breeding habitat for ‘ua‘u kani, 

koa‘e ‘ula, koa‘e kea, and ‘ā and roosting habitat for ‘iwa, ‘ā (brown boobies and red-footed boobies), 

and endangered nēnē. The beach strand habitat, consisting of small areas totaling approximately 8 acres 

of sand or gravel within or just above the tidal zone, provides protected basking habitat for the critically 

endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-kauaua and potentially the threatened honu and foraging habitat for migratory 

shorebirds such as ‘ūlili, akekeke, kōlea, and marine fauna. 

Trespassing is a regular occurrence in several areas, including unleashed pet dogs and the illegal 

harvest of firewood to build fires during fishing or camping. Unleashed dogs impact endangered and 

migratory wildlife in both public and remote areas. In addition, trespassers have been caught scaling 

steep cliffsides to access remote surfing areas. The areas are closed to the general public. Management 

will be limited to protection from the potentially devastating effects of human (e.g., crushing birds in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-25

underground burrows) and predator (e.g., dogs preying upon endangered nēnē goslings or groundnesting seabirds) intrusion, conducting public education, and population and habitat monitoring. 

2.4.2 Goal 2: Restore and/or enhance and manage populations of migratory 

seabirds and threatened and endangered species. 

Objective 2.1 Restore and enhance breeding populations of ‘a‘o and other seabirds.

Restore and enhance breeding populations of ‘a‘o and other seabirds, including on Crater Hill and 

Mōkōlea Point, with the following attributes: 

• Viable breeding populations; 

• Trends suggest stable or increasing population sizes and distributions; 

• High genetic diversity.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Continue to maintain ‘a‘o colony on the Point (NESH Hill), while increasingly putting emphasis for 

‘a‘o recovery on Crater Hill/Mōkōlea Point areas (including the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project 

area)

b. Manage suitable habitat for seabirds including a control of vertebrate and invertebrate pests and 

habitat-modifying plants, minimal human activity, and no flight or light hazards (Objective 1.1) 

c. Re-establish populations of extirpated seabird species

d. Provide a high-island refugium for seabird populations potentially displaced by climate change or 

other stressors

e. Use social attraction techniques to enhance the ‘a‘o and other seabird populations; monitor for bird 

and predator responses to stimuli

f. With partners, determine feasibility of the Refuge as a potential ‘a‘o and/or ‘ua‘u chick translocation 

site (Objective 3.2)

Rationale: As habitat components are managed and threats are controlled, the Refuge could take on the 

role of passive or assisted restoration and enhancement of seabird populations. Many examples of 

successful conservation programs are based on the principle that populations can be restored to an area 

if limiting threats are removed (e.g., human disturbance, introduced predators). Re-colonization rates 

may be improved with chick translocation (Miskelly et al. 2009) or social attraction techniques which 

use sound or visual stimuli to modify behavior (Gummer 2003). However, there is evidence that colony 

establishment can occur faster at a considerably cheaper rate using fencing and social attraction versus 

fencing and chick translocations, and that chick translocations may be required at some locations but 

not others (Courtot et al. 2014, Sawyer 2014). Since 2007, two loudspeakers project ‘a‘o colony calls to 

attract prospecting birds to Kīlauea Point where they may have a higher chance of successful 

reproduction and long-term survival. Between 1978 and 1980, 65 and 25 ‘a‘o eggs were translocated 

from mountain habitats to the Refuge and Moku‘ae‘ae Island, respectively, and cross-fostered by ‘ua‘u 

kani (Byrd et al. 1984). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-26 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Currently, the Refuge supports at least 11 prospecting or breeding ‘a‘o pairs, some presumably the 

fledglings of the translocated eggs or their progeny. In partnership with the Kaua‘i Endangered Seabird 

Recovery Project, the ‘a‘o social attraction program will be expanded to select areas on Crater Hill and 

Mōkōlea Point. With partners, the Service will explore the feasibility of the Refuge as a potential ‘a‘o 

chick translocation site for mountain colonies in severe decline (USFWS 2011). 

As discussed in Objective 1.1, seabird breeding habitat, free of introduced predators, is a pressing need 

in the Hawaiian Islands. ‘A‘o translocations may also increase genetic diversity at the Refuge. These 

techniques will be considered for other species of high conservation concern such as ka‘upu (blackfooted albatross) (Arata et al. 2009) and ‘ua‘u (Hawaiian petrel). Specific projects related to 

translocation will undergo additional detailed planning, including an effects assessment under NEPA, 

surveys and consultation under Section 106 of NHPA, evaluation and consultation under Section 7 of 

ESA, and compliance with other applicable laws and policies. 

Today’s bird distributions may be uninformative about their pre-human distributions. Of 40–43 native 

bird species found at a Māhā‘ulepū, Kaua‘i, fossil site, only about one-fourth occur in the vicinity 

today, one-fourth have been extirpated from Kaua‘i or its lowlands, including ‘a‘o, and ‘ua‘u, and half 

are extinct (Burney et al. 2001). The Refuge currently supports six species of breeding seabirds. Lehua 

Islet, located just 19 miles west of Kaua‘i, is a 271-acre State seabird sanctuary comparable in size, 

elevation, and aspect to the Refuge. Lehua supports over 25,000 pairs of 8–12 breeding seabird species, 

including ka‘upu, ‘ā (brown booby), the candidate species ‘ake‘ake (band-rumped storm petrel), 

Bulwer’s petrel, and noio (Hawaiian noddy) (Vanderwerf et al. 2007), which are not known to breed at 

the Refuge. In addition, an estimated 90,000 pairs of 18 breeding seabird species, including Christmas 

shearwater, endangered ‘ua‘u (Hawaiian petrel), noio kōhā (brown noddy), ‘ewa‘ewa (sooty tern), and 

pākalakala (grey-backed tern) breed on Ka‘ula Rock, a 158-acre State seabird sanctuary located 54 

miles southwest of Kaua‘i (Harrison 1990, Vanderwerf et al. 2007). Breeding populations of many of 

these species, now absent or rare on Kaua‘i, could be established or re-established using passive and 

assisted restoration techniques. 

Climate change is one of the most serious threats to wildlife today. Scientists are already documenting 

the effects of global warming on low-lying islands through accelerated coastal erosion. Models predict 

an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts and storms. Rising sea levels are expected to 

disrupt habitat functions and eliminate terrestrial habitat on important seabird breeding areas such as 

Midway Atoll and Laysan Island, where elevations peak at 13 and 50 feet, respectively (Baker et al. 

2006). As sea levels rise over the next century, protected areas on high islands, including the Refuge, 

will become increasingly important for seabirds that currently nest primarily on low islands and atolls 

of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Arata et al. 2009, Young 2010). 

Objective 2.2 Restore and/or enhance and manage native coastal plant communities including 

habitat for endangered plants. 

Restore and/or enhance and manage 10–30 acres of native coastal plant communities (e.g., naupaka 

(Scaevola) coastal dry shrubland and/or ‘ilima (Sida) coastal dry mixed shrub and grassland) on Crater 

Hill and Mōkōlea Point with the following attributes: 

• 15–20% native-dominated plant communities (canopy >75% cover; e.g., naupaka-dominated 

canopy with pohuehue locally dominant along seaward edges (naupaka shrubland); ‘ilima-
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-27

dominated dense canopy with ‘āheahea and pōpolo co-dominants (‘ilima shrubland));

• <10% cover of pest plants (e.g., lantana, koa haole, Christmasberry); 

• Endangered plants (3–8 species) interplanted into existing matrix (e.g., dwarf naupaka, ‘ohai, 

‘awiwi); 

• Restoration enhances and has negligible negative effects on breeding bird populations.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Maintain the current onsite greenhouse while exploring options for creating an offsite greenhouse 

and/or partnerships to support outplanting of native plants that are from local seed sources and 

conditioned to the local environment

b. Within 2 years, develop a Restoration Working Group (RWG) and finalize draft Plant Restoration 

Strategy for KNWRC

c. Expand involvement of both volunteers and native plant organizations 

d. Work with RWG and others to implement Final Plant Restoration Strategy (e.g., plant propagation, 

restoration ecologist, site preparation, restoration and repatriation, site maintenance, monitoring, 

evaluation, adaptive management)

e. Use IPM strategies, including mechanical/physical (e.g., mowing, brush-cutting, excavation, 

prescribed fire), cultural, chemical (e.g., herbicides), biological, and other suitable techniques, to 

control Christmasberry, lantana, ironwood, and other pest/undesirable plants (see Appendix G)

f. Use IPM techniques to control pest insects (approved biocontrols, hand removal of infected leaves, 

granular and spot-treating plants with insecticides)

g. Restoration activities are timed and conducted to minimize disturbance to breeding birds 

Rationale: The Refuge consists of degraded coastal and lowland, dry and mesic woodlands, 

grasslands, and mixed woodland-grassland plant communities. Over 30 native coastal and lowland 

plant species are appropriate for re-establishment. Of these species, approximately one-third will be 

established as dominant members of the communities, while the remaining two-thirds will be integrated 

as sub-dominants and associated species. Populations of eight species of endangered plants could be 

established within these restored habitats, thereby contributing to their Statewide recovery. Beginning 

in 1980, approximately 13 acres on the Point and portions of Crater Hill’s west slope were restored 

with hala, ‘akoko, ‘ilima, naupaka kahakai, ‘āheahea, and pohinahina. The Refuge has a small native 

plant nursery that is staffed largely by volunteers (Bruegmann and Castillo 1999).

With nearly 300 species of plants listed as threatened or endangered, nearly one-third of Hawai‘i’s 

remaining native flora is threatened with extinction. Over 100 species of plants now listed as threatened 

or endangered occur, or historically occurred, on the Island of Kaua‘i; 49 species are found only on 

Kaua‘i. Plants that grow in coastal shrublands and low elevation forests are particularly rare due to the 

long-term presence of humans and the negative effects of their actions, specifically, development, 

agriculture, fire, and the introduction of pest species. Only 11 percent of lowland mesic and dry native 

plant communities remain intact on Kaua‘i, compared to 22 percent for all of the Hawaiian Islands 

combined (The Nature Conservancy 1998). Thus, the Refuge could play a key role in recovery of listed 

plant species.

Finalization of the draft Plant Restoration Strategy for KNWRC will be completed within the first 2 

years of CCP implementation. The scope of the draft Plant Restoration Strategy includes 50 acres 

restored (fully functioning, stable plant communities) over 50 years (plant community restoration is a 

slow process). For the CCP, this translates to approximately 10 acres (in highly degraded sites) or 30 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-28 Chapter 2. Management Direction

acres (in sites with native-dominant upper canopy) of restoration over 10–12 years. The term 

“restoration” is used in the context of rebuilding an ecological community comprised of predominantly 

native species including its form, function, and processes, while “enhancement” is used in the context 

of increasing or improving but not attempting to fully restore a former ecological state, based on our 

limited historical knowledge of the coastal and lowland plant communities of Kaua‘i. As stated in the 

draft Plant Restoration Strategy, achieving this level of restoration will require dedicated full-time staff 

and funding. Thus, implementation will be dependent on a Final Plant Restoration Strategy and 

partnerships to acquire and leverage restoration and maintenance funding (Bruegmann and Castillo 

1999). Plant restoration activities will be timed to have minimal negative effects on breeding birds and 

be compatible with migratory seabird management and endangered wildlife recovery priorities. 

2.4.3 Goal 3: Gather scientific information (surveys, research, and 

assessments) to support adaptive management decisions. 

Objective 3.1 Conduct high-priority inventory and monitoring activities. 

Conduct high-priority inventory and monitoring activities that evaluate resource management and 

public use activities to facilitate adaptive management. These activities contribute to the enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation, and management of wildlife populations and their habitats on and off 

Refuge lands. Specifically, they can be used to evaluate achievement of resource management 

objectives identified under Goals 1–2. These surveys have the following attributes: 

• Data collection techniques will likely have minimal animal mortality or disturbance, minimal 

habitat destruction, and minimal long-term or cumulative impacts on resources of concern;

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where 

necessary, will minimize the potential spread or introduction of pest species and pathogens; 

• Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection (e.g., sample size), 

where available and applicable.

The following is a list of priority activities to support resource management decisions on the 

Refuge:

a. Within 1 year, map type and status of all fences and gates

b. Within first 2–3 years, re-evaluate, develop, or initiate Refuge-specific monitoring plans (protocols, 

sample designs, and databases) for high-priority taxa (e.g., listed, highly invasive, or indicator species, 

species/species groups of regional concern) within the regional Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) 

framework; work with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Discipline, universities, 

and other partners to develop efficient systems for synthesis, analysis, and reporting of Refuge 

monitoring data

c. Within first 2 years, design and conduct a vegetation monitoring program that will allow for 

assessment in reaching habitat management objectives

d. Within first 5 years, conduct a comprehensive inventory of plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates 

occurring at the Refuge. Use initial inventories as baseline data to assess past and future changes in 

plant and animal communities
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-29

e. Monitor population size of all native breeding birds at least each decade and species of high 

conservation concern annually (e.g., ‘a‘o, mōlī, nēnē) 

f. Map soils, vegetation, and bird distributions

g. Conduct early detection and rapid response pest plant species and assessment; rank species to target 

for control 

h. Develop GIS layers to support biological goals and objectives and I&M program

i. Monitor effects of visitor activities on wildlife and re-evaluate the program every 5 years

j. Monitor seabird and nēnē populations and mortality and morbidity

k. Continue to partner with DLNR to conduct nēnē banding 

l. Monitor response of pest species and habitat to management actions within an adaptive management 

framework

m. With partners (e.g., Kaua‘i Endangered Seabird Recovery Project):

- Conduct yearly auditory and visual surveys to detect new ‘a‘o breeding burrow or prospecting 

locations; 

- Monitor response of ‘a‘o and non-target species (e.g., owls) to social attractions;

- Monitor burrow activity of two ‘a‘o pairs using PIT monitoring system; and 

- Band and monitor reproductive success and survival

n. In partnership with the Migratory Bird Program, DLNR, private landowners, and volunteers, conduct 

banding and monitoring reproductive success and survival of mōlī within regional demographic 

monitoring framework; formalize this partnership

o. Monitor sex structure and demography of the mōlī population using molecular or other techniques 

p. With partners, such as the Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, design and implement a 

climate change monitoring program compatible with, and complimentary to, other state and regional 

climate change monitoring programs, which will allow for detection of climate change impacts on 

Refuge resources (e.g., shifts in breeding phenology of target seabird species that may inform 

management)

Rationale: The Administration Act requires us to ‘‘... monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each refuge.’’ Surveys will be used primarily to evaluate resource response to assess 

progress toward achieving Refuge management objectives (under Goals 1–2 in this CCP) derived from 

the Refuge System mission, Refuge purpose(s), and maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health (601 FW 3). Determining resource status and evaluating progress toward 

achieving objectives is essential to implementing adaptive management on Department of the Interior 

lands as required by policy (522 DM 1). Specifically, results of surveys will be used to refine 

management strategies, where necessary, over time in order to achieve resource objectives. Surveys 

will provide the best available scientific information to promote transparent decision-making processes 

for resource management over time on Refuge lands. 

Objective 3.2 Conduct and facilitate high-priority research projects and scientific assessments at 

the Refuge to directly support management objectives and guide management decisions. 

Conduct high-priority research projects that provide the best science for habitat and wildlife 

management on- and off-Refuge. Scientific findings gained through these projects will expand 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-30 Chapter 2. Management Direction

knowledge regarding life-history needs of species and species groups as well as identify or refine 

habitat and wildlife management actions. Research also will reduce uncertainty regarding wildlife and 

habitat responses to Refuge management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in 

resource management objectives and to facilitate adaptive management (e.g., developing thresholds to 

better define “minimal human disturbance in areas designated for seabird breeding” in Obj. 1.1). 

These research projects have the following attributes:

• Focus wildlife population research on assessments of species-habitat relationships. Develop 

models that predict wildlife response to management;

• Design and conduct issue-driven research unlikely to be reliably addressed using long-term 

monitoring. Develop models that predict wildlife response to management; 

• Promote Refuge research and science priorities within the broader scientific community. 

Ensure that cooperative research focuses on meeting information needs identified in biological 

goals and objectives;

• Adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection (e.g., sample size), where 

available and applicable, in order to develop the best science for resource management;

• Data collection techniques will have minimal animal mortality or disturbance, minimal habitat 

destruction, and minimal long-term or cumulative impacts on resources of concern;

• Use proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary, to minimize the potential spread or introduction of pest species and 

pathogens; 

• Present results in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and publications or symposia.

Conduct scientific assessments to provide baseline information to expand knowledge regarding the 

status of Refuge resources to better inform resource management decisions. These scientific 

assessments will contribute to the development of Refuge resource objectives and they will also be 

used to facilitate habitat restoration through selection of appropriate habitat management strategies 

based upon site-specific conditions. These assessments have the following attributes:

• Use accepted standards, where available, for completion of assessment; 

• Scale and accuracy of assessments will be appropriate for development and implementation of 

Refuge habitat and wildlife management actions.

The following is a list of priority research to support resource management decisions on the 

Refuge:

a. Identify primary predators for each life stage of seabirds 

b. Identify effective control methods for primary predators (e.g., cats)

c. With partners, determine feasibility of the Refuge as a potential ‘a‘o and/or ‘ua‘u chick translocation 

site

d. With partners, evaluate effectiveness of the Pacific Missile Range Facility Bird-Aircraft Strike 

Hazard Program and Egg Swap Program including feasibility of alternate release sites for mōlī 

e. Investigate effects of visitor activities on survival and reproduction of priority bird species

f. Develop survey methods to reliably estimate population size for species of high conservation concern
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-31

g. Investigate the relative importance of causes of mortality (e.g., predators, disease, vehicle strikes) for 

nēnē and seabirds of concern 

h. With partners, conduct pollen core studies to reconstruct prehistoric vegetation composition

i. Investigate status and distribution of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a; identify management priorities 

j. Investigate status and distribution of endemic insects, particularly species of concern

k. With partners, investigate breeding and foraging ecology of nēnē in lowlands

l. Investigate daily and seasonal movements of nēnē 

m. Establish partnerships with other agencies, universities, and organizations to pursue collaborative 

research projects

n. Work with DLNR and other partners to conduct habitat assessments for Makapili Rock and 

Moku‘ae‘ae Island (both owned by State of Hawai‘i) which are located within 300 feet offshore of the 

Refuge

o. Conduct a road and trail assessment and analysis and identify problem areas (e.g., excessive erosion, 

compaction) and solutions (e.g., water bars, erosion matting, re-vegetation)

Rationale: Research projects on Refuge lands will address a wide range of natural and cultural 

resource as well as public use management issues. Examples of research projects include habitat use 

and life-history requirements for specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat 

management and restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to control 

or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and associated 

habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, modeling of 

wildlife populations, and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. 

Projects may be species-specific, Refuge-specific, or evaluate the relative contribution of the Refuge to 

larger landscape (ecoregion, region, flyway, national, international) issues and trends. Like monitoring, 

results of research projects will expand the best available scientific information and potentially reduce 

uncertainties to promote transparent decision-making processes for resource management over time on 

the Refuge. In combination with results of surveys, research will promote adaptive management on the 

Refuge. Scientific publications resulting from research on the Refuge will help increase the visibility of 

the Refuge System as a leader in the development of the best science for resource conservation and 

management.

In accordance to the policy for implementing adaptive management on refuge lands (522 DM 1), 

appropriate and applicable environmental assessments are necessary to determine resource status, 

promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives whenever using adaptive 

management. These assessments will provide fundamental information about biotic (e.g., vegetation 

data layer) as well as abiotic processes and conditions (e.g., soils, topography) that are necessary to 

ensure that implementation of on-the-ground resource management achieves resource management 

objectives identified under Goals 1–2. 

2.4.4 Goal 4: Ensure that visitors and kama‘āina of all ages and abilities feel 

welcome, enjoy a safe visit, and are provided high-quality opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation which allows them to connect with, while having 

limited impacts to, the wildlife, habitats, and cultural and historic richness of 

the Refuge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-32 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Objective 4.1 Improve visitor access. 

Improve visitor access associated with the Refuge with the following attributes:

• Enhance visitor safety and experiences to improve their connection to wildlife and habitats; 

• Integrate with other transportation plans and initiatives that share Refuge purposes and goals;

• Promote sustainable transportation practices; 

• Minimize human disturbance to biological resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

Strategies specific to the overall Refuge

a. Coordinate transportation network with existing public transport options (e.g., work with the County 

for a bus stop closer to the Refuge)

b. Continue to integrate Refuge planning efforts with Kīlauea Town planning efforts, including the 

bypass road and multi-use trail connecting the Refuge to town

c. Develop a data collection plan (e.g., better traffic and parking count, documenting “overage”, 

accident and incident data,) that is updated and reviewed annually to continue to evaluate transportation 

network efficacy

Strategies specific to the Overlook and current entrance

d. Within the first 5–10 years, implement recommendation from the Transportation Assistance Group 

(TAG), suggesting testing operational changes to determine their effectiveness in reducing congestion 

(e.g., change operating hours, charge differential fees, test parking reservation system, test variations of 

the “one-in, one-out” protocol, arrange transit demonstration service, implement “intelligent 

technologies” to better inform and manage congestion, work with the County on road 

easement/acquisition/ cooperative agreement)

e. Improve parking safety and efficiency (e.g., better delineate onsite public parking)

f. Provide bicycle parking at Overlook

g. Explore options for a mandatory shuttle which would prohibit private vehicles from traveling into 

the Refuge 

Strategies specific to the Point

h. Explore options for removing parking currently on Refuge, renovate area for shuttle stop, and 

explore habitat restoration. Improve pedestrian circulation

i. If a shuttle system is implemented, examine the feasibility of allowing pedestrian and/or bicycle 

access from the Overlook into the Point

Rationale: The popularity of the Overlook and Point generates operational, access, and safety issues, 

both at the Refuge and in the nearby Kīlauea Town. Most visitors drive to the Overlook and the Point 

in a rental car, the main mode of transportation for all visitors on the island. During the peak winter 

season, visitors arriving during hours of high visitation may find the parking lot full and space limited 

in the temporary overflow parking area. The capacity of the Refuge’s parking lots is the Refuge’s 

limiting factor for visitation. If all parking is full, visitors are turned away.

There are two paved parking areas as well as two unpaved/unmarked gravel areas at the Point; these 

facilities can accommodate 51 vehicles total. The two paved parking areas are dead-ends and do not 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-33

allow for through traffic. The parking in the gravel areas is also unmarked. Large tour buses (25 

passenger or larger) are restricted from entering the Refuge. Due to the poor configuration and layout 

of the parking area, as well as the limited amount of space, Refuge rangers regularly spend a large 

portion of the peak visitation time of day directing traffic, parking cars, and moving traffic control 

signage. Intensive staff effort is needed to park and direct traffic in these situations. 

Separate areas of grassland habitat are used for parking in overflow conditions and can accommodate 

approximately 20 vehicles. Refuge staff prefers not to use this area, particularly during the winter rainy 

season when it becomes very soft and muddy. When visitation exceeds parking capacity, including 

reasonable overflow limits, Refuge staff institutes a “one-in, one-out” system which generally requires 

two staff members. Alternately, staff place a sign at the entrance gate to indicate that public entry into 

the Refuge is temporarily closed, but cannot let them know when they can return. 

The current parking situation within the Refuge not only prevents Refuge staff from conducting other 

key duties (Refuge staff currently spend 2–3 hours a day addressing traffic issues), but also degrades 

the quality of wildlife habitat by periodically excluding endangered nēnē families from foraging, 

roosting, and brood-rearing, resulting in movements of goslings to neighboring private properties were 

they are unprotected and at times unwelcome, contributing to human-wildlife conflicts. The situation 

also negatively impacts the visitor experience and undermines the Service’s ability to provide 

interpretation and EE (see rationale for Objectives 4.3 and 4.4). For additional discussion of 

transportation-related management challenges, see Chapter 5, Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. 

Several studies have been conducted regarding Refuge-related transportation issues, including the 

Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) study in 2006 (Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. 

2006) and interagency TAG study in 2009 (TAG 2009). The ATS study evaluated the feasibility of five 

conceptual alternatives for dealing with transportation issues and the anticipated rise in island visitor 

numbers: 

• No build, which would keep current status; 

• Minor improvements, transportation system management, and transportation demand 

management, which would include some physical or operational changes to increase effective 

capacity through improved management of parking resources or would redistribute demand to 

less busy times;

• Moderate improvements to increase capacity, which would include physical improvements 

such as additional paring and/or widening roads; 

• Voluntary shuttle service with private vehicle access, which would institute a shuttle system 

from a new offsite welcome and orientation facility while continuing to allow private vehicles 

onto the Refuge; 

• Mandatory shuttle service, which would prohibit public parking beyond the entry gate at 

Kīlauea Point NWR and require all visitors to use a shuttle system from an offsite welcome and 

orientation facility. 

The TAG study considered the recommendations of the 2006 ATS study and additionally provided a 

series of non-binding recommendations for the Refuge to consider. In the short- to medium- term, the 

Refuge will adopt an incremental approach and experiment with small-scale operational and 

infrastructure improvements based on TAG recommendations. These options, along with other options 

mentioned above, will be analyzed more thoroughly as part of the TRIP-funded post-CCP 

transportation implementation study. The study will prioritize initial feasibility analysis of these 

initiatives. When implemented on an experimental or demonstration basis, the Service will include an 

evaluation component for these initiatives to determine efficacy and to document a basis for moving 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-34 Chapter 2. Management Direction

forward or not. These initiatives may be tested individually or in combinations. Over the mid- to longterm, the mandatory shuttle service component will be further analyzed in conjunction with other 

proposals (e.g., new visitor welcome and orientation center) via SDMPs and/or other planning. As part 

of the incremental approach, the shuttle may serve various park and ride locations instead of one 

Refuge welcome and orientation center. 

Objective 4.2 Improve visitor information and orientation. 

Improve visitor information and orientation associated with the Refuge with the following attributes:

• Visitors are welcomed and are provided a safe experience; 

• 75% of visitors can identify Kīlauea Point as a national wildlife refuge; 

• Visitors are educated about access options while core staff functions are maintained; 

• Human disturbance to biological resources is minimized. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

Strategies specific to the overall Refuge

a. Develop a Refuge Sign Plan to better direct individuals, enhance orientation, and reduce impacts to 

wildlife within 3 years

b. Continue working with the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and County of Kaua‘i on Refuge 

directional signage for Kūhiō Highway and through Kīlauea Town, and signage to reduce impacts to 

wildlife (e.g., nēnē crossing)

c. Work with DLNR DOFAW, the County, and others on sign design and placement as well as explore 

the use of speed calming devices to reduce vehicle strike hazards for wildlife (e.g., nēnē) 

d. Identify and develop methods to provide greater information to visitors prior to entering the Refuge 

(e.g., volunteers at Overlook, cell phone audio tour at Overlook, AM radio station, rangers onboard 

shuttles to the Refuge, operating hours on highway signage)

e. Every 5 years, evaluate Refuge fees and conduct a visitor survey to evaluate existing programs as 

well as new programs under development, analyze current and potential Refuge visitor profiles, and 

explore visitation trends

f. Ensure public use facilities, interpretive materials, and programs are accessible to and usable by 

persons with various disabilities 

Strategies specific to the Overlook and current entrance

g. Explore options for redesigning and enhancing the scenic Overlook at the entrance to the Refuge to 

provide greater orientation and information and increased interpretation.

h. Explore the establishment of a new offsite visitor welcome and orientation center on lands adjacent 

to or within 1 mile of the Refuge (~3–4 acres), including within Kīlauea Town, which would include 

the following: visitor contact, orientation and information, fee collection, restrooms, bookstore/retail, 

multipurpose room, outdoor spaces, administrative offices, private vehicle and tour bus parking, public 

bus stop, and shuttle pick up/drop off 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-35

Strategies specific to the Point

i. Continue to provide, on an on-call basis, golf carts to transport visitors who may need assistance 

getting to the VC or Lighthouse

j. Provide for greater site orientation

m. Re-examine the site layout at Kīlauea Point and evaluate non–site-dependent functions currently 

located there and move as many as are feasible and possible off the Point (e.g., bookstore, 

administrative and maintenance functions, equipment storage, fee collection, parking) to improve the 

visitor experience 

n. Explore options for remodeling the existing VC for either EE or new interpretive exhibits and 

displays. Maintain bookstore operations at the new visitor welcome and orientation center, if 

constructed

Rationale: Directional signage on Kīlauea and Kolo Roads (both County roads) leading to the Refuge 

is limited with visitors regularly becoming lost in Kīlauea Town. The sign design also varies with 

green, brown, and even homemade signs directing the way. This signage also directs travelers to the 

Kīlauea Lighthouse and makes no reference to the Refuge on which the Lighthouse stands. For a 

majority of visitors, the trip to the Refuge is their first visit to a national wildlife refuge, and their first 

introduction to the Refuge System. Many visitors incorrectly believe the Refuge to be a national park. 

Also, while many who live on the island are aware of the Kīlauea Lighthouse, they are not aware of the 

Refuge. 

The configuration of the Overlook at the entrance to the Refuge at the end of Kīlauea Road, together 

with its constraints, poses challenges to orienting, informing, and guiding visitors clearly down to the 

Point. The current entrance experience is confusing and potentially unsafe for visitors. There is limited 

advance directional or orientation/information signs to help visitors understand how to access the Point 

and see the Lighthouse. Visitors who arrive by car typically park to see the view at the Overlook but 

are confused about whether or not they are supposed to drive or walk past the gate down into the 

Refuge. There are signs, however, they are not readily noticed by the visitor. It is also unclear to 

bicyclists whether or not they are allowed to ride their bicycles past the entrance gate.

After visitors exit their vehicles, there is a lack of information and signage to let them know where they 

can and cannot go. There are several buildings adjacent to the parking areas; however, the Lighthouse, 

restrooms, and VC are not visible from the parking lot. Therefore, visitors are often confused about 

how to get to these facilities, as well as the existing buildings and where they should go. 

Implementation of the long-term strategy to develop a new off-Refuge visitor welcome and orientation

center could resolve many of these issues. It would serve as the gateway to the Refuge where visitors 

could park, be provided an orientation to the Refuge, and board their shuttles and/or start their 

interpretive guided tours and hikes. 

Since the siting and construction of a new visitor welcome and orientation center is conceptual and not 

site-specific, implementation would require additional compliance, involving site-specific effects 

analysis.

The location of the new visitor welcome and orientation center, as well as other facilities to support 

Refuge management (see Objectives 4.1 and 6.1), would likely be guided by a number of site selection 

criteria which may include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Reasonable cost.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-36 Chapter 2. Management Direction

• Availability at the time when the Refuge had adequate funds to move forward on such a large 

project.

• Within 1 mile of the existing established Refuge boundary. 

• Consistency with local land use plans.

• Sufficient in size (at least 3 to 4 acres) to accommodate all needed facilities, including parking, 

shuttle access, and possibly maintenance building/yard.

• Existing facilities that could be modified to satisfy needs or a readily developable site. 

• Good access to existing or planned roads (Kīlauea Road, Kūhiō Highway, or Kīlauea Town 

Bypass).

• Accessible by bus, bicycle, and walking. 

• Existing parking area (including one that could accommodate shuttle buses) that could be 

shared with others or a site where such parking could be readily developed. 

• Existing utilities (e.g., electricity, potable water, high-speed internet, and sewer).

• A relatively level site that would require minimal recontouring to accommodate the proposed 

facilities.

• A site that was or could readily be made secure.

• Building site would be located in an already developed or disturbed area. 

• Co-location with another conservation organization (e.g., the U.S. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s marine sanctuary discovery center on Kaua‘i [NOAA 2011]) or 

another Federal, Hawai‘i, or local public agency.

• Views of the Kīlauea Point Lighthouse, ocean, or mountains. 

• Construction and management would have negligible negative effects on trust resources (e.g., 

federally listed species, migratory birds)

• Construction and management would not be anticipated to reduce the quality or quantity or 

fragment habitat for trust resources.

Through a subsequent planning effort, the Service would explore the benefits, costs, and impacts of 

each potential site and work with the community to determine the ideal location, considering the needs 

of the Refuge and the intent of the Kīlauea Town Plan and other plans. 

Objective 4.3 Enhance and expand environmental interpretation. 

Improve interpretive opportunities associated with the Refuge. The program shall include the following 

attributes:

• Hawai‘i’s unique cultural heritage is woven throughout the interpretive experience; 

• Visitors are exposed to at least one of the three interpretive themes:

o The National Wildlife Refuge System: The Refuge, part of a legacy of lands, reserved 

by the people of the United States, where wildlife comes first.

o Seabirds & Native Coastal Plants: The Refuge abounds with seabirds passing through 

the cycles of life and balancing on the edge of survival, while plant communities thrive 

in the harsh coastal environment. 

o Kīlauea Point Light Station: The Kīlauea Point Light Station has marked the passage 

of Kaua‘i’s history . . . it was once a beacon calling to those crossing the vast expanses 

of the Pacific; now it calls upon all of us to protect the Native Hawaiian ecosystem.

• 90% of visitors understand that Kīlauea Point is part of a system of lands administered and 

managed by the Service for wildlife and plant conservation; 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-37

• 80% of visitors can name at least two seabird species that uses the Refuge during some part of 

their life history and at least one native plant; 

• 70% of visitors understand that the Kīlauea Lighthouse played a prominent role in trans-Pacific 

navigation;

• Minimize human disturbance to biological resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Within 5 years, prepare an interpretive chapter of the KNWRC Visitor Service Plan

b. Develop orientation materials and/or train Service staff, volunteers, partners and tour operators to 

ensure understanding of the significant resources and messages that the interpretive program should be 

addressing

c. Develop exhibit themes, including interpretive exhibits and associated media at the VC and other 

visitor contact points, and/or observation viewpoints

d. Explore options to provide greater flexibility in interpretive exhibits and signage to allow for 

seasonal depictions (e.g., detachable interpretive panels)

e. Expand opportunities to provide limited access to the interior of the Lighthouse

f. Explore possibilities for increasing the frequency of lighting of the Lighthouse (currently once per 

year)

g. Expand current and new partnerships to maximize effectiveness and efficiency of interpretive 

programs 

h. Continue to evaluate items sold in the bookstore to ensure they reinforce key messages and the 

mission and goals of the Service. Include interpretive messaging whenever possible

i. Regularly evaluate visitor perceptions of resources and interpretive programming (e.g., informal 

discussion, observations by staff)

j. Develop methodologies that will be used for future evaluation of existing interpretive programs and 

new ones under development

k. Every 5–10 years, conduct an analysis of visitation trends and their implications for interpretation

l. Continue to provide guided interpretive activities as staff is available

m. Remodel the VC for interpretative displays (or EE facility, see Objective 4.4)

n. Increase the number of guided interpretive activities to at least 1 per day

o. Remodel the Contact Station (radio beacon building) to provide expanded interpretation and/or 

scenic view (expand scenic view)

p. Explore the restoration and conversion of one of the former Lighthouse keeper’s homes (Quarters 

#1) to house other functions (living history site, bookstore offsite)

q. Offer a limited number (2 times/week) of guided interpretive hikes to Crater Hill designed (location 

of trail, timing, group size) to have negligible negative effects on breeding birds yet provide a quality 

experience for visitors (see Objective 4.5)

r. Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community leaders of Kīlauea to develop 

environmental, cultural, and historical interpretation materials for Kāhili Quarry. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-38 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Rationale: As one of the Service’s priority public uses, environmental interpretation is an important 

management activity for the Refuge. Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional 

and intellectual connections by providing opportunities for visitors to make their own connection to the 

resources. Messages and stories are often delivered through guided interpreters, self-guided interpretive 

panels, interpretive exhibits, printed materials, interpretive art, and electronic media.

The visitor is first welcomed to the Point at the fee collection booth. The ranger on duty assists in 

orienting visitors, answering their questions, informing them about wildlife activity that day, and 

advising the visitor of Refuge services offered at the VC and Contact Station, such as free binoculars 

for loan while on Refuge and docent interpretive services. Volunteers are the primary means of 

personal interpretation on the Refuge. Between 2010 and 2013, the number of volunteers ranged from 

103–115 annually, providing between 6,410 and 8,523 hours of service per year (USFWS 2014). The 

majority of these hours were dedicated to the VS program. Volunteers help visitors use the viewing 

scopes and binoculars, identify species, point out and provide information about wildlife behavior, and 

provide interpretation about the Lighthouse, the Refuge, and its resources. Under optimum conditions, 

there are at least two volunteers on duty, with one volunteer operating an on-call golf cart to help 

visitors who may need assistance getting from the parking lot to the VC or Lighthouse. The Point, as 

well as the area surrounding the Lighthouse, is staffed almost entirely by volunteers. 

The Refuge has a number of interpretive panels around the Point highlighting native and nonnative 

plants and wildlife. Some of the panels were done at different times, using different styles, approaches 

and materials. These panels are appealing, of a good size, and are well-placed to be visible but not 

obtrusive. The most recent panels were completed in 1999. The panels are permanent and are in place 

year-round. Wildlife at the Refuge is seasonal. For example, whales and albatross are found in the 

winter months. Thus, this can cause some confusion for the visitor. 

In 1987, Congressional funding provided for the design and construction of an EE Center. Today, the 

main floor of this facility serves as the VC and houses interpretive exhibits, as well as a bookstore 

operated by KPNHA. When entering the Center, people are often expecting to see exhibits relating to 

the Kīlauea Point Light Station or the wildlife at the Refuge. However, some of the exhibits are only 

tangentially related or fully irrelevant to the site. This may prove disorienting to the visitor who may 

have expectations of finding information regarding the Refuge. In addition, the exhibits are badly worn. 

They are out of date and interpretive messaging for children is lacking.

Over the years the interpretive exhibits have been expanded upon by the KPNHA bookstore operations 

and the building has moved away from its primary intended function of education. In a survey 

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, it was noted that visitors did not expect to see a bookstore 

where they had anticipated interpretive exhibits (Sexton et al. 2011). The VC has become cluttered and 

is often very crowded. The design of the VC building itself is also out of context with the historic 

nature of the Kīlauea Point Light Station. The building requires a high level of routine maintenance. 

The Contact Station is located at the tip of the Kīlauea Point Peninsula. Currently, the building contains 

an interpretive display on the history of Kīlauea Lighthouse, a desk staffed by volunteer docents, 

binoculars for loan, as well as an area to sit and watch a video about the Refuge. It also provides a 

place for visitors to escape from the rain, wind, or warm tropical sun. The building was originally 

designed to house radio equipment associated with the Lighthouse so it has a small number of 

windows, not allowing one to take in the expansive coastal views. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-39

One of the most popular and notable features of the Refuge is the historic Kīlauea Lighthouse, which 

was list on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. Since restoration, visits into the Lighthouse 

are only possible on a guided tour. Since Lighthouse Day (the first Saturday in May) in 2014, the 

Refuge started offering guided tours weekly, dependent upon staff and volunteers’ availability. Guided 

tours require temporary modifications of the interior and an intensive staff and volunteer effort. 

Overall, the frequency of opportunities for the public to experience the interior of the Lighthouse on 

guided tours is variable; tours may in the future occur more frequently or less frequently than once per 

week depending upon the availability of staff and volunteers. 

As a primary host to visitors of Hawai‘i, the Refuge has the responsibility to learn about and interpret 

Hawai‘i’s unique culture as well as its evolution into modern society. Sharing the ancient beliefs and 

practices, cultural histories, traditional stories, chants, place names, and geographic divisions, as well 

as relaying the fact that the Refuge Complex continues to support the perpetuation of traditional 

cultural practices such as taro farming at Hanalei NWR and access for fishing at Kīlauea (East) Cove, 

are a few ways that Kīlauea Point NWR is incorporating Hawai‘i’s culture into our environmental 

interpretation. Additionally, the Refuge will work with local nonprofit organizations such as the 

Kīlauea Neighborhood Association, ʻĀina Hoʻokupu o Kīlauea, KPNHA, and the Kauaʻi branch of 

Hawaiian Islands Land Trust, and community leaders of Kīlauea to develop environmental, cultural, 

and historical interpretation materials for Kāhili Quarry.

Objective 4.4 Enhance and expand environmental education. 

Provide a high-quality EE program associated with the Refuge for at least 2,000 students annually. This 

program should emphasize the natural and cultural history of the Refuge, as well as the role and 

importance of national wildlife refuges. The EE program should include the following attributes:

• Focus on students in the pre-kindergarten and elementary grades on the Island of Kaua‘i;

• Tier to (or achieves) formal education standards (State, national);

• Incorporate measurable learning objectives and utilizes audience-appropriate curricula;

• Support and complement the Service’s mission, as well as the Refuge’s purposes and goals; 

• Support the Service’s “Connecting People with Nature” emphasis; 

• Minimize human disturbance to biological resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Utilize interns and volunteers to assist in facilitating the EE program (schedule school groups, 

develop curriculum, make presentations, conducts visits)

b. Continue to partner with KPNHA to provide support for the Refuge’s EE program, including school 

bus funding

c. Enhance current partnerships and explore new partnerships to maximize the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the EE program by working with groups of similar interest or with shared goals

d. Increase or enhance the partnerships with local, State and national EE organizations (e.g., Hawai‘i 

Environmental Education Alliance (HEEA), North American Association for Environmental Education 

(NAAEE). Continue participation in Statewide natural resource interpretation and EE initiatives 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-40 Chapter 2. Management Direction

e. Annually disseminate current EE program guidelines and activities offered to all educators within the 

target audience 

f. Ensure EE programs are accessible to and usable by children of various abilities. Utilize special 

teaching approaches, equipment, or care as necessary

g. On a yearly basis, define and measure results of all EE programs and modify current programs as 

needed to maximize the effectiveness of future efforts

h. Review the Refuge’s EE programs on a regular basis with a focus group of those involved with 

education at the pre-K and elementary level to ensure programs are addressing the identified 

environmental, educational, and community needs 

i. Update curricula and materials as necessary to ensure that programs support and complement the 

Service’s mission and current initiatives, as well as the Refuge’s purposes and goals

j. Develop a multifaceted Junior Ranger program to reach all ages of young visitors to the Refuge

k. Design and implement a training program that provides regular training for staff, volunteers, and 

other presenters or educators to ensure a highly qualified and trained cadre

l. Work with partners to provide teacher training workshops, and explore opportunities to introduce the 

KNWRC’s EE program in pre-service (teacher certification) training at Kaua‘i Community College 

m. Maintain the KNWRC’s Website to promote current educational opportunities, post curricula, and 

other learning resources 

n. Re-examine the site layout of Kīlauea Point to improve the facilitation of EE. Convert an existing 

structure to a designated facility/facilities for EE (not Quarters #2)

Rationale: As one of the Service’s priority public uses, EE is an important management activity for the 

Refuge. EE plays a key role in encouraging current and future generations to engage in 

environmentally responsible behavior like supporting the protection of habitat for wildlife through the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. With the assistance of interns and volunteers, the Refuge conducts 

EE programs throughout the year with the greatest number of students visiting January–May. Between 

2010 and 2013, education participants involved in on- and offsite EE programs ranged from 7,200 to 

12,032 (USFWS 2014). Due to the wide variety of age groups which the EE program currently serves 

(toddlers through college students) and the wide variety of subjects which the Refuge staff is asked to 

teach, the staff is often responding to individual requests and scrambling to create a new program for 

each one. By partnering with others to develop and implement a standards-compliant Refuge-based 

curriculum for all ages and abilities, the Refuge will be able to reach more students and community 

groups with a goal of developing an aware and environmentally literate citizenry. The Refuge will also 

conduct trainings and outreach (e.g., through the Website) for staff, volunteers, teachers, and other 

educators in order to promote the EE program. KPNHA provides funding for bus transportation for 

schools that visit the Refuge, which is a significant contribution to the EE program and will continue 

into future. 

The winding, narrow, and steep Refuge entrance road causes complications for EE programming, as 

the road cannot safely accommodate a school bus and regular visitor traffic at the same time. Because 

of this, school groups participating in EE programs generally arrive at the Refuge at 8:30 a.m., before 

the Refuge opens, which requires accommodation from staff. This way they can easily maneuver the 

roadway and have adequate room to park. The children also have the Point to themselves and are not 

distracted by the large number of visitors. However, the grassy areas where buses park is nēnē habitat 

and when the Refuge receives a heavy rain, these parking areas become muddy and soft. Although 

most school groups try to leave before 10:00 a.m., they often leave after the Refuge has opened, which 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-41

then requires a minimum of two staff to assist in safely getting the children through the busy parking 

lot to their bus, as well as to stop traffic to allow the bus to exit the Refuge. By departing at 10:00 a.m., 

this leaves only 1 hour for the EE program given loading, unloading, restroom breaks, etc., which does 

not lend itself to a high-quality EE program. 

Given the small time window during which EE is offered (8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) many schools on the 

west, south, and even east side of the island are unable to make it to the Refuge during this timeframe 

given the time it takes to travel to the Refuge. Only 7 percent of Kaua‘i’s public and charter school 

students (K-12) are within a 20-minute drive of the Refuge. For a majority, 68 percent, it is at least a 

40-minute drive to get to the Refuge and for nearly 30 percent it takes more than an hour. 

Consequently, the strategies under Objective 4.1 will facilitate EE programming by improving access 

and logistics. 

In 1987, Congressional funding provided for the design and construction of an EE Center. Today, the 

main floor of this facility serves as the VC and houses the bookstore operated by KPNHA. The bottom 

floor of the VC has a multi-purpose room. This multi-purpose room also serves as the Refuge’s 

meeting room, volunteer meetings and trainings, as well as KPNHA staff and board meetings. It is also 

frequently utilized by KPNHA to receive, sort, tag, and organize their merchandise. The limited 

amount of large indoor space on the Refuge leads to room conflicts. Also, the size of the multi-purpose 

room is often insufficient for EE programs. As such, the Contact Station adjacent to the Lighthouse is 

frequently used for EE, but staff often find they are racing to pack up their EE supplies and reorganize 

the room as visitors begin arriving at the Refuge. From 1997 to 2007, a portion of the bottom floor also 

provided office space for the Refuge’s EE Specialist. It currently provides office space for three 

KPNHA staff members, and storage for KPNHA supplies and merchandise. Converting an existing 

structure to a designated facility/facilities for EE will alleviate the room conflicts and space issues.

Objective 4.5 Enhance and expand wildlife observation and photography. 

Visitors are provided compatible opportunities to participate in wildlife photography and observation 

with the following attributes:

• Minimum of 75% of visitors identify the Refuge as a place for premier wildlife viewing and 

photography on Kaua‘i;

• High diversity of native wildlife species (seabirds, nēnē, marine mammals, turtles); 

• Minimize human disturbance to biological resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Continue to provide free viewing scopes as well as binoculars for loan, and expand the program to 

include quality field identification guides for loan

b. Continue to work with KPNHA to provide wildlife viewing tools and books for purchase

c. Continue to work with existing partners and explore new partnership opportunities to provide a 

variety of quality opportunities for wildlife observation and photography (e.g., photography and 

wildlife art workshops) 

d. Provide current and accurate information online and onsite including wildlife checklists for both avid 

and casual wildlife watchers, Refuge maps, seasonal highlights, sightings, migration information, and 

wildlife counts
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-42 Chapter 2. Management Direction

e. Promote wildlife observation and photography opportunities through brochures, news releases, 

displays, and special events. Include messages on good wildlife observation and photography practices 

to minimize disturbance

f. Clearly identify closed areas and direct visitors to comparable alternative sites both on- or off-Refuge

g. Promote the Refuge’s designation as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by the Audubon Society and 

explore further designation of the Refuge as an IBA by the American Bird Conservancy

h. Work with the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and the County of Kaua‘i to incorporate the 

international binocular symbol on direction signs to identify the Refuge as a watchable wildlife location

i. Expand program offerings, workshops, activities, and exhibits used to teach and enhance wildlife 

viewing skills and ethics

j. Increase compatible opportunities for up-close and personal viewing of wildlife (e.g., remote 

cameras, observation/photo blinds, guided ranger and/or volunteer led hikes) 

k. Expand citizen science opportunities (e.g., Christmas Bird Count)

l. Increase staff visibility among wildlife clubs/organizations (e.g., engage at meetings, conferences, 

and/or events, participate in listservs, host field trips or other events)

m. Offer guided interpretive hikes 2 times/week to Crater Hill designed (location of trail, timing, group 

size) to have negligible negative effects on breeding birds yet provide a quality experience for visitors. 

Impacts to Seacliff Plantation residents and their roads will be considered as access options are 

developed

Rationale: Observation and photography of wildlife and nature promote public understanding and 

appreciation for the Refuge’s natural resources. The Refuge is one of the best accessible locations in 

the main Hawaiian Islands for viewing and photographing wildlife as it has a high diversity of breeding 

birds at one location. Six to eight species of seabirds, as well as Hawai‘i’s state bird, the nēnē, can 

readily be seen by the majority of visitors. The sheer number of birds, as well as their proximity, makes 

for an extremely high-quality viewing and photography experience. The National Oceanic Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) also administers the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) in the waters surrounding the Refuge, and endangered koholā (humpback 

whales) are readily seen offshore and photographed from December to April. Groups of nai‘a (spinner 

dolphins), ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal), and honu (green sea turtle) can also be seen from 

the Point. 

While the best viewing opportunities are on the Kīlauea Point Peninsula, additional opportunities are 

provided at the Overlook at the entrance to the Refuge, as well as on Crater Hill and Kāhili Quarry. 

They also provide a different perspective than is provided from the peninsula. As discussed previously, 

the current configuration of the Overlook together with the site’s constraints pose challenges to 

orienting and informing visitors. 

The Refuge receives regular inquiries about the reinstitution of Crater Hill hikes from both visitors and 

the community. Refuge staff recognize the value of Crater Hill for wildlife observation and 

photography and the unique experience it provides. However, these hikes were suspended in 2003 due 

to concerns over disturbance to active burrows of breeding ‘ua‘u kani and a colony of nesting ‘ā at 

levels that likely affected bird survival and reproduction. In addition, the lack of personnel to 

adequately maintain trails and maintain a state of preparedness for emergency situations was a liability 

issue for the Refuge. Consequently, the use was at that time deemed incompatible with the Refuge 

System mission and Refuge purposes. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-43

In the CCP’s compatibility determination for wildlife observation and photography (Appendix B), 

access to trails at Crater Hill for wildlife observation and photography was determined to be compatible 

when performed under certain stipulations, including a required Refuge staff or trained volunteer guide, 

minimum age, maximum group size, and limited frequency. With the exception of special, free hikes 

during National Wildlife Refuge Week, reservations will be required and adults (16 years or older) will

be charged a moderate fee to join these hikes. The Service will assess erosion and compaction on trails, 

and wildlife effects of visitation (e.g., disturbance and crushing of burrows) on Crater Hill and 

elsewhere, and develop solutions to any problems. If monitoring reveals that levels of use or associated

impacts exceed those envisioned in the compatibility determination, the use will be re-evaluated and 

modified to ensure it remains compatible or terminated if found not compatible. 

In the future, in addition to enhancing and expanding opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography, the Refuge will seek to better promote the opportunities. Currently, general information 

about the wildlife is provided on the Refuge’s Website; however, it does not include information such 

as current highlights, sightings, or wildlife counts. A wildlife checklist is offered onsite but is directed 

at avid wildlife watchers. Viewing scopes are set up in multiple locations around the Point and 

binoculars are provided for loan in order to enhance wildlife viewing; however, other options such as 

remote cameras, observation/photo blinds, and guided ranger and/or volunteer-led hikes will be 

explored to broaden the types of offerings available.

Objective 4.6 Reduce wildlife disturbance, habitat degradation, and user conflict potential while 

increasing public safety for visitors to Kāhili Quarry. 

Visitors at Kāhili Quarry are provided opportunities to participate in wildlife-dependent uses (fishing, 

wildlife photography, and observation) and have access to adjacent off-Refuge areas (Kāhili Beach, 

Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River) for boating and other stream, beach, and ocean uses such as 

snorkeling, sun bathing, surfing, swimming, and walking, including dog walking, with the following 

attributes:

• Build community stewardship of the Quarry area; 

• Minimize human disturbance to biological resources; 

• Enhance visitor safety.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Work with Kīlauea community to maintain a passable road to the beach and shoreline. The road will

be repaired and maintained to a standard approved by both the Service and the County of Kaua‘i (e.g., 

using crushed coral).

b. Post the jurisdictional boundary, as appropriate, within the Quarry area

c. Explore the possibility of cooperatively managing tidelands with the State

d. Replace the existing fence with a predator-resistant fence in a modified alignment for approximately 

600 feet, following the base of vegetation growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point

e. Install bollards at the northeast end of the Quarry area to protect seabird nesting areas
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-44 Chapter 2. Management Direction

f. Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community leaders of Kīlauea on 

promoting community stewardship of the Quarry through habitat protection; monitoring and managing 

threats to natural and cultural resources; outreach; and environmental, cultural, and historical 

interpretation

g. Partner with community groups to develop welcome and orientation, educational, and interpretive 

signage and messaging

h. General public access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River through the Kāhili 

Quarry area will be allowed 24 hours a day. 

i. Allow visitors to bring and use portable stoves or self-contained barbeques (e.g., off-the-ground 

portable enclosed fires), or fires within a Refuge-designated fire ring, or pit. Refuge-designated fire 

rings or pits will be sited to minimize the potential spread of uncontrolled fires. Visitors will need to 

bring charcoal or firewood. Fires must be attended at all times

j. All dogs brought into the Quarry area will be required to be leashed on a short (8-foot maximum) 

leash and under control at all times and will not be allowed to run free 

k. Explore opportunities for an overnight site host program through Special Use Permits to provide 

resource protection, outreach and interpretation, and compliance monitoring 

l. Work with the community stewardship partnership to explore opportunities for providing camping. 

Stipulations would need to ensure that camping opportunities are compatible 

m. Visitors will be allowed to erect temporary shelters (protections from the sun and rain) in the Quarry 

area during daylight hours only

Rationale: The Kāhili Quarry area, located on the south side of Mōkōlea Point, shows signs of many 

years of heavy public use, including vehicle use. The area has several fire pits, trash, and abandoned 

motor vehicles. At the south end of the area, between the unimproved dirt and gravel road and the 

Kīlauea River, there are cleared areas that have been used for camping and a small boat slide. The area 

has also been occasionally used by squatters.

The Service recognizes the importance of Kāhili Quarry to the community for its natural and cultural 

resources and its recreational value. We are committed to building trust and relationships to help foster 

community stewardship of this area which will lead to increased involvement in safeguarding and 

perpetuating natural resource preservation at the Quarry. A community partnership will also help to 

leverage the Service’s limited resources. In combination with other strategies, adverse impacts to 

wildlife and habitats will be limited.

Public access to off-Refuge areas (Kīlauea River, Kīlauea Bay, and Kāhili Beach) through the Kāhili 

Quarry area of the Refuge for fishing, boating, and other stream, beach, and ocean uses (e.g., surfing, 

swimming, sunbathing, snorkeling, and walking, including dog walking) will be allowed 24 hours a 

day. Fishing on the Refuge occurring in the ocean at Kāhili Quarry and in the estuary of Kīlauea River 

will continue to be allowed on a 24-hour basis in accordance with State regulations (see also Section 

2.3.1). 

Access to the Kāhili Quarry area is either by motor vehicle, foot, horse, or bicycle down Kāhili Quarry 

Road, a rough, unimproved dirt and gravel road; by boat from the ocean or across Kīlauea River; or by 

wading or swimming across Kīlauea River. The Refuge owns a small portion of Kāhili Quarry Road 

from the Refuge boundary to the end of a parking area near the estuary of Kīlauea River. The Service 

will continue to work with the Kīlauea community to maintain a passable road to the beach and 

shoreline. The road will be repaired and maintained to a standard approved by both the Service and the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-45

County of Kaua‘i (e.g., using crushed coral). The Service will post its jurisdictional boundary, as 

appropriate, within the Quarry area. The Service will also explore the possibility of working with the 

State to cooperatively manage the tidelands adjoining Kāhili Quarry through interagency cooperative 

agreement or other mechanisms. Cooperative management of this area would contribute to achieving 

the Service’s mission, Refuge’s purposes, and would help meet several of our goals by allowing us to 

protect wildlife resources through oversight of public use activities and Refuge law enforcement.

A predator-resistant fence constructed to replace the existing fence will be in a modified alignment for 

approximately 600 feet, following the base of vegetation growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea 

Point. It is hoped that the new fence will reduce the potential for wildlife and habitat impacts from both 

trespassing humans and nonnative predators, such as free-roaming dogs. 

To prevent adverse impacts to habitat due to the potential spread of uncontrolled fires, fires will only be 

allowed within portable stoves or self-contained barbeques (e.g., off-the-ground portable enclosed 

fires), or within a Refuge-designated fire ring, or pit. Refuge-designated fire rings or pits will be sited 

to minimize the risk of spread. Visitors will need to bring charcoal or firewood; harvesting of firewood 

on the Refuge is prohibited. Fires must be attended at all times. 

Dogs will be allowed at Kāhili Quarry; however, all dogs must be on a short leash (8 feet or less) and 

under control at all times. Free-roaming dogs can harass, injure, or kill wildlife. On Kaua‘i, freeroaming dogs have killed shearwaters and mōlī at nesting colonies, sometimes in large numbers in a 

single incident (Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 2013a and 2013b). 

Other stipulations required to ensure the compatibility of uses at Kāhili Quarry are enumerated in 

Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations. 

There is also a separate but overlapping nonexclusive access easement in favor of Seacliff Plantation 

(formerly the Pali Moana Corporation) for beach access, parking, and emergency and maintenance 

operations over and across Kāhili Quarry Road. This access, intended solely for use by the named party 

in the easement, is subject to reasonable rules and regulations for the protection of wildlife, including 

those mentioned above.

Objective 4.7 Enhance and expand outreach.

Enhance and expand outreach associated with the Refuge with the following attributes:

• Support the Refuge’s goals and foster public awareness of the Service and its mission; 

• Convey and reinforce the following message across all Refuge programs: 

 “The Service helps Americans conserve and enjoy the outdoors”;

• Incorporate outreach goals, designate target audiences, and identify key messages;

• Provide consistent and timely information to decision makers, community leaders, and the 

public; 

• Focus on improving and building long-term relationships with our partners and the community.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-46 Chapter 2. Management Direction

a. Identify key themes and messages that support Refuge goals and related local, regional, and national 

conservation priorities (e.g., ‘a‘o conservation, avian disease, predator threats) 

b. Identify target audiences, including community, political, economic and social leaders, conservation 

groups, resource users, the news media, and other Federal, State, and local agencies

c. Explore various outreach tools, including new media technology, and strategies to reach each of the 

individual target audiences

d. Invite elected officials and their staff to an annual site visit and face-to-face meeting at the Refuge

e. Provide the news media with accurate and current information which meets their deadline needs

f. Provide media with at least one Refuge related story a year

g. Partner with offsite opportunities (e.g., organizations, initiatives, programs, special events) to 

maximize outreach effectiveness and efficiency. Incorporate Refuge messages when there is a high 

potential of reaching target audiences. Meet regularly to discuss common challenges and collaborative 

opportunities 

h. Review current and potential onsite special events. Determine at least two annual events with goals 

that best reach the target audience, deliver key messages, and strengthen our connection with the 

community 

i. Increase visibility in the community via various outreach tools (e.g., Kīlauea Neighborhood 

Association established communications efforts, radio segments, evening lectures, workshops, 

presentations at meetings) 

j. Ensure outreach and information programs are accessible to and usable by persons with various 

disabilities

k. Review all existing and potential publications to determine whether they meet the Service’s and the 

Refuge’s communication needs, are effectively distributed, and meet graphic standards. Revise or 

eliminate as necessary

l. Monitor and evaluate results of outreach by obtaining feedback from the targeted audience to 

determine whether they comprehend the outreach message. Modify current programs as needed to 

maximize the effectiveness of future efforts

m. Engage all staff in regular face-to-face visits with organizational opinion leaders and decisionmakers 

n. Encourage employees to join professional organizations and community organizations to enhance 

Service professionalism and support

o. On a regular basis, evaluate all outreach products. Keep a detailed list of what products are 

produced, how many are distributed, and document when and where they are used

p. Provide staff with opportunities for outreach training (e.g., outreach basics, building community 

support, working with news media, congressional operations) 

q. Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community leaders of Kīlauea to develop 

outreach materials for Kāhili Quarry. 

Rationale: The mission of the Service is, “working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” As reflected 

in the first three words, the Service acknowledges that it cannot effectively carry out its enormous 

natural resource management mission single-handedly. Thus, outreach is needed to enlist the support of 

a wide range of publics by improving communications with them. The fundamental purpose of Service 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-47 

outreach is to build understanding, trust, and support from a variety of groups by helping the various 

publics understand who the Service is, what we do, and why we do it. 

Most of the Refuge’s current outreach efforts have been conducted on an ad hoc basis to meet the needs 

of an individual event or program. While this has resulted in favorable results in some individual 

instances, its overall effect has been a “scattershot” approach to communications. Existing resources 

dedicated to outreach are limited. Refuge staff often notes that the public confuses the Service with 

State wildlife agencies and the National Park Service. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most are not 

aware of who the Service is, while an even greater number are not aware of what the Service does or 

why it does this work. Messages describing how the Service is different from other government 

agencies, how national wildlife refuges are different from other public lands and why the Service’s 

work is important to people are currently absent. 

Studies show that people believe information received from peers and community authority figures 

(kūpuna, teachers, ministers, etc.) more than they do newspapers and sources outside the community 

(Rogers 2003). Therefore, as part of improving relations with the community, connections with these 

individuals need to be maintained. In addition to the community, there are several other key publics, 

and there are a variety of reasons why they are important to include in outreach. All of the Service 

publics are constituents of elected officials and good communication with elected officials is essential 

for the Service to be effective and responsive to the American public. 

Conservation groups have a great interest in resource management, and their support or lack of it 

influences other publics. Businesses, both small and large, can be a source of funding or support 

through partnerships. Other Federal agencies, as well as State and local governments, can help give 

momentum to Service initiatives, and their support can enhance a project’s likelihood of success. 

Finally, the news media can directly influence virtually all other publics. Each of these different publics 

can have a significant bearing on how or whether the Service accomplishes its mission and the Refuge 

achieve its goals. 

Objective 4.8 Enhance and expand volunteer and Friends group opportunities. 

Improve volunteer and Friends group opportunities associated with the Refuge with the following 

attributes: 

 Provide effective training and program management; 

 Support and complement the Service mission and current initiatives; 

 Increase visibility and foster conservation; 

 Support a variety of Refuge programs/activities and increase their effectiveness; 

 Encourage community involvement and strengthen relationships. 

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Develop a general orientation packet and orientation checklist that provides new volunteers, interns, 

KPNHA staff, and board members with general information on the Service and the Refuge

b. Regularly review and update handbooks and training materials to ensure they are current, and 

support and complement the Service’s current initiatives as well as the Refuge’s purposes and goals
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-48 Chapter 2. Management Direction

c. Expand efforts and explore various tools and strategies to provide effective, up-to-date, and accurate 

communication to volunteers, interns, and KPNHA staff

d. Regularly recognize volunteers, interns, as well as KPNHA for their contributions

e. Continue coordination with KPNHA through consistent and regular communication and regular 

attendance at meetings and events

f. Review and amend, as necessary, the KPNHA Cooperative Agreement/Memorandum of

Understanding 

g. Enhance and expand existing volunteer/intern program (complete needs assessment and create new 

position descriptions for volunteers and interns, recruit, and train) to a corps of at least 200 volunteers 

and interns in order to support a greater variety of Refuge programs 

h. Develop a volunteer program that combines resource management (e.g., pest control, plant 

restoration) with interpretation (e.g., guided hike and birding on Crater Hill)

i. Expand current and new partnerships to maximize volunteer/intern recruitment and training efforts, 

as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the program

j. Design and implement a training program, including a training manual, that provides regularly 

scheduled training for volunteers, interns, and KPNHA staff for all Refuge program areas, not just VS

k. Every 5 years, obtain feedback and suggestions from volunteers and interns through a feedback 

form, survey, or other instrument

l. Provide an orientation for Refuge staff on how to effectively work with volunteers and interns

m. Host at least 2 community work days per year (e.g., National Public Lands Day, Martin Luther King 

Day of Service, National Volunteer Week) that reach at least 100 people annually

n. Strengthen coordination with KPNHA through an annual whole-day planning meeting to develop an 

action plan for the upcoming year which includes goals, benchmarks, roles, timelines, implementation 

strategies, and evaluation needs

o. Strengthen coordination with KPNHA to implement relevant CCP-related goals, objectives, and 

strategies to ensure a clear, shared vision which meets the Refuge’s purpose 

Rationale: Staff recognize that the volunteer program is a critical part of the Refuge workforce, and 

that it benefits all programs and goals and strengthens community relations. This is especially true in 

times of static or declining budgets. Due to the limited number of staff, the Refuge relies on assistance 

from Refuge volunteers and its partnership with KPNHA, a Refuge Friends Group, to provide visitor 

services such as interpretation and environmental education and habitat management (e.g., native plant 

restoration, banding birds, controlling introduced predators, and monitoring). Annually, volunteers 

contribute as many hours as more than 4.5 full-time employees. For more information on the volunteer 

program, see Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2. In the future, successful implementation of Refuge programs 

will require the use of partnerships, including expanding work with KPNHA and recruiting, training, 

and retaining more volunteers.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-49

2.4.5 Goal 5: Identify, protect, evaluate, and interpret the cultural (including 

historic) resources and heritage of the Refuge while consulting with Native 

Hawaiian organizations and preservation partners and complying with 

historic preservation legislation. 

Objective 5.1 Implement a proactive cultural resource management program that focuses on 

meeting the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and related legislation, 

including consultation, identification, inventory, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Comply with Section 106 of the NHPA when conducting ground-disturbing activities. Identify 

cultural resources that coincide with existing and planned roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat 

projects. Consult with Native Hawaiian organizations and interested parties. Evaluate cultural resources 

for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Avoid or offset impacts as necessary

b. Develop and maintain liaison with Native Hawaiian organizations, historical institutions, and other 

preservation partners for research, interpretation, and protection of cultural resources

c. Conduct archival research and communication with Native Hawaiian organizations, kūpuna, 

communities, and institutions to document the stories, occupation, and land use history of the Refuge

d. Prepare a cultural resource overview of the Refuge and SDMP by compiling a library of pertinent 

cultural resource sites, surveys, historical documents, maps, GIS files, and prepare a report that 

presents this information within 4 years of CCP completion

e. Conduct a field inventory and evaluation of cultural resources identified and predicted by the 

archival research and communication program described above in concert with the information 

provided by the cultural resources overview

f. Establish a Refuge-specific protocol for handling discoveries of human remains, burial objects, 

sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony in accordance with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and in partnership with Native Hawaiian organizations within 

1 year of CCP completion

g. Orient and train staff to recognize and be sensitive to cultural resources

h. Investigate and evaluate nomination of the Refuge as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP)

i. Re-inventory and re-evaluate for designation to the National Register of Historic Places the Crater 

Hill radar station (State Historic Site 50-30-04-1810), and Mōkōlea Point sugar loading complex (State 

Historic Site 50-30-04-1811) 

Rationale: Cultural resources are irreplaceable and essential elements of Hawai‘i’s heritage. The 

National Historic Protection Act of 1966, Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, and related legislation require the 

Service to implement the kind of program described under this objective. 

The National Register of Historic Places contains a wide range of historic property types, reflecting the 

diversity of the Nation’s history and culture. TCP’s provide a "historic property" framework in order to 

consider intangible resources (places) of a culture, typically without structured or stated boundaries. A 

TCP can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-50 Chapter 2. Management Direction

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community’s 

history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker 

1998).

Objective 5.2 Create and implement, in cooperation with preservation partners, a program to 

maintain, restore, reuse, and interpret the Kīlauea Point Light Station.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Prepare or update historic structure reports for each element of the Kīlauea Point Light Station within 

3 years of CCP completion

b. Prepare a historic structure treatment plan that addresses the needs, priorities, costs, and schedule for 

maintenance, restoration, and reuse of each element of the Kīlauea Point Light Station within 5 years of 

CCP completion 

c. Consult with historical societies, and other preservation partners to identify and prepare interpretive 

media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that relates the story of the Kīlauea Point Light Station for 

visitors

d. Develop an outreach program and materials so that cultural resource messages become part of events 

in the area, including the State’s Archaeology Month, National Wildlife Refuge Week, and appropriate 

local festivals

Rationale: The Kīlauea Point Light Station is nationally significant for its associations with maritime 

history and U.S. military history as well as for its unique architectural characteristics. The Kīlauea 

Point Light Station lens is one of only seven second-order classical Fresnel lenses still remaining in its 

original position in the United States. In addition to the Lighthouse, the station’s compound maintains 

excellent integrity with the three lava rock bungalow-style keepers’ cottages, an oil storage building, a 

landing, and other support facilities such as the derrick at Kīlauea Point. 

The Lighthouse station is open to the public and is one of the most visited sites on Kaua‘i, drawing 

more than an estimated 500,000 visitors a year. The Station is compromised by the corrosive effects of 

salt water decaying metals, crumbling concrete, and trapped moisture. Current restoration efforts were 

completed in 2013. The Refuge offers cultural and historic activities related to the Kīlauea Point Light 

Station.

2.4.6 Goal 6: Ensure that all visitors enjoy safe and well-maintained 

operations that contribute to a positive visitor experience.

Objective 6.1 Maintain, enhance, and replace visitor, administrative, and maintenance facilities.

To fulfill Executive Order 13514 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet agency reduction 

targets by 2020, relocate, modify, and replace infrastructure to become energy neutral through 

utilization of alternative energy sources for vehicles and structures, conserving water, and reducing 

waste with the following attributes:
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-51

• Through its facilities, the Refuge will promote visitor and employee safety, health, and wellbeing and provide a range of choices to experience the Refuge and its wildlife; 

• The design and placement of Refuge facilities will be responsive to Kaua‘i’s setting. They will

blend with and be fully integrated into these unique natural and cultural settings. Refuge 

facilities will be environmentally responsible and should protect wildlife, topographical 

features, scenic viewsheds, hydrologic systems, and the night sky.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Prepare a step-down Master Site Plan to evaluate and detail building use and 

remodeling/maintenance needs

b. Include main administrative offices with new offsite visitor welcome and orientation center, if 

constructed 

c. Develop new maintenance baseyard (storage sheds, bays, pole barns, nursery) off the Refuge. 

Options include leasing, purchasing, or co-locating with another entity 

d. Remodel Quarters #3 for basic administrative and volunteer offices 

Rationale: Currently the Refuge has two storage sheds, about 17 by 25 feet, and a native plant nursery, 

approximately 24 by 30 feet with a perforated and mesh style roof. There is no covered maintenance 

facility for equipment and vehicles at the Refuge (maintenance baseyard). Due to the coastal marine 

environment, high humidity, and heavy winds that carry up salt spray from the surf below, degradation 

of equipment, vehicles, and facilities is accelerated and consistently exceeds normally acceptable 

mainland standards for maintenance costs and schedules. Vehicle maintenance, in particular, needs 

constant attention with rust and deterioration occurring within just a few years. In addition, the distance 

needed to transport supplies and equipment between refuges often substantially adds to the cost of 

conducting Refuge management activities (heavy equipment used for the Refuge is transported from 

Hanalei NWR due to lack of covered storage at the Refuge). The historical designation of several 

buildings prevents modification to the extent needed to serve as office, maintenance, equipment, and 

vehicle storage spaces. Additionally, given the nesting nēnē and ‘a‘o, acres to build such new structures 

on the Point are unavailable. 

In the future, Refuge facilities will demonstrate models of sustainability in the built environment through

cohesive integration of building, site, and landscape. Facilities should be as resistant as possible to 

hurricanes and salt spray, employ highly efficient electrical and mechanical systems, use 

environmentally responsible materials, alternative energy sources, and other materials to fit within the 

community, reduce environmental effects, and reduce long-term-maintenance costs.

Public facility improvements will be designed to connect visitors to the natural habitats and wildlife of 

the Refuge. Visitor needs will be identified and facilities will follow universal design standards serving a 

range of cultures, ages, and abilities. Refuge facilities will exhibit lasting value, including a 

consideration for life-cycle costs to achieve a cost effective, quality built environment. Whole life 

costing will be applied during the design process considering maintenance, operational, and disposal 

costs. 

Facility design will display a visual character that is recognizable as those of the Service and the 

Refuge System. Display of wildlife images, the Service shield, and Refuge System’s Blue Goose, and 

repetition of materials, colors, and design elements will contribute to branding and strengthening the 

Service’s image.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-52 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Construction will also follow designated building guidelines (as identified in the North Shore 

development plan and Kīlauea Town Plan) such as height requirements (less than 25 feet in height) and 

use best management practices to prevent adverse impacts to resources including soil and water quality. 

Objective 6.2 Enhance law enforcement.

Enhance law enforcement for operational capabilities and public safety with the following attributes:

• Compliance on Special Use Permits (SUPs) achieved;

• Refuge laws enforced; 

• Minimize human disturbance to biological resources.

Strategies Applied to Achieve Objective: 

a. Continue to work with partners and other law enforcement agencies to protect natural resources, 

eliminate criminal activity (including trespassing, access by dogs), and disturbance to sensitive areas 

b. Explore concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Hawai‘i

c. Ensure the Refuge Sign Plan developed integrates law enforcement signage (boundary/fence 

markings, public safety, Refuge regulations)

d. Develop a law enforcement monitoring system (including SUPs) that is reviewed and updated

annually, at a minimum

e. Develop outreach tools (e.g., brochures, Website) specifically for Refuge protection and safety issues 

and identify methods for circulation

f. Provide law enforcement expertise at workshops, community/partner meetings, and public talk 

opportunities

g. Provide annual training to non-law enforcement Refuge staff and volunteers on law enforcement 

incident reporting, monitoring, and procedures

h. Orient new Refuge staff, including law enforcement officers and refuge managers, and volunteers to 

the local culture and community

Rationale: Most law enforcement issues at the Refuge revolve around improved education of Refuge 

users and visitors to reduce impacts on biological resources. Examples include vehicle and nēnē 

impacts, loose dogs on Refuge lands, proximity to wildlife which can lead to distress or habituation, 

and trespass. 

Fish and wildlife law enforcement issues on lands and waters of the Refuge are under the jurisdiction 

of the Service law enforcement officers. Their roles are to conduct and document law enforcement 

incidents and coordinate and meet with Refuge staff as well as law enforcement partners. Primary laws 

and regulations enforced include, but are not limited to: 

• Administration Act;

• Lacey Act;

• Archaeological Resource Protection Act; 

• Endangered Species Act;
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-53

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act; 

• Code of Federal Regulations. 

Zone and Refuge officers are also empowered to enforce laws as authorized. Activities could include 

issuing traffic citations and warrants for arrest as they relate to drugs, trespass, hunting, fishing, and the 

taking of wildlife on Federal lands and, in some instances, boating safety related to refuges. 

The Refuge will establish a program to monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated within 

compatibility determinations (Appendix B). Violation of any of these stipulations could result in 

temporary or permanent withdrawal of official permission to continue this use on the Refuge by 

appropriate Refuge personnel. SUPs could be revoked by the Refuge manager with 30-days written 

notice of noncompliance with these stipulations. 

Service officers often partner with other law enforcement agencies such as the Division of 

Conservation and Resources Enforcement-DLNR and other law enforcement agencies.

2.5 References 

Ainley, David G., T.C. Telfer, and M.H. Reynolds. 1997. Townsend's and Newell's Shearwater 

(Puffinus auricularis), The Birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology: No. 297. 

American Veterinary Medical Association [AVMA]. 2007. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. Report 

prepared by the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. 36 pp. 

Anden Consulting. 2014. Final environmental assessment for the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration 

Project, Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. 174 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_1/Kauai_Complex/Kilauea_Point/Docum

ents/March%202014%20FONSI%20FEA%20NERP%20complete.pdf 

Arata, J.A., P.R. Sievert, and M.B. Naughton. 2009. Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed 

albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923–2000. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2009-5131. Reston, Virginia: U. S. Geological Survey. 

Black, J. M., J. Prop, J.M. Hunter, F. Woog, A.P. Marshall, and J. M. Bowler. 1994. Foraging 

behaviour and energetics of the Hawaiian goose Branta sandvicensis. Wildfowl 45:65–109. 

Bruegmann, M. and M. Castillo. 1999. Draft Plant Restoration Strategy for Kauaʻi National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. Prepared for the 

Kauaʻi National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 79 pp. 

Burney, D.A., H.F. James, L.P. Burney, S.L. Olson, W. Kikuchi, W.L. Wagner, M. Burney, D. 

McCloskey, D. Kikuchi, F.V. Grady, R. Gage II, and R. Nishek. 2001. Fossil evidence for a diverse 

biota from Kauaʻi and its transformation since human arrival. Ecological Monographs 7:615–641. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-54 Chapter 2. Management Direction

Byrd, G.V. and T.C. Telfer. 1984. A cross-fostering experiment with Newell's race of Manx 

Shearwater. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(1). 

Carney, K.M., and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial 

waterbirds. Waterbirds 22:68–79. 

Courtot, K., J. Hatfield, E. Flint, and M. Reynolds. 2014. Scenarios for black-footed albatross colony 

establishment on the main Hawaiian Islands. Island Biology, July 7–11, 2014, Honolulu, HI. 

Dahlgren, R. B. and C. E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbances of waterfowl: an annotated 

bibliography. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 188. 62pp. 

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds–A literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures–prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, Appendix L, 114 

p., in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the 

comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision, v. 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR. 

Gummer, H. 2003. Chick translocation as a method of establishing new surface-nesting seabird 

colonies: a review. DOC [Department of Conservation, New Zealand] Science Internal Series 150:1–

40. 

Harris, C.S. 1990. Seabirds of Hawaiʻi: Natural History and Conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell 

University Press. 249 p. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2013a. Kaua‘i south shore shearwater colony 

decimated by dogs and cats. Available at http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2013/09/18/nr13-114/. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2013b. DLNR issues plea to dog owners as 

returning albatross are slaughtered. Available at http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2013/12/13/nr13-169/. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division (DLNR HPD). 

2009. State historic preservation plan, 2010–2014. Available at 

http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/hpd/pdfs/SHPD-2010-2014-PLAN.pdf. 

Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA). 2003. Final environmental assessment and finding of no 

significant impact: Hanalei Valley/Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge Scenic Stop. 494 pp. Available 

at http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared Documents/EA_and_EIS_Online_Library/Kauai/2000s/2003-

07-08-KA-FEA-HANALEI-VALLEY-NATIONAL-WILDLIFE-REFUGE.pdf. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. Effects of tourist 

disturbance on stress physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) chicks at Kīlauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kauaʻi, HI. Unpublished report for pilot study. Prepared by 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 2. Management Direction 2-55

Miskelly, C.M., G.A. Taylor, H. Gummer, and R. Williams. 2009. Translocations of eight species of 

burrow-nesting seabirds (genera Pterodroma, Pelecanoides, Pachyptila and Puffinus: Family 

Procellariidae). Biol. Conserv. (2009), doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.027 

Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for evaluation and documenting traditional cultural 

properties. Found at http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. 2006. Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative Transportation Systems Study Final Report. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal 

Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division. Contract No. DTFH68-02-D00001, Task Order No. DTFH68-05-T-00044. 

Plentovich, S., A. Hebshi, and S. Conant. 2008. Detrimental effects of two widespread invasive ant 

species on weight and survival of colonial nesting seabirds in the Hawaiian Islands. Biological 

Invasions 11:289–298. 

Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc. 

Sawyer, S.L. and S.R. Fogle. 2010. Acoustic attraction of grey-faced petrels (Pterodroma macroptera 

gouldi) and fluttering shearwaters (Puffinus gavia) to Young Nick’s Head, New Zealand. Notornis 

57:166–168. 

Sawyer, S. 2014. The establishment of novel surface and burrow nesting pelagic seabird colonies in 

New Zealand and Hawai‘i using acoustic attraction and predator fencing. Oral presentation. Island 

Biology, July 7–11, 2014, Honolulu, HI. 

Staine, K.J. and J. Burger. 1994. Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers 

(Charadriusmelodus) in New Jersey. Auk 111(3)579–587. 

The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Native Ecosystem Loss in the Hawaiian High Islands Ecoregion at 

the Turn of the 21st Century. Honolulu, unpublished. 

Transportation Assistance Group. 2009. Transportation Observations, Considerations, and 

Recommendations for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. 44 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Finding of No Significant Impact and Compatibility 

Determination for an Addition to the Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge for a Refuge Visitor 

Information Center and Hanalei Valley Overlook, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaiʻi. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 23 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Land Protection Plan for an Addition to the Hanalei National 

Wildlife Refuge for a Refuge Visitor Information Center and Hanalei Valley Overlook, County of 

Kaua‘i, Hawaiʻi. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 

11 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Nēnē or Hawaiian Goose 

(Branta sandvicensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-56 Chapter 2. Management Direction

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Draft Newell’s Shearwater and Hawaiian Petrel Recovery: 

Five-year Action Plan. 4 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental 

Assessment for Management Actions for Immediate Implementation to Reduce the Potential for 

Extirpation of the ‘Ua‘u (Hawaiian Petrel) from Kaua‘i. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland OR. 14 pp. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 2012. Hawaiian Bird Conservation Action Plan. Pacific Rim Conservation, 

Honolulu, HI. 

VanderWerf, E. A., K.R. Wood, C. Swenson, M. LeGrande, H. Eijzenga, and R. L. Walker. 2007. 

Avifauna of Lehua Islet, Hawai‘i: Conservation value and management needs. Pacific Science 

61:39–52. 

Woog, F. and J.M. Black. 2001. Foraging behavior and temporal use of grasslands by Nēnē: 

Implications for management. Studies in Avian Biology 22:319–328. 

Young, L.C. 2010. Inferring colonization history and dispersal patterns of a long-lived seabird by 

combining genetic and empirical data. Journal of Zoology 1–9. 

Zaun, B.J. and W.W. Weathers. 2009. First record of egg retrieval by the Hawaiian Goose after 

attempted predation by a cat. Western Birds 40:39–42.
Chapter 2. Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-57

Figure 2-1. Management Direction for Wildlife and Habitat Management.

īlauea K

Rd

Makanaano 

PL

Kauapea Rd

Objectives to be met in various areas East of line.

Obj. 2.1 Restore/enhance seabird and threatened/endangeredspecies breeding populationsObj. 2.2 Restore/enhance 10–30 acres of native coastalplant communities (including endangered plants) 

Pacific Ocean

Makapili Rock

Crater Hill

Mōkōlea

Point

Explore the possibility of expansion ofor separate additions to the NihokuEcosystem Restoration Projectpredator-proof fence (e.g., addingfence panels)

Map Date: 11/17/2014 File: 11-102-3b.mxd Data Source: USFWS 2014

0 1,000 2,000

feet

LEGEND

Refuge OwnershipNihoku Ecosystem Restoration Fence

Alternative B-D Objectives

Obj. 1.1 Annually manage 97 acres and enhance 2–5 acres of coastal mixed woodland-grassland habitat for seabird breeding and roostingObj. 1.1 Example of 2–5 acre enhancement locations

Obj. 1.2 Coastal grassland habitat fornēnē foraging, breeding, and roostingObj. 1.2 Enhance and manage an additional5–7 acres of coastal grassland habitat for nēnē foraging, breeding, and roosting

Obj. 1.3 Protect 59 acres of sea cliff and beach strand habitat

Maintain or replace 2.7 miles of fencing 0 250 500

meters

E Title: Biological Management Direction, Kilauea Point NWR

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-58 Chapter 2. Management Direction

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Chapter 2. Management Direction

Figure 2-2. Management Direction for Public Use and Maintenance/Facilities.

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-59

Map Date: 10/26/2015 File: 11-106-3d.mxd

Data: USFWS 2014, DigitalGlobe 2010

0 300 600

feet

LEGEND

Key Areas

(general vicinity circled)

Kīlauea Road

Scenic Overlook

The Point

Refuge Ownership

"" Historic Refuge Buildings

"" Refuge Buildings

[! Overlook

Lighthouse Path

Roads

0 100 200

meters

E

Title: Public Use and Maintenance/Facilities Management Direction

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch

Welcome and Orientation

Site Consideration

[!

""

""

""

""

""

""

"" ""

""

K i l a u e a R d

Upper Overlook

Explore redesign and enhancement to Overlook

Provide bicycle parking

Visitor Center (VC)

- Remodel for environmental education

or new interpretive exhibits

- Move bookstore operations to new

Welcome and Orientation Center,

if available

Contact Station

- Remodel with expanded interpretation

VS Admin Office (Quarters 1)

- Explore option to restore and

convert to living history site

Crater Hill

- Offer limited guided interpretive hikes

Admin Office (Quarters 3)

- Remodel for basic administrative

and volunteer offices

Move functions (e.g. fee collection, admin and maintenance, 

equipment storage, public parking) to new Welcome and 

Orientation Center, if available

Examine the feasibility of pedestrian

and/or bicycle access to the Point

Staff Residence

(Quarters 2)

Kilauea Point

Lighthouse

Kīlauea Point NWR

Â$56

Explore options for new Welcome and Orientation

Center within 1 miles of Refuge approved boundary

- Functions: visitor contact, bookstore, fee

collection, orientation, public parking, main

administrative offices

Explore options for mandatory shuttle to Kilauea Point

Develop maintenance baseyard off-Refuge

Within the first 5–10 years, experiment with

small-scale operational and infrastructure

improvements based on recommendations

from the Transportation Assistance Group.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2-60 Chapter 2. Management Direction

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
© G. Stutzer

Chapter 5Social and Economic Environment

Chapter 4Refuge Biology and Habitats

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

A-K

Chapter 3

Physical Environment

Chapter 2Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment

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

miles southwest of San Francisco, CA. Apart from Ni‘ihau, the island of Kaua‘i is the oldest and 

northernmost island of the eight main Hawaiian Islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Located 103 

miles northwest of Honolulu, Kaua‘i is near the middle of the Pacific Ocean and south of the Tropic 

of Cancer. Commonly referred to as “The Garden Isle,” Kaua‘i Island is characterized by its lush, 

green environment and high average rainfall. Kaua‘i is approximately 550 square miles and is 

approximately 30 miles in diameter. A 75-mile coastal state highway circumnavigates nearly the 

entire island (USFWS 1989). A 2-mile county road (Kīlauea Road) connects the Refuge to the Kuhio 

Highway, state route 56. The Refuge is situated in the moku‘aina (district) of Ko‘olau near Kīlauea 

Town (Hawai‘i Department of Education 2001). The Daniel K. Inouye Kīlauea Point Lighthouse is 

situated on the northernmost point in the Hawaiian Island chain. 

3.1 Climate 

3.1.1 General Climate

Climatic conditions on the island of Kaua‘i are dominated by northeasterly tradewinds approximately 

70 percent of the year. Tradewinds bring warm, tropical, moisture-laden air to Kaua‘i. As a result of 

the steep topography, the northern and eastern (windward) sides of Kaua‘i have heavier rainfall than 

the drier south and west (leeward) sides. Traditionally, only two seasons were recognized in Hawaiʻi: 

kau— the warm season occurring from May to October that is characterized by northeast winds and 

an overhead sun, and ho‘oilo— the cold season, occurring from October to April and characterized 

by cooler temperatures, rain, variable winds, and a lower sun (Seimers 2009, Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Temperatures during the winter months on Kaua‘i range from 65 oF to 81 oF. Summer temperatures 

range from 72 oF to 88 oF (USFWS 2007). Average annual air temperature is approximately 73 oF 

(Berg et al. 1997). 

Prevailing ocean currents surrounding the island influence weather patterns by moderating the 

surface air temperatures as a result of differential heat absorption and advection of heat. Ocean 

currents in the Hawaiian Islands are moderated by the North Pacific anticyclone, a clockwise gyre 

that extends from the tropics to the North Pacific (Juvik and Juvik 1998, Lau and Mink 2006). Stormgenerated ocean swells are common throughout the year. The north and west shores are pounded by 

fierce North Pacific winter storms. 

Kīlauea Point NWR is directly exposed to the northeast tradewinds. A variable 10–20 mile-per-hour 

(mph) tradewind blows across the Refuge during most of the year. During strong wind conditions, 

which are not uncommon, the winds increase to 20–35 mph (USFWS 1989). 

Rainfall in the main Hawaiian Islands averages 75–90 inches a year. Extreme variation in rainfall 

across the islands is a result of orographic lifting. The wide range of rainfall patterns results in a 

diversity of environmental settings, ranging from rain forests (more than 100 inches) to mesic forests 

(50–100 inches) to semiarid deserts (less than 50 inches). As tradewinds drive the warm, moist air up 

on the windward side of an island, the air is cooled. On Kaua‘i, air is forced up the steep slopes of 

Mount Wai‘ale‘ale and its highest peak, Kawaikini (Blay and Seimers 2004). As air rises and cools, 

it cannot hold as much moisture and condensation and so it rains. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

One of the wettest places on Earth, the plateau of Kaua‘i reaches elevations of 5,148 feet at 

Wai‘ale‘ale and 5,243 feet at Kawaikini and is directly exposed to tradewinds ascending abruptly 

over precipitous pali (cliffs). Average annual rainfall at Wai‘ale‘ale is 444 inches (Juvik and Juvik 

1998). Water drains across the Olokele Plateau into the Alaka‘i Swamp. The rain shadow effect is 

demonstrated by the dry, semi-arid, leeward, west side of the island (Blay and Seimers 2004). On 

Kaua‘i, about 58 percent of rain typically falls during the 6 months between November and April, the 

remaining 42 percent between May and October (USFWS 2005). Average rainfall for Waimea Town 

on Kaua‘i’s west side is 12–15 inches per year. In contrast, Kīlauea Town receives an average of 50–

60 inches per year (USFWS 2007). Average annual rainfall at Kīlauea Point is 67.4 inches, with the 

highest rainfall occurring November to March and the least amount of rainfall in the summer months 

(USFWS 1989). The Kīlauea area historically has experienced periods of exceptional rainfall. The 

most extreme instance of record occurred in Kīlauea during the storm of January 24–25, 1956. The 

Kīlauea Sugar Plantation Office recorded over 38 inches of rain in a 24-hour period (NCDC 2001). 

There are four classes of disturbances that create major storms: cold fronts, low pressure systems, 

true tropical storms, and instances of severe weather attributed to low pressure systems in the upper 

atmosphere (NCDC 2001). 

Long periods of rainfall in the winter are a result of Kona storms or low pressure systems from the 

west (Seimers 2009). Cold fronts associated with low pressure systems move north of the Hawaiian 

Islands in the prevailing westerly winds between October and April. This results in severe cloud 

cover, heavy rains, and occasional thunderstorms. Because of its northwesterly location, Kaua‘i 

receives more cold front storms than the other islands and can receive up to 20 cold fronts per year 

(NCDC 2001, Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Episodic oceanic and atmospheric events such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) also influence climate in the islands during specific intervals. In 

El Niño years, average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean 

are warmer than average and the easterly trade winds in the tropical Pacific are weakened. La Niña is 

characterized by the opposite: cooler than average sea surface temperatures and stronger than normal 

easterly trade winds. These changes in the wind and ocean circulation can have global impacts to 

weather events. ENSO usually results in light tradewinds and drier conditions in the western Pacific 

(Duffy 1993). During previous ENSO years in Hawai‘i, average rainfall has dropped below historical 

averages (Chu and Chen 2005). 

Like ENSO, PDO is characterized by changes in sea surface temperature, sea level pressure, and 

wind patterns. PDO is described as being in one of two phases: warm (positive) and cool (negative). 

During a warm phase, sea surface temperatures near the equator and along the coast of North 

America are warmer, while in the central north Pacific they are cooler. During a cool phase, the 

patterns are opposite. Within Hawai‘i, winter rainfall is negatively correlated with PDO (i.e., warm 

phase PDO winters tend to be warmer and drier than average while cool phase PDO winters tend to 

be cooler and wetter than average) (Chu and Chen 2005). A single warm or cool PDO phase lasts 20–

30 years. The triggering cause of PDO phase shift is not understood. 

Hurricanes are not uncommon in the Hawaiian Islands. In 1950, Hurricane Hiki was the first 

recorded hurricane in Hawai‘i and passed within 150 miles northeast of Kaua‘i. Kīlauea Lighthouse 

recorded sustained wind speed of 68 mph. In 1987, Hurricane Nina passed the northern coast of 

Kaua‘i, and in 1959, Hurricane Dot had the highest wind gust recorded of 103 mph at Kīlauea 

Lighthouse (Wilson 1980). Two recent hurricanes caused damage to the Refuge. Winds of over 90 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-3 

mph were registered from Hurricane Iwa in 1982 (USFWS 1989). The eye of Hurricane ‘Iniki passed 

directly over Kaua‘i on September 11, 1992. With 145 mph winds, Hurricane ‘Iniki was classified as 

a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale (NCDC 2001). It was the most devastating 

hurricane recorded in Hawai‘i’s history (Juvik and Juvik 1998). Though no major wildlife losses 

were recorded (with the exception of some shearwater chicks and young boobies), infrastructure was 

significantly damaged or destroyed. This included damage to the Kīlauea Lighthouse lens room and 

Fresnel lens, office building, two residences and detached garages, visitor center, environmental 

education building, and maintenance buildings. Additionally restored native coastal vegetation on 

Kīlauea Point was washed or blown away. The Refuge was closed to the general public from 1992 to 

1994 as a result. 

3.1.2 Climate Change

The terms “climate” and “climate change” are used as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC). The term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of 

weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although 

shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007). The term “climate change” thus refers to a 

change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is 

due to natural variability, human activity, or both (ibid). 

The greenhouse effect is a natural process by which greenhouse gases (GHG) such as water vapor 

(H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3) absorb infrared 

radiation emitted by Earth's surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. These gases also trap 

heat within the surface-troposphere system (IPCC 2007), heating Earth's surface and the lower 

atmosphere. CO2 is produced in the largest quantities, accounting for more than half of the current 

impact on Earth’s climate. 

There is consensus in the scientific community that Earth’s climate has been rapidly changing and 

that changes in atmospheric composition are the primary drivers (Bierbaum et al. 2007, USGCRP 

2009, EPA 2012). Although climate variations are well documented in Earth’s history, even in 

relatively recent geologic time, the current warming trend differs from shifts earlier in geologic time 

in two ways. First, this climate change appears to be driven primarily by human economic activities, 

such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, which results in a higher concentration of 

atmospheric GHG. Second, atmospheric CO2 and other GHG, levels of which are strongly correlated 

with Earth’s temperature, are now higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years (USGCRP 

2009). Prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 

was about 280 parts per million (ppm). As of January 2014, atmospheric CO2 was approximately 

397.8 ppm (NOAA 2014). 

Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in 

global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in 

climate, and is “very likely” (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the 

observed increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, 

particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007, Solomon et al. 2007). 

According to the Fourth Assessment Report by the IPCC, global temperatures on Earth’s surface 

have increased by 1.33 °F over the last 100 years. This warming trend has accelerated within the last 

50 years, increasing by 0.23 °F each decade. Global ocean temperatures to a depth of almost 2,300 

feet have also increased, rising by 0.18 °F between 1961 and 2003 (Solomon et al. 2007). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-4 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Global climate models offer a variety of projections based on different emission scenarios. Projected 

increases in global average surface temperature range from 1.1 oF to 7.2 oF by 2100, relative to 1980–

1999 levels (IPCC 2007). However, IPCC is considered to be a relatively conservative source of 

climate change projections (Watson 2010, Scherer 2012). Pursuant to the assessment of the U.S. 

Global Climate Research Program, global average temperature is projected to increase 2.0 oF to

11.5 oF by 2100. 

Climate Change in Hawai‘i 

The global climate system affects regional and local-scale climate conditions in the Pacific Islands, 

including Hawai‘i. Detailed in the following sections, projected impacts to the region encompassing 

the Refuge include shifting rainfall patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms and 

drought, decreasing baseflow in streams, rising air and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, and 

changing ocean chemistry (Leong et al. 2014). Small island groups are particularly vulnerable to 

climate change, sea level rise (SLR), and extreme events. The following characteristics contribute to 

this vulnerability: small emergent land area compared to the large expanses of surrounding ocean, 

limited natural resources, high susceptibility to natural disasters, and inadequate funds to mitigate 

impacts (IPCC 2007, Mimura et al. 2007). Thus, Hawai‘i is considered to have a limited capacity to 

adapt to future climate changes. 

Atmospheric Events and Precipitation 

Precipitation in Hawai‘i, which includes sea level precipitation and the added orographic effects, 

shows a steady and significant decline of about 15 percent over the last 15–20 years (Diaz et al. 

2005, Chu and Chen 2005). These data are also supported by a steady decline in stream flow 

beginning in the early 1940s (Oki 2004). However, rain intensity (the type of rainfall that contributes 

to stream overflow and flooding and is not beneficial for aquifer replenishment) has increased by 

approximately 12 percent from 1958 to 2007 (Fletcher 2010). 

The impact of climate change on water resources is dependent on shifts in precipitation amounts, 

evaporation rates, storms, and atmospheric processes such as ENSO and PDO. Based on the evidence 

of the history of ENSO and PDO events, it is likely that these cycles will continue far into the future. 

However, the potential influence of anthropogenic climate change on ENSO and PDO is unknown. 

While ENSO events have increased in intensity and frequency over the past decades, some longerterm records have not shown a direct link to climate change and do not predict significant changes in 

ENSO; however, a majority of climate forecasts do suggest an evolution toward more “El Niño-like” 

patterns. Most climate projections suggest that this trend is likely to increase rapidly in the next 50 

years. Alternatively, other models predict more “La Niña-like” conditions in the Hawaiian Islands 

(Walther et al. 2002, Buddemeier et al. 2004, Timm 2008). 

The exact impact of climate change on water resources is difficult to predict due to spatial variability.

On a global scale, mean precipitation is anticipated to increase. Current climate models project that 

tropical Pacific and high latitude areas will experience increasing precipitation amounts, while 

precipitation is likely to decrease in most subtropical regions such as Hawai‘i. 

Lack of rain could lower the amount of freshwater lens recharge and decrease available water 

supplies. Reduced rainfall or increased evaporation will cause a corresponding increase in the 

demand for residential, commercial, and agricultural water (Giambelluca et al. 1996, Solomon et al. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-5 

2007, Parry et al. 2007). Global climate modeling projects that net precipitation at sea level near the 

Hawaiian Islands will decrease in winter by about 4–6 percent, with no significant change during 

summer (IPCC 2007). Downscaling output from global climate models suggest that wet-season 

(winter) precipitation will decrease by 5–10 percent, while dry-season (summer) precipitation will 

increase by about 5 percent by the end of the century under a moderate emissions scenario (Timm 

and Diaz 2009). 

Most climate projections suggest that more intense wind speeds and precipitation amounts will 

accompany more frequent tropical typhoons/cyclones and increased tropical sea surface temperatures 

in the next 50 years. The intensity of tropical cyclones is likely to increase by 10–20 percent in the 

Pacific region when atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double preindustrial levels (McCarthy et al. 

2001). One model projects a doubling of the frequency of rainfall events of 4 inches per day and a 

15–18 percent increase in rainfall intensity over large areas of the Pacific. 

Rising Temperatures

A study examining temperature trends over an 88-year period (1919–2006) based on measurements 

from 21 temperature stations within Hawai‘i showed a long-term increase in temperature and an 

accelerated rate of increase in the last few decades (0.08 °F/decade for the full record versus about 

0.3 °F/decade since 1975) (Giambelluca et al. 2008). In general, warming trends are lower for 

summer (May–October) and higher for winter (November–April), compared with the annual trends. 

Additionally, as with the annual trends, warming in both seasons has been greater for high elevation 

(i.e., greater than 0.5 miles or 800 meters above sea level) stations and for the most recent period. 

Temperature variation appears to have been tightly coupled to PDO, perhaps through regional sea 

surface temperature (SST) variation; however, since 1975, the air temperature trend has risen at a 

faster rate than can be explained by PDO and local SST trends. 

These temperature fluctuations have the potential to impact precipitation and existing moisture zones 

which can influence forest structure composition. A change in forest structure could impact how well 

vegetation collects water from the atmosphere and during rainfalls and how much of this water gets 

infiltrated through the ground into aquifers and streams. 

Sea Level Rise 

According to the IPCC, the oceans are now absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to 

Earth’s climate system. This absorption has caused average global ocean temperatures to increase 

and seawater to expand. Additionally, the transfer of water mass from the land to the ocean from the 

heating and melting of ice-sheets, ice caps, and alpine glaciers also influences ocean levels. Scientific 

evidence suggests that the current, accelerated rate of global change began between the mid-1800s 

and 1900s (Church and White 2006, Jevrejeva et al. 2008, Church and White 2011). Based on 

satellite altimeter measurements, the rate of globally averaged SLR since the early 1990s has been 

estimated to be 0.134 ± 0.016 inches per year (Nerem et al. 2010). This is twice the estimated rate for 

the 20th century as a whole based on tide-gauge reconstructions (reviewed by Bindoff et al. 2007). 

Sea-level projections using semi-empirical models based on statistical relationships between 

observed SLR and global temperature, coupled with projections of future global temperature, yield 

estimates of global SLR ranging from roughly 3 to 5 feet by 2100 (Rahmstorf 2007, Vermeer and 

Rahmstorf 2009, Grinsted et al. 2010). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-6 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Near Pacific Island ecosystems, local SLR is influenced by the rate and extent of global SLR, as well 

as changes in episodic events, such as ENSO, PDO, and storm-related conditions (Marra et al. 2012). 

Topography and exposure to normal swell and storm swell produce localized differences. 

Furthermore, it is important to note that shoreline sea levels are historically and currently influenced 

by isostatic tectonic changes as the islands move with the Pacific Plate, which are not due to global 

changes in sea level. Thus, sea level change in the Pacific is highly variable due to geologic uplift 

(Michener et al. 1997, Carter et al 2001). 

Sea level around the Hawaiian Islands is rising 6 to 14 inches per century (EPA 1998, Giambelluca 

2008). The University of Hawai‘i Sea Level Center has estimated that between 1905 and 2006 mean 

sea level rose about 0.0417 inches per year. A similar estimate was derived from shallow core 

measurements of a fringing reef crest at Hanauma Bay, which concluded that O‘ahu is subsiding at a 

rate of 0.0394–0.0787 inches per year. Although most of this rise is due to isostatic sinking of the 

tectonic plate, global warming induced sea level increases have the potential to intensify this rise 

(Nakiboglu et al. 1983, Caccamise et al. 2005). 

Ecological Responses to Climate Change

Evidence suggests that recent climatic changes have affected a broad range of individual species and 

populations in both the marine and terrestrial environment. Organisms have responded by changes in 

phenology (timing of seasonal activities) and physiology, range and distribution, community 

composition and interaction, and ecosystem structure and dynamics. For example, paleoecological 

studies have shown that the distribution of vegetation is highly influenced by climate. 

The reproductive physiology and population dynamics of amphibians and reptiles are highly 

influenced by environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity. For example, whether a 

sea turtle is male or female is determined by the temperature of the nest environment; thus, higher 

temperatures could result in a higher female-to-male ratio. In addition, increases in atmospheric 

temperatures during seabird nesting seasons could have an effect on seabirds and waterbirds through 

increased heat stress leading to mortality or inundation of breeding sites due to SLR or storm surge 

(Duffy 1993, Walther et al. 2002, Baker et al. 2006, Young et al. 2012). 

Warming has caused species to shift toward the poles or higher altitudes and changes in climatic 

conditions can alter community composition. Increases in CO2 levels can impact plant photosynthetic 

rates, reduce water stress, decrease nutrient content, and lower herbivore weights. Climate change 

can increase the loss of species. Some of the characteristics that make species vulnerable include 

small population sizes, restricted or patchy ranges, occurrences at either high or low-lying areas, with 

limited climatic ranges, and narrow or specific habitat requirements—all characteristics of 

endangered species in Hawai‘i. Although there is uncertainty regarding these trajectories, it is 

probable that there will be ecological consequences (Vitousek 1994, Walther et al. 2002, Ehleringer 

et al. 2002). 

The Hawaiian Islands were recognized in a report as 1 of 10 places to save for endangered species in 

light of climate change (ESC 2011). Climate change has the potential to influence two important 

ecological issues in the State of Hawai‘i: endangered species and pest species. Species decline has 

resulted from habitat loss, introduced diseases, and impacts from pest species. Changes in climate 

will add an additional threat to the survival of these species. For example, warmer night temperatures 

can increase the rate of respiration for native vegetation, resulting in greater competition from pest 

plants. Furthermore, climate change may enhance existing pest species issues because alterations in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-7 

the environment may increase the dispersal ability of flora or fauna. Species response to climate 

change will depend on the life history, distribution, dispersal ability, and reproduction requirements 

of the species (DBEDT and DOH 1998, Middleton 2006, Giambelluca 2008). 

The Service is supporting regional landscape conservation cooperatives. These cooperatives are 

public-private partnerships that recognize that conservation challenges transcend political and 

jurisdictional boundaries and require a more networked approach to conservation—holistic, 

collaborative, adaptive, and grounded in science to ensure the sustainability of America’s land, water, 

wildlife, and cultural resources. The local version of these landscape conservation cooperatives is the 

Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC), headquartered in Honolulu, Hawai‘i, and 

working across the Pacific. The PICCC was established in 2010 to assist those who manage native 

species, island ecosystems, and key cultural resources in adapting their management to climate 

change for the continuing benefit of the people of the Pacific Islands. The PICCC steering committee 

consists of more than 25 Federal, State, private, indigenous, and nongovernmental conservation 

organizations and academic institutions, forming a cooperative partnership that determines the 

overall organizational vision, mission, and goals. 

At the Refuge, climate change could, among other things, reduce the areal extent of beaches, 

including the small and secluded beach in the Kīlauea (East) Cove which is used by foraging 

shorebirds (e.g., ‘ulili, ‘akekeke, and kōlea), roosting seabirds (e.g., ‘iwa and ‘ā [brown boobies and 

red-footed boobies]), and by ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu as a haul-out site for resting and 

potentially for pupping and/or nesting; and, in the Kāhili Quarry area, by Refuge visitors for 

recreation. There may also be effects on Refuge vegetation communities and the wildlife they 

support; on the near-shore ocean environment which supports marine life preyed upon by Refuge 

sea- and shore birds, and enjoyed by Refuge visitors; and on the waterway that drains to the ocean 

through Kīlauea River and adjacent riparian and wetland habitats. Additionally, high-island refuges 

like Kīlauea Point could become increasingly important to sea- and shore birds since the areal extent 

of their breeding, foraging, loafing, and other habitats on low-islands in the mid-Pacific Ocean would 

be reduced or displaced as a result of SLR (Reynolds et al. 2015). 

Additionally, national wildlife refuges will be exploring options for more effective engagement with 

visitors on this topic. The 2010–2011 National Visitor Survey collected information about visitors’ 

levels of personal involvement in climate change as it relates to fish, wildlife, and their habitats, and 

the visitors’ beliefs regarding this topic (Sexton et al. 2011). Items draw from the “Six Americas” 

framework for understanding public sentiment toward climate change (Leiserowitz, Maibach, and 

Roser-Renouf 2008) and from literature on climate change message frames (e.g., Nisbet 2009). Such 

information provides a baseline for understanding visitor perceptions of climate change within the 

context of fish and wildlife conservation that can further inform related communication and outreach 

strategies.

For Kīlauea Point NWR, the majority of visitors believe the following regarding climate change as it 

relates to fish, wildlife, and their habitats: 

• Future generations will benefit if we address climate change effects; 

• It is important to consider the economic benefits to local communities when addressing 

climate change effects; and 

• We can improve our quality of life if we address the effects of climate change.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-8 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

The majority of visitors do not believe: 

• There has been too much emphasis on the catastrophic effects of climate change. 

Forty-two percent of visitors indicated that their experience would be enhanced if Kīlauea Point 

NWR provided information about how they could help address the effects of climate change on fish, 

wildlife, and their habitats. Framing the information in a way that resonates most with visitors may 

result in a more engaged public who will support strategies aimed at alleviating climate change 

pressures (Sexton et al. 2011). 

3.2 Hydrology

The hydrologic processes that occur in the Hawaiian Islands are unique compared to continental 

landmasses or temperate zones. Drainage basins are typically small and streams are characterized by 

steep longitudinal profiles and numerous waterfalls (Lau and Mink 2006). 

Rainfall contributes roughly 2.88 million gallons per day (mgd) to the water budget of Kaua‘i Island 

(County of Kaua‘i 2001). This rainwater recharges two vital water resources: groundwater and 

surface water.

Groundwater, which occurs beneath the surface, is the primary water resource in Hawai‘i. The major 

fresh groundwater systems are freshwater-lens or dike-impounded systems, which are below the 

water tables (USGS 2000). Groundwater can occur as a thin basal lens, as well as high-level aquifers 

where freshwater does not float on seawater (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Surface water is water flowing in stream channels, lakes, ponds, or wetlands. This water originates 

from precipitation (e.g., direct rainfall, fog drip), surface runoff derived from rainfall, and 

groundwater seepage. Streams are classified as intermittent or perennial based on flow conditions. 

Perennial streams are streams that have continuous flow all year, whereas intermittent streams are 

those which normally cease flowing during certain times of the year. The longest flowing stream on 

Kaua‘i is the Waimea River/Po‘omau Stream, a perennial stream which flows 19.5 miles. Perennial 

streams, which are generally sustained by groundwater in aquifers, are usually restricted to the 

windward sides of islands that receive more rain (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Prior to European settlement, water was controlled by the konohiki (headman) as part of the 

ahupua‘a system; an ahupua‘a is a usually wedge-shaped land division beginning at the top of the 

mounting and running down to the sea. Water was considered sacred: it was a gift from Kane I ka 

wai ola (Procreator in the water of life) and delivered by Lono makua (the Rain Provider). The wai 

(water) was “life” for the farmer as it was necessary for kalo (taro), which was grown in the streams, 

valleys, and springs. 

Today, the use of water resources in the Hawaiian Islands is regulated by the State Water Code, 

Chapter 174C, and governed by the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM). 

This agency issues permits to regulate the use of surface and ground water. Between 1988 and 1989, 

water users in Hawai‘i were required to register their water sources and declare their water uses to 

CWRM (CWRM 1992). A water right is a legal entitlement to use a certain amount of water from a 

particular source for a beneficial use. Outside designated water management areas landowners have 

the right to “reasonable use” of underlying groundwater and riparian water, providing it does not 

harm the uses of other users (Miike 2004). Specific water rights for descendants of Native Hawaiians 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-9 

who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778 are discussed in Section §174C-101 of the State 

Water Code. 

The Refuge is located in the Kīlauea watershed, which is a little over 8,000 acres. There are no 

hydrological features (e.g., streams, tributaries, ponds, lakes, groundwater) on the fee-owned areas of 

the Refuge. However, in the non–fee-owned and adjacent areas of the Refuge, there are several 

streams and freshwater ponds. To the east is Kīlauea River, a perennial stream that is 4 miles long 

and empties out to Kīlauea Bay via Kāhili Beach (also known as Rock Quarry Beach). It begins as 

two main streams coming off the Kamo‘okoa Ridge and from Mount Namahana (Halualanai and 

Pu‘u Ka Ele streams) and converges southwest of the Refuge to become Kīlauea River. This river has 

an average flow of 8.21 cubic feet per second (USFWS 2007). 

There are also two waterfalls along the river makai (ocean side) of Kūhiō Highway. Intermittent 

tributaries run off Kīlauea River and include Kaluamakua and Wailapa. Additional intermittent 

streams to the east include Kulihaili and Pīla‘a. To the west of the Refuge, Niu is categorized as a 

nonperennial stream, while Pu‘ukumu is a perennial stream and has a stream gage (USGS station 

number 16097900). Along the northern boundary of the Refuge are coastal waters, which are Stateowned and managed. According to the State Department of Health’s water quality classification, the 

coastal waters directly below the Refuge are classified as Marine Waters Class A (EPA 1988): 

It is the objective of this class of waters that their use for recreational purposes and aesthetic 

enjoyment be protected. Any other use shall be permitted as long as it is compatible with the 

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in and on these 

waters. These waters shall not act as receiving waters for any discharge which has not 

received the best degree of treatment or control compatible with the criteria established for 

this class.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Refuge 

lands and surrounding areas are zoned X, which is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to 

areas outside the 500-year floodplain, areas within the 500-year floodplain, and to areas of 100-year 

flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 100-year flooding where the contributing 

drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees. No 

based flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone. The Kīlauea River is in both Zones AE 

and VE; however, the Refuge sits well above this. Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that 

corresponds to the 100-year coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm 

waves. The 34- to 36-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are 

shown at selected intervals within this zone. Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that 

corresponds to the 100-year floodplains that are determined in the flood insurance studies by detailed 

methods. In most instances, whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic 

analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone (DLNR 2011). 

3.3 Topography and Bathymetry

The Kīlauea River Valley provides drainage for the nearby mountains, mainly Kamo‘okoa ridge. The 

fee-owned part of the Refuge is higher in elevation, with the highest point on Crater Hill at 568 feet, 

as indicated by the USGS marker. Kīlauea Town itself is a flat plain. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-10 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

3.4 Geology and Geomorphology

Kaua‘i, which is approximately 550 square miles, consists of a single great shield volcano that is 

deeply eroded and partly veneered from much later volcanic activity. The shield volcano was created

by the extrusion from 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 the extrusion of the post-erosional Kōloa Volcanic Series. Rocks of the Kōloa 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). 

Kaua‘i is unique among Hawaiian volcanoes because it lacks an obvious rift zone and also has a 

large caldera complex with a graben (depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults) (Juvik and 

Juvik 1998). Kaua‘i is also the oldest of the main Hawaiian Islands, with substrates aging from 3.8 to

5.6 million years. 

Kīlauea Point is a volcanic cone complex that was formed later, during the vents of Kōloa volcanics 

(3.65–0.52 million years ago). It is the remnant of the former Kīlauea volcanic vent that last erupted 

about 500,000 years ago. Two islands, both formerly portions of this volcanic crater, lie off the coast 

(Moku‘ae‘ae and Makapili). Crater Hill is the highest peak, rising 568 feet from sea level. Due to 

coastal erosion, only about one-third of the Kīlauea volcano complex still exists, but at one time 

probably had a diameter of at least 1.2 miles (Blay and Siemers 2004). The east (Mōkōlea Point) and 

west flanks drop away approximately 200 feet. Slopes range from 10–70 percent (USFWS 1989). 

According to the Kaua‘i County General Plan, the Refuge is also considered an important land form 

according to its heritage resources map. 

3.5 Soils 

The soils of Kīlauea Point and the adjoining Crater Hill consist primarily of Līhu‘e Silty Clay. 

Mōkōlea Point, Makapilli Rock, and the ocean cliff surrounding Kīlauea Point are exposed bedrock 

consisting of basalt and andesite. The soil types (Līhu‘e-Puhi association) are deep, nearly level to 

steep, well-drained soils that have a fine textured or moderately fine textured subsoil (Foote 1972). 

Adjacent areas to the Refuge are composed primarily of oxisols (Līhu‘e-Puhi association, which 

make up about 12 percent of the island), which contain no more than 10 percent weatherable 

minerals, and low cation exchange capacity. Oxisols are always a red or yellowish color, due to the 

high concentration of iron (III) and aluminum oxides and hydroxides. In addition, they also contain 

quartz and kaolin, plus small amounts of other clay minerals and organic matter (Hue et al. 2010). 

The elevation of the Līhu‘e-Puhi soil association ranges from near sea level to 800 feet. Areas along 

the coast as well as bordering Kīlauea River are categorized as rough mountainous land, rough 

broken land, rock outcrop association (which makes up 50 percent of the island). Such soils are welldrained to excessively drained, very steep to precipitous lands of mountains and gulches. The 

elevation of this soil association ranges from near sea level to 5,170 feet (Foote 1972). 

Kīlauea town and the surrounding area have a history of agriculture (e.g., ranching, sugar plantation). 

These uses may have impacted present day soils (e.g., chemicals, soil composition). For instance, in 

the 1920s, Kīlauea Sugar Company planted ironwood to prevent wind erosion and stop the salt air 

from abrading cultivated crops. Introduction of this new vegetation type to the area may or may not 

have affected soils (USFWS 1989). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-11

3.6 Fire 

Unlike the continental United States, where fire can play a large role in ecosystem function and 

species adaptations, fire is a relatively infrequent disturbance regime in Hawaiian ecosystems. The 

two primary sources of natural fires are lava flows and lightning strikes (Mueller-Dombois and 

Lamoureux 1967, Mueller-Dombois 1981, Smith and Tunison 1992). Most ecologists agree that 

natural fire has not played a significant ecological or evolutionary role in most Hawaiian ecosystems. 

Most native vegetation is not conducive to fire spread, producing low fuel loads and/or litter of 

relatively low flammability. When fires did occur, they probably did not spread quickly or 

extensively due to the patchiness inherent in native habitats. While fires certainly occurred, they were 

not a formative force in the distribution or type of vegetation found in native Hawaiian habitats. 

However, early Polynesians used fire to clear much of the native forests of Hawai‘i for agricultural 

purposes. In the past 200 years, a vast array of nonnative plants and animals have been imported and 

released into the Hawaiian landscape. The contemporary fire regime in the alien dry grasslands is one 

of moderate intensity, high frequency (less than 35 years) stand replacement fires that perpetuate the 

dominant grasses. Under this fire regime, burns are typically complete with little patchiness except 

under low fire intensity weather conditions, where rock outcrops limit fuel loading, or where fires 

burn into mixed fuels or another vegetation type. With very few exceptions, fires in these systems 

benefit alien species and exclude natives. No native species has ever been shown to successfully 

compete with alien grasses after successive fires.

Most of the vegetation at KPNWR is degraded coastal woodlands (scrub, shrub, and forest) with 

large open areas of grass. Due to the mild climate, the vegetation on and adjacent to the Refuge

experiences a year-round growing season. The exposed nature and strong winds of many areas on the 

Refuge increase chances of wildfire onsite. 

A Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement between the Kaua‘i County Fire Department and KNWRC 

was established for initial attack, suppression, and mop-up of wildfires within Refuge lands on 

Kaua‘i. No prescribed burning has occurred on the Refuge; only small piles of vegetation debris have 

been burned. 

KNWRC has a Wildland Fire Management Plan that was completed in 2004. Small-scale prescribed 

burns might be occasionally necessary as a method of disposal of woody debris. Prescribed burns 

would also require individual burn prescriptions. A Hawai‘i State Department of Health (HDOH)

burn permit may also be necessary for each prescribed burn to minimize effects on air quality. The 

prescribed fire season is expected to be from September to February. Conditions for the permit would 

exclude specified time periods (“no-burn” days) as broadcast by the National Weather Service. 

3.7 Environmental Contaminants

In 2011, a contaminants assessment was conducted for the Refuge, and it concluded that no major 

contaminant issues existed at that time (USFWS 2011). Historically, however, contaminants did exist 

on the Refuge. Built in 1913 as a navigational aid for commercial shipping between Hawai‘i and 

Asia, Kīlauea Lighthouse guided ships and boats safely along Kaua’i’s rugged north shore for 62 

years. The lighthouse contains a unique Fresnel lens that weighs about 4.5 tons and was designed to 

“float” on mercury and pressurized air. In 1998 a mercury leak was discovered by a maintenance 

worker while chipping rust off the ceiling between the second and third floors. In October 1998 the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-12 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

mercury was cleaned by a hazmat team and properly disposed of. A follow up inspection showed that 

mercury was no longer present in the clean-up zone or surrounding areas (Paglinawan 1998). 

A Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) exists on the Refuge but should no longer be a source of 

contaminants. Previous records, studies, and interviews indicate the Kīlauea Radar Station was 

constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shortly after the outbreak of World War II between 

1941and 1942. Records indicate that the station was one of three radar installations located on the 

island of Kaua‘i. The station was constructed on the highest point of the Crater Hill parcel and 

included two tunnels (one for radio and one for radio operations), an electrical generation plant, and a 

200-foot radar tower. Records indicate that after the war, former landowner Kīlauea Plantation used 

one of the tunnels as a storage area for explosives. An underground tank used to hold petroleum 

products was removed from the site (Dept. of the Army 1991). 

An internal Service environmental compliance audit report was performed in August 2010 for 

Kīlauea Point NWR. The purpose of the audit was to assess compliance status with Federal, State, 

and local environmental regulations. This also included compliance with all DOI and Service 

policies, Executive orders, and any other applicable requirements. Eight findings related to some 

management categories (hazardous, toxic, pesticide, petroleum/oil/lubricants) were identified for 

corrective action (mostly related to improving storage, labeling, and training). 

3.8 Air Quality 

Due to the tradewinds experienced year-round on Kaua‘i, as well as the low population and 

development on the island, air quality is not considered a problem. However, due to an active 

volcano on the island of Hawai‘i, air quality is periodically affected by vog (volcanic smog) 

depending on the eruption and prevailing winds, although Kaua‘i is the least impacted, being farthest 

away from Hawai‘i Island. HDOH, which began monitoring activities in 1957, manages several air 

quality monitoring stations found on O‘ahu, Maui, and Hawai‘i Islands. These stations monitor 

pollutants to assess air quality compliance with State and Federal standards (standards can be found 

at http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/air/cab/index.html, link “Federal and State Ambient Air 

Quality Standards). 

Air quality regulations in the U.S. are based on a set of air quality standards, which are the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards are set to protect the public health and welfare and 

determine if areas are in attainment or nonattainment. HDOH monitors carbon monoxide, hydrogen 

sulfide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, fine particulate matter (10 and 2.5 micrometers), lead, and sulfur 

dioxide. Only O‘ahu, Maui, and Hawai‘i Islands are monitored for these pollutants. There is a 

monitoring station on Kaua‘i, but it is a special purpose monitoring station, located at Niumalu, that 

monitors specifically for cruise ship emissions. This station was made operational in 2010. A 

previous monitoring station was also located in Līhu‘e which monitored only for particulate matter 

10 and was closed in 2007 (Kihara pers. comm. 2011). 

Air quality concerns on Kaua‘i focus on the west side, where a major power generation facility and 

most of the large-scale agriculture and military facilities are found. The Air Quality Index (based on 

measuring ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon 

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide) for Hawai‘i is considered to be satisfactory with air 

pollution posing little to no risk. In 2009, the State was in attainment of all National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (excluding exceedances due to volcanic activity). A 5-year trend analysis of 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-13

ambient air quality shows that, with the exception of particulate matter 10 (due to fireworks and 

construction activities), recorded pollutants are well below both State and Federal standards (DOH 

2010). 

Additional air quality-related emissions involve GHG. In 2007, it was estimated that approximately 

24,270,000 metric tons of GHG emissions were produced in Hawai‘i, with transportation and electric 

power comprising 88 percent of the total emissions. Kaua‘i contributed 3 percent to the total State 

emissions, with a majority of this 3 percent composed of the transportation and electric power sectors 

(DBEDT 2008). These estimates do not include fuels that were exported, used on international 

aircraft or ship operations, or used by the military in the State. Additionally, Hawai‘i is developing 

means to reduce its GHG emissions. In 2007, the State of Hawai‘i enacted Act 234, which set a goal 

to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 

An internal Service environmental compliance audit report was performed in August 2010 for 

Kīlauea Point NWR. The purpose of the audit was to assess compliance status with respect to 

Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. This included compliance with all DOI and 

Service policies, Executive orders, and any other applicable requirements. The August 2010 audit 

showed no major findings of violations of air emissions management. 

3.9 Water Quality 

On Refuge-owned lands, there are no hydrological features, so water quality is not assessed. 

However, Kīlauea River (which runs through the boundary of the Refuge on non-Refuge owned 

lands) is listed on the EPA 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for turbidity (HDOH 2008). 

Heavy rainfalls are a factor for water quality because during such floods and storms, debris and 

sediments are washed downriver. 

An internal Service environmental compliance audit report was performed in August 2010 for 

Kīlauea Point NWR. The purpose of the audit was to assess compliance status with respect to 

Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. This also included compliance with all DOI and 

Service policies, Executive orders, and any other applicable requirements. The August 2010 audit 

showed no major findings of violations of water quality management. 

3.10 Visual Quality

The dramatic views of the coastline from the areas open to the public on the Refuge are commonly 

photographed by visitors. The lighthouse and the peninsula on which it stands are also commonly 

photographed sites (both from the ground and aerially) with images often used for tourism and sightseeing/attractions related purposes. 

The Kīlauea town plan also identifies views as part of Kīlauea’s assets (Figure 3-1) and a desire to 

retain Kīlauea’s rural charm and scenic landscapes. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-14 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Figure 3-1. Kīlauea Assets Map (County of Kaua‘i 2006). 

3.11 Surrounding Land Uses

Under the State Land Use Law (Act 187), Hawai‘i Revised Statute Chapter 205, all lands in the State 

are classified into four districts: Agriculture, Rural, Conservation, and Urban. Conservation Districts, 

under the jurisdiction of the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, are further divided 

into five subzones: Protective, Limited, Resource, General, and Special (Hawai‘i Administration 

Rules, Title 13, Chapter 5). The other three districts are under the jurisdiction of the counties. 

Most of the land in the Kīlauea area is private property, with some county (about 95 acres) and few 

State (a little over 4 acres) properties. Lands to the south of the Refuge are part of Kīlauea town, 

which includes residential areas, schools, a county park, and commercial properties (e.g., stores, 

restaurants, markets). Areas of Kīlauea (lands west, south, and east of the Refuge) include high-end 

properties with large residential estates priced in the millions. Most of Kīlauea is zoned as agriculture 

with Kīlauea town proper (or commercial core) zoned Urban. Within the larger Kīlauea area are 

orchard operations to small farms specializing in organic produce (County of Kaua‘i 2006). Most of 

the Kīlauea area is identified as prime agricultural land under the State’s agricultural lands of 

importance. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-15

Areas directly along the coast are zoned Conservation. Areas on and adjacent to the Refuge are also 

zoned as special management areas under the Coastal Zone Management Program (see figures in 

Chapter 1 for location maps and Chapter 5 for further information on towns). The Kaua‘i Public 

Land Trust (which is now part of the Hawaiian Islands Land Trust) also owns lands, for the purpose 

of conservation, within the approved Refuge boundary. 

Within the approved Refuge boundary, adjacent waterways (e.g., Kīlauea River) provide recreation 

(e.g., fishing, kayaking) and a beach area (Kāhili) that is used for picnicking, swimming, surfing, etc. 

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

in the Kīlauea River. 

The coastal waters around the Refuge are also part of the Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary which is jointly administered by the State and NOAA. Directly north and to the west of 

Moku‘ae‘ae Rock/Sea Stack is a State marine managed area (bottomfish restricted fishing area). 

3.12 References 

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the 

terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Endangered Species Research 4:1–10. 

Berg, N., B. McGurk, and R.S. Calhoun. 1997. Hydrology and land use effects on the Hanalei 

National Wildlife Refuge, Kauaʻi, HI. Final Report. Interagency Agreement 14-48-0001-94588. 

Forest Service. USDA. 62 pp. 

Bierbaum, R.M., J.P. Holdren, M.C. MacCracken, R.H. Moss, and P.H. Raven (eds.). 2007. 

Confronting climate change: avoiding the unmanageable and managing the unavoidable. Report 

prepared for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Sigma Xi, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, and the United Nations Foundation, Washington, DC. 

Bindoff, N. L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A. Cazenave, J.M. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, et al. 

2007. Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea level. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. 

Chen, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, M. M. B. Tignor, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical 

science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 385–432). Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY. 

Cambridge University Press. 

Blay, C. and R. Seimers. 2004. Kaua‘i’s Geologic History. Teok Investigations. 

Buddemeier, R.W., J.A. Kleypas, and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Coral Reefs and Global Climate Change: 

Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems. Pew Centre for 

Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA. 

Caccamise, D. J., II, M. A. Merrifield, M. Bevis, J. Foster, Y. L. Firing, M. S. Schenewerk, F. W. 

Taylor, and D. A. Thomas. 2005. Sea level rise at Honolulu and Hilo, Hawai‘i: GPS estimates of 

differential land motion, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03607.

Carter, L.M., E. Shea, M. Hamnett, C. Anderson, G. Dolcemascolo, C. Guard, M. Taylor, T. 

Barnston,Y. He, M. Larsen, L. Loope, L. Malone, G. Meehl. 2001. Potential Consequences of 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-16 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Climate Variability and Change for the U.S.-Affiliated Islands of the Pacific and Caribbean. pp. 315–

349. In Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change. National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global Change Research 

Program. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 

Chu, P.S. and H. Chen. 2005. Interannual and interdecadal rainfall variations in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Journal of Climate. Vol.18:4796–4813. 

Church, J. A. and N. J. White. 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical 

Research Letters. 33, L01602. doi:10.1029/2005GL024826 

Church, J. A. and N. J. White. 2011. Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st century. 

Surveys in Geophysics. 32(4–5), 585–602. doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1 

County of Kaua‘i. Department of Water. Water Plan 2020. March 2001. Available at 

http://www.kauaiwater.org/ce_waterplan2020app.asp. 

County of Kaua‘i. 2006. Kīlauea Town Plan. September 2006. 

http://kilauealighthousevillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/KilaueaTownPlan.pdf. 

CWRM (Commission on Water Resource Management). 1992. Declarations of Water Use, Volume 

1. 325 pp. 

DBEDT and DOH (Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism and 

Department of Health). 1998. Hawai‘i climate change action plan. Available at

http://Hawai‘i.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/ccap.pdf. 

DBEDT (State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism and 

Department of Health, prepared by ICF International). 2008. Hawai‘i Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 

1990 and 2007. 

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean Division. 1991. “Kilauea 

Nation Wildlife Refuge, Kīlauea Radar Station, Crater Hill, Kīlauea, Island of Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi.” 

Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Sites, Inventory Project Report. Site 

No. H09HI018000. Contract No. DACA83-89-D-0020. 

Diaz, H.F., P. Chu, and J.K. Eischeid. 2005. Rainfall changes in Hawai‘i during the last century. 16th 

Conference on Climate Variability and Change, American Meteorological Society. Boston, MA. 

DLNR (Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources). 2011. Hawai‘i National Flood 

Insurance Program. Available at http://gis.hawaiinfip.org/fhat

DOH (State of Hawai‘i Department of Health). 2009 State of Hawai‘i Annual Summary Air Quality 

Data. September 2010. 

http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/air/cab/cabmaps/pdf/2009_aqbook.pdf. 

Duffy, D.C. 1993. Stalking the Southern Oscillation: environmental uncertainty, climate change and 

North Pacific Seabirds. The status, ecology, and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific. 

Can. Wildl. Serv Spec. Publ., Ottawa. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-17

Ehleringer, J.R., T.E. Cerling, M.D. Dearing. 2002. Atmospheric CO2 as a global driver influencing 

plant–animal interactions. Integ. Comp. Biol. 42, 424–430. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Climate Change and Hawai‘i. Report no. EPA 236-

F-98-007e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 

Washington, DC. 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. National Water Program 2012 strategy: response to 

climate change. EPA-850-K-12-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC.124pp+. 

ESC (Endangered Species Coalition). 2011. It’s getting hot out there: top 10 places to save for 

endangered species in a warming world. 

http://itsgettinghotoutthere.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52. 

Fletcher, C. 2010. Hawai‘i’s Changing Climate, Briefing Sheet. University of Hawai‘i Sea Grant 

College Program, Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy. 

http://icap.seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/hawaii%E2%80%99s-changing-climate-briefing-sheet. 

Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens. 1972. Soil Survey of the Islands of Kaua‘i, 

O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i, and Lāna‘i, State of Hawai‘i. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service. 

Giambelluca, T. 2008. Recent Historical Temperature and Trade-Wind Inversion Variations in 

Hawai‘i. Presented at the Forum on Climate Change in Hawai‘i, March 2008, in Honolulu, HI. 

Giambelluca T.W, Q. Chen, A. G. Frazier, J. P. Price, Y-L Chen, P-S Chu, J. Eischeid, and D. 

Delparte. 2011. The Rainfall Atlas of Hawai‘i. http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu. 

Giambelluca, T., M. Ridgley, and M. Nullet. 1996. Water balance, climate change and land-use 

planning in the Pearl Harbor Basin, Hawai‘i. International Journal of Water Resources Development 

12(4):515-530. 

Grinsted, A., J. C Moore, and S. Jevrejeva. 2010. Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected 

temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Climate dynamics, 34(4), 461–472. doi:10.1007/ s00382-008-0507-2 

Hawai‘i Department of Education. 2001. Āinakumuwai: June 2001. Available at 

http://www.hawaii.edu/environment/ainakukuwai/html/ainakumuwaitour1.html

HDOH-Hawai‘i Department of Health. 2008. State of Hawai‘i Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report. http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/env-planning/wqm/wqm.html. 

Hue, N.V., G. Uehara, R.S. Yost, and M. Ortiz-Escobar. 2010. Distribution of Soil Orders in 

Hawai‘i. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/huen/hawaii%20soils/hawaii_soils706.htm. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Working Group II to the Third 

Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-18 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Working Group I Contribution in: S. 

Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, 

eds. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY. 

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing 

Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. 

Jevrejeva, S., J. C., Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L Woodworth. 2008. Recent global sea level 

acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters. 35, L08715. 

doi:200810.1029/2008GL033611. 

Juvik, S.P. and J.O. Juvik. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i, Third edition. University of Hawai‘i Press: 

Honolulu. 333pp. 

Kihara, Susan. 2011. State of Hawai‘i Department of Health Clean Air Branch. Personal 

Communications. 

Lau L.S. and J.F. Mink. 2006. Hydrology of the Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawai‘i Press: 

Honolulu. 

Leiserowitz A, E. Maibach, and C. Roser-Renouf. 2008. Global Warming’s Six Americas: An 

Audience Segmentation. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Available at

http://research.yale.edu/environment/climate. 

Leong, J.A., Marra, J.J., Finucane, M.L., Giambelluca, T., Merrifield, M., Miller, S.E., Polovina, J., 

Shea, E., Burkett, M., Campbell, J., Lefale, P., Lipschultz, F., Loope, L., Spooner, D., and Wang, B. 

2014. Ch. 23: Hawai‘i and U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands. Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. 

Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 537–556. doi:10.7930/J0W66HPM. 

Marra, J. J., Merrifield M.A., and Sweet W.V. 2012. Sea Level and Coastal Inundation on Pacific 

Islands. In V. W. Keener, J. J. Marra, M. L. Finucane, D. Spooner, and M. H. Smith (Eds.), Climate 

Change and Pacific Islands: Indicators and Impacts. Report for the 2012 Pacific Islands Regional 

Climate Assessment (PIRCA). Washington, DC: Island Press. 

McCarthy, J.J, F. Osvaldo, F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White. 2001. Climate 

change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 

UK.

Michener, W.K., E.R. Blood, K.L. Bildstein, M.M. Brinson, and L.R. Gardner. 1997. Climate 

Change, Hurricanes, and Tropical Storms, and Rising Sea Level in Coastal Wetlands. Ecological 

Applications Vol. 7(3):770–801. 

Middleton, B.A. 2006. Invasive Species and Climate Change. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2006–1153. 

Miike, L.H. 2004. Water and the Law in Hawai‘i. University of Hawai‘i Press: Honolulu. 264 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-19

Mimura, N., L. Nurse, R.F. McLean, J. Agard, L. Briguglio, P. Lefale, R. Payet and G. Sem. 2007: 

Small islands. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of 

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. 

Mueller-Dombois, D. 1981. Spatial variation and succession in tropical island rain forests. Hawai‘i 

Botanical Science Paper 41. 96 pp. 

Mueller-Dombois, D. and C. H. Lamoreux. 1967. Soil-Vegetation Relationships in Hawaiian 

Kipukas. University of Hawai‘i Press. 

Nakiboglu, S.M., K. Lambeck, and P. Aharon. 1983. Post-glacial sealevels in the Pacific: 

implications with respect to deglaciation regime and local tectonics. Tectonophys. 91: 335–358. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). 2001. Climate of Hawai‘i. 

http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim60/states/Clim_HI_01.pdf

Nerem, R.S., Chambers, D.P., Choe, C., and G.T. Mitchum. 2010. Estimating mean sea level change 

from TOPEX and Jason altimeter missions. Marine Geodesy 33: 435–446. 

Nisbet, M. C. 2009. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. 

Environment, v. 51 p. 12–23. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2014. Trends in atmospheric carbon 

dioxide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory. 

http://www.esri.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/. 

Oki, D.S. 2004. Trends in Streamflow Characteristics at Long-Term Gaging Stations, Hawaiʻi: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5080, 120 p. 

Paglinawan, Fred “C.W.” (PENCO, HAZMAT Technical Representative). 1998. Letter to Rick 

Potter (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaiian Pacific Island NWRC, Honolulu, HI). Kauaʻi 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Kīlauea, HI. 

Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson. 2007. Climate 

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, UK. 976 p. 

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science

315(5810), 368–370. doi:10.1126/science.1135456. 

Reynolds, M.H., Courtot, K.N., Berkowitz, P., Storlazzi, C.D., Moore, J., and E. Flint. Will the 

effects of sea-level rise create ecological traps for Pacific Island seabirds? PLoS ONE 10(9): 

e0136773. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136773. 

Scherer, G. 2012. Climate science predictions prove too conservative. Scientific American. 

(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id =climate-science-predictions-prove-tooconservative). Modified from Scherer's article from The Daily Climate 

(http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-20 Chapter 3. Physical Environment

Seimers, Robert Joseph. 2009. Kaua‘i Island Atlas and Maps: A Guide to the Garden Island. 

Environmental Designs. 

Sexton, N.R., A.M. Dietsch, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Koontz, and A.N. Solomon. 2011. National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results: USGS Geological Survey Data 

Series 643. 

Smith, C.W. and J.T. Tunison. 1992. Fire and alien plants in Hawai’i: Research and management 

fornative ecosystems. In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison, eds. Alien plant invasions in 

native ecosystems of Hawai’i: Management and Research. University of Hawai‘i Cooperative 

National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu, HI. Pp. 394–409. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller. 

2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

Timm, O. 2008. Statistical Projection of Global Climate Change Scenarios onto Hawaiian Rainfall. 

Presented at the Forum on Climate Change in Honolulu, HI. 

Timm, O. and H. F. Diaz. 2009. Synoptic-statistical approach to regional downscaling of IPCC 

twenty-first century climate projections: seasonal rainfall over the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of 

Climate. Vol. 22:4261–4280. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989. Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Draft Public 

Use Management Plan. Honolulu, HI. 

USFWS. 2005. Summary of Water Monitoring at Hanalei NWR: December 2003–November 2004. 

Water Resources Branch. 

USFWS. 2007. Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i County, HI. 

USFWS. 2011. Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Contaminants Assessment Process [online 

database]. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/cap/summaryReport.do?study_id=619394#. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Climate Research Program). 2009. Global climate change impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press, NY.188pp+. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Gingerich, S. B. and D.S. Oki. Fact Sheet 126-00. Ground 

Water in Hawai‘i . Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/126/. 

Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences, 106(51), 21527–21532. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907765106. 

Vitousek, Peter M. 1994. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology 75(7): 

1861–1876. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-21

Walther, G-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J-M. Fromentin, O. 

Hoegh-Guidberg, F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416: 389–

395. 

Watson, R.T. 2010. The IPCC needs to change, but the science remains sound. Yale Environment 

360: February 25, 2010. Available at http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the ipcc needs to change but the 

science remains sound/2245/ 

Young, L.C., R.M. Suryan, D.C. Duffy, W.J. Sydeman. 2012. Climate change and seabirds of the 

California Current and Pacific Islands ecosystems: Observed and potential impacts and management 

implications. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 38 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

3-22 Chapter 3. Physical Environment
© Chris Farmer

Chapter 5Social and Economic Environment

Chapter 4Refuge Biology and Habitats

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

A-K

Chapter 4

Refuge Biology

and Habitats

Chapter 2Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-1 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats of Kīlauea Point NWR; however, it is 

not an exhaustive overview of all species and habitats occurring within the Refuge. The chapter 

begins with a discussion of biological integrity; we then focus on the presentation of pertinent 

background information for the priority resources of concern and other benefitting species designated 

under the CCP. Background information includes descriptions, locations, conditions, trends, key 

ecological attributes, and threats (stresses and sources of stress) to the habitats and/or associated 

resources of concern. The information presented was used to develop goals and objectives for the 

CCP (see Chapter 2). 

4.1 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health (BIDEH) of the Refuge System is maintained for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. The Service’s policy on BIDEH (601 FW 3) also provides guidance 

for consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found 

on refuges and associated ecosystems that represent BIDEH on each refuge. The Refuge 

Administration Act, as amended by the Improvement Act, clearly establishes that wildlife 

conservation is the singular Refuge System mission. House Report 105-106 accompanying the 

Improvement Act states “...the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife conservation: wildlife 

and wildlife conservation must come first.” BIDEH is a critical component of wildlife conservation. 

BIDEH policy defines biological integrity as “the biotic composition, structure, and functioning at 

genetic, organism, and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the natural 

biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and communities.” Biological diversity is 

defined as “the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they occur.” Environmental 

health is defined as the “composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

environment.” In simplistic terms, elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats, as well as those ecological processes that support them. 

Biological integrity lies along a continuum from a completely natural system to a biological system 

extensively altered by considerable human impacts to the landscape. No modern landscape retains 

complete BIDEH. However, we strive to prevent the further loss of natural biological features and 

processes. Maintaining or restoring biological integrity is not the same as maximizing biological 

diversity. Maintaining biological integrity may entail managing for a single species or community at 

some refuges and combinations of species or communities at other refuges. Maintaining critical 

habitat for a specific endangered species, even though it may reduce biological diversity at the refuge 

scale, helps maintain biological integrity and diversity at the ecosystem or national landscape scale. 

Historically, migratory and nonmigratory native birds and native coastal plant communities may have 

thrived in the Kīlauea Point area in some or most years and on multiple islands on much larger 

landscapes. This is supported by fossil and subfossil records of species in lowlands, previously 

thought to be restricted to higher elevations or other islands, including, ‘a‘o, ‘ua‘u, and nēnē (Burney 

et al. 2001). Native coastal ecosystems are among the most threatened ecosystems in the Hawaiian 

Islands due to the long-term presence of humans and the negative effects of their actions— 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-2 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

specifically, development, agriculture, fire, and the introduction of invasive species. Therefore, to 

conserve native plant and animal populations at larger landscape scales to support long-term regional 

conservation goals, we may manage habitats at the Refuge to maintain higher densities of native 

species than those that may have occurred historically at the Refuge level because of loss and 

degradation of surrounding habitat. 

On refuges, we typically focus our evaluations of biological diversity at the refuge scale; however, 

these refuge evaluations can contribute to assessments at larger landscape scales. We strive to 

maintain populations of breeding individuals that are genetically viable and functional. Evaluations 

of biological diversity begin with population surveys and studies of flora and fauna. The Refuge 

System's focus is on native species and natural communities such as those found under historical 

conditions. 

We evaluate environmental health by examining the extent to which environmental composition, 

structure, and function have been altered from historic conditions. Environmental composition refers 

to abiotic components, such as air, water, and soils, all of which are generally interwoven with biotic 

components (e.g., decomposers live in soils). Environmental structure refers to the organization of 

abiotic components, such as atmospheric layering, aquifer structure, and topography. Environmental 

function refers to the processes undergone by abiotic components, such as wind, tidal regimes, 

evaporation, and erosion. A diversity of abiotic composition, structure, and function tends to support 

a diversity of biological composition, structure, and function. 

We strive to manage in a holistic manner the combination of BIDEH. We balance all three by 

considering refuge purposes, Refuge System mission, and landscape scales. Where practical, we 

support the return of extirpated native species in the context of surrounding landscapes. The elements 

of BIDEH for Kīlauea Point NWR are summarized in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health. 

Habitats Historic habitat 

attributes 

Historic natural 

processes responsible 

for these conditions

Current limiting factors

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland

Native-dominated 

coastal dry-mesic 

shrubland, mixed shrub 

and grassland, and 

mixed shrubland and 

forest communities 

with <45° slope. 

Potential conservation 

species: nēnē, pueo, 

seabirds including 

mōlī, ka‘upu, ‘a‘o, and 

rare native coastal 

plant communities 

Shallow, well-drained, 

highly erodible, saline, 

phosphorus-rich soils 

(e.g., guano); wind and 

water erosion; low 

annual precipitation; 

and grazing (geese).

Invasive species: ironwood, 

Christmasberry, lantana, 

haole koa, introduced 

mammalian and avian 

predators and scavengers and 

insect pests; ungulate rooting 

and grazing; climate change; 

human development; 

vehicular and human traffic.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-3 

Habitats Historic habitat 

attributes 

Historic natural 

processes responsible 

for these conditions

Current limiting factors

supporting threatened 

and endangered plants 

and endemic insects. 

Sea cliff Native-dominated 

coastal dry-mesic 

shrubland, mixed shrub 

and grassland, and 

mixed shrubland and 

forest communities 

with >45° slope. 

Potential conservation 

species: seabirds 

including ‘iwa, ‘ā, 

‘ua‘u kani, koa‘e kea 

and rare native coastal 

plant communities 

supporting threatened 

and endangered plants 

and endemic insects. 

Shallow, well-drained, 

highly erodible, saline, 

phosphorus-rich soils; 

wind, wave, and water 

erosion; and low 

annual precipitation. 

Invasive species: ironwood, 

Christmasberry, lantana, 

haole koa, introduced 

mammalian and avian 

predators and scavengers and 

insect pests; climate change; 

human development; human 

trespass

Beach strand Bare sand, gravel, or 

rock within or just 

above the tidal zone; 

sparsely vegetated by 

native- dominated 

coastal dry herbland 

and mixed 

communities. 

Potential conservation 

species: ‘ilio-holo-i-kauaua, honu, migratory 

shorebirds, ‘iwa, ‘ā, 

and rare native coastal 

plant communities. 

Well-drained, sandy to 

rocky substrates; wind 

and water erosion; 

wave inundation; saline 

environment; low 

annual precipitation. 

Invasive species: ironwood, 

Christmasberry, lantana, 

haole koa, introduced 

mammalian and avian 

predators and scavengers and 

insect pests; climate change; 

human trespass
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-4 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

4.2 Priority Resources of Concern

4.2.1 Analysis of Resources of Concern

In identifying resources of concern (ROCs), the team followed the process outlined in the Service’s 

Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook (USFWS 2010). 

As defined in the Service’s Policy on Habitat Management Plans (620 FW 1), ROCs are: 

“all plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in 

refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem 

conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern 

on a refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or 

State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern 

under terms of the respective endangered species acts (620 FW 1.4G)” 

Habitats or plant communities are ROCs when they are specifically identified in refuge purposes, 

when they support species or species groups identified in refuge purposes, when they support Refuge 

System ROCs, and/or when they are important in the maintenance or restoration of BIDEH. 

As a result of this information gathering and review process, a comprehensive list of potential 

resources of concern was developed (Appendix E). 

4.2.2 Selection of Priority Resources of Concern 

Early in the planning process, the planning team cooperatively identified ROCs for the Refuge. 

Negative features of the landscape, such as invasive plants, may demand a large part of the Refuge 

management effort but are not designated as ROCs. The step-by-step process to prioritize ROCs and 

management priorities for a refuge are displayed in Figure 4-1. The team then selected priority ROCs 

from the ROC list. The main criteria for selecting priority ROCs included the following 

requirements: 

• The resource must be reflective of the Refuge’s establishing purposes and the Refuge System 

mission; 

• The resource must include the main natural habitat types found at the Refuge; 

• The resource must be recommended as a conservation priority in the Wildlife and Habitat 

Management Review; or

• The resource must be federally or State-listed, a candidate for listing, or a species of concern. 

Other criteria that were considered in the selection of priority ROCs included the following: 

• Species groups and/or Refuge features of special management concern; 

• Species contributing to the BIDEH of the ecosystem;

• Species where it is feasible to estimate abundance and distribution (needed for future 

monitoring and adaptive management). 

In developing its listing of priority ROCs, the planning team selected not only species mentioned in 

establishing documents for the Refuge, but also species that captured the ecological attributes of 

habitats required by larger suites of species. The ecological attributes of habitats should meet the life 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-5 

history requirements of ROCs, and are therefore important to sustain the long-term viability of the 

priority ROC and other benefitting species. Ecological attributes of habitats include vegetation 

structure, species composition, age class, patch size, and contiguity with other habitats; hydrologic 

regime; and disturbance events. These provide measurable indicators that strongly correlate with the 

ability of a habitat to support a given species. Tables listing the desired conditions for habitat types 

found on the Refuge incorporate “desired” conditions that were based on scientific literature review 

and team members’ professional judgment. These desired conditions for specific ecological attributes 

were then used to help design habitat goals and objectives, as presented in Chapter 2. However, not 

all ecological attributes or indicators were deemed ultimately feasible or necessary to design an 

objective around. Other factors, such as the Refuge’s ability to reasonably influence or measure 

certain indicators, played a role in determining the ultimate parameters chosen for each habitat 

objective. Thus, ecological attributes should be viewed as a step in the planning process. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-6 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Figure 4-1. Overview of the process to prioritize resources of concern and management 

priorities for a refuge (USFWS 2010) 

Understand Mandates for Management on Refuges 

Step 1. Identify refuge purposes

Step 2. Identify NWRS Resources of Concern

Step 3. Identify elements of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health

Establish Management Agenda for the Refuge 

Step 7. Write goals

Step 8. Write objectives

Identify Refuge Resources of Concern and Management 

Priorities

Step 4. Compile comprehensive list of 

Refuge Resources of Concern

Step 5. Identify priority 

Refuge Resources of 

Concern

Step 6. Identify 

priority habitats

-site capabilities

-response to management

.-expert analysis

Filters: 

Focal Species
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-7 

Limiting factors were also considered in developing objectives. A limiting factor is a threat to, or an 

impairment or degradation of, the natural processes responsible for creating and maintaining plant 

and animal communities. In developing objectives and strategies, the team gave priority to mitigating 

or abating limiting factors that presented high risk to ROCs. In many cases, limiting factors occur on 

a regional or landscape scale and are beyond the control of individual refuges. Therefore, objectives 

and strategies may seek to mimic, rather than restore, natural processes. For example, mowing may 

be used to maintain a desirable vegetation structure, when restoring native grassland communities 

may be impractical. Through the consideration of BIDEH, the Refuge will provide for or maintain all 

appropriate native habitats and species. Refuge management priorities may change over time, and 

because the CCP is designed to be a living, flexible document, changes will be made at appropriate 

times.

In the following sections, information is provided on the ecological processes of formation and 

maintenance, regional distribution, condition and threats, key species supported, and management 

activities for each priority ROC. A similar analysis is presented for focal resources following the 

analysis for Priority ROCs. 

Tables describing focal resources associated with a particular habitat type are included at the end of 

each Priority ROC section in this chapter. Definitions for the column headings are as follows:

• Focal Resources: Species or species groups selected as representatives or indicators for the 

overall condition of the priority ROC. In situations where the conservation target may include 

a broad variety of habitat structures and plant associations, several different conservation 

focal resources may be listed. In addition, species with specific “niche” ecological 

requirements may be listed as a focal resource. Management will be focused on attaining 

conditions required by the focal resource. Other species utilizing the associated habitat type 

will generally be expected to benefit as a result of management for the focal resource.

• Habitat Type: The priority resource of concern utilized by the focal resource. 

• Desired Habitat Characteristics: The specific and measurable habitat attributes considered 

feasible on the Refuge and necessary to support the focal resource. 

• Life History Requirement: The general season of use for the focal resource. 

• Other Benefiting Species: Other species that are expected to benefit from management for 

the selected focal resource. The list is not comprehensive.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-8 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Table 4-2 identifies the priority resources of concern for Kīlauea Point NWR. As native species are 

referenced by their Hawaiian names, Appendix J contains a list of all scientific, English, and 

Hawaiian names. 

Table 4-2. Priority Resources of Concern

Focal 

Resources

Habitat Type Habitat 

Structure

Life History 

Requirements

Other Benefiting 

Species

Mōlī/ka‘upu 

(albatrosses) 

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland

Variable. Large 

windward sandy, 

grassy, or shrubby 

areas with open 

runways for takeoff and landing. 

Breeding, 

prospecting 

‘Ua‘u kani, nēnē, 

koa‘e ‘ula, ‘ā, ‘iwa, 

kōlea and other 

shorebirds, associated 

native plant and 

insect communities

‘A‘o/‘ua‘u 

kani 

(shearwaters)

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland and 

sea cliff

Substrates with 

good soil or root 

structure, or subcanopy layer for 

burrowing, rock 

and root crevices, 

with open flight 

corridors. 

Breeding, 

prospecting 

Nēnē, koa‘e ‘ula, 

koa‘e kea, ‘a, ‘iwa, 

‘ou, associated native 

plant and insect 

communities 

‘Ā/‘iwa (redfooted booby 

and 

frigatebird) 

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland, sea 

cliff, and 

beach strand 

Variable. Woody 

vegetation >1.5–3 

ft tall

Breeding, roosting, 

prospecting 

Koa‘e ‘ula, koa‘e 

kea, ‘a, ‘iwa, ‘ou, 

‘a‘o, ‘ua‘u kani, 

associated native 

plant and insect 

communities 

Nēnē/pueo Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland, sea 

cliff

Sward-forming 

grass-legume mix 

with high moisture 

content, managed 

<6 inches tall.

Shrublands with 

an open 

understory, forage 

value, adjacent to 

grasslands. 

Breeding, roosting, 

foraging

‘Ua‘u kani, koa‘e 

‘ula, mōlī, ka‘upu, 

kōlea, kioea, and 

other shorebirds, 

associated native 

plant and insect 

communities 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-9 

Focal 

Resources

Habitat Type Habitat 

Structure

Life History 

Requirements

Other Benefiting 

Species

‘Ilio-holo-ika-uaua/ honu Beach strand Protected, unvegetated, or 

sparsely vegetated 

beaches with little 

to no human 

activity.

Hauling out and 

nursing (‘ilio-holo-ika-uaua), basking

and nesting (honu) 

Migratory shorebirds, 

‘iwa, ‘ā, and rare 

native coastal plant 

communities. 

4.3 Primary Habitats

Plants that grow in the coastal zone and low elevation forests are rare in Hawai‘i as a result of 

development, agriculture, fire, and the introduction of pest species. Only 11 percent of lowland mesic 

and dry native plant communities remain intact on Kaua‘i, compared to 22 percent for all of the 

Hawaiian Islands combined. 

Coastal habitats are designated as lands between sea level and 1,500 feet in elevation that are 

typically vegetated with salt-tolerant species and dispersed by wind, currents, and waves, but less 

capable of terrestrial migration. Strand species are highly influenced by the sea due to their location 

on the shoreline and adjacent areas. Strand environments can be harsh due to salt spray, constant 

wind, low rainfall, intense sunlight, high evaporation, high temperatures, and unstable sands. As a 

result, strand plants have developed a variety of adaptations to deal with these conditions, including 

moist stems, prostrate growth forms, thick cuticles, and small leaves that are succulent, hairy, or 

rosette. Because of these harsh conditions, species diversity is usually low in this habitat (Char and 

Balakrishna 1979, Tabata 1980, Wagner et al. 1999). 

The Refuge consists of three primary habitats: coastal mixed woodland-grassland, sea cliff, and 

beach strand (Figure 4-2). Threats to these habitats include introduced mammalian predators and 

insect pests, invasive plants, ungulate rooting and grazing, climate change, human development, 

unregulated vehicular and human traffic, and trespassers. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-10 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

This page intentionally blank. 
Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitat 4-11

Figure 4-2. Habitat, Kīlauea Point NWR.

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Kīlauea Rd

Makanaano PL

Kauapea Rd

Pacific Ocean

500

400

300

100 200

Map Date: 11/17/2014 File: 11-066-3.mxd Data Source: USFWS 2014, NAIP 2004

0 1,000 2,000

feet

LEGEND

Refuge Ownership BoundaryInholdingRoads100 Foot Contour

Habitat Type

Coastal Grassland (27ac)Coastal Mixed Woodland-Grassland (97ac)Low Intensity Developed (5ac)Sea Cliff/Beach Strand (59ac) 0 250 500meters

E

Title: Habitat, Kilauea Point

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-12 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-13

4.3.1 Coastal Mixed Woodland-Grassland

The coastal mixed woodland-grassland habitat consists of flats and bluffs with a <45° slope 

dominated by low-growing trees and shrubs and perennial herbs adapted for salt, wind, and low 

precipitation. The area contains shallow, well-drained, highly erodible, saline, phosphorus-rich soils. 

This habitat type is found along the entire length of the Refuge. Historically, this habitat probably 

consisted of native-dominated coast, dry-mesic shrubland, mixed shrub and grassland, and mixed 

shrubland and forest communities. Currently, this area is important breeding habitat for all six 

species of breeding seabirds on the Refuge (mōlī, ‘ua‘u kani, ‘a‘o, koa‘e ‘ula, koa‘e kea, ‘ā), 

breeding and flocking habitat for endangered nēnē, wintering or stopover habitat for migratory 

shorebirds, and probably foraging and breeding habitat for pueo. Woody vegetation is dominated by 

ironwood, Christmasberry, and haole koa intermixed with patches of hala, naupaka kahakai, ‘akoko, 

‘ilima, pōhinahina, and pā‘ūohi‘iaka. Grasslands are dominated by introduced species such as 

Kikuyu grass, Guinea grass, and lantana. These are areas that were historically grazed by livestock 

and now serve as managed grasslands for nēnē. The coastal mixed woodland-grassland habitat has 

the greatest potential to be stabilized, restored, and managed to benefit native plant and animal 

communities, including threatened and endangered species. 

4.3.2 Cliff

Sea cliff habitat is characterized by vertical or nearly vertical cliff faces with >45° slope and rocky, 

shallow, highly erodible substrates exposed to wind, rain, and sea. This habitat type is found along 

the coastline of the Refuge. Historically, this habitat probably consisted of native-dominated coastal 

dry-mesic shrubland, mixed shrub and grassland, and mixed shrubland and forest communities. 

Given the vertical topography and substrate of these areas, access is difficult to hazardous. Because 

of its steep topography, the area appears to provide a refugium for seabirds and other native species 

from large mammalian predators and human disturbance. Currently, this area is important breeding 

habitat for ‘ua‘u kani, koa‘e ‘ula, koa‘e kea, and ‘ā, and roosting habitat for ‘iwa, ‘ā (brown boobies 

and red-footed boobies), and endangered nēnē. The sea cliffs are sparsely vegetated with ironwood, 

Christmasberry, and lantana with patches of hala, naupaka kahakai, ‘akoko, ‘ilima, and pōhinahina. 

4.3.3 Beach Strand

Beach strand habitat, consisting of small areas of sand, gravel, or rock within or just above the tidal 

zone, provides protected basking habitat for the critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-kauaua and 

potentially the threatened honu, foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds such as ‘ūlili, akekeke, 

kōlea, and marine fauna, and roosting habitat for ‘iwa and ‘ā (brown boobies and red-footed 

boobies). Beach strand communities are strongly influenced by the marine environment including 

wind and water erosion, wave inundation, and salt spray. Historically, this habitat probably consisted 

of native-dominated coastal dry herbland and mixed communities. Currently, vegetation is sparse, 

but consists of low shrubs and perennial herbs, such as naupaka kahakai, ‘ilima, and other prostrate 

native vegetation such as pōhinahina. Invasive species found in this environment include ironwood, 

Christmasberry, lantana, and haole koa. This habitat type is most vulnerable to climate change 

because of its low elevation.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-14 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

4.4 Threatened and Endangered and Other Native Wildlife

4.4.1 ‘A‘o (Puffinus auricularis newelli) or Newell’s Shearwater

‘A‘o is a threatened endemic subspecies of the nominate species, the Townsend’s shearwater of the 

eastern Pacific. It is a medium-sized shearwater, dark, sooty black above with a white belly, throat, 

and underwings. When compared to ‘ua‘u kani, it has shorter, broader wings and a shorter body and 

tail. Its flight pattern is distinctive with rapid stiff wing beats interspersed with glides versus the 

banking and gliding of ‘ua‘u kani. ‘A‘o is a pelagic bird that forages over deep waters east and south 

of Hawai‘i following predatory fish, particularly yellowfin tuna that chase squid and other prey to the 

ocean surface (Joyce et al. 2010). The total population of ‘a‘o is estimated to be 84,000 birds, 

including 14,600 breeding pairs (Ainley et al. 1997). From 1983 to 2008, there has been an alarming 

75 percent decline in population indices (Day et al. 2003). Probable causes of the decline include 

predation by introduced predators, habitat loss and degradation, urbanization including collisions 

with powerlines, and attraction to urban lights and subsequent disorientation and fallout, and natural

catastrophes (Ainley et al. 1997). 

At least 90 percent of the subspecies breeds from April to November on Kaua‘i (Ainley et al. 1997), 

with the remainder breeding on Hawai‘i, Maui, and Moloka‘i. Age at first breeding is 6 years old. A 

single egg is laid in a burrow or on the ground in most years. The incubation and chick-rearing 

periods are 62 and 92 days, respectively. Most ‘a‘o breed in steep mountainsides of Kaua‘i in ‘ōhi‘a 

forest with an uluhe fern-thicket understory. However, between 1978 and 1980, 65 and 25 ‘a‘o eggs 

were translocated to Kīlauea Point and Moku‘ae‘ae Island, respectively, and cross-fostered by ‘ua‘u 

kani pairs. Seventy-nine percent of these eggs hatched and 94 percent of the chicks fledged (Byrd et 

al. 1984). The current breeding habitat at Kīlauea Point is characterized by open-canopy hala forest 

with a naupaka understory, which supports at least 11 breeding or prospecting pairs, some 

presumably the fledglings of the translocated eggs or their progeny. Between 2002 and 2012, two to 

five chicks probably fledged each year from the Refuge. Three chicks hatched and banded on-Refuge 

in 1997, 2006, and 2009 have returned as successful breeders or prospectors. 

4.4.2 Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis) or Hawaiian Goose

The endangered nēnē is a member of the waterfowl family (Anatidae) and closely related to the 

Canada goose. Though similar in appearance, the gander is usually slightly larger than the goose. It is 

light gray-brown with a mostly black head, cream-colored neck with distinctive dark furrows, and 

black tail and feet. Nēnē are browsing grazers, eating the leaves, seeds, fruits, and flowers of grasses, 

sedges, forbs, and shrubs (Banko et al. 1999). In the 1950s, the nēnē population declined to about 30 

birds on Hawai‘i because of introduced predators, overhunting, and habitat loss. In 2011, there were 

an estimated 2,457–2,547 nēnē on four islands, including growing numbers on Kaua‘i, which 

supports 1,421–1,511 birds, or 59 percent of the State population (USFWS unpubl.). 

Nearly all birds are the result of an aggressive captive propagation-and-release program which was 

initiated by the Territorial government in 1949. This program is credited with bringing nēnē back 

from the brink of extinction; however, despite a comeback, nēnē still face major obstacles on the 

road to recovery. Current threats include depredation by introduced predators, inadequate nutrition, 

lack of suitable lowland habitat, human-related disturbance and mortality, behavioral problems, lack 

of genetic diversity, and disease (USFWS 2004). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-15

Habitat types frequently used by nēnē at Kīlauea Point NWR include grasslands dominated by 

introduced species (e.g., saltgrass, Kikuyu grass), open-understory shrublands (e.g., naupaka, haole 

koa), and sea cliffs. Nēnē build nests on the ground usually under woody and herbaceous plants with 

an open canopy. Nesting habitats range widely but generally are associated with woody vegetation. 

Species composition varies by availability; for instance, in highlands native shrubs (e.g., ‘a‘ali‘i, 

‘ōhelo, pūkiawe, small ‘ōhi‘a) predominate, but in lowlands on Kaua‘i both native (e.g., naupaka, 

pōhinahina) and nonnative (e.g., lantana, Christmasberry, koa haole, Guinea grass) plants are used. 

Nēnē mate for life. The average clutch size is three eggs (range 1–6), incubation is usually 30 days 

(range 29–32), and goslings fledge at 10–14 weeks (Banko et al. 1999). Breeding occurs mainly 

October to March and molting March to June, which is when adults become flightless for 4 to 6 

weeks while they grow new flight feathers. During this period, they become secretive and are 

extremely vulnerable to attacks by introduced predators. During the rest of the year, from June to 

September, nēnē disperse or flock with other family groups in nonbreeding areas where young nēnē 

have opportunities to find mates. Historically, nēnē are believed to have bred and molted in the 

lowlands during the winter and to have moved to higher elevations in the summer. Today, birds 

move daily between feeding and roosting areas and seasonally between breeding and nonbreeding 

areas, but altitudinal patterns are less apparent (USFWS 2004). 

Nēnē are browsing grazers, eating the leaves, seeds, fruits, and flowers of grasses, sedges, forbs, and 

shrubs (Banko et al. 1999), and they occasionally climb into or perch in bushes to reach berries (e.g., 

naupaka, māmaki). In many areas nēnē feed on cultivated grasses. In mid-elevation Hawai‘i, birds 

select forage with high water and protein content such as the young shoots of a Kikuyu grass–

Spanish clover grassland. They prefer sward-forming (turf-like growth) over bunch grasses and short 

(2–4 inches) over tall grasses and use grasslands less during drought (Woog and Black 2001). 

In partnership with the DLNR and USFWS Ecological Service, 38 nēnē were reintroduced to Crater 

Hill on the Refuge between 1991 and 1994. By 2002, the population was estimated to be 238 birds 

(USFWS 2004). In 2011, the population estimate for Hanalei, Princeville, and Kīlauea Point was 

791–811 birds. 

In 2010, the average number of nēnē during the breeding season (Oct–May) and flocking season 

(Jun–Sep) was 82 and 158, respectively, with a high count of 214 birds in July. During the 2010–

2011 breeding season, the Refuge supported a minimum of 156 nēnē breeding pairs, 224 goslings, 

and 131 fledglings. Of 105 located nests, 85 (81 percent) hatched at least 1 egg. Of 298 eggs of 

located nests, 215 (72.2 percent) hatched. Of these 215 goslings, 91 (42.3 percent) fledged. However, 

the fledging rate is biased low because of the difficulty in collecting reliable gosling data on 

unhabituated, more secretive birds at Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-16 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Figure 4-3. Nēnē reproduction at Kīlauea Point NWR, 2005–2011. 

4.4.3 ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) or Hawaiian Hoary Bat

‘Ōpe‘ape‘a is a medium-sized member of the vesper bat family (Vespertillionidae) which consists of 

nocturnal, mostly insect-eating bats. It is an endemic and endangered subspecies of the North 

American hoary bat, a solitary tree-rooster. The ‘ōpe‘ape‘a is Hawai‘i’s only native terrestrial 

mammal. Males and females have a wingspan of about 1 foot, and females are typically larger than 

males. Both sexes have brown and gray fur. Individual hairs are tipped or frosted with white; “hoary” 

means frosted. The Hawaiian name refers to a half taro leaf or canoe sail shape which are similar to 

the shape of the bat. Fur color, frosted or reddish, may be related to location or age. 

The‘ōpe‘ape‘a is a major predator of night-flying insects such as moths, beetles, and termites. Bats 

forage in open and wooded landscapes and linear habitats such windbreaks and riparian zones, and 

roost in trees with dense foliage and with open access for launching into flight. Females are believed 

to give birth to twins May to August and rear pups May to September. Pups fledge from about July to 

September, which is a critical time in the reproductive cycle (Menard 2001, Bonaccorso et al. 2008). 

The population size is unknown. Resident populations occur on Kaua‘i, Maui, and Hawai‘i, and 

possibly other main islands, with the highest abundance on Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i. 

Threats are largely unknown but may include roost disturbance, introduced predators, obstacles to 

flight (e.g., barbed wire fences, vehicles), and pesticides (USFWS 1998). In fall of 2010, a single 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a was sighted flying over Crater Hill at sunset on a calm evening (USFWS unpubl.). 

Occurrence frequency is unknown; however, forested edges near Kāhili Beach and Kīlauea River 

mouth likely provide suitable habitat (C. Pinzari pers. comm. USGS, 2010). 

4.4.4 ‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Monachus schauinslandi) or Hawaiian Monk Seal

The ‘ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua or Hawaiian monk seal is among the most critically endangered mammals in 

the world. Approximately 1,200 seals remain today with the majority in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands (NWHI), but there is a small and potentially growing population of seals in the main 

Hawaiian Islands (MHI) where a 2005 survey documented 76 individuals. Its Hawaiian name means 

“the dog that runs in the rough seas.” Seals frequently haul out on shorelines to rest and molt and 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2005-6 2006-7 2008-9 2010-11

No. of birds

Nēnē Reproduction Kīlauea Point NWR 

Breeding pairs

Goslings

Fledlings
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-17

females may haul out on shore for up to 7 weeks to give birth and nurse their pups. Pups and moms 

stay ashore until weaned. Gestation is approximately 1 year and pupping occurs in late winter and 

spring. 

‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua can live up to 25 years. They feed on reef fishes, he‘e (octopus), squid, and 

lobsters down to depths of 1,000 feet. Food seems to be a limiting factor for population growth. ‘Ilioholo-i-ka-uaua are usually solitary except when on preferred beaches when they may be close 

together and interact. Populations have been decreasing recently in the NWHI, possibly due to sea 

levels rising above some islands, competition for food resources, and predation on pups. Terrestrial 

habitat is used about one-third of the time and requirements include haul-out areas for pupping, 

nursing, and resting, primarily on sandy beaches, but virtually all substrates are used. Beachside 

vegetation is used for protection from wind and rain. ‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua are particularly vulnerable 

to climate change because of their limited global range and breeding distributions which are 

restricted primarily to the low-lying NWHI (Reynolds et al. 2012). 

Conflicts and interactions with a variety of ocean and beach users are becoming more frequent and 

significant in the MHI. Dogs have attacked ‘ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua, and they carry diseases that are 

potentially lethal to the critically endangered seal, such as canine distemper virus. Human 

disturbance, especially of mothers with pups, may be a threat. Guidelines recommend people remain 

50 yards from ‘ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua and other marine mammals. ‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua can be observed 

during most months of the year at the Refuge, most often in the cove below the Kīlauea Road 

Overlook. 

4.4.5 Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) or Hawaiian Short-eared Owl

The pueo is an endemic subspecies of the short-eared owl. The adult is brown and buffy white and 

ventrally streaked with darker brown. The eyes are yellow and the bill is black. Unlike most owls, 

pueo are diurnal, though nocturnal or crepuscular activity has been documented. Pueo are commonly 

seen hovering or soaring over open areas. It is listed by the State of Hawai‘i as an endangered species 

on the island of O‘ahu. 

The pueo is found on all the MHI from sea level to 8,000 feet elevation. There have been no surveys 

to estimate the pueo population. The species was widespread at the end of the 19th century but is 

thought to be declining (Mostello 1996, Mitchell et al. 2005). Pueo occupy a variety of habitats, 

including wet and dry forests, but are most common in open habitats such as grasslands, shrublands, 

and montane parklands, including urban areas and those actively managed for conservation (Mitchell 

et al. 2005). Their relatively recent establishment on Hawai‘i (<1,200 years) may have been tied to 

the rats that Polynesians brought to the islands. In Hawai‘i, pellet analyses indicate that rodents, 

birds, and insects are their most common prey. Birds depredated by pueo have included passerines, 

seabirds, and shorebirds. 

Little is known about the breeding biology of the ground-nesting pueo, but nests have been found 

throughout the year. Nests are constructed by females and are composed of simple scrapes in the 

ground lined with grasses and feather down. Females also perform all incubating and brooding, while 

males feed females and defend nests. The young may fledge from nests on foot before they are able 

to fly, and they depend on their parents for approximately 2 months (Mitchell et al. 2005). Pueo can 

be sighted roosting on and soaring over Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point. Little is known about 

Hawai‘i’s only native owl.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-18 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Similar to other native Hawaiian birds, loss and degradation of habitat, predation by mammals, and 

disease threaten pueo. Pueo appear particularly sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation, as they 

require relatively large tracts of grassland and are ground-nesters. Ground-nesters are more 

susceptible to the increased predation pressure that is typical within fragmented habitats and near 

rural developments (Wiggins et al. 2006). These nesting habits make them increasingly vulnerable to 

predation by rats, cats, and Indian mongooses (Mostello 1996, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Mortality of pueo on Kaua‘i has been attributed to “sick owl syndrome,” which may be related to 

pesticide poisoning or food shortages. They may be vulnerable to the ingestion of poisoned rodents. 

However, in the one study conducted, there was no evidence that organochlorine, organophosphorus, 

or carbamate pesticides caused mortality in pueo. Other causes of death on Maui, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i 

have been attributed to trauma (apparently vehicular collisions), emaciation, and infectious disease 

(pasteurellosis; Work and Hale 1996). However, their persistence in lowland, nonnative, and 

rangeland habitats suggests that they may be less vulnerable to extinction than other native birds, 

especially because they may be resistant to avian malaria and avian pox (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

4.4.6 Honu (Chelonia mydas) or Green Turtle

Honu, also known as the green turtle, is a large sea turtle of the family Cheloniidae. Honu may be 

seen in waters adjacent to the Refuge. Mature males are distinguished from females by their longer, 

thicker tails. 

Honu live and forage around all the Hawaiian Islands. They are most often found in shallow, 

protected, or semi-protected water around coral reefs and coastal areas. These habitats contain critical 

foraging areas consisting of sea grasses and algae, and they provide some shelter from predators such 

as tiger sharks. However, although nesting occurs on all islands, 90 percent occurs on French Frigate 

Shoals of the NWHI. Evidence shows that Hawaiian turtles migrate only throughout the 1,500-mile 

expanse of the Hawaiian Archipelago, and so make up a discrete population. Post-hatchlings and 

juveniles live in pelagic waters, but little is known of their specific distribution. 

Little information exists on the feeding behavior of post-hatchlings and juveniles living in pelagic 

habitats, but most likely they are exclusively carnivorous (e.g., soft-bodied invertebrates, jellyfish, 

and fish eggs). Subadult and adult turtles residing in nearshore benthic environments are almost 

completely herbivorous, feeding primarily on select macroalgae and sea grasses. The common name 

“green sea turtle” is derived from the color of their body fat, which is green from the limu (algae) 

they eat. Adult honu can weigh up to 500 pounds and are often found living near coral reefs and 

rocky shorelines where limu is plentiful. Hawaiian honu display slow growth rates, even compared to 

other populations, with an average annual growth rate of approximately 1⁄2 to 2 inches per year. 

Turtles often reach sexual maturity at 35–40 years (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Threats to honu include the tumor disease Fibropapilloma; alien seaweeds that displace important 

foraging, resting, and cleaning habitats of the turtles; indirect take of adult and juvenile turtles as 

fisheries bycatch; predation, particularly of hatchlings in the open ocean; impacts from snorkeling 

and other human recreational activities; marine debris that entangles turtles or is ingested by them; 

and the loss or degradation of foraging habitats along coastal areas due to development, 

sedimentation, soil erosion, or sewage; nest predation; and boat collisions. Honu can be observed 

offshore during most months of the year at the Refuge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-19

4.5 Breeding Seabirds

4.5.1 Mōlī (Phoebastria immutabilis) or Laysan Albatross

The mōlī or Laysan albatross is a large seabird (Family: Diomedeidae) whose breeding range is 

centered in the NWHI. Adults are sexually monomorphic and mostly white with black wings and tail; 

the upperwings are entirely dark, and the underwings are mostly white with variable amounts of 

black especially along leading and trailing edges. The bill is pink with a gray, hooked tip; legs and 

feet are light pink. Mōlī are accomplished fliers using dynamic soaring to cover great distances; they 

mainly feed at night and often far from their breeding colony (1,100 miles; 1,770 km). In Hawai‘i, 

their diet consists primarily of squid, deep-water crustaceans, fish, and flying fish eggs (Awkerman et 

al. 2009). 

Like most seabirds, mōlī breed in colonies, have long-term pair bonds and high nest site fidelity, lay

only one egg per season, and both parents participate in all aspects of raising young. Pairs engage in 

long, noisy, ritualized courtship dances. Typically they select nest sites close to vegetation and nests 

vary from a scrape to a ring-like structure composed of sand, vegetation, and debris. Eggs are laid in

November and December and chicks fledge in June and July; no post-fledgling care is provided by 

parents. Young birds generally do not return to land until about their third year after fledging. These 

birds do not breed, but prospect for mates. Generally, mōlī first breed between 8 and 9 years old, and 

the oldest known individual is at least 63 years old (Awkerman et al. 2009; USFWS unpubl.). 

Mōlī breed throughout the NWHI and on the MHI of Kaua‘i and O‘ahu and Lehua Island off 

Ni‘ihau. Outside of Hawai‘i, mōlī breed on islands off Japan and Mexico. Outside the breeding 

season, mōlī disperse widely throughout the North Pacific (Young et al. 2009a). In the Hawaiian 

Archipelago, the population is estimated at more than 590,000 pairs with largest colonies occurring 

on Midway Atoll (441,000 pairs) and Laysan (145,000 pairs). Total population of all MHI colonies is 

less than 500 pairs; worldwide population is estimated at 630,000 breeding pairs (Arata et al. 2009). 

Historical threats include feather and egg harvesting and military operations on Midway Atoll in the 

NWHI. Current threats to mōlī include bycatch in fisheries operations, contaminants ingestion, sea 

level rise in the NWHI, and predation on breeding colonies in the MHI. Mōlī are vulnerable to 

climate change because of their limited global range and breeding distributions which are 

predominantly located in the low-lying NWHI (Reynolds et al. 2012). 

The first three mōlī chicks fledged from Mōlī Hill on the Refuge in 1986 (KPNHA 1986). Currently, 

mōlī are found in the densest concentrations on Mōlī Hill (55 breeding pairs in 2011–2012 season), 

and the rest are distributed on the eastern third of the Refuge towards Mōkōlea Point for a total of 

115 pairs in the 2011–2012 season. From 2002 to 2012 the number of breeding pairs appears to be 

steadily increasing each year as a result of predator control, natural recruitment, and immigration 

from other breeding sites; the number of chicks and fledglings appears to be stable or slightly 

decreasing. Over the past decade, the Refuge has fledged 50 mōlī per year on average.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-20 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Figure 4-4. Mōlī reproduction at Kīlauea Point NWR, 2002–2012. 

*Includes supplemental eggs. The Pacific Range Missile Facility’s BASH program, 2005-2012.

4.5.2 ‘Ua‘u kani (Puffinus pacificus) or Wedge-tailed Shearwater

The ‘ua‘u kani or wedge-tailed shearwater is a large, abundant seabird (Family: Procellaridae) that 

produces a variety of wails and moans that inspired this bird’s Hawaiian name, which means “calling 

or moaning petrel.” Individuals have long, sleek wings, a wedge-shaped tail, and a hooked bill. ‘Ua‘u 

kani are polymorphic, having two color phases, dark or light, and sexes are similar; approximately 90 

percent of the birds breeding in Hawai‘i are light-phase. Light-phase adults are grayish brown above 

with white underparts except for dark trailing edges of wings and tail. Dark-phase adults are 

uniformly sooty brown. Flight is similar to that of albatross but wings flap with greater frequency 

(Whittow 1997). 

‘Ua‘u kani often forage in large, mixed species flocks associated with schools of large predatory 

fishes (such as ahi and mahi mahi) which drive smaller prey species to the surface. ‘Ua‘u kani use a 

variety of foraging techniques; most frequently they plunge their heads into water while on the wing. 

They also seize prey while sitting on the water, and they often follow fishing vessels. In Hawai‘i, 

their diet primarily consists of larval goatfish, flyingfish, squirrelfish, and flying squid. Like most 

seabirds, ‘ua‘u kani breed in their natal colonies, form long-term pair bonds, have high site fidelity, 

lay only one egg per season, and both parents participate in all aspects of raising young. ‘Ua‘u kani 

nest in excavated burrows, rock crevices, or under vegetation. 

In Hawai‘i, breeding is synchronous, and most eggs are laid in June with most young fledging in 

November. Birds first breed at 4 years, and the oldest known individual was 29 years old (Whittow 

1997). At the Refuge, ‘ua‘u kani typically arrive in late February and early March. The first eggs are 

laid in early June, with peak laying in mid-June, and most egg laying completed by the end of June. 

Hatching begins in late July with most chicks hatched by mid-August. Fledging begins in early 

November, peaking in mid- to late November. The average incubation period onsite is 53 days, and 

nestling period is 103–115 days (Byrd et al. 1983). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No. of birds

Mōlī Reproduction

Kīlauea Point NWR 2002-2012* 

Nests

Chicks

Fledglings
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-21

ʻUa‘u kani breed on low, flat islands and sand spits with little or no vegetation, but also excavate 

burrows on the slopes of extinct volcanoes and in old volcanic craters. Burrows require firm soil or 

plant roots to stabilize loose soil; generally nesting habitat is devoid of tall woody plants. In locations 

where nest sites are scarce or the ground is too hard to excavate burrows, individuals will nest in rock 

crevices or above ground. ‘Ua‘u kani breed throughout the NHWI and on offshore islets of most of 

the MHI. Outside Hawai‘i, ‘ua‘u kani breed on islands throughout the tropical and subtropical Indian 

and Pacific oceans. 

Outside the breeding season, ‘ua‘u kani migrate to the eastern Pacific. In Hawai‘i, population is 

estimated at 270,000 breeding pairs, with approximately 210,000 of those occurring in the NWHI. 

The population in the MHI is estimated at between 40,000 and 60,000 breeding pairs with the largest 

colonies occurring on the offshore islands of Mānana (10,000–20,000 pairs), Moku Loa (10,000–

20,000 pairs), Lehua (23,000 pairs), Kīlauea Point NWR (ca. 10,000 pairs), and Ka‘ula (1,500–2,500 

pairs). Smaller populations occur on Moku Manu, Moku‘auia, Kāpapa, Molokini, Mōkapu Peninsula, 

and Ka‘ena Point Natural Area Reserve on O‘ahu. Worldwide population is estimated at over one 

million breeding pairs (USFWS 2005b). 

Threats to ʻua‘u kani include food reduction through overfishing of the large predatory fishes (ahi) 

that bring their prey to the surface, depredation by introduced predators in MHI breeding colonies, 

light attraction, and human disturbance. A pilot study on stress hormone levels and chick sizes in 

relation to their proximity to the Refuge’s lighthouse trail suggested ‘ua‘u kani chicks near the trail 

(e.g., <12 feet) may be exposed to higher chronic levels stress from visitation (Kitaysky et al. 2004). 

In 2010 at the Refuge, more than 75 adult ‘ua‘u kani were found preyed upon by owls (compared 

with about 5 in 2009), and carcass recoveries subsided after removal of 4 introduced barn owls 

(USFWS unpubl.). From 2011–2014, native bird carcass recoveries with owl kill signs were 4.2, 

averaged over the four years. Ongoing losses from depredation could affect local populations 

because adult survival is an important factor regulating seabird populations. 

ʻUa‘u kani is the most abundant bird species on the Refuge with dense concentrations on Mōlī Hill, 

near the lighthouse, Crater Hill, and Mōkōlea Point, where habitat is suitable. Byrd et al. (1983) 

estimated that between 1978 and 1981, 520 fledglings from 700 breeding pairs fledged annually from 

the accessible 10–45 degree slopes of Kīlauea Point peninsula. In 2004, average hatching success of 

10 plots was 73 percent (range 20–100 percent) and nest density was 0.36 nests per square yard 

(range 0.09–0.86) (Zaun 2004). Although the number of breeders and prospectors is unknown, the 

Refuge probably supports roughly 8,000–15,000 breeding pairs. 

4.5.3 Koa‘e kea (Phaethon lepturus) or White-tailed Tropicbird

Koa‘e kea are mostly white birds with a pair of narrow, elongated inner tail feathers. Male and 

female birds are similar in appearance. The adult is 29 inches long from bill to end of tail, and the tail 

is about half that length. Its wingspan is 37 inches, and the bird weighs 11 ounces. The feathers are 

mostly white with black markings on the upper wings and a black eye-stripe. It has a long white tail 

with a black stripe on top and a decurved bill that is usually yellow. Variations in bill color include 

yellowish-green, orange, and red-orange. It has short legs and its feet are webbed. Since legs of the 

tropicbird are set far back on its body, it is a good swimmer, but awkward on land (Lee and WalshMcGehee 1998). 

Koa‘e kea usually forage alone, but occasionally with conspecifics, most often far from land and will 

often follow ships. Koa‘e kea captures prey by plunge-diving from 50–65 feet above the water. Their 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-22 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

diet is poorly known, but includes flyingfish and is likely similar to koa‘e ula. Koa‘e kea breed in 

colonies, and pairs remain together for years. At the beginning of the breeding season, pairs engage 

in complex aerial displays. Nests are placed in hard to reach locations on cliffs, as well as in caves 

and tree hollows; nests have little if any material. In Hawai‘i, breeding occurs March through 

October and a single egg is laid per season. Both parents incubate the egg, and brood and feed the 

chick. No post-fledging care is provided. Based on few data, age at first breeding is likely after the 

fourth year; no data on longevity has been collected (Lee and Walsh-McGehee 1998).

In Hawai‘i, the population is estimated at 1,800 breeding pairs with most occurring in the MHI. The 

worldwide population is estimated at less than 200,000 breeding pairs. Threats to koa‘e kea are 

primarily predation on the breeding colonies (USFWS 2005b). 

Koa‘e kea can be observed at the Refuge year-round, but appear to be less common in the winter. 

Nesting appears to be year-round, but peaks occur from March to October. In 2005, four nests were 

monitored on the Refuge; all four were in rock crevices on steep-sided cliff faces, and only one was 

accessible. Chicks successfully fledged from two nests and the outcome of the other two was 

unknown (Zaun 2005). 

4.5.4 Koa‘e ‘ula (Phaethon rubricauda) or Red-tailed Tropicbird

The koa‘e ‘ula or red-tailed tropicbird is a showy, white seabird (Family: Phaethontidae) related to 

boobies and frigatebirds. Adult males and females are mostly white, although they develop a pale 

pinkish wash when breeding, except for a partial black eye ring and short eye line, black flanks, and 

black shafts of outer primaries; both sexes have long, narrow tail feathers with red shafts. Koa‘e ‘ula 

have large red bills; their legs and feet are very small. Flight is characterized by strong flapping 

interspersed with gliding, and koa‘e ‘ula are capable of flying long distances. Koa‘e ‘ula usually 

forage alone, but occasionally with other species, most often far from land and will often follow 

ships. Koa‘e ‘ula capture prey by plunge-diving. In Hawai‘i, their diet is mainly composed of flying

fish, but also includes squid, mackerel scads, dolphinfish, truncated sunfish, and balloonfish 

(Schreiber and Schreiber 1993). 

Koa‘e ‘ula breed mainly on oceanic islands and coral atolls with shrubs, including naupaka and 

beach heliotrope (Tournefortia argentea). Koa‘e ‘ula nest on the ground, generally in inconspicuous 

places, such as under vegetation or in cliff crevices. Koa‘e ‘ula breed in colonies and pairs remain 

together for years. At the beginning of the breeding season, pairs engage in complex aerial displays. 

Nests are placed on the ground, and generally are a simple scrape lined with some vegetation. In 

Hawai‘i, breeding can occur throughout the year, but most breeding occurs between February and 

June. A single egg is laid per season, and both parents incubate the egg, and brood and feed the 

chick. The incubation period is 39–51 days, and the nestling period is 73–123 days. No postfledgling care is provided. Age at first breeding is between 2 and 4 years, and the oldest known 

individual was 23 years old (Schreiber and Schreiber 1993). 

Koa‘e ‘ula breed throughout the NWHI and at a limited number of sites on MHI, mostly on offshore 

islets. Outside of Hawai‘i, koa‘e ‘ula breed on oceanic islands in the Indian and Pacific oceans. 

Outside the breeding season, adults are solitary and pelagic, and their range is poorly known. In 

Hawai‘i, population is estimated at between 9,000 and 12,000 breeding pairs, with the largest 

populations occurring on Midway Atoll and Laysan Island. The worldwide population is estimated at 

17,000 to 21,000 breeding pairs, with the majority residing in the Pacific Ocean. Primary threats 

include predation on the breeding colonies (USFWS 2005b). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-23

Koa‘e ‘ula can be observed at the Refuge year-round, but are more common February to September. 

Nesting generally occurs from March to August, and birds nest in rock crevices and on benches on 

steep cliff faces and windswept slopes and under woody vegetation such as naupaka. In 2005, 191 

nests were monitored on the Refuge; of these, 145 nests were accessible on flats and slopes of 

Kīlauea Point, Crater Hill, and Mōkōlea Point. The dates for egg-laying spanned approximately 

March 8 to August 18. The dates for chick fledging ranged from July 9 to November 13. Hatching 

success and fledging success was 77 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Mate fidelity and nest-site 

fidelity for the years 2004–2005 was 85 percent and 76 percent, respectively (Zaun 2005). 

4.5.5 ‘Ā (Sula sula) or Red-footed Booby

The ‘ā or red-footed booby is the smallest booby (Family: Sulidae), and has a pantropical 

distribution. Individuals have long, pointed wings and a relatively long, wedge-shaped tail. Several 

color phases exist, ranging from all brown to all white; almost all Hawaiian birds are white. Adult 

male and females are overall white, except for brownish black primary and secondary wing feathers; 

females are larger than males. Feet and legs are orange to red, bill bluish except for the base of the 

lower mandible, which is pinkish, and facial skin around the bill ranges from pink to red and blue. 

Flight is characterized by strong flapping interspersed with gliding, and they may glide for long 

distances depending on wind conditions (Schreiber et al. 1996). 

‘Ā forage alone or in mixed species feeding flocks, generally feeding farther from land than their 

congeners. ‘Ā capture prey by plunge-diving generally from 13 to 26 feet over the water. In Hawai‘i, 

their diet is mainly composed of flying fish and squid, but also includes mackerel, scads, saury, and 

anchovies (Schreiber et al. 1996). 

‘Ā breed on small islands or islets, both on low-lying coralline sand islands and high volcanic 

islands. They tend to nest in bushes or trees, including beach naupaka and beach heliotrope. They 

will occasionally nest on deserted man-made structures, on bare ground, or on low piles of 

vegetation. ‘Ā build nests of twigs, grass, and other vegetation. ‘Ā breed in colonies ranging from 10 

to 10,000 pairs, and pairs generally retain mates throughout several breeding seasons. In Hawai‘i, 

breeding season is synchronous, but can occur throughout the year. Egg laying peaks in February 

through April, and most young fledge by September. Both parents incubate the egg, and brood and 

feed the chick. Adults continue to feed young up to 4 months after fledging. Birds first breed at 3 to 4 

years of age and the oldest known individual was 22 years old (Schreiber et al. 1996). 

‘Ā breed throughout the NWHI and at a limited number of sites on MHI, including Kīlauea Point 

NWR, the cliffs of Ulupa‘u Head at the Kāne‘ohe Bay Marine Corps Base on O‘ahu, and offshore 

islets including Moku Manu and Lehua. Outside of Hawai‘i, ‘ā breed on islands in the tropical waters 

of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans, Caribbean Sea, and seas north of Australia. Little is 

known about the movements of the ‘ā outside nesting season, but birds in Hawai‘i appear to disperse 

eastward and move between islands (USFWS 2005b). 

Threats include poaching of eggs, chicks, and adults for food; degradation of habitat from human 

development of coastal zones and introduced sheep, goats, and pigs; and disturbance at nest sites. ‘Ā 

have been described as sensitive to human activities, including eco-tourism (Burger and Gochfeld 

1993). This species may tolerate short-term, infrequent human disturbance, but typically does not 

breed in proximity to humans (Schreiber et al. 1996). Up until the mid-1960s, hundreds of ‘ā nested 

around Kīlauea Point peninsula (by the lighthouse), and it is suspected that the colony shifted to its 

current Crater Hill location because of threats from large mammalian predators (G. Smith, pers. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-24 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

comm). Kīlauea Point peninsula has been free of large mammalian predator for about two decades; 

however, the ‘ā have not returned to nest there. 

In Hawai‘i, the population is estimated between 7,000 and 10,500 breeding pairs. The worldwide 

population is estimated at less than 300,000 breeding pairs, with the majority residing in the eastern 

Pacific (USFWS 2005b). ‘Ā occur year-round at the Refuge, but breeding has been documented only 

between the months of February and October. Breeding occurs only on the windward slopes of 

Crater Hill where birds build nests in ironwood and Christmasberry trees. Between 2004 and 2008, 

the Refuge supported an annual average of 1,882 breeding pairs of ‘ā. 

Table 4-3. Spring surveys of ‘ā breeding pairs, Kīlauea Point NWR (USFWS files)

Survey date 

Crater Hill

Total 

West Central East 

5/07/2004 1214 350 250 1814 

5/18/2005 1422 209 133 1764 

5/24/2006 1866 360 310 2536 

5/22/2008 1243 65 107 1415 

Average (SD) 1882 (470.6) 

4.6 Other Seabirds

Other nonbreeding seabirds that use the Refuge for roosting and prospecting include ka‘upu (blackfooted albatross, Phoebastria nigripes), ‘ā (brown booby, Sula leucogaster) and ‘iwa (great 

frigatebird, Fregata minor). 

Kaʻupu are closely related to mōlī, and are approximately the same size, but with a dark chocolate 

brown coloring throughout the body, and small amounts of white around the bill, eye, and around the 

tail. The species has a Federal status as a “bird of conservation concern” and State of Hawai‘i status 

of threatened, and was recently petitioned but declined for Federal listing. The world breeding 

population is estimated at 61,700 pairs, with a trend that is stable in the long-term and declining in 

the short-term (Naughton et al. 2007). More recent analyses identify ka’upu as particularly 

vulnerable to climate change because of their limited global range and breeding distributions which 

are restricted primarily to the low-lying NWHI (Reynolds et al. 2012). They primarily visit the 

Refuge in February where they can be seen flying offshore or landing on Moku‘ae‘ae. 

Similarly, ‘ā (brown booby), are also closely related to ‘ā (red-footed booby) and are occasionally 

spotted roosting on the Refuge, and they frequently fly by. These ‘ā are all brown on top and on their 

‘Ā at the Refuge in 1964 adjacent to the lighthouse. Gary Smith
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-25

breasts, and have contrasting white coloration underneath and yellow feet. Unlike red-footed boobies 

though, brown boobies nest on the ground on relatively flat surfaces. This species is very susceptible 

to human disturbance and will flush from their nests easily. 

‘Iwa are large, graceful seabirds related to tropicbirds and boobies that are almost entirely black with 

varying amounts of white underneath on females and juveniles. Males have a large, red gular pouch 

which they inflate for courtship displays. ‘Iwa can be recognized from other seabirds on the Refuge 

by their large size, deeply forked tail, long bill, and tendency to harass and chase both species of ‘ā in 

an attempt to steal their food. They can be found roosting along the sea cliffs of Crater Hill and 

Mōkōlea Point in addition to being frequent aerial visitors of the Refuge. 

4.7 Migratory Waterfowl and Shorebirds

For hundreds of thousands of years, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds have 

wintered on the Hawaiian Islands from September to May. Of the nearly 30 species of migratory 

ducks and geese using the islands, the most common winter migrants observed on the Refuge include 

cackling geese, snow geese, and white-fronted geese. Of the approximately 50 species of migratory 

shorebirds that have been recorded in the Hawaiian Islands (Pyle and Pyle 2009), the most common 

shorebirds on the Refuge are kōlea (Pacific golden-plovers), ‘akekeke (ruddy turnstones), and ‘ulili 

(wandering tattlers), and occasionally hunakai (sanderlings) and kioea (bristle-thighed curlews). 

Shorebirds primarily utilize wetlands and tidal flats; however, estuaries and uplands are also 

important habitats. Golf courses on O‘ahu support an estimated 1,900 kōlea during the winter, and 

this species has even been observed roosting on urban rooftops (Engilis and Naughton 2004). On the 

Refuge, short-grass habitat and shorelines are used by shorebirds, with kōlea being the most 

abundant. 

The Pacific Islands region functions as an essential migratory habitat for maintaining global 

shorebird populations. The Service developed the U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Plan over concerns of declining shorebird populations and loss of habitat. Threats to 

shorebirds in the Pacific Islands include habitat loss, nonnative plants, nonnative animals (e.g., 

predation, disease, competition), human disturbance, and environmental contaminants. Population 

estimates and conservation status for shorebirds are provided in Table 4-4. The kōlea is the most 

common shorebird in the Pacific Islands region, with Hawai‘i supporting a substantial portion of the 

Alaskan breeding population during winter. The kioea is the only migratory species that exclusively 

winters in the Pacific. Thus, the Pacific Islands region is considered to be a critical area for 

supporting hemispheric populations of both these species (Engilis and Naughton 2004). 

Table 4-4. Shorebirds of primary conservation importance in the Pacific islands region (Engilis 

and Naughton 2004). 

Species Hawai‘i Winter Population Regional Trend Conservation 

Category 

Kōlea 15,000–20,000 Unknown High Concern 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-26 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Species Hawai‘i Winter Population Regional Trend Conservation 

Category 

Ae‘o 1,200–1,600 Unknown Highly Imperiled 

Kioea 800 Unknown High Concern 

‘Ulili 1,000 Unknown Moderate Concern 

‘Akekeke 5,000–7,000 Unknown Low Concern 

4.8 Threatened and Endangered Plants

With nearly 300 species of plants listed as threatened or endangered, nearly one-third of Hawai‘i’s 

remaining native flora is threatened with extinction. Over 100 species of plants now listed as 

threatened or endangered occur, or historically occurred, on the island of Kaua‘i; 49 species are 

found only on Kaua‘i. Plants that grow in coastal shrublands and low elevation forests are 

particularly rare due to the long-term presence of humans and the negative effects of their actions, 

specifically, development, agriculture, fire, and the introduction of pest species. Only 11 percent of 

lowland mesic and dry native plant communities remain intact on Kaua‘i, compared to 22 percent for 

all of the Hawaiian Islands combined (The Nature Conservancy 1998). 

Small numbers of the following listed species have been introduced on the Refuge. 

4.8.1 Pokulakalaka (Munroidendron racemosum) 

Munroidendron racemosum, commonly known as pokulakalaka, is a monotypic genus and an 

extremely rare flowering plant in the Araliaceae or ginseng family. It is endemic to Kaua‘i, and 

occurs in coastal mesic and mixed mesic forests from 390 to 1,300 feet, typically on exposed cliffs 

and ridges. It is primarily found in three locations on Kaua‘i: Nounou Mountain, Napali cliffs, and 

Ha‘upu Ridge near Nawilili Bay. Pokulakalaka is a 25-foot tall tree with a straight trunk and 

spreading branches. It has smooth, gray bark. The 12-inch long leaves are made up of many oval 

leaflets, each of which is over 3 inches long. These trees drop most of their leaves during their 

summer blooming season. The small, pale yellow flowers hang in long, loose bunches (Wagner et al. 

1999). Flowering season for pokulakalaka is variable, having been observed in both spring and fall, 

and fruits mature in about 75 days. Self-pollination is assumed to occur since isolated individuals 

have produced viable seeds. Pollinators have not been observed, but insect pollination is likely. 

Dispersal mechanisms are unknown (USFWS 1995). 

Threats to pokulakalaka include competition with pest plant species, such as kukui, guava, lantana, 

and koa haole. Other threats include habitat degradation by feral goats, fire, and fruit depredation by 

rats. Because each naturally occurring population of this species contains only a small number of 

individuals, the species is also under threat of extinction from catastrophic events, such as landslides 

or hurricanes. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-27

4.8.2 Alula (Brighamia insignis) 

Brighamia insignis, commonly known as ʻōlulu or alula in Hawaiian, or colloquially as cabbage on a 

stick, is a critically endangered species of Hawaiian lobelioid in the bellflower family, 

Campanulaceae. It is native to the islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau and is found on sea cliffs on the 

Napali Coast and Ha‘upu Ridge. This short-lived perennial species is a member of a unique endemic 

Hawaiian genus with only one other species. In 1994, the Service reported 5 populations totaling 45 

to 65 individuals, and listed the plant as an endangered species. 

Alula is a potentially branched plant with a succulent stem that is bulbous at the bottom and tapers 

toward the top, ending in a compact rosette of fleshy leaves. The stem is usually 3.3–6.6 feet in 

height, but can reach 16 feet. The plant blooms from September through November. It has clusters of 

fragrant yellow flowers in groups of three to eight in the leaf axils and the fruit is a capsule 0.51 to 

0.75 inches long containing numerous seeds. 

Alula is found at elevations from sea level to 1,570 feet in mesic shrublands and dry forests that 

receive less than 67 inches of annual rainfall. It grows on rocky ledges with little soil and steep sea 

cliffs. Its only pollinator was a now-extinct sphingid moth. This has made it all but impossible for 

alula to reproduce on its own. Therefore, individuals only produce seed when artificially pollinated 

by humans who go to great lengths (e.g., rappelling over steep cliff edges) to exchange pollen among 

plants and to collect seeds that can be grown and stored in botanical gardens and seed banks. Despite 

its rarity in the wild, it is not hard to cultivate in a nursery, and it has come into use as a novel 

ornamental plant. 

4.8.3 Dwarf Naupaka (Scaevola coriacea) 

Scaevola coriacea, the dwarf naupaka, is a species of flowering plant in the Goodenia family, 

Goodeniaceae, that is endemic to Hawai‘i. It is a low, flat-lying perennial herb. Its older stems are 

somewhat woody, and the succulent leaves are oval-shaped, relatively far apart, and smooth or 

somewhat scaly with rounded tips. Flowers occur in branched inflorescences from the point of leaf 

attachment in groups of one to three. 

Dwarf naupaka usually occurs in relatively hot dry coastal sites on low, consolidated sand dunes near 

sea level (Wagner et al. 1999). This species is salt-tolerant, relatively long-lived, and flowers yearround. Currently, dwarf naupaka exists naturally only on Maui and two offshore islets. Historically, it 

could be found on six islands and has since been outplanted on several other main islands. The total 

population is less than 300 plants, making dwarf naupaka an endangered species. Threats to dwarf 

naupaka include human development, livestock grazing, and pest plants. 

4.8.4 Lo‘ulu (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii) 

Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii is a fan-leaved tree about 23–50 feet tall with a trunk approximately 

8–12 inches in diameter. The upper and lower leaf surfaces are green and hairless, and leaf segments 

are rather thin and drooping. The lower surfaces of the petiole and the leaf ribs are covered with 

dense, tan wool. The branched, hairless flower clusters are located among the leaves and are no 

longer than the petioles. Each flower is composed of a cup-shaped, three-lobed calyx, three petals, 

six stamens, and a three-lobed stigma. The spherical, hard, black fruit is 0.7–0.8 inches in diameter. 

This species is distinguished from others of the genus by the thin leaf texture and drooping leaf 

segments, the tan woolly hairs on the underside of the petiole and the leaf blade base, the stout 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-28 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

hairless flower clusters that do not extend beyond the fan-shaped leaves, and the smaller spherical 

fruit (Read and Hodel 1990). 

Historically, this species of lo‘ulu was found at three sites in the eastern and central portions of the 

island of Ni‘ihau. Trees were found on Kaali Cliff and in Mokouia and Haao Valleys at elevations 

between 230 and 890 feet. The most recent observations indicate two plants still remain on Kaali 

Cliff. Originally a component of the Coastal Dry Forest, this species now occurs only in a rugged and 

steep area where it receives some protection from grazing animals (Read and Hodel 1990). 

Hawaiian land practices prior to European contact probably destroyed most of the forest on Ni‘ihau. 

Grazing animals were introduced to the island beginning in the 1700s. Cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs 

have decreased available habitat for Lo’ulu as well as directly damaging trees, seedlings, and seeds 

(Wagner et al. 1999). 

Although approximately 200 immature individuals have been cultivated on Ni‘ihau and Kaua’i, 

extinction from naturally occurring events or reduced reproductive vigor due to the small number of 

reproductive plants are major threats. Because palms take many years to mature, it is not known 

whether the immature plants now in cultivation are capable of reproducing and sustaining a viable 

population. Roof rats are a threat to this species since they eat the seeds of some lo‘ulu species 

(Wagner et al. 1999). 

4.8.5 Lo‘ulu (P. napaliensis) 

Pritchardia napaliensis,or lo’ulu (the common name for all plants in this genus) is a species of palm 

tree that is endemic to the island of Kaua‘i. It inhabits gulch slopes in coastal mesic forests on the Nā 

Pali coastline, especially in the vicinity of Hoʻoluu Valley. P. napaliensis reaches a height of 13–20 

feet and has a trunk diameter of 7.1–7.9 inches. As with P. aylmer-robinsonii, feral ungulate 

browsing, seed depredation by rats, erosion, and habitat destruction are all threats. 

4.9 Native Plant Communities 

Native Hawaiian plants arrived to the archipelago via natural means such as wind, water, or birds.

According to Wagner et al. (1999), the native Hawaiian flora is composed of roughly 956 species 

within 87 families. Approximately 89 percent of these species are endemic (found only in Hawai‘i), 

while the remainder are indigenous (naturally found in Hawai‘i and elsewhere). Since their 

establishment, native Hawaiian plant communities have greatly declined since humans arrived in the 

islands. Few native plants have escaped the impacts of urbanization and agriculture on the coastal 

and lowland habitats. As a result, recent surveys conclude that 75 percent of the native plant 

communities in these habitats are considered to be rare. Coastal alterations, such as agriculture, 

residential developments, recreational parks, military installations, golf courses, and roads have 

permanently displaced much of the native flora. 

Over 30 native coastal and lowland plant species are appropriate for re-establishment at the Refuge, 

in addition to those already existing. Of these species, approximately one-third could be established 

as dominant members of the communities, while the remaining two-thirds could be integrated as subdominants and associated species. Populations of eight species of endangered plants could be 

established within these restored habitats, thereby contributing to their statewide recovery. Beginning 

in 1980, approximately 13 acres on the Point and portions of Crater Hill’s west slope were restored 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-29

with hala, ‘akoko, ‘ilima, naupaka kahakai, ‘āweoweo, and pōhinahina, which are now the dominant 

native plant communities on the Refuge.

4.9.1 Naupaka Kahakai (Scaevola sericea) or Beach Naupaka

Naupaka is an indigenous shrub that grows from 3 to10 feet tall along coasts throughout the tropical 

Pacific and Indian oceans. It has bright green succulent leaves and fragrant white flowers that appear 

to have split in half with five petals remaining on one side. As a dominant member of the coastal 

mixed woodland-grassland habitat, naupaka provides cover and nesting substrate for native birds, 

most notably as nesting sites for two listed species: nēnē and ‘a‘o. It is abundant and naturally 

occurring on the Refuge. It has also been outplanted on the Refuge. This species is the only 

nonendemic naupaka, and the only one to produce white fruit in the Hawaiian Islands. The pulpy 

marble-sized fruits tolerate salt water and float on the ocean currents for dispersal to other islands 

and are a food source for nēnē. Mixed with salt, the fruit or root bark of naupaka kahakai was used 

for cuts, skin diseases, and wounds. 

4.9.2 ‘Ilima (Sida fallax) or Yellow Ilima

A common native species found in Hawaiian coastal areas, ‘ilima have yellow-orange flowers with 

five petals. The ground-hugging plant has heart-shaped, one-inch-long, slivery-green leaves.

Individual plants of this species vary greatly in height, density of hairs, leaf size and shape, and 

flower color and size. The Refuge anticipates expansion of the species into additional areas of the 

Refuge as projects to remove pest plants for habitat restoration are implemented. 

The yellow ‘ilima is the official flower of the island of O‘ahu; about 1,000 blooms are used to create 

a single lei. Hawaiians also used the plant for medicinal properties. Pregnant women consumed its 

juice and flowers prior to giving birth. The root bark mixed with the plant’s blooms was used as an 

asthma remedy (Walther 2004). 

4.9.3 Hala (Pandanus tectorius) or Screw Pine

Hala is a small tree growing 20–30 feet in height and from 15–35 feet in diameter. The trunk is stout 

and the branches grow at wide angles to it. It has distinctive long, blade-like leaves (lau hala) about 2 

inches wide and over 2 feet long. Most varieties have spines along the edges and on the midribs of 

the leaves. The leaves are spirally arranged toward the ends of the branches and leave a spiral pattern 

on the trunk when they fall. These trees develop aerial prop roots (ule hala) at the base of the trunk 

and sometimes along the branches. It occurs in coastal sites and on the low elevation slopes of mesic 

valleys further inland to 2,000 feet elevation. Hala has been identified as a potential roosting site for 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a. On the Refuge, hala leaf litter and debris immediately under mature trees serve as nesting 

sites for ‘a‘o. 

Female hala produce a large, segmented fruit somewhat resembling a pineapple. Male trees produce 

large clusters of tiny, fragrant flowers surrounded by white to cream-colored bracts. There are four 

types of hala based on color of fruit: common hala is yellow, hala ‘ula is orange, hala lihilihi ‘ula is 

red fading to yellow, and hala pia is small and pale yellow. Men from Kahuku were identified by lei 

of the orange hala fruit which they wore by order of their chief when they left their ahupua‘a (Wilcox 

1975, Hensley et al. 1997, Wagner et al. 1999). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-30 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

4.9.4 ‘Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides) 

Chamaesyce celastroides is by far the most variable and widespread of all Hawaiian ‘akoko and is 

separated into eight varieties (Wagner et al. 1999), two of which occur on the Refuge. It grows as a 

shrub or small tree that has compact lateral branches and grows in coastal dry shrublands on 

windward talus slopes at an elevation of 30 to 2,100 feet. Its flowers can be found tucked close or in 

the leaf axis. It has been observed flowering and fruiting throughout the year, probably in response to 

precipitation. Fruits mature in 3 to 4 weeks and plants live from 5 to 10 years. 

The varieties found on the Refuge exist on windswept cliffs and ledges above the ocean on Niʻihau, 

Kaʻula Islet, Kauaʻi (Kīlauea Point), Molokaʻi, and Kahoʻolawe. Threats to this plant include 

competition with alien plants, fire, and negative effects of recreational activities. ‘Akoko is common 

throughout the Refuge and can be found in all habitat types. 

4.9.5 Pōhinahina (Vitex rotundifolia) 

Pōhinahina is a sprawling shrub that is 8 feet in diameter and 6 inches to 2 feet tall, but reaching 4 

feet in height and 12 feet in width when protected from wind and salt spray. The round leaves are 

gray-green to silvery and 1–2 inches long and have a sage-like aroma when crushed. The 1-inch 

flowers are bluish purple and are produced in small clusters at the ends of the branches throughout 

the year. The round fruits are about one-fourth inch in diameter and bluish purple to black when ripe. 

Pōhinahina is a widespread strand plant; its natural range spans from China, Taiwan, and Japan south 

to Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Australia, Pacific Islands, and Hawai‘i. In Hawai‘i, 

pōhinahina grows along the coast on sandy beaches, dunes, and rocky shorelines. It occurs naturally 

up to elevations of 50 feet on all the main islands except Kahoʻolawe, but it can grow at higher 

elevations. It is drought and salt spray tolerant and spreads by runners, and as a result, it is a popular 

ornamental plant in Hawai‘i. 

4.10 Invasive Species 

For the purpose of this CCP, “invasive” is a subset of nonnative species. An invasive species is 

defined as a species whose migration and growth within a new range causes detrimental effects on 

the native biota in that range. Mammals, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants can all be considered 

invasive. These species become invasive because their population and growth are no longer balanced 

by natural predators or biological processes that kept them in balance in their native ecosystems. In 

the absence of these restraints, invasive species have the potential to compete with native species for 

limited resources, alter or destroy habitats, shift ecological relationships, and transmit diseases. 

Invasive species are one of the most serious problems in conserving and managing natural resources. 

In particular, the ecological integrity of Pacific Island environments is greatly threatened by invasive 

species. Hawai‘i, which existed in isolation for millions of years, is an exceptionally ideal 

environment for invasive species. Most native species lost their natural defense mechanisms and are 

more vulnerable to introduced species (Meffe and Carroll 1997, National Invasive Species Council 

2008). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-31

4.10.1 Mammals

Rat (Rattus spp.)

Three nonnative rat species are found throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Polynesian rats arrived from 

the central Pacific approximately 1,500 years ago with the Polynesians who settled Hawai‘i; Norway 

rats reached the Hawaiian Islands after the arrival of Captain Cook in the 1770s; and black or roof 

rats most likely arrived in the 1870s. It is estimated that these three species have populated nearly 

82 percent of the major islands and island chains throughout the globe. Black and Polynesian rats 

have a large distribution and can be found from sea level to 10,000 feet. Norway rats are restricted to 

areas below 6,000 feet. Polynesian rats and Norway rats nest exclusively in terrestrial habitats, while 

black rats are arboreal nesters. This nesting difference may contribute to a larger population of black 

rats in Hawai‘i due to the presence of nonarboreal mongoose predators (Tomich 1986, Tobin and 

Sugihara 1992, Hays and Conant 2007). 

Globally, introduced Rattus species have caused the decline, extirpation, or extinction of numerous 

insular bird species. In the main Hawaiian Islands, Atkinson (1977) suggested that black rats caused 

the accelerated decline or extinction of many native forest birds between 1870 and 1930. Polynesian 

rats are speculated to have been a contributing factor in the large-scale extinctions of Hawaiian bird 

species during Polynesian settlement prior to European contact. Rats continue to be a major threat to 

waterbirds, seabirds, and forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. All three species of introduced rats in 

Hawai‘i are known predators of eggs, nestlings, young, and occasionally adults of endangered 

waterbirds, seabirds, migratory shorebirds, and forest birds. Ground- and burrow-nesting seabirds are 

particularly vulnerable to rat predation, even by the arboreal black rat. Rats also consume plants, 

insects, mollusks, herpetofauna, and other invertebrates. Because these species are also eaten by 

birds, a reduction in these populations may indirectly affect avian populations (Olson and James 

1982, USFWS 2004, 2005a, 2005b, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

The use of snap traps and ground-based application of diphacinone rodenticide to control rats in the 

main Hawaiian Islands has shown a positive effect in native bird survival (VanderWerf 2008). Using 

these two treatments, rodent abundance dropped 58–90 percent within one month of treatments for 3 

years in a row at Hakalau Forest NWR on the island of Hawai‘i. The estimated cost for a 247-acre (1 

km2

) grid was $7,000 in year one and $2,000 per year in years two and three (Nelson et al. 2002). At 

the Refuge, rats are controlled year-round through the use of live-trapping and rodenticides approved 

for conservation of endangered species (e.g., 0.005 percent diphacinone) in tamper-proof bait stations 

concentrated in key management areas, such as high density nesting habitat for endangered birds. 

There are 40–80 bait stations on the Refuge, bait stations are replenished every 2 weeks, and the 

amount of bait used is recorded and reported. Applicators of rodenticides operate under the State 

Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Applicator Certification Program. 

Cat (Felis catus) 

Cats in the United States kill more than one million birds per day on average (Dauphine and Cooper 

2011) and are recognized by the Union for Conservation of Nature as one of the “world’s worst” 

invasive species (Lowe et al. 2000). Cats have a universally damaging effect on island forest birds, 

breeding seabirds, resident waterbirds, and migratory shorebirds and waterfowl (Smucker et al. 2000, 

USFWS 2004, 2005a, 2005b, Mitchell et al. 2005). Cats are found on all the main Hawaiian Islands 

from sea level to 10,000 feet. Food habits of feral cats in Hawai‘i include insects, centipedes, marine 

crustaceans, lizards, mice, rats, bird eggs, birds (young and adults), ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, grasses, and seeds. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-32 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Cats have a universally damaging effect on insular forest birds and nesting seabirds. In Hawai‘i, cats 

can prey on waterbirds, migratory shorebirds, nesting seabirds, and forest birds (Smucker et al. 2000, 

USFWS 2004, USFWS 2005a, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

On remote lands of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawai‘i, feral cats prey on about 11 percent of 

endangered palila nests (finch-billed Hawaiian honeycreeper) annually, and radio-collared male cats 

can range up to 8 square miles. Cats are most active at night when birds are roosting or incubating 

eggs and more vulnerable to predation (Hess 2011). In addition, cats are reservoirs of diseases that 

can be transmitted to birds and other mammals, including humans. Felids including feral and 

domestic cats are the definitive hosts for an infectious parasite called Toxoplasmosis gondii, which 

reproduces in cat intestines and is shed in cat feces. T. gondii has been linked to deaths of ‘ā (redfooted booby), endangered nēnē, critically endangered ‘alalā (Hawaiian crow) (Work et al. 2000, 

2002), and critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-kauaua on the coast of Kaua‘i (Honnold et al. 2005). 

There are many “managed” feral cat colonies on O‘ahu, with 19,786 feral cats sterilized and released 

between 1993 and 2002. Cat colonies near seabird colonies have been very detrimental to nesting 

birds with the loss of adult and chicks of ʻua‘u kani on Maui and O‘ahu (Smith et al. 2002, Young et 

al. 2009b). There is ongoing evidence of cats threatening and/or killing mōlī, ‘ua‘u kani, threatened 

‘a‘o, and endangered nēnē. In 2009, a cat was captured on video attacking a nēnē nest (USFWS 

unpubl.). There is an ongoing influx of feral cats, particularly from Kāhili Beach southeast of the 

Refuge. Due to the threats adjacent to the Refuge and the presence of free-roaming cats across 

Kaua‘i, cat control is conducted year-round. 

Cats captured with collars and domesticated behavior are transported to the Kaua‘i Humane Society. 

Feral cats are controlled using live-trapping and euthanasia or shooting. Trap cycles last from 2 to 7 

days with 15–25 traps active on a bi-monthly basis. In addition, cats are trapped opportunistically 

when there are fresh carcasses of endangered or migratory birds showing evidence of cat depredation 

or there are other detections of cats in the area. Shooting follows protocols for humane dispatch 

(AVMA 2007) and is only performed by highly skilled personnel trained and federally certified in 

the safe use of firearms. Trapping success varies widely depending on many factors (e.g., cat’s 

condition, food availability, methods, techniques). From November 2006 to July 2007, 16 cats (2,419 

trap nights) were removed from KNWRC. From December 2007 to April 2008, 11 cats (79 trap 

nights) were removed from Kīlauea Point NWR. From 2007 to 2010, 129 feral cats were removed 

from KNWRC, with a high of 81 feral cats removed in 2008 (USFWS unpubl.). 

Dog (Canis lupus familiaris) 

The dog is a domesticated form of the gray wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the order 

Carnivora. Abandoned, escaped, or pet dogs allowed to run loose can cause great harm to native 

species and ecosystems. Dogs have caused terrible damage to native ground-nesting seabird colonies. 

In 2008, almost 90 ‘ua‘u kani birds were killed by a pack of dogs at the Kahuku Golf Course and in 

2006, dogs killed nearly 180 ‘ua‘u kani chicks at Ka‘ena Point, both sites on O‘ahu. Dogs typically 

attack a large number of birds in a single incident by grabbing and shaking the birds around with 

their mouths and leaving them for dead before heading to another nest or burrow. Dog entry through 

the perimeter hogwire fence surrounding portions of the Refuge may occur through holes from 

vandalism or degradation, allowing sporadic and random dog presence within the Refuge. In 2010, 

dogs entering the Refuge at the unfenced end of Mōkōlea Point killed at least nine adult ‘ua‘u kani 

on the Refuge. In 2014, 26 mōlī were killed by dogs on unfenced private lands on Kauai’s North 

Shore. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-33

Small Indian Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) 

The Indian mongoose was intentionally introduced to numerous island ecosystems during the 1800s 

and 1900s and has since expanded to large portions of Asia, Africa, Europe, Oceania, and the 

Americas. In 1883, the species was introduced to the main Hawaiian Islands as a biocontrol agent 

against rats in sugarcane fields. The mongoose inhabits all habitat types from sea level to nearly 

10,000 feet on the islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, O‘ahu, and Moloka‘i. In other areas of the world, 

mongooses appear to avoid wet areas; however, in Hawai‘i, dense populations of mongooses are 

concentrated in wet habitats. The mean home range of a female in Hawai‘i is approximately 3.5 

acres, and the main reproductive period occurs February through August. The high density of 

mongooses in the Hawaiian Islands is due to abundant food and the lack of natural predators (Tomich 

1986, Hays and Conant 2007). 

Mongooses are voracious omnivores, consuming insects, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, crabs, 

plants, and birds. In Hawai‘i, mongooses are diurnal predators that primarily eat invertebrates and 

small mammals, as well as plants, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. They are a major threat to any 

ground-dwelling and -nesting species in Hawai‘i. These mammals are known to eat eggs, young, and 

adults of endangered Hawaiian birds, various seabirds, and migratory shorebirds. In addition, 

mongooses are known to consume young sea turtles (Mitchell et al. 2005, Hays and Conant 2007). 

Until recent years, Kaua‘i was thought to be mongoose-free. On May 23 and June 29, 2012, two live 

mongooses were captured in Līhue and Nāwiwili Port, confirming the presence of mongooses on 

Kaua‘i. Previously, the only hard evidence of mongooses on the island was a Kalaheo roadkill in 

1976 of a lactating female. Other evidence included 160 credible sightings including more than 70 

within the last 10 years with sightings concentrated near Nāwiwili Port and Port Allen. Credible 

mongoose sightings occurred in 2012–2013 all over Kaua‘i, from Polihale to Lihu‘e to Kīlauea, 

indicating that mongooses could eventually be detected within the Refuge. 

Mongooses have been detrimental to native ground-nesting birds on other Hawaiian Islands, and the 

effects are expected to be even more detrimental on Kaua‘i, as the island is the last stronghold for 

several endangered species. The Refuge will continue to work in partnership with the Kaua‘i 

Invasive Species Committee and DLNR to gain information on the status and control and, if possible, 

eradicate or contain mongooses. 

Feral Pig (Sus scrofa) 

Feral pigs that occur in Hawai‘i are likely to be hybrids descended from two ancestral types 

introduced on separate occasions. Polynesians first brought pigs to the islands as a food source 

around 1,500 years ago. Captain Cook subsequently brought European pigs to the islands in 1778 

(Tomich 1986). Pigs descended from European strains were generally larger, more fecund, and more 

nomadic than their Polynesian counterparts (Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). Although pigs 

have been eradicated from numerous islands worldwide, these animals remain highly abundant in 

Hawaiian island ecosystems (Courchamp et al. 2003, Cruz et al. 2005) and occupy every main island 

in the Hawaiian archipelago (Tomich 1986). Pigs are long and narrow in shape and predominately 

black in color and are generally hairy. They measure 3.5–4.5 feet in length and average 2 feet in 

height. Pigs are elusive animals. They have been reported to be highly active in the early morning 

and late afternoon in tropical climates (Diong 1982). The reproductive potential of pigs contributes to 

their invasive potential. These animals are polyestrous meaning that adult females have more than 

one estrus cycle (21 days) in a breeding season. Pregnancy can occur year-round with peaks between 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-34 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

January and March. The average sow in Hawai‘i has 1.1 litters per year (Caley 1997). Reproductive 

rates peak between 2 and 4 years, but breeding has occurred by 10-month-old sows (Hess et al. 

2006). 

Pigs are an omnivorous species that consume fruits, seeds, plant material, invertebrates, and 

opportunistically, the eggs and young of ground-nesting birds. In Hawai‘i, pigs consume and damage 

plant material in both wet and dry habitats and in agricultural and natural areas. They root and 

trample native vegetation, digging up the soil for earthworms, as well as underground plant parts 

such as rhizomes and tubers. Pigs act as vectors for invasive plant species, dispersing alien plants 

such as strawberry guava and banana poka (LaRosa 1992, Stone et al. 1992). Other ecosystem effects 

can be attributed to pig activity. Rooting and compaction can deplete the soil of needed oxygen (Van 

Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). The behavior of pigs causes erosion of cliff and stream banks. As 

a result, the quality of both fresh and brackish water system can be degraded. Since the Refuge is 

fenced, it is usually free of pigs. However, breaches in the aging perimeter fences may result in the 

need for periodic pig trapping. 

4.10.2 Birds

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) 

Cattle egrets were introduced to Hawai‘i from Florida in 1959. The release was sponsored by local 

ranchers and the Hawai‘i State Board of Agriculture to control pasture insects. Nearly 150 birds were 

released on all the main islands except Kaho‘olawe. After 1 year, successful breeding was recorded 

on O‘ahu, where egrets were quick to establish. On Kaua‘i, egret numbers remained low until 1975, 

when the population exploded. By 1982, Kaua‘i had 3 active roost sites totaling approximately 8,000 

birds, including a rookery of 4,000 birds at Crater Hill in Kīlauea. By the mid-1980s cattle egrets 

were well-established on five of the main islands.

Cattle egrets are highly adaptable, and generally found foraging in grasslands and shallow wetlands, 

but will also feed in roadside ditches and landfills. Roosts in the Hawaiian Islands are usually on 

level lowland areas near water bodies, often in trees less than 30 feet high. It is the only species in the 

family Ardeidae (Herons) that can breed at 1 year. Reproduction in the Hawaiian Islands occurs yearround. Clutch size averages three eggs (range 2–6); (Paton et al. 1986); chicks, known as 

“branchers,” begin wandering on branches at 14–21 days and fledge at 25–30 days. Some birds in 

Hawai‘i may breed twice per year (Telfair 2006). 

Cattle egrets are opportunistic feeders. In addition to pest insects, they consume a variety of native 

and nonnative invertebrates and small vertebrates such as fishes, skinks, frogs, beneficial insects, and 

seabird and endangered Hawaiian waterbird chicks (USFWS 2005a). Cattle egrets are the subject of 

localized control at airports to avert bird strikes and at wildlife sanctuaries to protect endangered 

species (Paton et al. 1986). From 2007 to 2010, 291 cattle egrets were removed from KNWRC, an 

average of about 100 individuals per year (USFWS unpubl.). Techniques for cattle egret removal 

including shooting and hazing and are regulated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory 

Bird Depredation permits. 

Barn Owl (Tyto alba) 

The barn owl native to North America is found throughout the main Hawaiian Islands, including 

offshore islets such as Lehua near Kaua‘i, where they were introduced in 1958 for rodent control. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-35

They have light grey underparts with numerous fine dark lines and scattered pale spots on the 

feathers. There are buff markings on wings and back. Feathering on the lower legs may be sparse. 

The heart-shaped facial disc is white with a brownish edge, with brown marks at the front of the 

eyes, which have a black iris. Its beak is off-white and the feet are yellowish-white to brownish. 

Males and females are similar in size and color; females and juveniles are generally more densely 

spotted. Barn owls can be distinguished from pueo by their primarily nocturnal habits, rounder faces, 

and lighter coloring. 

In their native environment, barn owls specialize in hunting small ground mammals, and the vast 

majority of their food consists of small rodents. However, in the Hawaiian Islands they are known to 

be serious predators of seabirds, including the endangered ‘a‘o, in addition to other seabird species, 

such as ‘ua‘u kani. On the Refuge, barn owls have been documented killing ‘a‘o, ‘ua‘u, and large 

numbers of ‘ua‘u kani. Because barn owls will breed at any time during the year, and depending on 

food supply, they can reproduce up to 2 times per year, they are able to increase rapidly in a 

relatively short period of time. Barn owls likely compete with the native pueo for introduced rats and 

mice and could potentially be limiting their population. Techniques for barn owl removal including 

trapping and shooting and are regulated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird 

Depredation permits.

4.10.3 Amphibians

Nonnative amphibians also have a negative effect on native Hawaiian species. Recent radio 

transmitter studies at James Campbell NWR on O‘ahu (Eizenga USFWS unpubl.) provide conclusive 

evidence that introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) are key predators of Hawaiian waterbird 

chicks. While evidence of native bird depredation by cane toads has not been documented, it is 

possible given the species behavior that they do on occasion eat native ground-nesting birds or their 

chicks. 

Cane Toad (Bufo marinus)

Cane toads, or Pacific giant toads, which are native to Latin America, have a broad geographic range 

that includes a majority of the Pacific region. The toads were brought to the Hawaiian Islands in 

1932 to control insect pests. The adults require only water for breeding, which results in thousands of 

eggs per mating occurrence. Cane toads are active at night and primarily feed on cockroaches, 

crickets, grasshoppers, grubs, earthworms, slugs, spiders, centipedes, and snails. In addition, these 

highly invasive amphibians could be a potential predator of eggs and young of ground-nesting birds 

(Yamamoto and Tagawa 2000, Kishinami 2001). 

Coqui (Eleutherodactylus coqui) 

Coqui frogs, which are native to Puerto Rico, were accidentally introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in 

the late 1980s through eggs or frogs in nursery plants. They are small, nocturnally active, brown 

frogs approximately 1 inch in length. Their habitat includes moist leaf bases of foliage and leaf litter 

from the coastal zone to 4,000 feet elevation or higher. Coqui are a human health and quality of life 

nuisance because of the male’s loud, high-pitched, two-note call “co-kee,” heard primarily at night. 

They eat large number of small insects, in native and nonnative habitats, posing a threat to native 

insects and insectivores (Kishinami 2001). Coqui have occurred on five of the main Hawaiian Islands 

including the Island of Kaua‘i. In 2001, a breeding population was discovered in Lawai, but after 

extensive eradication efforts by the Kaua‘i Invasive Species Committee (KISC) and partners, Kaua‘i 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-36 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

was declared “coqui-free” in June 2012. Coqui are not known to occur on the Refuge. However, in 

May 2014 KISC responded to a report of coqui on the northshore of Kaua‘i (KISC 2014). 

4.10.4 Invertebrates

Although the Hawaiian Islands support a large number of native invertebrates, a wide array of 

nonnative invertebrates have invaded Hawaiian ecosystems. While numerous species exist on the 

Refuge, the only group documented to be a threat to native wildlife is ants.

Ants

Hawai‘i is one of the few places on Earth believed to lack any native ant species. Today, at least 47

ant species in 7 subfamilies and 24 genera have become established. Ants are a growing concern 

since they can have negative effects on native and endangered plants and animals. Ants are also 

implicated in having negative effects on native and endangered plants by farming scales and other 

insect pests. Ants are known to attack, injure, or kill young birds. The Service is currently studying 

the efficacy of various baits and approved toxins on pest ants on O‘ahu and Johnston Atoll. 

On offshore islets on O‘ahu and on Kure Atoll, several species of ants have been documented to 

harass and potentially kill nesting seabird chicks, primarily ‘ua‘u kani chicks, by attacking their 

mucus membranes, removing their down, eating the webbing off their feet, and irritating the chicks 

so much that they leave their burrows and become separated from their parents (Plentovich et al. 

2009). 

At the Refuge, long-legged ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) have been observed on koa‘e ‘ula adults 

with watery, irritated, swollen eyes. Long-legged ants subdue their prey by spraying formic acid. 

Ants have also been observed attacking koa‘e ‘ula chicks to the point where they lose their down and 

part of the webbing on their feet. Chick foot injuries are typical of those caused by big-headed ants 

(Pheidole megacephala) (Zaun 2005). 

4.10.5 Plants

Invasive species are recognized as a major threat to native ecosystems and to the survival of 

threatened and endangered species. At the ecosystem level, invasive plants have been shown to be 

capable of changing fire regimes, altering nutrient cycling patterns, and modifying the surface runoff 

of water. Invasive plants can physically displace native species, and/or supersede them by 

competition for water, nutrients, or other limited resources. Nonnative plants can also be vectors and 

hosts for introduced pests and diseases to which the native species lack natural defenses. 

Furthermore, compared to native plants, nonnative plants lack their natural enemies in the introduced 

range, which again gives them a competitive edge over native species. Invasive plants are also 

reported to be faster growing and can therefore easily and quickly colonize, establish, and displace 

native species (Vitousek 1990, D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, Blossey and Notzold 1995). 

Almost half the flora of the Hawaiian Islands is composed of approximately 1,100 species of 

naturalized nonnative plants. Invasive plants are successful in island ecosystems due to a multitude of 

traits. According to Staples et al. (2000), invasive plants in Hawai‘i share the following biological 

and reproductive characteristics:

• Adaptable to and capable of thriving in different habitats 

• Tolerant of variable conditions (such as light, temperature, moisture) 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-37

• Fast-growing 

• Tolerant of disturbance 

• Easily dispersible to new localities by seeds, fruits, spores, or vegetative parts 

• Produce small seeds/spores early in life 

• Long reproductive periods 

• Dispersed by animals and with no special germination requirements 

The control and eradication of pest plants has been the top priority of natural resource managers in 

Hawai‘i. In the wetland habitats of the Refuge, invasive plant species can drastically reduce the value 

of wetland habitat to native species. Nonnative species out-compete more desirable plant species 

here, as well as smother open water and mudflat habitats. In addition, the high biomass characteristic 

of invasive grasses produces a high amount of fuel for fire and become threats to nearby residential, 

commercial, and military land uses. In Hawai‘i, plants grow year-round; thus, the Service has a fulltime task of maintaining the habitat by nonnative plant control. At Kīlauea Point NWR, a 

combination of control techniques are employed for invasive plant removal including chemical, 

mechanical (hand and tractor), and water level manipulations. 

California Grass (Urochloa mutica) 

California grass (Family–Poaceae) is a sprawling perennial with culms up to 20 feet long and rooting 

at the nodes. Stolons and leaf sheaths are densely hairy. It occurs pantropically as a pasture grass and 

its native range is unknown, although it is suspected to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa. 

California grass occurs in aquatic environments such as the openings of wet forests, marshes, and 

other open water areas. It is also known to invade drier, disturbed areas. It is reported to be welladapted to a wide range of soil conditions (sandy to clay) and tolerates moderate shade but prefers 

full sun (Wagner et al. 1999). 

In Hawai‘i, California grass occurs between sea level and 3,445 feet on the five main Hawaiian 

Islands. The grass can form monotypic stands reaching 5 feet in height, with rooting runners up to 18 

feet in length. Throughout the state it has been reported to grow in a wide range of moisture 

conditions. It grows prolifically in wet swampy habitats, but it can also withstand severe drought. 

The Hawai‘i-Pacific Weed Risk Assessment is a research project conducted by University of Hawai‘i 

and the USDA Forest Service (USFS) to identify plants that pose a high risk in Hawai‘i and other 

Pacific Islands. The assessment score of 12 for California grass reflects its invasion potential. It also 

designates the species as H (Hawai‘i), meaning the species is “documented to cause significant 

ecological or economic harm in Hawai‘i” (Motooka et al. 2003). Techniques used to control 

California grass on the Refuges include an integrated system of mowing, disking, tilling, handpulling, and application of herbicides. 

Pluchea spp

Pluchea spp. (Family–Asteraceae) is comprised of two shrub species in Hawai‘i—Indian fleabane 

(P. indica) and sourbush (P. carolinensis)—and a hybrid species. Pluchea indica readily hybridizes 

with P. carolinensis to form the intermediate plant P. x fosbergii. The leaves of this hybrid species 

are usually more similar to P. indica, while the inflorescence more closely resembles P. carolinensis. 

P. x fosbergii can be found where the two species occur together (Wagner et al. 1999). 

P. carolinensis is an erect, aromatic shrub native to parts of North and South America. The species 

has naturalized in Hawai‘i, Guam, Taiwan, Africa, and other tropical and Pacific areas. It can grow in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-38 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

poor soil conditions; however, it cannot withstand shade or severe competition from brush and grass. 

In dry habitats, the fast-growing shrub can form thickets. In Hawai‘i, P. carolinensis has spread to all 

the main islands since its arrival in the 1930s. This shrub is able to grow in a wide array of habitats, 

ranging in distribution from dry coastal areas to open forests at 2,953 feet elevation. The plant seeds 

prolifically and the seeds are easily dispersed by wind (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998, Wagner 

et al. 1999). 

Pluchea will out-compete native plants on the Refuge, reducing forage and nesting habitats for birds. 

Pluchea tend to harbor huge nests of paper wasps, which are a hazard to Refuge staff and the public. 

Techniques used to control Pluchea spp. on the Refuges include an integrated system of manual 

removal and application of herbicides. 

Christmasberry (Schinus terebinthifolius)

Christmasberry is an aggressive, rapidly spreading plant native to Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. It 

can grow as a tree or shrub up to 23 feet in height. Christmasberry has become naturalized in mesic, 

disturbed, and coastal areas throughout the Hawaiian Islands where it can form dense thickets on 

steep slopes (Wagner et al. 1999). 

Christmasberry is considered a pioneer species because it quickly colonizes disturbed areas. The 

invasive attributes of Christmasberry include a large number of fruits, bird dispersal, and a tolerance 

to shade, fire, and drought. Furthermore, the species is believed to have allelopathic properties, which 

increases its competitive ability with neighboring plants (Hight et al. 2003). Due to these 

characteristics, this species is recognized as a noxious weed by the Hawai‘i Department of 

Agriculture. 

Three biocontrol insects have been released in the Hawaiian Islands to control this species. This 

includes a seed-feeding beetle in 1960, a leaf-rolling moth in 1954–1956, and a stem-galling moth in 

1961–1962 (Hight et al. 2003). An accidentally introduced seed-feeding wasp has also been found 

attacking seeds of Christmasberry. A foliage-feeding sawfly was tested as a potential biological 

control agent for Christmasberry; however, this species was not introduced due to its risk to the 

native ‘ohe kukuluae‘o (Reynoldsia sandwicensis) (Hight et al. 2003). 

Kikuyu Grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) 

Kikuyu grass is a fast-growing grass species that forms mats and spreads by rhizomes and stolons. It 

was introduced to Hawai’i for cattle forage. Kikuyu grass is native to eastern Africa, but has spread 

throughout the tropics and subtropics (Holm et al. 1972). It occurs primarily in cool fertile areas 

(Scowcroft and Jeffrey 1999) between sea level and 6,600 feet elevation. It propagates vegetatively 

because the small, inflorescences rarely produce seeds (Holm et al. 1972). It is shade-tolerant, and 

the root morphology may also be altered in shaded areas (USFWS 1996). 

Kikuyu grass is a particular management concern in many habitats because the species forms dense 

mats, preventing the establishment of native seedlings. It competes with native seedlings for 

nutrients, light, and water (Scowcroft 1992), it increases the frequency and intensity of fire (Smith 

and Tunison 1992), and has been reported to possess allelopathic substances (Smith 1985). For these 

reasons, it is a federally listed noxious weed, and according to the USFS and DOFAW it is 

considered a high-risk weed species for creating ecological and economic harm in Hawai’i. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-39

Although Kikuyu grass is considered an aggressive pest, the species appears to be less aggressive in 

the coastal zone and provides valuable forage habitat for nēnē on the Refuge. Currently, there are no 

known native grasslands that could be restored to provide the same nutrition as Kikuyu-legume 

grasslands. Approximately 27 acres of Kikuyu grasslands are managed for nēnē at Crater Hill yearround. 

Ironwood (Casuarina equisetifolia)

Ironwood is native to the tropical and subtropical seacoasts from Malaysia to Australia, Micronesia, 

Melanesia, the Philippine Islands, and Polynesia, but is not native to the Hawaiian Islands. The 

common name refers to any of a number of closely related species that have also been called “sheoak,” or “beefwood.” The tree reaches heights of 80 to 100 feet and diameters up to 18 inches. The 

wood is dark brown, very tough and dense, and grows rapidly. 

Ironwood was introduced on the island of on Kaua‘i in 1882. More than 70,000 trees were planted on 

the forest reserves of the island, and many others were planted on private lands for windbreaks and in 

depleted soils or sandy areas requiring salt-tolerant trees. Since that time, ironwood has not only 

spread to all the main Hawaiian Islands, but has also established on some of the small atolls in the 

NWHI. 

At the Refuge, it is a common weed and poses a threat to native plants and seabirds. For example, 

rapid growth of ironwood trees at the base of Mōlī Hill creates obstacles within primary mōlī flight 

corridors. In 2010, a mōlī fledgling taking its first flight crashed into an ironwood tree and was 

grounded cliff-side for a day, an annual occurrence if ironwoods are not maintained. As a result, 

ironwood is controlled on the Refuge in key areas using chainsaws, handsaws, herbicides and, rarely, 

heavy equipment. 

Haole Koa (Leucaena leucocephala) 

Koa haole, haole koa (foreign koa), or leucaena, is a vigorous shrub or small tree native to 

southeastern Mexico. This naturalized deciduous species is characterized by twice pinnate leaves 

with numerous small, gray-green leaflets, many flowers in whitish round balls 3⁄4 –1 inch across the 

spreading threadlike stamens, and many clustered dark brown flat pods. It is a rapidly growing small 

tree 20–30 feet tall and 4 inches in trunk diameter 

This species was unknown in Hawai‘i in 1864, but reported as frequent 20 years later. It is reported 

that seeds were broadcast from airplanes to provide a charcoal source. It is now an abundant weed in 

the dry lowlands throughout Hawai‘i and will form dense thickets in lowlands and lower mountain 

slopes to 2,500 feet altitude. 

Haole koa is common throughout the Refuge, and is found in highest concentration in Crater Hill and 

Mōkōlea Point where it can crowd out nesting seabirds. As a result, haole koa is controlled on the 

Refuge in key areas using power or hand tools and herbicides. 

Lantana (Lantana camara) 

Lantana is a perennial, erect or prostrate shrub growing to 6 feet or more in height. Leaves are ovate 

in shape, oppositely arranged, commonly 6 inches long and 2.5 inches wide. Lantana reproduces 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-40 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

vegetatively and via seed; flowers are produced year-round and are able to self- and cross-pollinate.

Lantana is an extremely prolific seed producer with approximately 12,000 fruits per plant. 

Lantana is a thorny shrub and noxious weed native to the West Indies that was brought to Hawai’i as 

an ornamental plant for gardens. It can form an impenetrable thicket which crowds out other plants 

and is dispersed by pest and frugivorous birds. It is capable of surviving all but the hottest fires, 

regenerating from basal shoots. Allelopathic substances are produced by shoots and roots. Lantana is 

found up to 1,970 feet on all islands, principally in dry areas, but it has also infested both mesic and 

wet habitats. Lantana is found throughout the Refuge. It is controlled using power or hand tools and 

herbicides. 

4.11 References 

Ainley D.G., T.C. Telfer, and M.H. Reynolds. 1997. Newell’s shearwater (Puffinus auricularis). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 297 (Poole A, Gill F, editors). Philadelphia, (PA): The Academy of 

Natural Sciences; and Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 

American Veterinary Medical Association [AVMA]. 2007. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. Report 

prepared by the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. 36 pp. 

Arata, J. A., P. R. Sievert, and M.B. Naughton. 2009. Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed 

albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923–2000. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2009-5131. Reston, Virginia: U. S. Geological Survey. 

Atkinson, I.A.E. 1977. A reassessment of factors, particularly Rattus rattus L., that influenced the

decline of endemic forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 31:109-133. 

Awkerman, J.A., D.J. Anderson, and G.C. Whittow. 2009. Laysan Albatross Phoebastria 

immutabilis. In: Poole, A. (Ed). The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology.

Banko, P.C., J.M. Black, and W.E. Banko. 1999. Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis). In: Poole, 

A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 434. Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia. 30 pp. 

Blossey, B. and R. Notzold. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive 

nonindigenous plants: A hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83:887–889. 

Bonaccorso, F., P.M. Gorresen, C. Todd, and C. Cornett. 2008. Seasonal Movements and the 

Occurrence of Hoary Bats in Hawai‘i. Oral. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference. Honolulu, HI. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1993. Tourism and short-term behavioural responses of nesting Masked, 

Red-footed, and Blue-footed Boobies in the Galapagos. Environmental Conservation 20:255-259. 

Burney, D.A., H.F. James, L.P. Burney, S.L. Olson, W. Kikuchi, W.L. Wagner, Burney, M. 

McCloskey, D. Kikuchi, F.V. Grady, R. Gage II, and R. Nishek. 2001. Fossil evidence for a diverse 

biota from Kaua‘i and its transformation since human arrival. Ecological Monographs 7:615–641. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-41

Byrd, G.V., D. I. Moriarty, and B.G. Brady. 1983. Breeding biology of wedge-tailed shearwaters at 

Kīlauea Point, Hawaiʻi. Condor 83:292–296. 

Byrd, G.V. and T. C. Telfer. 1984. A cross-fostering experiment with Newell's race of Manx 

Shearwater. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(1). 

Caley, P. 1997. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a tropical 

habitat. Wildlife Research 24:77–87. 

Char, W. and N. Balakrishnan. 1979. ‘Ewa Plains Botanical Survey, University of Hawai‘i, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Courchamp, F., J. Chapuis, and M. Pascal. 2003. Mammal invaders on islands: impact, control and 

control impact. Biological Review 78:347–383. 

Cruz, F., C. J. Donlan, K. Campbell, V. Carrion. 2005. Conservation action in the Galapagos: Feral 

pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biological Conservation 121:473–478. 

D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire 

cycle, and the global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63–87. 

Dauphine, N. and R.J. Cooper. 2011. Pick one: Outdoor cats or conservation, the fight over 

managing an invasive predator. Wildlife Professional 5:50–56. 

Day, R.H., B.A. Cooper, and T.C. Telfer. 2003. Decline of Townsend’s (Newell’s) Shearwaters 

(Puffinus auricularis newelli) on Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi. The Auk 120:669–679. 

Diong, C.H. 1982. Population Biology and Management of the Feral Pig (Sus scrofa L.) in Kipahulu 

Valley, Maui. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Division of the University of Hawaiʻi.

Engilis, A., Jr., and M. Naughton. 2004. U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 66 pp. 

Hays, W.S.T. and S. Conant. 2007. Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive species. A 

worldwide review of effects of the small Indian mongoose, Herpestes javanicus (Carnivora: 

Herpestidae). Pacific Science 61:3-16. 

Hensley, D., R. Stibbe, and F. Rauch. 1997. Hala. University of Hawai‘i. 1 p. Ornamentals and 

Flowers; OF-17. Honolulu, HI.

Hess, S. 2011. By land and by sea, the widespread threat of feral cats on Hawaiian wildlife. Wildlife 

Professional 5:66-67. 

Hess, S.C., J. J. Jeffrey, D. L. Ball, and L. Babich. 2006. Efficacy of Feral Pig Removals at Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-004. 

University of Hawai‘i at Hilo. 64 pp. 

Hight, S.D., I. Horiuchi, M.D. Vitorino, C. Wikler, and J.H. Pedrosa-Macedo. 2003. Biology, host 

specificity tests, and risk assessment of the sawfly Heteroperreyia hubrichi, a potential biological 

control agent of Schinus terebinthifolius in Hawaiʻi. BioControl 48:461–476. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-42 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Holm, L.G., D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger. 1972. The World's Worst 

Weeds:Distribution and Biology. University of Hawaiʻi Press: Honolulu, HI. 

Honnold, S.P., R. Braun, D. P. Scott, C. Sreekumar, and J.P. Dubey. 2005. Toxoplasmosis in a 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Journal of Parasitology 91:695–697. 

Joyce, T.W., N. D. Holmes, and R.A. Phillips. 2010. Post-breeding season dispersal of the Newell’s 

Shearwater (Puffinus newelli) from Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi. Poster. Hawai‘i Conservation Conference. 

Honolulu, HI. 

Kīlauea Point Natural History Association [KPNHA]. 1986. Three Laysan Albatross chicks fledge 

successfully at Kīlauea Point Refuge. Kīlauea Pointers No. 8. 

Kaua‘i Invasive Species Committee [KISC]. 2014. Coqui. Available at 

http://www.kauaiisc.org/coqui/. 

Kishinami, C. H. 2001. Amphibians and reptiles. In: Staples, G. W. and R. H. Cowie, eds. 

Hawai‘i’s Invasive Species. Honolulu (HI): Mutual Publishing. Pages 27–31. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. Effects of Tourist 

disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at Kīlauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kauaʻi, HI. Unpublished report for pilot study.

LaRosa, A.M. 1992. The status of banana poka in Hawai’i. In: Stone, C.P. Smith, C.W., and J.T. 

Tunison, eds. Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawai’i: Management and Research. 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu. p. 271–299. 

Lee DS, M. Walsh-McGehee. 1998. White-tailed tropicbird (Phaeton lepturus). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 353 (Poole A, Gill F, editors.). Philadelphia, (PA): The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, and Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 

Lowe S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas, M. De Poorter. 2000. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien 

Species. A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Published by The Invasive Species 

Specialist Group: a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation 

Union. 12 pp. 

Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. 2nd ed. Sunderland (MA): 

Sinauer Associated, Inc. 

Menard, T. 2001. Activity patterns of the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) in relation 

to reproductive time periods. MSc Thesis. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. 

Mitchell, C., C. Ogura, D.W. Meadows, A. Kane, L. Strommer, S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A.

McClung. 2005. Hawai’i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. 722 pp. 

Mostello, C.S. 1996. Diets of the Pueo, the Barn owl, the cat, and the mongoose in Hawai’i: evidence 

for competition. M. S. Thesis. University of Hawaiʻi, Honolulu, HI. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-43

Motooka, P., L. Castro, D. Nelson, G. Nagai, and L. Ching. 2003. Weeds of Hawai’i’s pastures and 

natural areas, an identification and management guide. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human 

Resources, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and F.R. Fosberg. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific Islands. New York: 

Springer-Verlag.

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan.

35 pp. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/

Naughton, M.B., M.D. Romano, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2007. A conservation action plan for blackfooted albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan albatross (P. immutabilis), Ver. 1.0. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Nelson, J.T., B.L. Woodworth, S.G. Fancy, G.D. Lindsey, and E.J. Tweed. 2002. Effectiveness of 

rodent control and monitoring techniques for a montane rainforest. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 30:82-92. 

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 365:1–59. 

Paton, P.W.C., D.P. Fellows, and P.Q. Tomich. 1986. Distribution of cattle egret roosts in Hawai’i 

with notes on the problems egrets pose to airports. ‘Elepaio 46:143-147. 

Plentovich, S., A. Hebshi, and S. Conant. 2009. Detrimental effects of two widespread invasive ant 

species on growth and survival of colonial nesting seabirds in the Hawaiian Islands. Biological 

Invasions 11:289-298. 

Pyle, R.L., and P. Pyle. 2009. The Birds of the Hawaiian Islands: Occurrence, History, Distribution, 

and Status. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Vers. 1 

http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/birds/rlp-monograph

Read, R.W., and D.R. Hodel. 1990. Arecaceae: in Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer, 

Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai’i. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, 

Honolulu. Bishop Mus. Spec. Publ. 83:1360-1375. 

Reynolds, M.H., P. Berkowitz, K.N. Courtot, and C.M. Krause, eds. 2012. Predicting sea-level rise 

vulnerability of terrestrial habitat and wildlife of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2012–1182. 139 pp. Found at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1182/. 

Schreiber E.A., R.W. Schreiber, G.A. Schenk. 1996. Red-footed booby (Sula sula). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 241 (Poole A, Gill F, editors.). Philadelphia, (PA): The Academy of Natural 

Sciences; and Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 

Schreiber E.A., R.W. Schreiber. 1993. Red-tailed tropicbird (Phaeton rubricauda). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 43 (Poole A, Gill F, editors.). Philadelphia, (PA): The Academy of Natural 

Sciences; and Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-44 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Scowcroft, P.G. and J. Jeffrey. 1999. Potential significance of frost, topographic relief, and Acacia 

koa stands to restoration of mesic Hawaiian forests on abandoned rangeland. Forest Ecology & 

Management 114:447–458.

Scowcroft P.G. 1992. Role of decaying logs and other organic seedbeds in natural regeneration of 

Hawaiian forest species on abandoned montane pasture. In: Conrad C.E., Newell L. (tech coord) 

Proceedings of the Session on Tropical Forestry for People of the Pacific, 17th Pacific Science 

Congress. Gen Tech Rep GTR-129, Albany, CA, pp 67–73. Available at

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr129/psw_gtr129_scowcroft.pdf. 

Smith, C.W. 1985. Impact of alien plants on Hawaiʻi’s native biota. Pages 180–250 In: C.P. Stone 

and J.M. Scott (eds.), Hawaiʻi’s Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management. University of 

Hawaii Cooperative Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaiʻi Press, Honolulu. 

Smith, C.W. and J.T. Tunison. 1992. Fire and Alien Plants in Hawaiʻi: Research and Management 

Implications. Pp 394–408. In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien Plant Invasions 

in Native Ecosystems of Hawaiʻi: Management and Research. Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Hawaiʻi, Honolulu. 887 pages. 

Smith, D.G., J.T. Polhemus, and E.A. Vanderwerf. 2002. Comparison of managed and unmanaged 

Wedge-tailed Shearwater colonies on O‘ahu: Effects of predation. Pacific Science 56:451–457. 

Smucker, T.D., G.D. Lindsey, and S.M. Mosher. 2000. Home range and diet of feral cats in Hawai’i 

forests. Pacific Conservation Biology 6: 229-237. 

Staples, G.W., Herbst, D., and C.T. Imada. 2000. Survey of invasive or potentially invasive 

cultivated plants in Hawai’i. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 65:1-35. 

Staples, G.W., and R.H. Cowie (eds.). 2001. Hawai‘i’s invasive species. Bishop Museum Press: 

Honolulu, HI. 

Stone, C.P., L.W. Cuddihy, and J.T. Tunison. 1992. Responses of Hawaiian ecosystems to the 

removal of feral pigs and goats. In: Stone, C.P., Smith, C.W., and J.T. Tunison, eds. Alien Plant 

Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawai’i: Management and Research. Cooperative National Park 

Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu. p. 666–704. 

Tabata, R.S. 1980. The Native Coastal Plant of Oahu, Hawai‘i. pp 321–346. In Smith, C.W. (Ed.).

June 4–6, 1980. Proceedings of the Third Conference in Natural Sciences, Hawai‘i Volcanoes 

National Park. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.

Telfair II, R.C. 2006. Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), No. 113. In: Poole, A., ed. The Birds of North 

America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/113

The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Native Ecosystem Loss in the Hawaiian High Islands Ecoregion at 

the Turn of the 21st Century. Honolulu, unpublished. 

Tobin, M.E. and R.T. Sugihara. 1992. Abundance and habitat relationships of rats in Hawaiian sugar 

cane fields. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:816-822. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-45

Tomich, P.Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawai’i, 2nd Ed. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Kauaʻi Plant Cluster. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. p. 270. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Draft Reforestation Management Plan, Hakalau NWR. 

Hilo, HI.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian hoary bat. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 50 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Nēnē or Hawaiian Goose 

(Branta sandvicensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 148 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Waterbirds, 

2nd Draft of 2nd Rev. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 155 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 

261 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and Management 

Priorities: A Handbook. United States Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, Branch of Refuge Biology. 73 pp. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 2008. Sources of variation in survival, recruitment, and natal dispersal of the 

Hawai’i ‘Elepaio. Condor 110:241-250. 

Van Driesche, J. and R. Van Driesche. 2000. Nature Out of Place: Biological Invasions in the Global 

Age. Washington DC.: Island Press. 

Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of 

population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7-13. 

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i, 

Revised ed., 2 vols. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press and Bishop Museum Press. 

Walther, M. 2004. A Guide to Hawai‘i’s Coastal Plants. Mutual Publishing. Honolulu, HI. 

Whittow, G.C. 1997. Wedge-tailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 305 (Poole A, Gill F, editors.). Philadelphia, (PA): The Academy of Natural Sciences; and 

Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 

Wiggins, D.A., D.W. Holt and S.M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds 

of North America Online. 

Wilcox, Barbara S. 1975. The Kahuku Sugar Mill Story. Island Heritage Limited, Norfolk Island, 

Australia. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

4-46 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

Woog, F. and J.M. Black. 2001. Foraging behavior and temporal use of grasslands by Nēnē: 

Implications for management. Studies in Avian Biology 22:319-328. 

Work, T., J.G. Massey, B.A. Rideout, C.H. Gardiner, D.B. Ledig, O.C.H. Kwok, and J.P. Dubey. 

2000. Fatal Toxoplasmosis in free-ranging endangered ‘Alala from Hawai’i. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 36:205-212. 

Work, T., J.G.Massey, D.S. Lindsay, and J.P. Dubey. 2002. Toxoplasmosis in the three native and 

introduced Hawaiian birds. Journal of Parasitology 88:1042-1044. 

Work, T.M. and J. Hale 1996. Causes of owl mortality in Hawaiʻi, 1992-1994. Journal of Wildlife 

diseases 32–266–273.Yamamoto, M.N. and A.W. Tagawa. 2000. Hawai’i’s Native and Exotic 

Freshwater Animals. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing. 200 pp. 

Young, L. C., C. Vanderlip, D. C. Duffy, V. Afanasyev, and S. A. Shaffer. 2009a. Bringing home the 

trash: Do colony-based differences in foraging distribution lead to increased plastic ingestion in 

Laysan Albatrosses? PLoS ONE 4:e7623. 

Young, L. C., E. A. VanderWerf, D. G. Smith, J. Polhemus, N. Swenson, C. Swenson, B. R. 

Liesemeyer, B. H. Gagne, and S. Conant. 2009b. Demography and Natural History of Laysan 

Albatross on Oahu, Hawai‘i. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121: 722-729. 

Zaun, B. 2004. Wedge-tailed Shearwater report for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, National Wildlife Refuge System, Unpublished Report. 

Zaun, B. 2005. Red-tailed Tropicbird and White-tailed Tropicbird Monitoring Report for Kīlauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Unpublished Report. 
© D.K. Velte

Chapter 5Social and Economic Environment

Chapter 4Refuge Biology and Habitats

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

A-K

Chapter 5

Social and

Economic

Environment

Chapter 2Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-1 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

5.1 Cultural Resources

5.1.1 Introduction

Archaeological and other cultural resources are important components of our Nation’s heritage. The 

Service is committed to protecting valuable evidence of plant, animal, and human interactions with 

each other and the landscape over time. These may include previously recorded or yet undocumented 

historic, cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources as well as traditional cultural 

properties and the historic built environment. Protection of cultural resources is legally mandated 

under numerous Federal laws and regulations. Foremost among these are the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended, the Antiquities Act, the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA) as amended, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (NAGPRA). 

Permanent settlements of the Hawaiian Islands by Polynesians are recorded as early as the 7th century 

Common Era (C.E.); however, initial discovery and colonization may have occurred even three to 

four centuries earlier. Testaments to these settlements include remnants of heiau (temple sites), burial 

sites, terraces which supported agriculture (e.g., irrigated cultivation of kalo), stone-lined water 

ditches (‘auwai), and stone-walled fish ponds (loko kuapā). It is estimated that prior to the arrival of 

British explorer Captain James Cook in 1778, the Native Hawaiian population numbered from 

250,000–1,000,000, with most settlements established below 3,000 feet. 

Hawaiian pre-contact history is divided into four main periods: the Colonization Period (300–600

C.E.), the Developmental Period (600–1100), the Expansion Period (1100–1650), and the ProtoHistoric Period (1650–1795). The latter two periods are when Native Hawaiian culture is thought to 

have developed with the ahupua‘a system of land divisions as well as hierarchical social structures 

where chiefs (ali‘i) and commoners and kapu (taboo) systems were instituted. 

After the arrival of Cook, changes in Native Hawaiian culture and society occurred with increased 

Western contact through trade, leading to the depletion of sandalwood, diseases such as cholera and 

syphilis which decimated Native Hawaiian populations, and acquisition of firearms, which helped 

King Kamehameha unite the Hawaiian Islands. Between 1795 and 1893, there was a transition where 

Native Hawaiian monarchies governed and ruled the islands; the religious and kapu systems 

continued until 1819. Other changes during this period include the arrival of missionaries in 1820, 

which lead to the conversion of many Native Hawaiians to Christianity; the building of churches; 

banning traditional art forms, such as hula; and displacement of traditional religious and kapu 

systems. The growth of whaling also lead to an influx of migrant workers; trade; agricultural 

commodities such as cattle and chickens; and local cultivation of potatoes, onions, beans, and other 

vegetables and fruits. Other countries, such as Russia and England, were also present during this 

period. 

One of the greatest changes during this time was the transformation of the land tenure system from a 

traditional, communal system to that of a Western system under the Māhele of 1848. Title to lands in 

Hawai‘i were divided between the konohiki (Konohiki (chief) Lands—1,619,000 acres), King 

Kamehameha III (Crown Lands—984,000 acres), and the Hawaiian government (Government 

Lands—1,523,000 acres). All these lands, however, were subject to the rights of native tenants, an 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-2 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

effort to continue the traditional Hawaiian land tenure system. Native tenants, under the Kuleana Act 

of 1850, could petition the Land Commission for fee simple title to these lands if they could prove 

they had occupied and improved it (Garovoy 2005). However, few Native Hawaiians claimed their 

kuleana. This, along with a sale of government lands between 1850 and1860, resulted in Native 

Hawaiians losing much of their lands to foreigners, who could now hold land in fee. The Native 

Hawaiian monarchy was changed to a constitutional monarchy in which a partly elected legislature 

and set of ministers carried out government business. This resulted in a shift of government from 

Native Hawaiian to Euro-American control. However, during King David Kalākaua’s reign (1874–

1891), there was a brief resurgence of Native Hawaiian culture with a Hawaiian language newspaper 

created, the hula and its music brought back and performed in public, as well as the building of 

‘Iolani Palace. 

As whaling declined in the 1860s, sugar became the dominant industry, leading to a large influx of 

Asian immigrants and further displacement of Native Hawaiians, who had been employed as 

plantation workers. The first major sugar plantation was established on Kaua‘i in 1835. Princeville 

Plantation was established in the late 1860s. Large-scale systematic growing of coffee on Kaua‘i also 

began from 1835 to 1845. The economics and dominance of the sugar industry lead to political 

discord and eventual overthrow of the Native Hawaiian monarchy. 

In 1898, Hawai‘i became a U.S. territory, partly for its strategic location with respect to Asia.

Hawai‘i continued to be a plantation society, along with some ranching, up until World War II 

(WWII), with pineapple joining sugar as a plantation commodity. During this time, the government 

and economy were ruled mainly by five major business corporations. The early 1900s also saw the 

building up of military in Hawai‘i. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and U.S. entry into 

WWII, changes in Hawai‘i resulted in Japanese-Americans entering politics, the rise of the labor 

unions, and a shift in government from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. When Hawai‘i 

became a state in 1959, the Admissions Act required the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Act, which set aside 

200,000 acres that once belonged to the Hawaiian kingdom to lease land to Native Hawaiians, be 

included in the State Constitution. Since statehood, the local economy has been dominated by 

tourism, military, and a waning agricultural sector; the sugar and pineapple plantations began their 

declines in the 1950s–60s. 

The late 1960s saw a revival of Native Hawaiian culture with the return of traditional hula and music. 

The creation and launching of the Polynesian voyaging canoe Hōkūle‘a was another major milestone 

in this revival of Native Hawaiian culture. The 1980s saw an increase of Native Hawaiian 

organizations and calls for sovereignty with the establishment of Native Hawaiian language-focused 

schools and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

5.1.2 Kīlauea Point NWR

Kīlauea has a history steeped in the plantation days of old Hawai‘i and WWII. It is also an area rich 

with stories of Pele (the volcano goddess), who had fallen in love with Lohi‘au, a chief of Hā‘ena. 

She came to the area to find a home for them, but encountered her sisters. One variation of the story 

has her meeting them on Kīlauea Crater and turning them into stones out of jealously of their beauty. 

There is also a story related to the Menehune and Moku‘ae‘ae Island in which a bridge between the 

island and the mainland was never completed because they were unable to finish laying rocks in the 

channel in one night (Wichman 1998). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-3 

Native Hawaiians consider biological resources also as cultural resources. Many of the native species 

found in Hawai‘i are linked with traditional stories, sayings, and chants dating back to the creation 

chant Kumulipo. One example of this is the ‘iwa, which is known for its beauty, resourcefulness, and 

ability to soar high. This trait makes it also a symbol of vigilance. Praise for a graceful person is 

often compared to that of an ‘iwa’s flight. Additionally, many native wildlife species are also linked 

with deities and family genealogies. 

The Hawaiian name Kīlauea means “rising vapor clouds,” which describes the clouds of sea mist 

along the north coast. The Refuge lies in the ahupua‘a of Kīlauea and Kāhili. The surrounding 

ahupua‘a include Namahana, Kalihiwai, Kalihikai, Waiakalua, and Pīla‘a. During the talk story 

session for Kīlauea in November 2009, families with cultural ties to the area who were historically 

konohiki for fishing in the Kalihiwai ahupua‘a, told of fishermen who would look from Crater Hill to 

spot fish and to plan for their fishing. Families with cultural ties still practice traditional Native 

Hawaiian fishing at Kīlauea Point. The lighthouse was also used by community members to find 

bearing from both the ocean and mountains for safe return. 

During the mid- to late 1400s, Kīlauea, under Mano-ka-lani-pō (an ali‘i nui or high chief), was 

opened up for agriculture. He created the ahupua‘a for the island (the Refuge is in the moku‘aina of 

Ko‘olau). By the time of the Māhele in 1848, feral cattle, which had been introduced to Kaua‘i by 

Captain George Vancouver in 1791, had multiplied and were causing much damage (Wichman 

1998). In the late 1870s, Kīlauea Sugar Plantation Company was started and Kīlauea Town grew to 

support many of its functions. Though small compared to other sugar plantations, at its peak it 

employed 400 people and brought a mix of European, American, and Asian people into the 

community (in contrast, an 1847 census identified the area’s resident population at 240 (Aiken 

1988)). The plantation was innovative, being one of the earliest to experiment with using trains to 

transport sugarcane. Tracks went to a landing on the Kīlauea Bay side of Mōkōlea Point and were 

used until 1942, using gasoline tractors instead of steam plows, and utilizing machines to clean 

sugarcane. A rock quarry was also established at Mōkōlea for road building and construction (used 

until 1979). 

The company came to an end in the early 1970s and with this came an era of real estate development.

However, opposition from the Kaua‘i County government and residents left land owner C. Brewer 

(who acquired controlling interest of the company in 1948) with no sales of its land surrounding 

Kīlauea Town until the passage in 1973 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Kaua‘i General 

Plan) which clarified criteria for land sales. The zoning tried to encourage resident farmers by 

combining agricultural and housing use and discourage resort development and urban sprawl. 

However, gentleman estates still developed. Many of the former employees of the sugar plantation 

company were provided opportunities to buy their houses or land and gained employment through 

other agricultural ventures that emerged. The rise of Princeville also provided opportunities (Wilcox 

1981). Several buildings in Kīlauea related to the sugar company are listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places and include the Kīlauea Plantation Bookkeeper’s House, Kīlauea Plantation Head 

Luna’s House, Kīlauea Plantation Manager’s House, and the Kong Lung Store. Kīlauea School is 

also registered.

With the coming of WWII, Kīlauea’s history moved from agriculture to military occupation. The 

current Christ Memorial Church’s Parish Hall (used as a community hall) was occupied by the U.S. 

Army (Wilcox 1981). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed Kīlauea Radar Station between 

1941 and 1942, and the U.S. Army managed the station until the end of the war. It was considered a 

top secret site during the war and was one of three radar installations located on the island of Kaua‘i 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-4 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

that helped detect planes and submarines. The radar station was constructed on the highest point of 

Crater Hill and included two tunnels (one for radio and one for radio operations), an electrical 

generation plant, and a 200-foot radar tower (Dept. of the Army 1991). After its closure, the land was 

transferred to the Kīlauea Sugar Plantation Company (which used one of the tunnels to store 

explosives). The Crater Hill area provided pasture land for cattle and grazing until the early 1980s; a 

slaughter house and dairy had even been constructed at the base of the hill (operations continued 

until WWII). It was sold to Seacliff Plantation, which then sold it to the Refuge. Today, via SUPs, 

the site has telecommunication antennas for the County of Kaua‘i Civil Defense and Police 

Department, State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation and Health, and a radio station. In 1988, 

the Refuge sought designation of this radar station as a National Historic Landmark; however, no 

designation has been made (Department of the Army 1991). 

In January 1863, a former American whaler named Charles Titcomb purchased the entire ahupua‘a of 

Kīlauea, amounting to approximately 3,016 acres, under Royal Patent 2896 (signed by Kamehameha 

IV) for $2,500. This land grant included the present Refuge. Titcomb founded the Kīlauea Sugar 

Plantation Company and cleared these lands for sugarcane. He also had a ranching operation. The 

Kīlauea River Valley was not planted with sugarcane (only relatively flat areas were under 

cultivation); however, stone walls found in the valley indicate that kalo and possibly rice were grown 

there in earlier times (Aiken 1988). Landings were constructed at Kāhili (or Rock Quarry) to assist 

with transportation of goods and people. A nearby quarry was also developed for use by the 

company. 

Kīlauea Point (31 acres) was purchased from C. Brewer and Company by the U.S. Coast Guard to 

build a lighthouse as a navigational aide for the growing commercial maritime trade between Hawai‘i 

and Asia. Given that the Point is the northernmost tip of the main Hawaiian Island, this lighthouse 

could be seen for miles. Construction began in 1912 on the lighthouse and keeper’s quarters. On May 

1, 1913, the 56-foot tall lighthouse officially started its use (celebrated with a lū‘au and shark shoot). 

Local visitors were welcomed to the site to view the technological wonder of the lighthouse. The 

former keepers estimated that 20 people per week visited the Point, but after Statehood, visitation 

increased with hotel and airline development. The lighthouse gained national recognition in June 

1927 when it aided the first trans-Pacific flight from California to Hawai‘i by the U.S. Army, thereby 

encouraging development of commercial trans-oceanic airline service and military flights to remote 

regions. In 1976, the Service reached an agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard which allowed use of 

the 33-acre light station site for Service administrative facilities. Lighthouse use continued until 

1976, at which point the U.S. Coast Guard installed an automated electronic beacon. Visitation at this 

time was recorded at 84,000 people annually. 

In 1974, the lighthouse was placed on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places, and then in 1979 

placed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is also listed in Kaua‘i County’s historic 

resources inventory. The National Register was later amended to include additional primary 

structures as part of the Kīlauea Point Light Station (e.g., keeper’s quarters, two assistant keeper’s 

quarters, oil house, landing station, derrick site, engine room, volcanic stone retaining wall, and stone 

stairway/moorings), three cisterns, water storage tank, storage shed/garage (Northwest Heritage 

Consultants 2006). The lighthouse’s second-order Fresnel lens, made in France, is one of 22 believed 

to exist in the U.S (and one of only seven that remain in lighthouses). The Light Station is also 

considered a historic district. The lighthouse itself is one of only eight surviving reinforced concrete 

lighthouse towers in the U.S. before 1916 concrete standards were published. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-5 

In 1985 the land was transferred to the Service and became a national wildlife refuge. Through the 

years, several of these structures have undergone restoration and renovation, including the radio 

beacon building, keeper’s quarters, and lighthouse (particularly after Hurricane Iniki in 1992). From 

2010–2013, the lighthouse underwent restoration work which included repairs to the unique cast iron 

roof and lantern assembly; removal of interior and exterior coatings; repairs to the concrete tower, 

removal of concrete blocks from where windows were formerly located; installation of new 

windows, corbels, and doors; and repair of the Fresnel lens; and the inclusion of additional safety 

measures. This restoration work, at a little over $2 million dollars, was supported mostly by grants 

and fundraising done by Kīlauea Point Natural History Association (KPNHA) as well as 

congressionally appropriated funding. On May 4, 2013, the lighthouse was renamed the Daniel K. 

Inouye Kīlauea Point Lighthouse to honor the late U.S. Senator from Hawai‘i who had championed 

and provided funds for the restoration work. 

Previous archaeological research

In 1987, William K. Kikuchi surveyed the present grounds of the Refuge and areas of proposed 

extension. Considering the significance to Native Hawaiians of seabird nesting colonies found within 

the Refuge, Kikuchi extended the limits of his survey to search for associated cultural features or 

material. Surface remains of historic structures associated with Kīlauea Lighthouse are described, 

and limited subsurface testing was performed, but Kikuchi found no evidence of remains related to 

Native Hawaiian culture (Kikuchi 1987). 

Xamanek Researches (Fredericksen and Fredericksen 1989) surveyed areas including Crater Hill and 

Mōkōlea Point. Land use and history of tenure is documented well, followed by detailed descriptions 

of historic structural remains related to the transport and loading of sugar at Mōkōlea Point, a WWIIera radar installation on Crater Hill, and Kīlauea Lighthouse. Although archaeological evidence of 

Native Hawaiian exploitation of seabird colonies was one object of the survey, no such remains were 

observed. 

As part of the environmental assessment done for the Refuge’s boundary expansion (USFWS 2007), 

a records search was conducted in May 2005 at the State of Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Office in 

Honolulu. 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 showed that four cultural 

resource surveys (1996, 1997, 2000, 2001) had been completed, resulting in the recordation of nine 

cultural resources and notation of three sites recorded in 1928 and 1929. Of the 12 cultural resource 

sites, one site, a possible burial, was located within the expansion area. Three sites that are in closest 

proximity to, but outside the expansion area, included a historic burial site and agricultural 

complexes. 

Previously recorded sites in closest proximity to the 2007 boundary expansion area included a 

historic burial site, agricultural sites, and a heiau, as described below. 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 Kīlauea River in Kāhili section.” It was described by 

Thrum as “A large heiau of some 300 by over 100 feet in size, paved, walls 5 feet high, standing in 

cane field in partial ruins.” Since that time, stones have been removed. This site is located outside 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. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-6 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

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

three sites that are also located outside but in proximity to the expansion area. These sites include:

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

slopes above Kīlauea 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 expansion area. A site visit was 

conducted with the SHPO on May 11, 2005, on Parcel 3, a 162-acre parcel known as “Kīlauea Falls 

Ranch.” 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 lo‘i kalo 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 (USFWS 2007). 

Maps identifying these parcels and related cultural resources can be found in the 2007 Land 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2007). 

Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., carried out studies for Kīlauea Falls Ranch on the west side of 

Kīlauea River (also known as Kāhili Stream) (Shideler et al. 2007 and 2008). The studies identified a 

total of 62 features within of 5 sites. Four of these five sites are primarily or exclusively agricultural 

terraces. The only exception at these four sites was interpreted as a temporary habitation related to 

the agricultural terraces. The inventory survey (Shideler et al. 2008) concluded that the 

approximately 60–70 inches of annual rainfall within that project area made cultivation possible 

without irrigation. While Shideler et al. concluded that there may well have been pre-contact ponded 

field (lo‘i) taro cultivation along the flood plain, the vagaries of hurricane, tsunami, and flood may 

have made such planting down by the river precarious. It was suggested that cultivation up on the 

steep slope may have been more secure. The propensity of the Kīlauea/Kāhili Stream to flood may 

have encouraged development on the steep slope. Particularly relevant in the Kīlauea Falls Ranch 

study was the documentation of a dense cluster of 55 archaeological features including 53 soilretaining terraces and two possible habitation areas.

In 2013, a systematic pedestrian survey was completed within the approximately 6.67-acre Nihoku 

Ecosystem Restoration project area at Crater Hill. No surface cultural resources were observed 

during the survey (Hammatt and Shideler 2013). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-7 

The 1980 North Shore Development Plan Update (which includes Kīlauea) identified additional 

historic and scenic features: 

• Kauapea Beach;

• Crater Hill; 

• Kīlauea River Estuary and Bay; 

• Kīlauea Slippery Slides; 

• Kīlauea Episcopal Church; 

• Kīlauea Language School; 

• Old Hospital Building and Dispensary; 

• Old Plantation Office Building; 

• Plantation stone houses; 

• Kapinao Heiau; 

• Mountains behind Kīlauea. 

5.2 Refuge Facilities

Facilities described are those that support visitor services, law enforcement, administration, 

maintenance, and biological management at the Refuge. Historic structures and facilities managed by 

the Refuge are described in the previous section. 

Located 23 miles north of Līhu‘e and 2 miles north of the town of Kīlauea, the Refuge lies at the end 

of Kīlauea Road, a narrow County Road that ends in a cul-de-sac (turnaround). This area (hereafter 

also referred to as the Overlook) has six paved, painted parking stalls as well as information displays 

about the native wildlife and plants that can be seen in the area. Approximately 20 additional vehicles 

can be accommodated along a dirt/gravel section of Kīlauea Road that visitors often use as 

impromptu parking (Figure 5-1). 

The entrance to the public portion of the Refuge is controlled by a large, metal automatic gate. 

During a 1-year trial period starting February 2014, Kīlauea Point proper (hereafter also referred to 

as the Point) is open to the general public 5 days a week, from Tuesday to Saturday, with an entrance 

fee of $5.00 per person. After the trial period is completed, the visitation days will be reassessed to 

see if it is possible to reopen on a 6- or 7-day a week schedule. Upon entering the Refuge, vehicles 

(no pedestrians allowed) descend a steep, narrow (16 feet in width), curving, paved road (0.21 miles) 

that leads directly to two paved parking lots and two gravel areas, which can accommodate up to 51 

vehicles and 15-passenger vans. Large tour buses (25 passenger or larger) are restricted from entering 

the Refuge. Visitors then walk up to the main area of the Point, where a paved walkway leads them 

to a fee booth, a visitor center built in 1988 (which houses limited interpretive and educational 

displays as well as a bookstore, meeting room, minimal storage, and restrooms), and out to the Point, 

with the historic lighthouse and oil shed, and radio beacon building which has been converted to an 

interpretive site with informational displays and video. Associated with the radio beacon building, 

there is a garage (nonhistorical) that stores golf carts used to transport people with disabilities and 

supplies. Throughout this area, viewing scopes for the public to enjoy views of the seabirds, whales, 

and coastline and interpretive panels are available. 

Two of the historic keeper’s quarters are used as administrative offices for staff. The associated 

garages are used as storage for supplies. The third quarter, which also has an attached garage 

(nonhistorical), is currently used as staff residence to provide onsite presence when the Refuge is 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-8 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

closed. There is limited parking for staff and volunteers and limited covered areas to protect these 

and Refuge vehicles from the harsh sea salt and winds. 

There is also a small nursery (24 by 30 feet) used for growing native plants used in outplanting and 

restoration projects. Another storage shed, built after Hurricane Iniki, is also used to protect an 

electric vehicle, as a workshop, and maintenance storage. 

Exposure on the cliff, northeasterly trade winds, and sea spray from heavy wave action (especially in 

the winter months) create an extremely corrosive environment for maintenance facilities. This salty 

environment makes most exposed metals rust at an accelerated pace. Vehicles, heavy equipment, 

tractor implements, outdoor fixtures on buildings, and other equipment with exposed metal do not 

remain functioning for more than a few years without extensive rust buildup, making repairs 

expensive and time consuming.

Though the two existing small maintenance facilities provide limited maintenance capability and 

provide cover for small equipment including grounds maintenance and other small tools, they are 

insufficient for larger Refuge equipment needed for Refuge management. Examples include vehicles, 

tractors, and tractor implements (mower decks, boom axe, grinder heads, herbicide sprayers, etc.). 

The lack of this equipment onsite greatly hampers the effectiveness of Refuge operations. 

The Refuge maintains 2.7 miles of boundary, protective, and guard rail fencing. There are also gates 

that are tied into some of the fencing. At least 35 percent of this fencing is in need of replacement 

due to rotting posts, rusting mesh, and falling gates. Fifty percent of the fence also needs to be 

surveyed with the remaining 15 percent relocated for firebreak purposes and to deter trespass. Fence 

maintenance and assessments are critical because fences serve as the main deterrent against wildlife 

threats, such as predators and trespass. Regular maintenance ensures the fence is intact and any issues 

discovered addressed quickly (e.g., holes cut in the fence, birds which might inadvertently get 

caught). 

Additionally, in collaboration with several partners including the American Bird Conservancy, 

Kaua‘i Endangered Seabird Recovery Project (a Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife and 

Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit effort), National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and others, an 

approximately 2,400-foot-long predator-proof fence around 7 acres of the Refuge slightly east of 

Crater Hill was constructed in summer 2014. 

From Crater Hill to Mōkōlea Point, there are partially cemented or dirt roads used for management in 

areas that are closed to the general public. The Refuge owns a portion of Kāhili Quarry Road, which 

open to the public. 

The majority of the visitor services-related signage is located at the Point and Overlook. There are 

also boundary signs which mark the Refuge boundary. 

Other infrastructure which supports Refuge facilities and management includes water storage tanks 

and distribution systems, septic systems, and power distribution lines/systems. 
Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-9

Figure 5-1. Public Use and Maintenance and Facilities, Kīlauea Point NWR. 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

3⁄4

i3⁄4

i

3⁄4

i

3⁄4

i

![

!y

""

""

""

""

"" ""

""""

""

Kīlauea Rd

Makanaano PL

Kīlauea

River

Kāhili

Pacific

 Ocean

Public Entrance

Crater Hill

Upper Overlook

Kīlauea Point Lighthouse

Quarry

Kāhili 

Rd

Beach

Map Date: 11/17/2014 File: 11-093-3.mxd Data Source: USFWS 2014, DigitalGlobe 2010

0 1,000 2,000

feet

LEGEND

Refuge Ownership

Public Use

Limited (special use)Open to PublicOpen Tuesday–Saturday, 10–4

"" Refuge Buildings"" Historic Refuge Buildings

!y Unimproved Boat Launch

3⁄4

i Parking Lot

![ Overlook

Lighthouse PathFence

!

! Gate

Service Road (Refuge use)Roads

Ocean and Waterways

0 250 500

meters

!

!

!

!

3⁄4

i 3⁄4

i

3⁄4

i

3⁄4

i

![

""

""

""

""

""

""

""""

""

Contact Station

(radio beacon building)

Kīlauea Point 

Lighthouse

Visitor Center (VC)

(bookstore and restrooms)

Visitor Services (VS)

Admin Office (Quarters 1)

Staff Residence

(Quarters 2) Maintenance/ Nursery

Admin Office

(Quarters 3)

Maintenance Shed

Walking Trail

Fee Station

Upper 

Overlook

Kīlauea Rd Kīlauea Point

1 inch = 580 feet

Titlle: Public Use and Maintenance/Facilities

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-10 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-11

5.3 Public Use Overview

5.3.1 Visitation Trends

The Refuge is one of the most visited in the Refuge System. The Refuge is often prominently 

featured in visitor guidebooks and publications geared toward tourism (e.g., drive guides, visitor 

maps, airline in-flight guide videos, rental car agency videos). It is estimated that one-third of visitors 

to Kaua‘i go to the Refuge (PB 2004), and it is it the 8th most visited attraction in the state. Between 

2007 and 2013, total Refuge visitation ranged from 388,000 to 500,600 with a peak of 500,600 in 

2010. These numbers account for visitors who pay the entrance fee for accessing the Point, special 

event visitors, outreach interpretive program visitors, environmental education program participants, 

fishing visitors, visitor who may stop at the Refuge Overlook, and other recreational visitors. 

In addition to the Point itself (which is less than 10 acres), right outside the entrance gate is the 

Overlook, which is open to the general public at all times and is a popular scenic stop for visitors to 

the island. The area to the north of the lauhala tree to the coast is owned by the Refuge, while the 

area heading south up Kīlauea Road is owned by the County. 

Areas not open to the general public include Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point. Access to these areas is 

limited in order to protect breeding populations of endangered and migratory birds and other 

sensitive natural resources as well as for safety reasons. Access to these areas is by SUP or through 

special events such as those held during National Wildlife Refuge week. 

Visitation to Kīlauea Point NWR is related to total visitation to the island of Kaua‘i. Tourism on the 

island is sensitive to global macro-economic conditions and natural disaster events. For example, as a 

result of the global economic downturn beginning in 2008, annual visitor arrivals to the island 

decreased by 20.6 percent from about 1.3 million arrivals in 2007 to about 1.0 million arrivals in 

2008 (UHERO-Kaua‘i Interactive Database 2015). Correspondingly, annual visitation to Kīlauea

Point fell by 16.1 percent from 230,300 visits in 2007 to 193,200 visits in 2008. 

Refuge visitation is also subject to seasonal fluctuations. Figure 5-2 shows monthly visitation to 

Kīlauea Point NWR for the period beginning October 2005 and ending September 2013. With the 

exception of 2006, when June, July, and August were peak visitation months, the peak season at the 

Refuge is generally January to March. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-12 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Figure 5-2. Monthly visitation to Kauaʻi and Kīlauea Point NWR (USFWS unpublished data). 

According to a traffic, visitor, and parking study (TVP study) done in 2004, peak times for utilization 

of the Refuge were between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. daily, with the parking overflowing between 11 a.m. 

and 1 p.m. The estimated daily number of vehicles coming down to the Point parking area was 225 

during peak visitation. This number is projected to increase to 260 by 2015 and 300 by 2025 under a 

mid-range growth rate scenario. The Overlook experiences its busiest times at 9:30–10 a.m. and 4–

4:30 p.m. (the average visitor spends only 7 minutes at the Overlook (PB 2004)). Visitation seems to 

increase when cruise ships dock at Līhu‘e, and vehicle occupancy is higher in the summer than the 

spring. However, seasonal variability in visitation is not large compared to similar destinations on the 

mainland, with visitation peaking in winter, spring, and summer, and declining 17 percent in the fall 

(PB 2004). There is only parking capacity for 51 vehicles on the Point. From 2010 to 2013, the 

visitor center averaged about 189,963 visitors per year (USFWS 2014). 

Due to flat and declining budgets, starting in February 2014, the Service reduced the days that 

Kīlauea Point proper is opened to the general public from 7 to 5 days a week. The Refuge is closed 

Sundays and Mondays. Visitors are able to visit the Refuge from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday–

Saturday, except on Federal holidays, with an entrance fee of $5.00 per person. After a trial period of 

1 year, the visitation days will be reassessed to see if it would be possible to reopen on a 6 or 7 day a 

week schedule. The visitation trend from data collected from February through May 2014 shows that 

Tuesday is the highest visitation day, followed by Thursday and Wednesday. 

With the passage of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, entrance fees were charged for 

the first time at the Refuge in 1987 at a rate of $2.00 when the Refuge was opened Monday–Friday 

from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Previously, entrance was free. A fee booth was constructed and three rangers 

recruited and trained to manage the fee program. In the first year of the program, close to 300,000 

10

15

20

25

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Visitors (in thousands)
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-13

people visited the Refuge and $143,762 was collected (some people had free entry through the 

various passports program). 

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) authorizes the Service fee authority to 

collect entrance fees, expanded amenity recreation fees, and special recreation permit fees through 

the Act’s sunset date (currently September 30, 2016). Per the act, not less than 80 percent of the 

recreation fees and site-specific agency pass revenues collected at a specific unit or area of Federal 

land management agency shall remain available for expenditure, without further appropriation, until 

expended at that unit or area. Use of fee revenues at a specific site or area can only be used for (1) 

repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, 

and health and safety; (2) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs 

assessments, and signs; (3) habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is 

limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography; (4) law enforcement related to 

public use and recreation; (5) direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee 

program; and (6) a fee management agreement or a visitor reservation service. No fees can be used 

for biological monitoring on threatened and endangered species. 

In Fiscal Year 2013, $647,735 in fee revenues were collected at the fee booth with 201,571 visitors. 

These fees are used to help support visitor services management of the Refuge and include repairs of 

interpretive exhibits and signage, maintenance of facilities, safety repairs, publication of brochures, 

and restoration of historic structures. 

5.3.2 Volunteer Program

Due to the limited number of staff, the Refuge relies on assistance from Refuge volunteers and 

partnership with KPNHA, the Refuge Friends Group, to provide visitor services such as 

interpretation and environmental education and habitat management (e.g., native plant restoration, 

banding birds, controlling introduced predators, and monitoring). 

The volunteer program at Kīlauea Point began in 1984, a year prior to the site’s designation as a 

national wildlife refuge. Staff recognizes that the volunteer program is a critical part of the Refuge 

workforce and that it benefits all programs and goals and strengthens community relations. Between 

2010 and 2013, the number of volunteers ranged from 103 to 115, providing between 6,410 and 

8,523 hours of service (USFWS 2014). In 1988, it should be noted that 21,923 volunteer hours were 

recorded. 

In the Refuge’s early years, volunteers were heavily involved in the habitat restoration effort, 

participated in biological studies, conducted most of the environmental education (EE) programs, and 

staffed the KPNHA bookstore before salespeople were hired. A volunteer letter-writing campaign 

was influential in having Crater Hill acreage donated to the Refuge in 1988, and the volunteer 

program received “Take Pride in America” awards in 1987, 1989, and 1992. The Point, as well as the 

area surrounding the Lighthouse, is staffed almost entirely by volunteers. 

From 1984 to 1989, volunteers who interacted with the public were required to attend an annual 8- to 

10-week training. Volunteers would gather once a week for sessions conducted by Service personnel 

and local experts. Sessions were pertinent to the Refuge and included such topics as orientation to the 

Service, Hawaiian seabirds, wildlife of the surrounding ocean, and the historic Kīlauea Lighthouse. 

Between 1989 and 2002 (excluding 1993 and 1994 when the Refuge was due to the 1992 Hurricane 

‘Iniki), only two similar, formal volunteer training courses were conducted. The 1997 sessions were 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-14 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

taped, resulting in a collection of training videos in the Refuge library. The annual training was 

initiated again in 2003. 

The majority of Refuge volunteers are retired persons who live on Kaua‘i’s North Shore. Most 

possess college degrees and professional skills. Approximately 50 percent of volunteers live on the 

island year round, while the other 50 percent live on the island for several weeks or months out of the 

year. Therefore, there is a definite seasonal availability of Refuge volunteers. January to March sees 

the greatest number of volunteers, with plentiful “snowbird” volunteers. Summer attracts the fewest 

number of volunteers as the “snowbirds” have not yet returned and student volunteers go back to 

school. With 50 percent of volunteers arriving and departing the island at different times, this 

presents challenges in getting all volunteers back “up to speed” and causes scheduling to be time 

consuming. Filling gaps in volunteer coverage fall to Refuge staff and/or interns. 

In 2001, a volunteer/EE coordinator position was created, with 40 percent of the position’s time 

devoted to volunteer management and coordination. Prior to this, volunteer coordination duties were 

assumed as collateral responsibilities by various Refuge staff members. In 2004, the additional 

responsibilities of overseeing the daily operations of the Refuge’s VS and fee programs, as well as 

supervising the Refuge ranger staff, were added to the position, leaving even less time for 

management and coordination of the volunteer program and its 140+ volunteers. The volunteer 

handbook needs to be overhauled. There is no training manual, and regular volunteer meetings and 

training have been impacted by the limited amount of staffing currently devoted to daily and ever 

changing volunteer management and coordination. 

Refuge Friends organizations are private, independent, nonprofits formed primarily by private citizen 

volunteers. The Friends organization affiliated with the Refuge is KPNHA, which was established in 

1984 to meet the Refuge’s commitment to volunteers. The Friends organization was the first in the 

Service’s Pacific Region. The initial step was to recruit a board with an interest in the Service’s 

conservation objectives, and with expertise and organizational ability. 

A second objective was to find board members who reflected the ethnic diversity of the islands. The 

Service was very fortunate in assembling the first board which eventually carried the initial ideas into 

fruition. The board was composed of the dean of Kaua‘i Community College, principal of Kīlauea 

and Hanalei Elementary Schools, Kaua‘i Prosecuting Attorney, editor of the Garden Island 

Newspaper, a member of the County of Kaua‘i Department of Economic Development, general 

manager of the Sheraton Coconut Beach Hotel and a Refuge volunteer, formerly with the Denver 

Zoo. The board worked to develop suitable by-laws for the organization which they named Kīlauea 

Point Natural History Association. Once the by-laws were drawn up the organization petitioned the 

State of Hawai‘i for recognition as a nonprofit corporation. Once confirmed, the organization 

petitioned the Internal Revenue Service for status as a 501(c)(3), Non-Profit Educational 

Corporation. After attaining this status, the organization entered into agreement with the Service for 

use of a portion (approximately one-third or 300 square feet) of the current Contact Station for retail 

sales. The decision was made to try and develop a volunteer group which would assist with start of 

the sales outlet. 

The most fortunate aspect of this plan was the volunteer program, which to this day contributes 

significantly to Refuge programs. To raise additional capital, a membership program was initiated. A 

portion of the Contact Station was remodeled. Due to the limitation of space and the board’s desire to 

keep the inventory simple, post cards, natural history publications, and a map were the first items 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-15

carried. A year later, t-shirts were added. The first day’s sales were $30.00. Fiscal year 1984 sales 

indicated a gross volume of $10,958. By 1987, it had reached $42,791. 

Early KPNHA projects included publishing of a quarterly newsletter, Kīlauea Pointers, supplying 

binoculars and spotting scopes for visitors, hosting an annual Christmas Sale, developing and 

publishing three to four issues of Hawai‘i Nature Focus (a publication for school-aged children) per 

year, and hosting the annual volunteer awards picnic. In 1988, the Association published a 114-page 

book commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Kīlauea Lighthouse. In 1994, retail operations 

moved into the VC and over the years continued to expand. KPNHA hired its first business manager 

in 1996. The title changed to executive director in 2006. A bookstore manager was hired in 1997. 

Today, KPNHA has two full-time employees and a variable number of part-time employees

(typically at least three). The bottom floor of the VC provides office space for three of KPNHA’s 

eight staff members, and storage for KPNHA supplies and merchandise. Recent accomplishments 

include leading a $1 million capital campaign to fully restore the nearly 100-year-old Kīlauea 

Lighthouse. KPNHA averages 90 members a year. Although the number of members in FY10 

dropped to 52, dues and donations received from these members to KPNHA’s general fund are the 

highest in the organization’s history. The reduction in membership can be explained by some 

individuals donating instead to the Lighthouse restoration. Bookstore sales reached a high of 

$508,000 in 2008, but have dropped in recent years due to the economic decline. 

5.3.3 Visitation and Visitor Experience 

Two visitor surveys conducted in 2003–2004 and in 2010–2011 at Kīlauea Point NWR provide a 

detailed overview of visitor demographics, trip characteristics, experience, and opinions about 

Refuge services, facilities, and recreational opportunities. The first study (Sexton et al. 2005) was 

conducted in support of an Alternative Transportation Study (ATS) conducted for the Refuge 

(Parsons Brinckerhoff 2006). The objectives of this survey were to better understand visitor trip 

characteristics and experience, visitor perceptions on access and transportation options, and visitor 

valuation of the Refuge and services provided. 

The second study (USGS Data Series 643) was conducted as part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

Visitor Survey (Sexton et al. 2011). This standardized survey was conducted on 53 refuges across the 

country in order to provide refuge managers, planners, and visitor services specialists with reliable 

baseline data about refuge visitors and their experiences. The survey was conducted to provide 

information both at a national level and at a field station level to more effectively manage visitor 

services and facilities across the Refuge System, as well as to inform site-specific management and 

planning decisions such as CCPs, visitor services step-down plans, and transportation plans. Detail 

on sampling design, response rates, and sample sizes for each survey can be found in the respective 

reports. 

Nearly all visitors to Kīlauea Point NWR are nonlocal (i.e., not from the island of Kaua‘i), from the 

United States, and most were families. The 2003–2004 study showed that the majority of visitors to 

Kīlauea Point NWR spend their time at visitor attractions on the North Shore on the day they visit the 

Refuge. The next most frequent trip pattern includes stops on the North Shore and East Side (south of 

Kīlauea Point NWR to Līhu‘e). About half of visitors went to three or fewer attractions on the island 

on the day they visited the Refuge. Nearly all visited Kīlauea Point NWR first, second, or third, with 

half visiting the Refuge first. Other popular stops included Hanalei Bay, Kē ‘ē Beach State Park, and 

Hā‘ena Beach State Park. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-16 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

The largest incidence of travel mode used by visitors while on Kaua‘i is rental vehicle only, followed 

by a combination of walking and rental vehicle, or a combination of walking, boat, and rental 

vehicle. Nearly all visitors drive a private vehicle (rental car) to the Refuge (though private tours and 

taxis are also utilized). There is no public transit option available. Currently there is one fixed route 

from Līhu‘e to Hanalei serving Kīlauea town on approximately 1 hour headways, from 5:30 a.m. to 

10:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday, and 2-hour headways on Saturdays and holidays. The last stop in 

Kīlauea is in the downtown, commercial shop area, about 1.5 miles from the Kīlauea Point NWR 

Overlook. The buses do accommodate bicycles. Kauaʻi Bus does not currently have specific plans to 

expand service beyond downtown Kīlauea. However, in previous Kīlauea Town planning efforts, 

Kauaʻi Bus has indicated consideration of installing a transit center or more permanent bus stop 

infrastructure within the downtown area. 

Visitors first learned about the Refuge from signs on the highway and friends and relatives. Specific 

information sources most used to learn about the Refuge include travel guidebooks and visitor 

brochures. Key information sources used by visitors to find their way to Kīlauea Point NWR include 

signs on the highway, a road atlas or highway map, or previous knowledge. 

Visitors are a nearly equal mix of male and female with an average age around 57 for males and 53 

for females. Visitors have, on average, four years of college or technical school. The median level of 

income is $100,000–$149,000/year. Most are first-time visitors to Kīlauea Point NWR and typically 

their visit is incidental or one of other equal reasons for visiting Kaua‘i. Visitors spend an average of 

2 hours at the Refuge, with the largest number of visitors spending 1 hour (compared to 26 minutes 

in 1988). About half of visitors to Kīlauea Point NWR have been to at least one other national 

wildlife refuge in the past year. Visitors participate in a variety of activities at the Refuge; the top 

three activities are photography, bird watching, and wildlife observation. The scenic overlooks, 

viewing the historic lighthouse, and viewing native seabirds and whales are important to their 

decision to visit. Nearly all visitors stop by the KPNHA bookstore and view the exhibits during their 

visit.

Visitors’ overall satisfaction with the services, facilities, and recreational opportunities provided at 

Kīlauea Point NWR is high, with 86 percent satisfied with the recreational activities and 

opportunities; 92 percent satisfied with the information and education about the Refuge and its 

resources; 95 percent satisfied with the services provided by employees or volunteers, and 93 percent 

satisfied with the Refuge’s job of conserving fish, wildlife, and their habitats. When asked about 

specific Refuge attributes, visitors reported the following regarding the importance of and their 

satisfaction with these attributes. All services and facilities provided at Kīlauea Point NWR received 

high importance and satisfaction ratings, including available, knowledgeable, and courteous 

employees and volunteers; convenient hours and days of operation; and information kiosks/displays 

and exhibits about the Refuge. Recreation opportunities provided on the Refuge also received high 

marks, in particular opportunities for photography and bird and other wildlife viewing. High 

I absolutely love the Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. We go there every time we go to 

Kaua‘i (3 times to date). The views and the birds and whale-watching are spectacular in any 

kind of weather...I want to thank the volunteers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife [Service] and 

National Wildlife Refuge System for making this all possible. Places like Kīlauea Point Refuge 

are our nation’s treasures and it is so critical we nurture and honor them. 

 -Survey comment from visitor to Kīlauea Point NWR 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-17

importance and satisfaction ratings indicates “keep up the good work” regarding management. Of the 

79 percent of visitors who indicated that they paid a fee to enter the Refuge in 2010–2011, threequarters agreed that the opportunities and services were at least equal to the fee they paid and nearly 

all felt the fee was about right, whereas 19 percent felt that the fee was too high (8 percent) or too 

low (11 percent). 

Three-quarters or more of visitors indicated they would spend more time on the Refuge and the 

surrounding area if the following were offered: a self-guided hike through restored native forest for a 

scenic view of the lighthouse, Kīlauea Town, ocean, and surrounding mountains (at no cost); an 

introduction to the Refuge by Refuge staff or volunteers (at no cost). About half of visitors indicated 

they would spend more time for a guided hike to the summit of an extinct volcano crater to view 

native seabirds, other wildlife, and World War II bunkers (for a fee); and a guided history tour of 

Kīlauea Town (for a fee). 

As part of the 2006 ATS study and the supporting 2003–2004 survey, visitors to Kīlauea Point NWR 

were asked about their perceptions of crowding and their preferences for access and transportation 

options (including a shuttle specifically). These questions were asked in an effort to address methods 

for improving access and transportation needs in light of identified traffic congestion and parking 

problems occurring in Kīlauea Town and on the Refuge. In context, visitors to Kīlauea Point NWR 

were familiar with using a shuttle or bus at another park, forest, or other public facility, though most 

indicated they did not use alternative transportation in their daily lives.

The majority of visitors did not perceive crowding to be a problem on the Refuge and there seemed 

to be no association between parking capacity and visitor perceptions of crowding (though winter 

visitors did perceive some crowding in parking areas when parking capacity was exceeded and 

overflow parking occurred). When asked about specific transportation-related aspects at Kīlauea 

Point NWR, all attributes received high marks, including safety of driving conditions, directional 

signs on highways, safety of Refuge entrance, directional signs on Refuge, and condition of 

trails/boardwalks. Visitors were asked about options for managing visitation, ranging from a 

reservation system and fees to off-peak hour offerings to encourage different visitation patterns. Over 

half of visitors indicated they were likely to visit if educational programs or guided tours were 

offered at off-peak times. They were also supportive of a choice of on- and offsite parking where 

offsite parking with a shuttle to the Refuge would cost less than parking onsite. Lastly, they were 

likely to visit if the Refuge were accessible only by shuttle from offsite parking. Most visitors were 

not likely to visit if the Refuge were only accessible by public transportation, if reservations were 

required to visit the Refuge, or if the Refuge were only accessible by a shuttle that had a public 

transit link to other visitor attractions on Kaua‘i (Figure 5-3). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-18 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Figure 5-3. Likelihood of visiting Kīlauea Point NWR versus management options (Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2006). 

Regarding a shuttle specifically, visitors indicated they would be willing to wait about 20 minutes to 

enter the Refuge by shuttle. Key factors that would affect visitors’ decision to visit the Refuge by 

shuttle were reliable and on-time service, the cost of the shuttle fare and offsite parking that is easy to 

find and near the Refuge. Visitors were willing to pay higher amounts for a Refuge entrance fee that 

included a shuttle and guide. 

Though alternative transportation was explored more generically in the 2010–2011 survey, only a 

small percentage of 2010–2011 visitors felt alternative transportation at Kīlauea Point NWR would 

enhance their experience. However, over half of these visitors indicated that on national wildlife 

refuges in general, they might be likely to use several alternative transportation options, including 

offsite parking with trail access, a boat that goes to different points on Refuge waterways, a bus or 

shuttle that provides a guided tour of the Refuge, or a bus or shuttle that takes passengers to different 

points on the Refuge. 

Bicycle and pedestrian access along the east shore of Kaua‘i between Līhu‘e and Kīlauea Point NWR

is mostly limited to shared-use roadway along Highway 56 and through Kīlauea Town. There are 

also several local residents who access the Crater Hill area on foot or bicycle via a gated community 

located up Kīlauea Road, about one mile from the Overlook. There are plans for a separate bicycle 

and pedestrian path to go from Nāwiliwilli to Anahola along the east shore. Portions of this path, 

known as the Ke Ala Hele Makalae trail, are built, but even when complete, a visitor on bicycle or 

foot would still be over 10 miles from Kīlauea Point NWR. 

5.3.4 Visitor Services Management Challenges

High visitation to the Refuge poses several transportation, signage, and access-related challenges for 

staff. Visitors to the Refuge arrive using State Highway 56 (Kūhiō Highway), turning onto Kolo 

County Road and then onto the 2-mile Kīlauea County Road which passes through the heart of 

Kīlauea Town and leads to the Refuge. Residences, as well as commercial sites, line the sides of the 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Refuge accessible by public transit only

Reservations required to visit Refuge

Refuge accessible by shuttle with public transit link

Visitors pay entrance fee and parking fee

Visitation limited to certain number of people every...

Refuge accessible by shuttle with off-site parking

On-site and off-site parking available

Educational programs/tours offered at off-peak times

Likely Somewhat likely Unlikely
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-19

road on this first half-mile stretch. After passing through the center of Kīlauea, the remaining 1.5 

miles of Kīlauea Road contains a few residences and open space, and then terminates at the Refuge 

Overlook. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation traffic counts conducted in 2009 on Kīlauea Road 

found a two-way average daily traffic load of 4,600 cars in the first half-mile and 1,300 cars in the 

remaining area between downtown Kīlauea and the Kīlauea Point NWR Overlook. From these 

counts it is estimated that 25 percent of all traffic on Kīlauea Road is headed to the Refuge, either the 

Point or the Overlook. 

There is little-to-no signage properly directing traffic from the main highway down the County roads 

to the Refuge. There is also no intelligent transportation system (ITS) that conveys real-time 

information about parking availability at the Refuge (a comment was made on this issue on one of 

the visitor surveys). At this time the Refuge is being considered to take part in a Service ITS 

demonstration project. This demonstration would most likely involve the use of vehicle detection 

counts at the Refuge to relay parking availability and operation status of the Refuge to visitors out on 

Kūhiō/State Route 56 Highway via electronic messages. Some further planning, design, public 

involvement, and compliance would still need to occur before this technology could be tested. 

The entrance road from the Overlook to the parking area has a number of issues. At the Overlook, 

pedestrians do not have a designated path by which to navigate from where they parked to the actual 

Overlook. They sometimes must weave between cars entering and exiting the Refuge. Although 

signs indicate that pedestrian use of the access road beyond the entrance gate is not allowed, a 

number of individuals disregard or do not see the signage and walk down the access road. Traffic 

congestion also occurs at the Overlook due to its cul-de-sac configuration when there is a queue to 

enter the Refuge or people are waiting for parking spots at the Overlook. 

There is limited advance directional or orientation/information signs to help visitors understand how 

to access the Point and see the Lighthouse, or what their options are. Visitors who arrive by car 

typically park to see the view at the Overlook but are confused about whether or not they are 

supposed to drive or walk past the gate down into the Refuge. There are signs, however, they are not 

readily noticed by the visitor. It is also unclear to bicyclists whether they are allowed to ride their 

bicycles past the entrance gate. Residents expressed concern about the impact of tourists on 

transportation infrastructure and they did not want to see overbuilding of the Refuge’s circle 

infrastructure to accommodate more visitors (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2006). 

The winding, narrow, steep road leading into the Refuge makes for dangerous conditions. Larger 

vehicles, such as tour buses, have no access because of the road conditions and limited parking 

facilities. School groups that use school buses are accommodated outside of the hours for the general 

public. However, the groups often leave after the Refuge has opened, which requires a minimum of 

two staff to stop traffic to allow the bus to use the access road, as well as a staff member to work in 

the entrance booth. Bicycle use of the access road is also an issue for many of the same reasons cited 

for pedestrians. 

Parking is often insufficient at the Refuge, especially during peak visitation periods (comments were 

made on this issue in the visitor surveys). At such times, Service staff must be stationed to direct 

traffic and promote safety when the parking lot is congested. When visitation exceeds parking 

capacity, including reasonable overflow limits, Service staff place a sign at the entrance gate to 

indicate that public entry into the Refuge is temporarily closed. During these times, a staff member is 

stationed at the entrance gate to facilitate a one-car-in, one-car-out operation. Such overflow 

conditions not only prevent Refuge staff from conducting other key duties such as providing talks 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-20 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

and interpretive opportunities, but also degrade the quality of wildlife habitat, negatively impact the 

visitor experience, and undermine the Service’s ability to fulfill its goals for wildlife-dependent uses. 

Traffic flow through the existing parking lot is also an issue as shown by visitor survey comments 

about the steep climb from the lot to the booth, limited parking, and the tightness of the parking area. 

There are two paved parking areas, the upper and lower lots, which include 32 designated stalls, 

oriented at 90 degrees to the parking access lanes. The upper lot has one designated ADA- accessible 

parking stall and access aisle located near the existing fee booth and Point Area Pedestrian Pathway 

entrance. The two lots are connected on the north side by a paved asphalt pedestrian access ramp 

which has steep slopes of up to 18 percent. Bollards block vehicular access to this ramp at the north 

end of each lot. The current parking lot traffic flow in these lots is U-shaped; vehicles must pull-in 

and pull-out the same direction they came from (no through traffic). Drivers are unable to determine 

the availability of parking until after entering each respective lot. If parking is unavailable, drivers 

must back up out of the parking lot in order to turn around and look for parking in other locations. 

Vehicles must also avoid pedestrians walking to the entrance fee booth. Grass areas are used for 

parking during overflow conditions. However, wet grass or slippery conditions can be hazardous and 

have resulted in accidents. They are also endangered nēnē foraging, roosting, and brood-rearing 

areas. Traffic cones are used to direct traffic when possible. However, the effort involved for Refuge 

staff to install and move cones creates additional staffing issues. Through the use of Public Lands 

Highway Discretionary program funds, the Refuge is planning to undertake minor construction to 

improve the traffic flow situation in these lots. Included in this work would be improvements and 

stabilization to the administrative and graveled parking areas and stabilization of the retaining wall 

below the pedestrian walkway. 

After the visitors exit their parked vehicles, there is a lack of information and signage to let them 

know where they can and cannot go, leading to confusion. There are several buildings adjacent to the 

parking areas; however, the Lighthouse, restrooms, and VC are not visible from the parking lot. 

Therefore, visitors are often confused about how to get to these facilities, as well as the existing 

buildings and where they should go. In the visitor surveys conducted, several comments about 

needing better signage were recorded. 

The transportation, signage, and access issues also pose a danger to native wildlife. There is 

threatened ‘a‘o or ‘ua‘u kani habitat on the side of the narrow, curving road leading into the Refuge, 

which makes regrading or expanding this road problematic. Nēnē also nest and rear young along this 

road and have been killed or injured, despite the wildlife and slow down signs posted and speed 

bumps. 

As a result of these issues and staff desire to provide quality visitor services experiences (versus 

increasing visitation numbers), several studies were conducted to provide solutions. Alternative 

transportation systems (ATS) were evaluated, including a traffic, visitor, and parking study; visitor 

and community survey; and Refuge visitor projection report. The 2006 ATS study provided five 

alternatives for consideration to deal with current transportation issues and anticipated rise in island 

visitor numbers: 

• No improvements, which would keep current status; 

• Minor improvements, transportation system management, and transportation demand 

management. These would include physical or operational changes to increase effective 

capacity through improved management of parking resources, or they would redistribute 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-21

demand to less busy times; 

• Moderate improvements to increase capacity, which would include physical improvements 

such as additional parking and/or widening roads; 

• Voluntary shuttle service with private vehicle access, which would institute a shuttle system 

from a new offsite hub facility while continuing to allow private vehicles onto the Refuge; 

• Mandatory shuttle service, which would prohibit public parking beyond the entry gate at 

Kīlauea Point NWR and require all visitors to use a shuttle system from an offsite hub 

facility. 

It should be noted that in the Kīlauea Town Plan planning process, the shuttle bus for visitors was 

heavily discussed in the public workshop discussions (County of Kaua‘i 2006). The Kīlauea 

community’s interest was to manage visitor demand at Kīlauea Point NWR by using entry fees and 

other measures and to make only modest changes to parking and transportation rather than take steps 

that may promote increased visitation to the Refuge. 

The report also looked at cost feasibility as well as modeled several different case scenarios related to 

visitor numbers and anticipated use. Several of the recommendations and analyses were integrated 

into the actions described in Chapter 2 of the CCP, as well as the effects analysis in Chapter 6 of the 

draft CCP/EA. This study can be found at 

http://www.cflhd.gov/lrtp/documents/projects/KPNWR_ATS_FINAL.pdf. 

In addition to the 2006 ATS report, a Transportation Assistance Group (TAG) was convened in 2009 

to assist the Service in further refining data and recommendations to pursue regarding transportation, 

especially as it relates to the CCP. In addition to the problems already identified, additional issues 

identified by TAG included: 

• Transit viability concerns due to visitation patterns;

• Fee collection location creates circulation problems, does not capture visitors at the 

Overlook, and the flat rate does not encourage the use of alternative transportation; 

• Constrained footprint in which to expand or support transportation infrastructure; 

• Visitation is expected to grow and to remain diverse. 

TAG provided a series of recommendations for the Refuge to consider. Most focused on 

incorporating transportation goals and planning into the CCP process. The recommendations were: 

• Revisit previous approach of pursuing NEPA analysis funds for 2006 ATS Study; integrate 

transportation planning with CCP and town planning; 

• Consider proposals for additional funding from other sources; 

• Develop transportation goals and objectives, and an assessment of needs; 

• Continue productive stakeholder partnerships; play a leadership role; 

• Adopt an incremental approach; move away from planning and toward implementation; 

experiment with operational changes, such as: 

o Change operating hours–e.g., closing once per week, opening 1 hour later or earlier on 

particular days–to attempt to address anticipated traffic/parking problems, and/or to offer 

new services (such as sunrise hikes) that might smooth out demand over the course of the 

day, reducing the need to increase parking capacity;

o Charge differential fees (subject to the Refuge’s fee authority), depending on the level of 

crowding by time of day;
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-22 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

o Work with cruise operators to coordinate transit from cruise ships docking at Kaua‘i; 

o Install temporary traffic humps in town to determine how effective they could be at 

slowing traffic;

o Test a parking reservation system to enable advance planning for managing visitor traffic 

and parking; 

o Test variations on the one-on, one-off protocol for managing visitor car access; 

o Require staff to park offsite, providing transit or carpooling, in order to free up additional 

parking spaces for Refuge visitors; 

o Arrange a transit demonstration service; 

• Pursue small-scale infrastructure improvements; 

• Identify data needs and collect data to fill gaps; 

• Scope other planning efforts. 

In March 2011, another workshop, the CCP Visitor Services and Alternative Transportation 

Workshop, was conducted to assist in incorporating TAG and other transportation-related study 

recommendations into the CCP. Refuge and Service regional staff, along with technical advisors 

from Federal Highway Administration-Central Federal Lands Division, U.S. Department Of 

Transportation, Volpe Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Hawai‘i Department of Transportation, 

Kaua‘i Bus, and Kaua‘i County participated in this workshop. The group examined CCP goals and 

identified how transportation related to achieving these goals. These transportation objectives and 

goals were broadly folded into the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 in the CCP (e.g., adopting an 

incremental approach at first to include demonstration projects and small, incremental changes for 

infrastructure and operations). 

More specific transportation planning and implementation will take place via SDMPs that take their 

direction from the CCP. The Refuge has received funding from the Federal Transit Administration’s 

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program to assist in planning for the implementation of the 

transportation components that emerge from the CCP. The study will provide recommendations on 

how to implement components, such as data collection; coordination with other entities; and 

additional planning required to implement elements. 

5.4 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses

The Improvement Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation as wildlife-dependent, priority public uses for the Refuge 

System. 

5.4.1 Hunting

The Refuge is not open for hunting. However, there are other lands (e.g., state forest reserves) on the 

island where public hunting is offered. 

5.4.2 Fishing

The Refuge is open for recreational fishing. From 2010 to 2013, the number of participants per year

ranged from 18 to 104 (USFWS 2014). Fishing occurs at Kāhili Quarry (sea) and the Kīlauea River 

(estuary). In addition, cultural Native Hawaiian fishing access is granted to the East Cove of Kīlauea 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-23

Point. Participants must sign a waiver as well as receive an orientation on sensitive areas. For 

additional information please refer to Appendix B. 

5.4.3 Wildlife Observation and Photography

Most of the wildlife viewing and photography occurs on the Point or at the Overlook. The Refuge 

offers exceptional opportunities for wildlife observation and photography and is one of the best 

accessible locations in the main Hawaiian Islands for viewing wildlife as it has a high diversity of 

breeding birds at one location. Six to eight species of seabirds, as well as Hawai‘i’s State bird, the 

endangered nēnē, can readily be seen by the majority of visitors. The sheer number of birds, as well 

as their proximity, makes for a high-quality viewing and photography experience. 

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also administers the Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) in the waters surrounding the Refuge, 

and endangered koholā (humpback whales) are readily seen offshore and photographed from 

December to April. Groups of nai‘a (spinner dolphins), ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal), 

and honu (green sea turtle) can also be seen from the Point. In addition, due to climate change and 

associated sea level rise, protected areas like the Refuge will become increasingly important for the 

persistence of seabird populations in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

General information about the wildlife is provided on the Refuge’s website; however, it does not 

include information such as current highlights, sightings, or wildlife counts. A wildlife checklist is 

offered onsite, but is directed at avid wildlife watchers. Viewing scopes are set up in multiple 

locations around the Point and binoculars are provided for loan in order to enhance wildlife viewing. 

Volunteers help visitors use the scopes and binoculars, identify species, point out and provide 

information about wildlife behavior, and provide interpretation about the Refuge and its resources. In 

the past, the Refuge utilized a remote camera focused on a nesting mōlī or ‘ā (red-footed booby), 

which then sent a live video feed to the visitor Contact Station. Staff and volunteers regularly receive 

requests to re-institute these cameras. Currently, wildlife observation and photography programs, 

workshops, and activities are not provided on a consistent basis and could be expanded or enhanced. 

While the best viewing opportunities are on the Kīlauea Point Peninsula, additional opportunities are 

provided at the overlook at the entrance to the Refuge, as well as on Crater Hill (offered in the past 

but discontinued in 2003). They also provide a different perspective than is provided from the 

peninsula. 

Between 2010 and 2013, total wildlife observation visits annually ranged from 366,890 to 376,937 

and photography ranged from 290,000 to 300,100 (USFWS 2014). Many of the 2010–2011 visitor 

survey comments reflected visitor enjoyment of seeing the wildlife and habitats and identified these 

resources as making the Refuge unique. 

5.4.4 Environmental Education

Environmental education occurs mostly on the Point. School groups participating in EE programs 

generally arrive at the Refuge at around 8:30 a.m., before the Refuge opens. This way, school buses 

can easily maneuver the roadway and have adequate room to park without the complication of 

regular visitor traffic. The children also have the Point to themselves and are not distracted by the 

large number of visitors. Although most school groups try to leave before 10:00 a.m., they often 

leave after the Refuge has opened, which then requires a minimum of two staff to assist in safely 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-24 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

getting the children through the busy parking lot to their bus, as well as to stop traffic to allow the 

bus to exit the Refuge. By departing at 10:00 a.m., this leaves only one hour for the EE program 

given loading, unloading, restroom breaks, etc., which does not lend itself to a high-quality EE 

program. The small window during which EE is offered (8:30 to 10:00 a.m.) means many schools on 

the west, south, and east sides of the island are unable to participate because of the travel. Only seven 

percent of Kaua‘i’s public and charter school students (K–12) are within a 20-minute drive of the 

Refuge. For 68 percent of the students, it is at least a 40-minute drive to get to the Refuge, and for 

nearly 30 percent it takes more than an hour. 

In 1987, Congressional funding provided for the design and construction of an EE Center. Today, the 

main floor of this facility serves as the VC and houses the bookstore operated by KPNHA (the 

bookstore was originally located in the Contact Station adjacent to the Lighthouse). The bottom floor 

of the VC has a multi-purpose room. The size of the multi-purpose room is often insufficient for EE 

programs. As such, the Contact Station adjacent to the Lighthouse is frequently used for EE, but staff 

often find they are racing to pack up their EE supplies and reorganize the room as visitors begin 

arriving at the Refuge. From 1997 to 2007, a portion of the bottom floor also provided office space 

for the Refuge’s EE Specialist. It currently provides office space for three KPNHA staff members, 

and storage for KPNHA supplies and merchandise. 

Beginning in 1985, when the Refuge was established, a dedicated cadre of volunteers and KPNHA 

developed EE materials. During the summers of 1986 and 1987, an intern developed additional EE 

materials for teachers, and a teacher’s manual was later completed as part of an intern-led effort. In 

1988, over 3,000 students participated in EE programs at the Refuge. In 1997, the Refuge hired a 

full-time EE specialist and more materials such as field trip leader packets and a traveling trunk 

about Refuge seabirds were created. In 1999, through a partnership with a university, a website was 

established to allow classes to follow the flights of foraging mōlī. In 2001, the Jason Project brought 

the Refuge’s wildlife to schoolchildren via satellite. From 2000 to 2001 the EE specialist position 

was vacant and the position was later replaced with a Volunteer/EE coordinator position, with 40 

percent of the time devoted to EE. In 2004, the additional responsibilities of overseeing the daily 

operations of the Refuge’s VS program and the fee program, as well as supervising the Refuge ranger 

staff, were added to the position, leaving even less time for management of the EE program. In 2009, 

a junior ranger program was instituted. 

During the summer months, the Refuge can receive over 100 visitors under the age of 16 per day. 

Due to Lighthouse restoration during the 2010–2011 school year, the Refuge was able to 

accommodate only a limited number of school visits onsite. In turn, staff developed a program 

whereby 12 North Shore second grade classes followed the life history of the mōlī throughout the 

school year. The program included five visits by a Refuge AmeriCorps member or ranger to each 

class, along with a culminating field trip to the Refuge. 

Since budget sequestration in 2013 and the resulting loss of staff, with the exception of the Albatross 

Life Cycle program managed by one volunteer, the Refuge has not been able to conduct onsite EE 

programs. Instead, the EE program has been adapted to allow elementary classes access to the 

Refuge via a “short” bus (which carries 25 passengers—and is paid for by KPNHA) during public 

hours. They are offered a program that they can lead, or they can choose to utilize onsite interpretive 

signs. A ranger-led program is no longer available, as was traditionally done. Although offered in the 

past, the Refuge does not currently conduct teacher trainings. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-25

The Refuge conducts EE programs throughout the year with the greatest number of students visiting 

from January through May. 

Between 2010 and 2013, education participants involved in on- and offsite EE programs ranged from 

7,200 to 12,032 per year (USFWS 2014). In 1988, 3,000 students participated in EE (USFWS 1989). 

KPNHA provides funding for bus transportation for schools that visit the Refuge, which is a 

significant contribution to the EE program. 

5.4.5 Interpretation/Outreach

Interpretation and outreach occur mostly at the Point and Overlook. Visitors are first welcomed to the 

Refuge at the fee collection booth. The staff on duty assists in orienting visitors, answering their 

questions, informing them about wildlife activity that day and advising them of Refuge services 

offered at the VC and Contact Station (Radio Beacon Building), such as free binoculars for loan and 

docent interpretive services. Volunteers help visitors use the viewing scopes and binoculars, identify 

species, point out and provide information about wildlife behavior, and provide interpretation about 

the Lighthouse, the Refuge, and its resources. Volunteers are the primary means of personal 

interpretation on the Refuge. The majority of volunteer hours were dedicated to the VS program. 

Under optimum conditions, there are at least two volunteers on duty, with one volunteer operating an 

on-call golf cart to help visitors who may need assistance getting from the parking lot to the VC or 

Lighthouse. The Contact Station, as well as the area surrounding the Lighthouse, is almost entirely 

staffed by volunteers. The Refuge is extremely fortunate to have volunteers to provide this person-toperson service as opposed to resorting to self-guided interpretation. 

The Refuge has a number of interpretive panels around the Point highlighting native and nonnative 

plants and wildlife. Some of the panels were done at different times, using different styles, 

approaches, and materials. These panels are appealing, of a good size, and are well-placed to be 

visible but not obtrusive. The most recent panels were completed in 1999. The panels are permanent 

and are in place year-round. Wildlife at the Refuge is seasonal. For example, whales and albatrosses

are found in the winter months. Thus, this can cause some confusion for the visitor. 

When entering the VC, people often expect to see exhibits relating to the Kīlauea Point Light Station 

or the wildlife at the Refuge. However, some of the exhibits are only tangentially related or are fully 

irrelevant to the site. This may prove disorienting to the visitor who may have expectations of finding 

information regarding the Refuge. In addition, due to the 1.5 million plus visitors who have passed 

through the VC since it reopened after Hurricane ‘Iniki in 1994, as well as the open air conditions of 

the building, the exhibits are badly worn. They are out of date and interpretive messaging for 

children is lacking (some comments from the 2010–2011 visitor surveys indicated the desire for 

more updated displays). In the past, visitors viewed a video presentation based on refuges in their 

home state. However, due to maintenance issues having to do with electronics in the salty, open-air 

environment, they were removed. 

In 1989, the Contact Station was remodeled and new interpretive displays were added. The building 

contains an interpretive display on the history of Kīlauea Lighthouse, a desk staffed by volunteer 

docents, binoculars for loan, as well as an area to sit and watch a video about the Refuge. 

One of the most popular and notable features of the Refuge is the historic Kīlauea Lighthouse. Since 

restoration, visits into the Lighthouse are only possible on a guided tour. Since Lighthouse Day (the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-26 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

first Saturday in May) in 2014, the Refuge started offering guided tours weekly, dependent upon staff 

and volunteer availability. Guided tours require temporary modifications of the interior and an 

intensive staff and volunteer effort. Free tour tickets are issued 60 minutes prior to the start of the 

tour and each tour can accommodate 15 people, every hour on the half hour beginning at 10:30 a.m. 

with the last tour at 2:30 p.m. (except on Lighthouse Day, when the Lighthouse is open until 7 p.m.). 

The tours take 30 minutes given the time it takes to get everyone up the narrow staircase to the top of 

the Lighthouse, provide opportunities for visitors to look around and take photographs in the small 

area, and then make their way back down. Both the community and visitors regularly express a 

strong desire to have greater access to the interior of the Lighthouse and to see it lit. Overall, the 

frequency of opportunities for the public to experience the interior of the Lighthouse on guided tours 

is variable; tours may in the future occur more or less frequently than once per week depending upon 

the availability of staff and volunteers. 

Most of the Refuge’s current outreach efforts have been conducted on an ad hoc basis to meet the 

needs of an individual event or program. While this has resulted in favorable results in some 

individual instances, its overall effect has been a scattershot approach to communications. Existing 

resources dedicated to outreach are limited. Refuge staff often note that the public confuses the 

Service with State wildlife agencies and the National Park Service. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 

most are not aware of who the Service is, while an even greater number are not aware of what the 

Service does or why it does this work. Messages describing how the Service is different from other 

government agencies, how national wildlife refuges are different from other public lands, and why 

the Service’s work is important to people are currently absent. 

Between 2010 and 2013, participants engaged in on an offsite talks and programs ranged from 

160,600 to 210,528 per year (USFWS 2014). 

5.4.6 Cultural Resources Interpretation

Interpretation of historic structures such as the lighthouse occurs daily. Additional cultural resources 

interpretation is available during National Wildlife Refuge Week with a special tour highlighting the 

Native Hawaiian and plantation cultural resources on the Refuge. 

5.5 Other Refuge Uses 

Between 2010 and 2013, participants in other recreational activities ranged from 21,840–22,000 per 

year (USFWS 2014). The majority includes secondary public uses involving access through the 

Refuge at Kāhili Quarry or near the mouth of Kīlauea River (aka Kāhili Stream) for boating, 

including launching and loading of canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, and surfboards; and for stream, 

beach, and ocean uses (such as snorkeling, sun bathing, surfing, swimming, and walking). Horseback 

riding is allowed along an approved easement. 

5.6 Illegal Uses

According to annual law enforcement Refuge System reports between 2008 and 2010, illegal uses 

included trespass, violation of liquor laws, drug possession, illegal hunting, off-roading, vandalism, 

drunkenness, theft, weapons possession, disorderly conduct, and presence of suspicious persons. 

Incidences reported ranged from 19–29 per year. Most illegal uses occur during evening hours at the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-27

overlook (e.g., late night drinking) or unintentional trespass by fishermen along the Refuge’s 

coastline or at Kāhili (or Rock Quarry) Beach. 

The Service law enforcement issues on lands and waters of the Refuge are under the jurisdiction of 

the Service Zone Officer based in Honolulu and the KNWRC law enforcement officer on Kaua‘i. 

The role of both is to enforce laws and document law enforcement incidents. They also coordinate 

and meet with Refuge staff and law enforcement partners. Primary laws and regulations enforced 

include the:

• Administration Act;

• Lacey Act;

• ARPA;

• ESA;

• MBTA;

• Marine Mammal Protection Act; 

• Code of Federal Regulations. 

Zone and Refuge officers are also empowered to enforce all criminal laws. Activities could include 

issuing traffic citations and warrants for arrest as they relate to drugs, trespass, hunting, fishing, and 

the taking of wildlife on Federal lands and, in some instances, boating safety related to refuges. The 

KNWRC officer will also be responsible for enforcing SUPs. Service officers often partner with 

other law enforcement agencies, such as the Division of Conservation and Resources EnforcementDLNR and other Federal law enforcement agencies.

5.7 Area Outdoor Recreational Opportunities and Trends 

This section provides an overview of outdoor recreational opportunities and trends on Kaua‘i. 

5.7.1 Nearby Recreational Opportunities

The island of Kaua‘i provides myriad recreation opportunities on a variety of public and private lands 

and waters. Kaua‘i is home to 3 national wildlife refuges (including Kīlauea Point NWR); 23 State 

parks and boating facilities; 68 County parks; and 13 private parks, camps, and gardens (Hawai‘i 

DLNR 2009). The Hawai‘i State Parks Survey (OmniTrak Group Inc. 2007) conducted in 2003 and 

2007 found that millions of people visit State parks annually. Four of the top ten most visited State 

parks are on Kaua‘i: Wailua River State Park, Hā‘ena State Park, Waimea Canyon State Park, and Nā 

Pali Coast State Wilderness Park. 

Preliminary results from the 2011 Kaua‘i Parks and Recreation Master Plan Public Input Survey 

indicate that Kaua‘i residents visiting County parks most commonly engaged in walking/ 

jogging/running, swimming/surfing/paddling, and picnicking (County of Kaua‘i 2013). Hunting is 

not allowed in County parks, but more than a third of the residents surveyed indicated they had 

fished in county parks (Miller pers. comm 2011) 

Table 5-1 provides an overview of recreation activities and the number of areas providing these 

activities on Kaua‘i. Though not listed, wildlife viewing is a component of many of the activities and 

also is an activity in its own right. Kaua‘i is home to many indigenous, migratory, and introduced 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-28 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

bird species, including a number of endangered or threatened species. Additionally, the island 

provides opportunities to see marine life such as whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and saltwater fish 

through activities such as boat tours, swimming, snorkeling, SCUBA diving, and scenic lookouts. 

Table 5-1. Number of areas providing specific recreation activities on Kaua‘i1. 

Recreation Activity Number of Areas Providing Activity

Fishing (shore or boat) 39 

Picnicking 23 

Beach activities (including snorkeling, SCUBA diving, 

swimming, and surfing) 

22 

Boating (motorized, sailing, kayaking, and canoeing) 19 

Camping (established sites and wilderness) 18 

Education/interpretative display2 13 

Hiking2 10 

Scenic lookouts2 7 

Historic/cultural sites2 7 

Botanic gardens/nature parks 6 

Hunting 3 

Bicycling 1 

1Data from Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 2009.

2Activities which Kīlauea Point NWR offers. 

Near the Refuge is Kāhili Beach where surfing, fishing, picnicking, diving, camping, and other 

recreation occurs; about 10–200 persons use the area daily (USFWS 1989). Access to Kīlauea Falls 

is no longer available and access to Slippery Slide has been closed for at least a decade. Both are at 

the upper (mauka) part of the Kīlauea River. 

5.7.2 Outdoor Recreation Rates and Trends

Wildlife-Related Recreation Rates and Trends

According to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (USFWS

and U.S. Census Bureau 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008), thousands of people participate in wildlife-related 

recreation each year in Hawai‘i (Table 5-2). A large decline in numbers for away-from-home wildlife 

watching and fishing occurred from 1996 to 2001 and was driven primarily by declines in the 

numbers of nonresidents participating in these activities. These declines mirror the drop in overall 

visitation to Hawai‘i in 2001 as a result of the events of September 11, 2001 (HDBEDT 2001). For 

example, in 1996, 130,000 anglers were nonresidents; in 2001, that number had dropped to 41,000. 

In contrast, the number of Hawai‘i residents participating in wildlife watching actually increased 

from 1996 to 2001. Numbers increased from 2001 to 2006 for all types of wildlife-related recreation 

overall, though not all groups increased. For instance, the number of nonresident anglers increased to 

65,000 from 41,000 while the number of resident anglers decreased to 92,000 from 109,000. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-29

Table 5-2. Number of people participating in wildlife-related recreation in Hawai‘i over time.1

Activity 1991 1996 2001 2006 

Wildlife watching N/A 325,000 220,000 262,000 

Away-from-home 321,000 255,000 141,000 154,000 

Around-the-home 217,000 111,000 120,000 145,000 

Fishing 202,000 260,000 150,000 157,000 

Hunting 18,000 23,000 17,000 18,000 

1Data from USFWS and U.S. Census Bureau, 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006. 

Non-Wildlife-Related Recreation Rates and Trends

Visitors to Kaua‘i tend to participate in the same recreation activities consistently over time, 

according to the Visitor Satisfaction and Activity Report produced by the Hawai‘i Tourism Authority 

(2002–2009). Figures 5-4 through 5-6 show the activities over time of visitors from the western U.S., 

eastern U.S., and Japan. The majority of visitors from the U.S participated in self-guided sightseeing 

and beach activities such as swimming and sunbathing. Among U.S. visitors, there appears to be a 

decreasing trend in participation in sightseeing in general including sightseeing by self-guided tour, 

boat, aircraft, and tour bus over this time period. Participation in activities such as swimming, 

snorkeling, hiking, surfing, and jet skiing remained relatively constant. Cultural activities such as 

visiting historic sites, arts and crafts fairs, and museums and art galleries also seemed to be declining, 

while visiting parks and gardens was increasing. 

The majority of visitors from Japan participated in sightseeing via tour bus and they were less likely 

to participate in outdoor recreation and cultural activities than U.S. visitors. Participation in most 

activities seems to have remained constant among Japanese visitors over this time period. It does 

appear that tour bus sightseeing decreased in 2008 and 2009 while self-guided sightseeing increased. 

The Hawai‘i State Parks Survey (OmniTrak Group Inc. 2007) found that most of the visitors to State 

parks on Kaua‘i in 2007 were nonresidents (86 percent), which was not the case on Maui (69 

percent), Hawai‘i Island (57 percent), and O‘ahu (53 percent). The most common activities 

participated in while visiting the parks on Kaua‘i in 2007 were observing scenic views or taking 

photographs (83 percent), hiking or walking (35 percent), recreating in the ocean or other water

bodies (29 percent), seeing park flora and/or fauna (28 percent), picnicking or having an outing (23 

percent), and visiting historical or cultural sites (16 percent). Nonresidents were more likely to 

observe scenic views or take photographs, hike or walk, and see park flora and fauna than 

nonresidents, while residents were more likely to fish or hunt and camp than non-residents. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-30 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Figure 5-4. Percentage of visitors from the western U.S. participating in certain recreation 

activities on Kaua‘i over time.1 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-31

Figure 5-5. Percentage of visitors from the eastern United States participating in certain 

recreation activities on Kaua‘i over time.1 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-32 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Figure 5-6. Percentage of visitors from Japan participating in certain recreation activities on 

Kaua‘i over time.1 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-33

5.8 Social/Economic Environment

A regional economic analysis provides a means of estimating how current management and proposed 

management activities affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of 

information: it illustrates the Refuge’s contribution to the local community and it can help determine 

whether economic effects are a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. 

In order to assess the economic contributions and impacts to the local economy of visitation and 

management at Kīlauea Point NWR, an appropriate local region must be defined. For the purposes of 

an economic impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all counties within a 

30–60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that takes place within this regional area is 

included as stimulating changes in economic activity. The size of the region influences both the 

amount of spending captured in the local region and the economic multiplier effects that capture the 

circulation of money within the local economy. Kīlauea Point NWR is located in the County of 

Kaua‘i. As an island economy, most of the economic activity related to the Refuge occurs within the 

island. Therefore, the economic impact region for the Refuge is defined as the County of Kaua‘i. 

The management activities of economic concern for this analysis are:

• Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community; 

• Refuge personnel salary spending; 

• Revenues generated from Refuge Revenue Sharing; 

• Spending in the local community by Refuge visitors. 

The next sections describe the socioeconomic characteristics and trends in Kaua‘i, and highlight key 

Refuge activities that affect the local economy.

Communities near Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Kīlauea Town is the gateway to Kīlauea Point NWR. The town covers about 1.5 square miles, and 

had a population of 3,072 residents in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). As a former sugar 

plantation town, Kīlauea has a rural quality, and residents feel a strong connection to the agricultural 

heritage of the area (County of Kaua‘i 2006). Visitors travel to Kīlauea mainly to visit the Refuge; 

however, some also enjoy hiking in the area (Go Hawai‘i 2011). The town offers several restaurants, 

specialty gift stores, and one of only two gas stations on Kaua‘i’s North Shore. In 2005, 13.7 percent 

of visitors surveyed at Kīlauea Point NWR reported Kīlauea as the primary town in which their local 

purchases were made (Sexton et al. 2005). 

In addition to the visitor survey conducted in 2003–2004, a survey of residents of Kīlauea Town was 

also conducted (Sexton et al. 2005) in support of the Alternative Transportation Study conducted for 

the Refuge (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2006). The objectives of this resident survey were to better 

understand residents’ use and experience of the Refuge, community/Refuge relations, community 

quality of life, and community preferences for alternative transportation options as they might affect 

Kīlauea Town and its residents. 

The survey found that community visitation to the Refuge is somewhat limited. Most had been five 

or fewer times in the past 5 years. About one-third had attended special events held at the Refuge. 

Overall, residents who visit the Refuge participate in activities similarly to other visitors (though they 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-34 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

tended to rank viewing native wildlife and being in a natural area higher than visitors) and are 

satisfied with activities and services provided by the Refuge. Residents are supportive of increased 

environmental education, guided hikes, and increased access (though in the 2003–2004 survey they 

did not want the Refuge to become too crowded and another “all-American amusement park”). 

In terms of quality of life, residents of Kīlauea Town were satisfied with community living and felt 

things were going well for them at the time of the survey. They felt community issues most needing 

to be addressed were slowing growth and development and improving local land use planning. 

Community attributes that residents felt needed concentrated efforts (they were rated as high 

importance and low satisfaction) included parks and open space, walkways/bike paths, number of 

stores and shops, affordable housing, and reliable and convenient public transit. These findings also 

reflect what is in the Kīlauea Town Plan. 

Having the Refuge nearby is important to residents (now and for future generations), even though 

many do not regularly spend time there. The biggest benefits to being a neighbor of the Refuge are 

preservation of the land and available access to the area. The majority of residents indicated they 

trust and have confidence in Kīlauea Point NWR staff and decisions made by the Service. 

Residents cited reliable public transit, walkways, and bike paths as important features when selecting 

a community in which to live. Residents indicated there were some impacts to the community from 

visitors to the Refuge. Traffic congestion in town, traffic safety, and traffic noise were perceived as at 

least a small problem (especially if visitor numbers increased). However, residents generally did not 

feel their personal privacy or disruption of daily activities were a problem. 

Most residents considered pedestrian and/or bike access to the Refuge and the completion of the 

Kīlauea Road walking path to be desirable Refuge access/transportation options. Residents were 

more evenly split in the desirability of a North Shore shuttle that would link to Kīlauea and the 

Refuge as a Refuge transit option. When asked what factors may be important in encouraging 

residents to support a shuttle system, community respondents ranked the reduction of traffic 

congestion on Kīlauea Road, the preservation of homeowner privacy, offsite parking for a shuttle 

near the highway, and a shuttle system that benefits the local economy as the top factors. Community 

members were less willing to pay a Refuge fee that included a shuttle and guide compared to just an 

entrance fee (as opposed to visitors). Residents indicated a desire for self-guided hikes to scenic 

views, guided hikes to Crater Hill, and environmental programs for school and community groups. 

Other issues tied into the Kīlauea community are recent discussions about development of a 

supermarket and other stores where the post office is located. This has prompted renewed interest by 

the Kīlauea Town residents about a bypass road (identified in the Kīlauea Town plan) that would link 

Kūhiō Highway to this development area, thereby directing traffic from the highway away from the 

main part of town. Given that an estimated 25 percent of the traffic on Kīlauea Road is attributable to 

visitors to the Refuge (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2006), the Refuge is engaged with the Kīlauea 

Neighborhood Association and other groups in these discussions and how it may impact Refuge 

visitation and community concerns about traffic. 

In 1992, prior to Hurricane Iniki, there was less local traffic and more visitor traffic through Kīlauea 

than in 1998. Although current visitor traffic on Kīlauea Road is lower than in 1992, local traffic has 

increased due to land use changes, such as the construction of a new subdivision in Kīlauea and the 

relocation of the post office (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2006). The Kīlauea Town Plan also calls for 

looking at transit centers (either on Kūhiō highway or Kīlauea Town) to manage traffic. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-35

Other communities near the Refuge include Princeville, Kapa‘a, and Līhu‘e. Princeville is located on 

the North Shore of Kaua‘i in proximity to Kīlauea Point NWR and Hanalei NWR. A scenic overlook 

that provides visitors with views of the Hanalei Valley is located just past the Princeville turnoff on 

Kūhiō Highway. The overlook provides panoramic views of the lo‘i kalo on Hanalei NWR and the 

Wai‘oli Hui‘ia Mountains. Princeville was home to 2,066 residents in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011b). Visitors are drawn to Princeville by its remarkable resort features, with golf courses 

overlooking the Pacific Ocean, as well as outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands and waters 

(Princeville at Hanalei 2011). 

Kapa‘a is one of the larger towns on the island of Kaua‘i with 10,060 residents in 2010, or 16 percent 

of the island’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). Covering almost 10 square miles, Kapa‘a has

a local population density of 971 persons per square mile. The town is located about 17 miles 

southeast of Kīlauea Point NWR. Kapa‘a’s economy is centered around tourism and features a large 

number of hotels, shopping centers, gift shops, and restaurants. In 2005, 20.8 percent of visitors 

surveyed at Kīlauea Point NWR reported that Kapa‘a was the primary town in which their local 

purchases were made (Sexton et al. 2005). 

Līhu‘e is also one of the larger towns on Kaua‘i with 7,387 residents in 2010, or 10 percent of the 

island’s population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). The town is home to Kaua‘i County’s government 

and is the commercial center of the island. Līhu‘e houses the island’s main airport and serves as its 

major shipping center and cruise ship port (Go Hawai‘i 2011). Located about 25 miles south of 

Kīlauea Point NWR, 19.5 percent of visitors surveyed at Kīlauea Point NWR in 2005 reported that 

Līhu‘e was the primary town in which their local purchases were made (Sexton et al. 2005). 

5.8.1 Population, Housing, and Income

Table 5-3 summarizes the population characteristics of Hawai‘i and the County of Kaua‘i. As of 

2010, the total population of Kaua‘i was 67,091 residents, or 5 percent of Hawai‘i’s total population. 

Kaua’i’s population grew by 14.8 percent from 2000 to 2010, outpacing the 12.3 percent growth rate 

for the state as a whole. Over the same period, the island’s population density increased from 104 

persons per square mile to 119 persons per square mile; meanwhile, Hawai‘i’s population density 

increased from 189 to 212 persons per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010). The Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism predicts that the 

population of Kaua’i will continue to grow at an annual rate close to 1 percent through 2040, 

resulting in an estimated 2040 population of 93,000 (DBEDT 2012). Kaua‘i is proud of its rural feel, 

and residents of the island value its lush vegetation, agricultural lands with wide open vistas, and 

communities where people know each other (County of Kaua‘i 1999). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-36 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Table 5-3. County and state population estimates. 

 Population in 2010 Percent Population Change

Residents Persons per Square 

Mile 2000–2010 

Hawai‘i 1,360,301 212 12.3% 

Kaua‘i 67,091 119 14.8% 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, U.S. Census Bureau 2010 

As of 2011, white persons (33.5 percent) and persons of Asian descent (31.8 percent) together 

comprised nearly two-thirds of the population of Kaua’i. Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 

represented the next largest group (9.7 percent), followed by Native Hawaiians and other Pacific 

Islander persons (9.2 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). Kīlauea Town consists of 21.3 percent 

Asians, 54.9 percent Caucasians, 4.9 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 1.5 percent 

persons of some other race, 0.3 percent American Indian or Alaska Natives, and 0.5 percent black or 

African Americans (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). In Kaua‘i County, approximately 28 percent of 

residents age 25 or older have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 29.1 percent for 

the state of Hawai‘i (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). 

At the beginning of the 2010–2011 school year, there were 1,610 elementary-aged students enrolled 

in kindergarten through 5th grade in the region (Hawai‘i Department of Education 2011). For Kīlauea 

Town, 578 students were enrolled from kindergarten through high school (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b). 

Table 5-4 summarizes median household income, unemployment, and percentage of persons below 

the poverty level. As of 2011, median household income for Kaua’i County was higher than that for 

Hawai‘i ($67,116 compared to $64,422) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011c). In 2011, the percent of the 

Kaua’i County population living below the poverty line was on par with the state average and below 

the national average (10.0 percent compared to 10.2 percent and 15.9 percent). Similarly, the 

unemployment rate for residents aged 16 and older for Kaua’i was slightly below that of Hawaiʻi and 

well below the national average (7.2 percent compared to 7.7 percent and 10.3 percent) (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011c). Kīlauea Town’s median household income is $69,688, with unemployment at 5.1 

percent (or 123 individuals), with only 7.1 percent of individuals below the poverty line (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b).

Although the median income in Kaua‘i is above the national median, the cost of living on the island 

is very high. As of the year 2011, Kaua’i’s median gross rent (MGR) recorded was much higher than 

the national average ($1,335 compared to $871). Median gross rent as a percentage of household 

income, however, was lower than both the Hawaiian and national averages (31.2 percent compared to 

34.4 percent and 31.9 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011c). Food prices also tend to be higher than 

prices on the mainland. The transportation cost of food to Hawaiʻi is 66 percent higher than that for 

the mainland (Alternative Hawai‘i 2007). With the influx of warehouse clubs like Sam’s Club and 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-37

Costco, food prices are beginning to fall in line with those of the mainland (Alternative 

Hawai‘i 2007). 

Table 5-4. State and county income, unemployment, and poverty statistics, 2011. 

 

 

Median Household 

Income (2011) 

Percentage of 

Individuals below 

Poverty (2011) 

Percentage 

Unemployed (2011) 

Hawaii $64,422 10.2 7.7 

Kaua’i $67,116 10.0 7.2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2011c 

5.8.2 Employment and Business

Kaua‘i’s modern economy was founded on its agricultural industry, which produced crops such as 

sugarcane and wetland kalo. Although agriculture is still an important industry on the island, tourism 

has far surpassed agriculture as the County’s leading industry. The tourism industry in Kaua‘i has 

grown tremendously over the past 50 years and has become a key foundation of the island’s economy 

(Go Hawai‘i 2011, HDBEDT- Research and Economic Analysis Division 2009). 

Kaua‘i’s economy is sensitive to visitor arrivals. In 2010, there were 963,520 visitor arrivals on 

Kaua‘i Island. Since 2000, visitor arrivals have closely followed world events such as the 2001 

terrorist attacks, as well as the recent recession. Kaua‘i was hit particularly hard by the 2008 

recession as tourism and recreation are an integral piece of its economy. In 2007, Kaua‘i saw almost 

1.3 million visitors arrive, followed by a 20.6 percent reduction the following year (UHERO- Kaua‘i 

Interactive Database 2015). As tourism declined from 2007 to 2008, unemployment for the State rose 

from 2.7 percent to 4 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). Tourism 

continued to decline by almost 10 percent from 2008 to 2009, while unemployment rose from 4 

percent to 6.8 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011, UHERO- Kaua‘i 

Interactive Database 2015). From 2009 to 2010, visitor arrivals increased by 3.8 percent and 

unemployment fell from 6.8 percent to 6.6 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics 

2011, UHERO- Kaua‘i Interactive Database 2015). Visitor spending in Kaua‘i has followed the same 

trend. From 2007 to 2008, visitor spending fell by 13.3 percent, and fell another 12.6 percent from 

2008 to 2009 before growing by 12.4 percent from 2009 to 2010 (UHERO- Kaua‘i Interactive 

Database 2015). 

Table 5-5 summarizes full-time employment by industry for Kaua’i County in 2011. The travel and 

tourism sector is particularly important to the Kaua’i economy, with 23.1 percent of the County’s 

jobs in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food, compared to 16.1 percent for 

Hawai‘i and 9.0 percent nationally (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Employment in all travel and tourism 

sectors–including retail trade, passenger transportation, arts, entertainment and recreation, and 

accommodation and food–constitutes 40.3 percent of total private employment in Kaua’i County, 

compared to 27.8 percent statewide and 15.2 percent nationally. Average annual wages among 

Kaua’i residents employed in the travel and tourism industry are higher than Hawaiʻi and U.S. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-38 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

averages ($33,676 compared to $28,372 and $21,495) ($2012) (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012). 

Other industries that employ a large percentage of Kaua’i residents include education, health care, 

and social assistance (16.1 percent), and retail trade (12.6 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). 

Government jobs at the Federal, State, and local levels comprise 12.4 percent of all County part-time 

and full-time employment (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-39

Table 5-5. Full-time employment by sector, 2011, Kaua‘i County. 

Industry Number Percent of Total 

Total civilian employed population > 16 years 32,372 

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 995 3.1% 

Construction 2,976 9.2% 

Manufacturing 681 2.1% 

Wholesale trade 558 1.7% 

Retail trade 4,074 12.6% 

Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 1,679 5.2% 

Information 574 1.8% 

Finance and insurance, and real estate 1,777 5.5% 

Prof., scientific, mgmt., admin., & waste mgmt. 3,048 9.4% 

Education, health care, & social assistance 5,215 16.1% 

Arts, entertain., rec., accommodation, & food 7,490 23.1% 

Other services, except public administration 1,311 4.0% 

Public administration 1,994 6.2% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012

For Kīlauea Town, about 71.6 percent of the town’s population is in the labor force. The bulk of this 

workforce is involved in arts, entertainment, and recreation, accommodation, and food services (23.6 

percent); retail trade (13.1 percent); construction (11.9 percent); and professional, scientific, 

management, administrative, and waste management services (11.7 percent) (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011b). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-40 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

5.8.3 Refuge Impact on Local Economies

Recreational spending near national wildlife refuges generates economic activity for local 

economies. These expenditures can include food, lodging, transportation, and other purchases from 

local businesses while engaging in refuge uses. More than 34.8 million visits were made to national 

wildlife refuges nationwide in fiscal year 2006, with visitor expenditures equating to an estimated 

$1.7 billion ($2006) in sales in regional economies. Accounting for both the direct and secondary 

effects, spending by national wildlife refuge visitors generated nearly 27 thousand jobs, and over 

$542.8 million ($2006) in employment income (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

Refuges also contribute money to the local economy through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 

1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s). Under this act, the Service makes payments to counties where refuge lands 

are located. Payments are in lieu of taxes and the revenue is used by the counties for any government 

purpose. In 2012, $11,490 for Kīlauea Point NWR, $9,691 for Hanalei NWR, and $2,343 for Hulē‘ia 

NWR was paid to Kaua‘i County through Refuge Revenue Sharing. 

Tourism and Recreation 

Visitors travel from all over the world to see Hawai‘i. With opportunities from relaxing beach 

getaways to hiking mountains and surfing the waves, there is no shortage of activities to stimulate the 

economy. From 2003 to 2010, the average annual expenditure by visitors arriving by air totaled over 

$11.1 billion, or 18.5 percent of the State’s gross domestic product (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011). In 2007, Kaua‘i accounted for 9.8 percent of Statewide visitor 

expenditures and is projected to maintain that ratio through 2035 (HDBEDT 2009). 

Wildlife Viewing

Wildlife viewing opportunities are abundant throughout the State of Hawai‘i. Wildlife viewing can 

include the activities of observing, identifying, or photographing wildlife. In 2011, the number of 

people that reported participating in wildlife viewing as a primary form of recreation totaled 358,000 

in Hawai‘i. Spending associated with wildlife viewing in Hawai‘i totaled $669 million, of which 94 

percent ($628 million) was trip-related expenditures and $41 million was spent on other expenses 

such as equipment (USFWS 2012). 

5.8.4 Additional Economic Contributions

It is important to note that the economic value of the Refuge encompasses more than just the impacts 

on the regional economy. The Refuge also provides substantial nonmarket values (values for items 

not exchanged in established markets) such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, 

educating future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem (Carver and Caudill 2007). 

According to a recent report, the total value of ecosystem services provided by natural habitats in the 

Refuge System in the contiguous states totaled $32.3 billion/year, or $2,900 thousand/acre/year 

(Southwick Associates 2011). Wetlands were found to provide the most services at $27.5 

billion/year, or $10,600/acre/year. If these figures had been extrapolated to include Alaska and 

Hawai‘i NWRs, the total amount would exceed $2 trillion per year (likely more since the study only 

looked at terrestrial systems). The same report also identified that the loss of 9.9 million acres of 

wetlands in the U.S. over the last 50 years has resulted in more than $81 billion of economic loss 

linked to the ecosystems services wetlands provide. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-41

5.9 References 

Aiken, R.R. 1988. Kīlauea Point Lighthouse: the Landfall Beacon on the Orient Run. Kīlauea Point 

Natural History Association. 

Alternative Hawai‘i. 2007. The Cost of Living in Paradise is High! http://www.alternativehawaii.com/overpop.htm. 

Burgett, B., L. McGerty, and R. L. Spear. 2000. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of an 

approximately 27.56 acre parcel, Kāhili Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau District, Island of Kaua‘i, HI 

[TMK 5-2-21-:6]. 

Carver, E. and J. Caudill. 2007. Banking on nature 2006: The economic benefits to local 

communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington, DC. 

County of Kaua‘i, 1999. Kauaʻi General Plan. Page 5–1. 

http://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments/PlanningDepartment/TheKauaiGeneralPlan/tabid/13

0/Default.aspx. 

County of Kaua‘i. 2006. Kīlauea Town Plan. http://www.kilauealighthousevillage.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/KilaueaTownPlan.pdf. 

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean Division. 1991. “Kīlauea

National Wildlife Refuge, Kīlauea Radar Station, Crater Hill, Kīlauea, Island of Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi.” 

Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Sites, Inventory Project Report. Site 

No. H09HI018000. Contract No. DACA83-89-D-0020. 

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism; Research and Economic Analysis 

Division. 2009. Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaiʻi to 2035. 

Department of Education. 2011. Reports, Enrollments 2010-2011. 

http://doe.k12.hi.us/reports/enrollment.htm. 

Fredericksen, D. and W. Fredericksen. 1989. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Crater Hill and 

Mokolea Point of Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kīlauea, Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi. Xamanek 

Researches, Pukalani, Maui, HI. 

Garovoy, Jocelyn B. 2005. “Ua Koe ke Kuleana o na Kānaka (Reserving the Rights of Native 

Tenants): Integrating Kuleana Rights and Land Trust Priorities in Hawaiʻi. Harvard Environmental 

Law Review. Volume 29, No. 2. 

Go Hawai‘i. 2011. Kaua‘i: Hawai’i’s Island of Discovery. http://www.gohawaii.com/kauai/regionsneighborhoods/. 

Hammatt, H.H. and D.W. Shideler. 2013. Archaeological Assessment for the Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Fencing Project, Kīlauea Ahupua‘a, Hanalei District, Island of Kaua‘i TMK: (4) 5-

2-004:103 por. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, HI. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-42 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 2001. Annual visitor 

research report. 110 p. http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/reports/visitorstatistics/2001-annual-visitor.pdf. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2009. Statewide comprehensive outdoor 

recreation plan (SCORP) 2008 update. 207 p. http://state.hi.us/dlnr/reports/scorp/SCORP08-1.pdf. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2002. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 104 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2003. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 114 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2004. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 114 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2005. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 124 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2006. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 169 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2007. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 185 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2008. Visitor satisfaction and activity report. Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 199 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Hawai‘i Tourism Authority. 2009. Visitor satisfaction and activity report, Hawai‘i Department of 

Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. 184 p. 

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research-reports/reports/visitor-satisfaction/. 

Juvik, S.P. and J.O. Juvik. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i, Third edition. University of Hawai‘i Press: 

Honolulu. 333pp. 

Kikuchi, W.K. 1987. Proposed Visitor Center Archaeological Survey, Kīlauea Point, National 

Wildlife Refuge Kalae O Kīlauea, Kaua‘i.

Miller, H. 2011. U.S. Geological Survey Policy Analysis and Science Assistance personal 

communications with D. Caylor of the Kaua‘i Department of Parks and Recreation. 2011 Kaua‘i 

Parks and Recreation Master Plan Public Input Survey. 

Northwest Heritage Consultants. 2006 Kīlauea Point Light Station Historic Structures Report. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-43

OmniTrak Group Inc., 2007. Hawai‘i State Parks survey.

http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/default/assets/File/research/natural-resources/HTAPROReport-12-01-2007.pdf. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. 2004. Traffic, Visitor, and Parking Study. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. 2006. Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative Transportation Systems Study Final Report. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal 

Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division. Contract No. DTFH68-02-D00001, Task Order No. DTFH68-05-T-00044. 

Princeville at Hanalei. 2011. Princeville at Hanalei: Magnificent by Nature. 

http://www.princeville.com/home.html. 

Shideler, D., T. Tulchin, and H.H. Hammatt. 2007. Archaeological Literature Review and Field 

Inspection for the approximately 163-Acre Kilauea Falls Ranch Property, Kīlauea Ahupua‘a, 

Ko‘olau District, Kaua‘i Island (TMK: [4] 5-2-012:035). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, HI. 

Shideler, D., T. Yucha, and H.H. Hammatt. 2008. Archaeological Inventory Survey of an 

Approximately 74-Acre Portion of the Kīlauea Falls Ranch Property, Kīlauea Ahupua‘a, Hanalei 

District, Kaua‘i Island (TMK: [4] 5-2-012:035 por.). Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kailua, HI. 

Sexton, N.R., S. C. Gillette, L. Koontz, S.C. Stewart, J. Loomis, and K.D. Wundrock. 2005. Visitor 

and community survey results for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and Lighthouse: 

Completion report: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 

2005–1420, 221p. 

Sexton, N.R., A.M. Dietsch, A.W. Don Carlos, L. Koontz, and A.N. Solomon. 2011, National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results: U.S. Geological Survey Data 

Series 643. 

Smith, Gary. 2008. Volunteer orientation video. 

Southwick Associates. 2011. The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural 

Resources Conservation, and Historic Preservation in the United States. 

http://www.nfwf.org/Content/ContentFolders/NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation/HomePage/Conse

rvationSpotlights/TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation.pdf. 

Transportation Assistance Group. 2009. Transportation Observations, Considerations, and 

Recommendations for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. 44 pp. 

UHERO – Kaua‘i Interactive Database. 2015. Kaua‘i Economic Dashboard. 

http://uhero.hawaii.edu/static/dashboard/kauai/index.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American Fact Finder: Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 

2000. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Fact Finder: Selected Economic Characteristics: 2010. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-44 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. American FactFinder. American FactFinder: 

http://factfinder.census.gove/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. American FactFinder 2. American FactFinder 2: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011c. Census of Housing. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/grossrents.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. American Community Survey: Selected Economic Characteristics: 2007–

2011. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2007. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Information System. http://www.bea.gov. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Census 2000 Brief: Housing Costs of 

Renters: 2000. 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=16&gp

s=536_397_1276_863&f=00&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.census.g

ov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-21.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2011. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Information. http://www.bea.gov. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 2008a. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associate 

recreation: Maine. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b. National and state economic 

impacts of wildlife watching–Addendum to the 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting and 

wildlife-associated recreation. Report 2006–1. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Labor Force Statistics from the Current 

Population Survey. http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau. 1993. 1991 National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation–Hawai‘i. 84 p. 

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/gen/interior/fhw91-hi.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. 1996 National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation–Hawai‘i. 87 p. 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/hifhw698.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 2001 National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation–Hawai‘i. 86 p. 

http://www.hawaiistateassessment.info/library/2001_survey_fishing_hunting_rec_usfws_hifhw698.p

df. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-45

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2006 National survey of fishing, 

hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation–Hawai‘i. 91 p. 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-hi.pdf. 

USFWS. 1989. Draft Kīlauea Point NWR Public Use Management Plan. 

USFWS. 2007. Land Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i County, HI. 

USFWS. 2014. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP), Multi-year measures, 2010–2013. 

Wichman, F.B. 1998. Ancient place-names and their stories. Honolulu, HI: University of 

Hawaii Press.

Wilcox, Carol. 1981. The Kauaʻi Album. Kauaʻi Historical Society: Kauaʻi. 

Wilson Okamoto & Associates Inc for County of Kaua‘i Planning Department. 1980. North Shore 

Development Plan Update Includes Kīlauea. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

5-46 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment
© G. Stutzer

Chapter 5Social and Economic Environment

Chapter 4Refuge Biology and Habitats

Chapter 3PhysicalEnvironment

Chapter 1Introduction andBackground Appendices

A-K

Appendices

A-K

Chapter 2Management Direction

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-1 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

A.1 Introduction 

The Appropriate Refuge Uses policy (603 FW 1) outlines the process that the Service uses to 

determine when general public uses on refuges may be considered. Priority public uses previously 

defined as wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography and 

environmental education and interpretation) under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 are generally exempt from appropriate use review. Other exempt uses 

include those situations where the Service does not have adequate jurisdiction to control the activity 

and refuge management activities. In essence, the Appropriate Refuge Uses policy provides refuge 

managers with a consistent procedure to first screen and then document decisions concerning a 

nonpriority public use. When a use is determined to be appropriate, a refuge manager must then 

decide if the use is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. For purposes of this CCP an 

“appropriate use” must meet at least one of the following three conditions: 

• The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. 

• The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

• The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11 of the policy and 

documented on FWS Form 3-2319. 

During the CCP process, the refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed uses for Kīlauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) that are associated with the selected alternative (Alternative 

D in the draft CCP). Documentation of appropriateness findings for wildlife-dependent uses is not 

included in this appendix because wildlife-dependent uses are appropriate by definition. They are, 

however, evaluated for compatibility in Appendix B, Compatibility Determinations. All other Refuge 

uses were evaluated using the criteria described in policy and listed on FWS Form 3-2319. The table 

below shows the uses evaluated and appropriateness findings made by the Refuge manager. 

Additional documentation is included in this appendix as appropriate. 

Table A-1. Summary of Appropriate Use Findings

Refuge Use Appropriate?

Camping (Kāhili Quarry) No

Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) Yes

Bicycling, Horseback Riding, Motorcycling, and Off-Road Vehicle Use on Trails No

Collecting Plant Materials and Other Natural Resources No

Commercial Wildlife and Landscape Filming and Photography Yes

Commercial Tours Yes

General Access for Off-Refuge Stream, Beach, and Ocean Uses (Kāhili Quarry) Yes

Research and Scientific Collections Yes

Traditional Cultural Practices Yes
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-2 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Knauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Camping (Kahili Quarry) 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the usc, or is this the first time the use has been X proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural X or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW I, section 1.60. for description), X 

compatible, wildlife-del'_endent recreation into the future? 

NO 

X 

X 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Y cs _l_ No __ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment ofthese factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_x_ Appropriate __ 

Acting . Refuge Manager: ~~~ Date: ~9 '---::9JIL-I-~ c..::.... '$ _ _ 77 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge and Monument Supervisor: ____________ _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Findings 

Date ----------

A-3 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-4 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Camping (Kāhili Quarry) 

Summary: The uses evaluated herein for appropriateness address camping on the Refuge at Kāhili 

Quarry, which may be defined as sleeping overnight onsite, sometimes for multiple nights, and may 

include erecting a tent or other shelter. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

The area for this use lies within Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) owns and administers the Refuge and, consistent with Title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (“Wildlife and Fisheries”), has jurisdiction over public uses of the 

Refuge.

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

Service policy on Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW 1) states, “General public uses that are not 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses (as defined by the Improvement Act) and do not contribute to 

the fulfillment of refuge purposes or goals or objectives as described in current refuge management 

plans are the lowest priorities for refuge managers to consider. These uses are likely to divert refuge 

management resources from priority general public uses or away from our responsibilities to protect 

and manage fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats. Therefore, both law and policy have a 

general presumption against allowing such uses within the Refuge System.”

Camping commonly involves sleeping overnight onsite, sometimes for multiple nights, possibly 

erecting a tent or other shelter. Camping has many effects on the environment, habitat, and wildlife. 

These include soil compaction, reduction in the surface organic (humus) layer, erosion, vegetation 

trampling, other damage, and removal and reduction in natural regeneration (Hammitt and Cole 

1998). These effects vary based on the frequency of use and the durability of soils and vegetation at 

campsites (Cole 1995). As occurs with other visitors, the mere presence of campers in a wildlife area 

can cause stress and disturbance to wildlife, and can frighten birds off nests, affecting their 

reproductive success (Ream 1976). Camping can also alter the species composition of local plant and 

animal communities (favoring plants that can tolerate more abuse, and animals, often generalists, that 

are more tolerant of human disturbance) and a reduction in species richness (Hammitt and Cole 

1998). 

Any campfires or nighttime lighting (e.g. lanterns) used by campers could cause petrels returning 

from foraging all day at sea to become disoriented and unable to find their burrows and young. 

Fledglings could similarly become disoriented in their initial flights to the sea and circle such lights 

until exhausted or crash into obstacles.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-5 

Unless conducted in a manner to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on native habitats and wildlife and 

the potential for conflicts with visitors that are engaged in wildlife-dependent uses (e.g., fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography), camping would be inconsistent with goals 1, 2, 4, and 6 in the

CCP. Under the CCP, the Refuge will work with the community stewardship partnership to explore 

opportunities for providing camping at Kāhili Quarry; however, resources would need to be available 

to manage this use and stipulations would need to ensure that camping opportunities would be 

appropriate and compatible.

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? and (h) Will this be manageable in 

the future within existing resources?

Kāhili Quarry has no designated parking, campsites, picnic tables, fire rings, potable water, toilets, or 

recycling or garbage cans. This area has been heavily impacted by many years of public use. Soils 

are compacted, the area is sparsely vegetated, and it has several fire pits, trash, and abandoned motor 

vehicles. Resources needed to manage an overnight camping program that adequately provides for 

public and employee sanitation and safety, without disturbing or harming focal wildlife species, 

would divert existing and future resources from accomplishing priority Refuge tasks, including 

serving visitors participating in priority, wildlife-dependent public uses. As mentioned above, under 

the CCP, the Refuge will work with the community stewardship partnership to explore future 

opportunities for providing camping at Kāhili Quarry; however, resources would need to be available 

to manage this use and stipulations would need to ensure that any future camping opportunities 

would be appropriate and compatible.

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? and (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

Visitors engaged in camping could gain an enhanced understanding and appreciation for the Refuge’s 

natural and cultural resources. 

At Kāhili Quarry, camping could potentially be accommodated without impairing existing wildlifedependent uses or without reducing the ability to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future. 

Literature Cited 

Cole, D.N. 1995. Disturbance of Natural Vegetation by Camping: Experimental Applications of 

Low-Level Stress. Environmental Management Vol. 19, No. 3, 405–416. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Heiser, C.A. Undated. Feeding Wildlife: Food for Thought. Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries. Available at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/wild-in-the-woods/feeding-wildlife-foodfor-thought.pdf. 

Ream, C.H. 1976. Loon Productivity, Human Disturbance, and Pesticide Residues in Northern 

Minnesota. The Wilson Bulletin Vol. 88, No. 3. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-6 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft revised recovery plan for the nēnē or Hawaiian goose 

(Branta sandvicensis). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 

Portland, OR. 148 pp. 
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Dog Walking (Kahili Quarry) 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural X 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW 1, section 1.6D. for description), X 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ..l_ No __ _ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

NJ{C\fRgpriate __ Appropriate _ _x__ 

Refuge anager:..,_...--:4:::::::::::~~:1!!?<~==·.__~:::!~====:::f@q~e::: 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Iffound to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concu 

A compatibility determination is require 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Date: _ _ t!"-.LA-'-ro_._/:-=- 1 ..5 ____ _ 

A-7 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-8 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 

Summary: The use evaluated herein for appropriateness addresses leashed dogs in association with 

wildlife-dependent (e.g., fishing, wildlife observation, and photography) and non-wildlife-dependent 

uses at Kāhili Quarry (e.g., access to off-Refuge areas [Kīlauea River, Kīlauea Bay, and Kāhili

Beach]). This use is considered appropriate, with stipulations to reduce wildlife disturbance and 

ensure public safety. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

Dogs would only be permitted within designated areas at Kāhili Quarry (Quarry) in association with 

wildlife-dependent uses (fishing, wildlife observation, and photography) and access to off-Refuge 

areas [Kīlauea River, Kīlauea Bay, and Kāhili Beach]). Dogs would be required to be on a short leash 

(no longer than 8 feet per Section 22, Article 2 of the Kaua‘i County Code) and under direct control 

at all times. Westgarth et al. (2010) found that negative interactions between people and dogs are 

reduced when dogs are leashed. By maintaining control of dogs, public safety risks would be 

reduced. Feces would diminish the quality of other visitors’ experiences and could potentially spread 

disease to wildlife. Therefore it must be removed from the Refuge and disposed of properly. The 

Refuge does not provide receptacles for animal waste. Restrictions on dog walking would be clearly 

posted at the Quarry entrance and other locations and on the Refuge website. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

Kāhili Quarry is an important buffer area for wildlife resources on Mōkōlea Point and Crater Hill, 

including breeding sites for nēnē, mōlī, ʻua‘u kani, koa‘e ‘ula, as well as roosting or foraging sites for 

pueo and ‘iwa. Because of the potential for adverse impacts on native habitats and wildlife on the 

Refuge (especially species that nest on or in the ground or in low vegetation, and those that evolved 

in the absence of terrestrial mammalian predators), dogs must always be on-leash and under direct 

control at all times and remain within the designated public use area located within the Quarry area 

along the water, below the cliffs at Mōkōlea Point. Through these stipulations, the potential for and 

severity of impacts from dogs can be reduced, mitigating the overall effect on Refuge wildlife. 

The Refuge is aware that some visitors already disregard Refuge and Kaua‘i County regulations 

requiring dogs to be on-leash and the requirement of dog owners to remove and dispose of their pets’ 

feces from public property. Compliance with stipulations related to this use would be monitored on 

an ongoing basis. If monitoring indicates routine noncompliance or compatibility conflicts, the 

Service will evaluate limiting or prohibiting this use.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-9 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

It is expected that visitors either bring their dogs in conjunction with the wildlife-dependent uses of 

wildlife observation, photography, and fishing, or else enjoy some wildlife observation and 

photography ancillary to walking dogs. The Refuge would use this opportunity to reach out to dog 

owners, educate them about how to minimize the effects of dogs on wildlife, and encourage them to 

observe wildlife and to learn about the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

Since dogs would be required to be on a short leash, under control at all times, and allowed only 

within the designated public use area at the Quarry, this use would not be expected to impair the 

Refuge’s existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses (including fishing) or reduce the potential to 

provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. 

Literature Cited 

Westgarth, C., R.M. Christley, G.L. Pinchbeck, R.M. Gaskell, S.Dawson, J.W.S. Bradshaw. 2010. 

Dog behaviour on walks and the effect of use of the leash. Applied animal behaviour science, Vol., 

125, no 1–2, 38–40. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-10 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling, Horseback Riding, Motorcycling, and Off-Road Vehicle Use on Trails 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service jl_Oiicies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

-(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW 1, section 1.60. for description), 

compatible, wild! ife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___X_ No __ _ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_X_ 

Actmg 

Refuge Manager: ~___...e.. 

Appropriate __ 

Date -----'--T-- ~4'T--'-~'"""---- ~ _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge and Monument Supervisor: ____________ _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Date: _________ _ 

A-ll 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-12 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Bicycling, Horseback Riding, Motorcycling, and Off-Road Vehicle Use on Trails 

Summary: The uses evaluated herein for appropriateness include the following when they would 

occur on a pedestrian or other Refuge trail: riding a bicycle, including use of a mountain bike; riding 

or using a horse, donkey, burro, llama, or other pack animal; motorcycling, including use of a dirt 

bike, motor scooter, or other motorized bike, whether street legal or not; and use of a 3-wheeled, 4-

wheeled, tracked, or other off-road vehicle (a.k.a. off-highway vehicle and all-terrain vehicle), 

whether street legal or not. For ease of reference, all of these uses are referred to herein as bicycling, 

horseback riding, motorcycling, and use of off-road vehicles. 

Excluded from this evaluation are bicycling, horseback riding, and use of street-legal motorcycles on 

legitimate roads and parking areas that are open to the public where there would not be safety or 

wildlife conflicts (e.g., the cul-de-sac at the end of Kīlauea Road, Kāhili Quarry Road). Also 

excluded is limited horseback riding along a designated route in the Crater Hill area by owners of 

homesites and lots in Seacliff Plantation. This access and use was specifically and legally reserved; 

however, per terms of the easement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to "do all things 

deemed necessary and appropriate... to provide for the management, operation, and maintenance of a 

bird and wildlife sanctuary, including, but not by way of limitation, the right to erect fences, regulate 

entrance, and enforce all laws rules and regulation related to the management of the Bird & Wildlife 

Sanctuary." 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

There are no laws or regulations that specifically prohibit bicycling or horseback riding on refuges. 

However, Federal regulations at 50 CFR 27.31 (“General provisions regarding vehicles”) prohibit, 

“Travel in or use of any motorized or other vehicles, including those used on air, water, ice, 

snow...on national wildlife refuges except on designated routes of travel....” The regulation goes on 

to say, “The operation of a vehicle which does not bear valid license plates and is not properly 

certified, registered, or inspected in accordance with applicable State laws is prohibited.” For 

purposes of this evaluation, these provisions would apply to motorcycling and use of off-road 

vehicles.

Bicycles, horses, motorcycles, and off-road vehicles all provide transportation and are alternatives to 

cars, trucks, and similar vehicles. These alternative transport modes differ from conventional 

passenger cars and trucks in that they can more easily navigate rough terrain and trails. However, 

when traveling off-pavement, gravel, or other hardened surfaces, these alternative modes of transport 

can have a variety of effects. These include soil compaction, reduction in the surface organic (humus) 

layer, and erosion; trampling and other damage to vegetation, reduction in natural regeneration, and 

introduction and spread of nonnative plants and plant pathogens; and wildlife disturbance, including 

flushing and crushing of burrows (Pickering et al. 2010, Wimpey 2010, Switalski and Jones 2010, 

Snetsinger and White 2009, Landsberg et al. 2001, Jordan 2000, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Vandeman 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-13

1997, Wilson and Seney 1994, Weaver and Dale 1978). Because of their speed, bicycles, horses, 

motorcycles, and off-road vehicles can also cover more distance in the same amount of time as a 

pedestrian, thereby more quickly extending the areal extent of their environmental effects.

Mountain bicyclists are known to ride off-trail and create new (informal) trails, extending the impact 

zone of this use (Pickering et al. 2010, Wimpey 2010). 

Because of their concentration of greater weight in smaller areas (their hooves), horses and riders can 

cause more damage to soils and vegetation and increase the potential for erosion when compared 

with impacts of some other trail users, including pedestrians (Hammitt and Cole 1998, Wilson and 

Seney 1994). Horses can also graze trailside vegetation and alter species composition by 

discouraging certain species through selective grazing, and can transport nonnative seeds into 

wildlife habitat (Jordan 2000, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

Motorcycling and use of off-road vehicles have similar environmental effects. Their weight and the 

spinning of vehicle tires can readily dislodge soil and vegetation and encourage erosion (Hammitt 

and Cole 1998). Also, motorcyclists and off-road vehicle users often seek out steeper, unstable slopes 

where their activities increase the potential for erosion (Hammitt and Cole 1998). These vehicles 

commonly generate considerable noise. Loud noise can stress wildlife, make them irritable, alter 

their natural behavior, and cause them to flush (Schubert and Smith 2000, Bowles 1995). Because of 

their size and speed, motorcycles and off-road vehicles can also kill wildlife directly through 

collision (Switalski and Jones 2010).

For these reasons, allowing these uses would run counter to Refuge purposes and violate 

requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). The Administration Act prohibits uses on a refuge that would materially 

interfere with or detract from refuge purposes (i.e., allowed uses must be compatible). 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

There are no Executive orders or Department or Service policies that specifically prohibit bicycling 

and horseback riding on national wildlife refuges. However, Executive Order 11644 of Feb 8, 1972 

(“Use of off-road vehicles on the public lands”), as amended by EO 11989 of May 24, 1977, states in 

part that in determining whether to open areas and trails to off-road vehicles, agencies should 

consider, “...damage to soil, watershed, vegetation... harassment of wildlife or significant disruption 

of wildlife habitats...[and]...conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed 

recreational uses.” Additionally, when an agency determines that, “...the use of off-road vehicles 

will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat 

or cultural or historic resources...,” the EO requires agencies to, “...immediately close such areas or 

trails to the type of off-road vehicles causing such effects....”

Implementation of EO 11644 is guided by Department policy (“Use of Off-Road Vehicles,” 616 DM 

1) and National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) policy (“Off-Road Vehicles,” 8 RM 7). 

Refuge System policy states in part that, “All lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are 

closed to off-the-road use of vehicles by the general public, unless specifically designated as open to 

the use of off-road vehicles.” Opening off-road areas or trails to off-road vehicle use requires a study 

of potential effects on Refuge resources, a positive compatibility determination, and compliance with 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-14 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

For the reasons discussed earlier, allowing motorcycling and use of off-road vehicles on the Refuge 

would violate requirements of EO 11644 and the Refuge System’s “Off-Road Vehicles” policy. 

Allowing any of these uses on the Refuge would violate the Service’s “Compatibility” (603 FW 

2) policy. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Because of their speed of travel, the narrowness of some Refuge trails, and the number of other 

Refuge visitors who use these trails, allowing these uses could generate safety problems for riders 

and other visitors (Thurston and Reader 2001). 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

Because of the adverse impacts these uses could cause for native habitats and wildlife, and conflicts 

with other visitors on the Refuge, they would be inconsistent with Refuge goals 1, 2, 4, and 6. 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

In 1994, the Service completed a compatibility determination for reserved access rights by owners of 

homesites and lots in Seacliff Plantation. These rights include limited horseback riding along a 

designated route in the Crater Hill area. However, the 1994 document did not address bicycling, 

motorcycling, use of off-road vehicles, or horseback riding on pedestrian or other trails on the 

Refuge. This is the first time these uses have been proposed and analyzed. 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

Because of the nature of these uses, it is unlikely or incidental that visitors engaged in bicycling, 

horseback riding, motorcycling, and use of off-road vehicles would gain an enhanced understanding 

and appreciation for the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources. For the reasons discussed earlier, 

these uses would not be beneficial to the Refuge’s natural resources and they would be expected to 

have no benefits for cultural resources. These uses do not require the presence of wildlife. There are 

many other areas on Kauaʻi, including the North Shore, where these uses could occur and are 

allowed. 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

These uses can conflict with satisfaction by others who visit a natural area to observe or photograph 

wildlife or enjoy nature appreciation. These other visitors usually enjoy a higher quality experience 

in an uncrowded and relatively quiet setting, and the noise from motorized vehicles can be disruptive. 

Because of their speed, bicycles, motorcycles, and off-road vehicles can also alarm other visitors 

when they suddenly appear on the same trail. This is a special concern with bicycles because they 

move so quietly yet quickly (Thurston and Reader 2001, Vandeman 1997). Due to their large size 

and especially on narrow trails, horses can intimidate pedestrians and few people enjoy walking on 

paths where horse manure is common (Landsberg et al. 2001, Hammitt and Cole 1998). Because of 

such conflicts among these user groups, some parks and recreation areas design, construct, and 

maintain separate trail systems for these uses. Bicyclists, horseback riders, motorcyclists, and offroad vehicle riders would also compete with other visitors for use of the limited parking areas and 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-15

other visitor amenities onsite. Disturbance to wildlife could alter wildlife behavior or flush wildlife 

and these effects would diminish the quality of experience for other visitors. 

For these reasons, bicycling, horseback riding, motorcycling, and use of off-road vehicles on trails 

would impair the Refuge’s ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent public use opportunities 

(including wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), 

and reduce the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. 

Literature Cited 

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of Wildlife to Noise. In Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence 

through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, 

Washington, DC. 109–156. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Jordan, M. Ecological Impacts of Recreational Use of Trails: A Literature Review. The Nature 

Conservancy, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. 

Landsberg, J., B. Logan, and D. Shorthouse. 2001. Horse riding in urban conservation areas: 

Reviewing scientific evidence to guide management. Ecological Management & Restoration Vol. 2, 

No. 1 36–46. 

Pickering, C.M., W. Hill, D. Newsome, and Y-F. Leung. 2010. Comparing hiking, mountain biking, 

and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. 

Journal of Environmental Management 91, 551–562.

Schubert, D.J. and J. Smith. 2000. The Impacts of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Wildlife. Road 

RIPorter Vol. 5, No. 1. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/road-riporter/impacts-road-vehicle-noisewildlife. 

Snetsinger, S. and K. White. 2009. Recreation and Trail Impacts on Wildlife Species of Interest in 

Mount Spokane State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, WA. 

Switalski, A. and A. Jones. 2010. Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on Wildlife. Road RIPorter 15.1, Spring 

Equinox 2010. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/road-riporter/road-vehicle-impacts-wildlife. 

Thurston, E. and R.J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking 

on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management Vol. 27, No. 3, 397–409. 

Vandeman, M.J. 1997. The Effects of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People—Why Off-Road 

Bicycling Should be Prohibited. 

http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/mvarticles/MountainBikeEffects.html. 

Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling Effects of Hikers, Motorcycles, and Horses in Meadows 

and Forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 15 451–457. 

Wilson, J.P. and J.P. Seney. 1994. Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles, and Off-Road 

Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development Vol. 14, No. 1. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-16 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Wimpey, J. 2010. Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science Review and Best Practices. 

PowerPoint presentation at International Mountain Biking Association Summit 2010, Augusta, GA. 
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Collecting Plant Materials and Other Natural Resources 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW 1, section 1.60 for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use . Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes ___X_ No __ _ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate__x_ Appropriate __ 

Acting 

Refuge Manager:_.~~:....!:!!~x=· ==--~~~'=====~~~-=-- Date: __ '1'-r,A_ 9:....,

7

,._!/:.....:s- =-----

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge and Monument Supervisor: ____________ _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Findings 

Date: _________ _ 

A-17 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-18 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Collecting Plant Materials and Other Natural Resources

Summary: The uses evaluated herein for appropriateness are collecting plant materials (either living 

or nonliving) and other natural resources (for example, shells, feathers, bone) on Kīlauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). As used herein, natural resource collecting involves 

such collections by members of the general public and does not include collecting as an element of 

traditional cultural practices. Also see the appropriate use finding and compatibility determination for 

“Traditional Cultural Practices.” 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

and (c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service 

policies?

In the absence of specific authorization, regulations prohibit collecting plant materials and other 

natural resources on refuges (“Disturbing, injuring, and damaging plants and animals,” 50 CFR 

27.51). 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

The effects associated with collection of plants, feathers, and potentially other natural resources 

would depend on whether collections were made from live organisms, whether they were native 

versus nonnative species, the volume of materials collected, and the areas in which and times of day 

and year during which the collections occurred. If collected from live organisms, the survival of 

those individuals could be impacted. Collecting dropped or broken-off plant materials or detached 

bird feathers could affect forage for herbivores and detritivores, cover and nesting materials for 

wildlife, and eventually impact replenishment of soil nutrients. Collecting could also cause 

disturbance and impact wildlife foraging, roosting, loafing, or nesting. 

Three species of birds, including two listed species, construct burrows or nests on or within 

forest/shrubland duff (decaying leaf litter and branches on the ground, including hala and naupaka). 

The Refuge has substantial populations of burrow-nesting seabirds, and collectors walking through 

nesting colonies could easily crush burrows, destroy nests and eggs, and kill young or adult seabirds. 

Collectors could also trample native plants, accelerate erosion, and potentially introduce or spread 

nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species. These impacts could 

adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and would be of special concern in 

Refuge areas struggling with re-establishment of native plant communities. 

Because of the adverse impacts these uses could cause for native habitats and wildlife, and conflicts 

with other visitors on the Refuge, this use would be inconsistent with CCP goals 1, 2, and 4. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-19

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

In Hawai‘i, many natural resources are also culturally important. Potentially, visitors engaged in 

collecting of plant materials and other natural resources could gain an enhanced understanding and 

appreciation for the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources. For the reasons discussed earlier, these 

uses could be detrimental to the Refuge’s natural resources but could be beneficial as cultural 

resources. Therefore, collection of plants and natural resources must be carefully limited to cultural 

practitioners for traditional cultural purposes only and be conducted in such a way as to eliminate or 

minimize negative impacts on natural resources (see the appropriate use finding and compatibility 

determination for “Traditional Cultural Practices” for more information). It is important to note that 

this use does not require the presence of wildlife or, with the exception of collecting selected natural 

resources, wildlands. Additionally, there are many other areas on Kaua‘i, including the North Shore, 

where this use is allowed.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

If collection of plants, feathers, and potentially other natural resources were to occur outside of the 

primary public use areas on Kīlauea Point/Peninsula, it would likely have few direct impacts on 

wildlife-dependent public uses. However, these outside areas are typically of high habitat value and 

greater wildlife impacts would be expected in these areas. Additionally, if other visitors saw people 

outside the designated public use zones collecting plants, feathers, and potentially other natural 

resources, they might be inclined to also stray and imitate these activities. This would create 

unwanted law enforcement issues, expose visitors to potentially dangerous situations, and increase 

the likelihood of wildlife and habitat impacts.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-20 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kflauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Wildlife and Landscape Filming and Photography 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X 

proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW 1, section 1.6D. for description), X 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes __X_ No __ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate__ Appropriate____K__ 

Acting /. / 

Refuge Maliager: ~ ~ Date: 9/9 /(.S .- ----~~~ /~~-----

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

A compatibility determination is required before the us 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings 

Date: __ j..__/, ..6.-..:...."""' S __ _ 

A-21 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-22 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Commercial Wildlife and Landscape Filming and Photography 

Summary: The use evaluated herein for appropriateness is more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) for this use and the documents referenced in that CD. This use 

includes still and motion pictures, photographs captured using film and digital media, and audio 

recordings. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

This use would comply with applicable laws and regulations, including 50 CFR 29.1 (May we allow 

economic uses on national wildlife refuges?). Through distribution of images or other recordings of 

native sea- and shorebirds, threatened and endangered species of plants and animals, and the 

Refuge’s cultural heritage, commercial photography, filming, and audio recording have the potential 

to share Kīlauea Point’s valuable natural and cultural resources with a larger audience over a greater 

geographic area. This could enhance public understanding, appreciation, and support for native fish, 

wildlife, plants, their habitats, conservation, Kīlauea Point NWR, and the Refuge System. Where 

appropriately regulated to reduce or eliminate adverse effects, this would contribute to achievement 

of Refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission. 

Permittees would be required to secure and maintain the currency of all necessary local and State 

licenses, permits, and approvals. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

This use would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies. 

If found appropriate and determined compatible, commercial photography and videography would be 

authorized through issuance of a special use permit and permittees would be charged an appropriate 

fee. Fees would be charged, if necessary, following 43 CFR 5 (Commercial filming and similar 

projects and still photography on certain areas under department jurisdiction). 

This use is also consistent with Service policy on Audio-Visual Productions (8 RM 16). That policy 

states that such productions can increase public understanding of America’s wildlife and of the 

Service’s role in managing and protecting natural resources through the Refuge System. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

Some areas of the Refuge outside Kīlauea Point/Peninsula (where almost all of the public use 

currently occurs) contain natural safety hazards. Sites for photo/video shoots would need to be 

submitted in advance and approved by the Refuge manager. Permittees would be required to limit 

their use of the Refuge to specifically designated areas and access routes. With these conditions, this 

use would be consistent with public safety. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-23

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

The effects of this use upon biological resources would likely be associated with disturbance (e.g., 

sensitive wildlife and vegetation areas) or degradation (e.g., soil compaction). Stipulations necessary 

to ensure compatibility would be enforced to minimize impacts. This use may be denied or would be 

limited in space, time, or other manners such that effects on biological resources were avoided or 

greatly reduced. For example, areas that are open to this use would be evaluated on an annual, 

seasonal, and sometimes daily basis and would be influenced by wildlife use and habitat conditions.

It is expected that commercial recordings of Refuge sights and sounds would generate products that 

potentially would be broadly distributed through the market. To the extent that these images and 

recordings enhance public understanding and appreciation for the Refuge, Refuge System, native 

fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and conservation, this use would support 

Refuge goals 4 and 5. This use would not be inconsistent with any Refuge goals and objectives. 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

Business and commercial photography have previously been evaluated for compatibility and were 

determined compatible.

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

As discussed earlier, commercial photography, filming, and audio recording have the potential to 

share the Refuge’s valuable natural and cultural resources, and the conservation story with a larger 

audience over a greater geographic area. This could enhance public understanding and appreciation 

for the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources. This would be beneficial to those resources if it 

resulted in support for conservation of the Refuge’s native fish, wildlife, plants, habitats and cultural 

heritage.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

It is expected that the number of commercial photographers and videographers would not be large 

and their visits to the Refuge would not be frequent. Therefore, it is not expected that this use would 

impair existing wildlife-dependent recreation or reduce the potential for such uses into the future. 

However, this use could adversely affect quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

experiences by other visitors in some instances. For example, such effects could occur if a production 

company wished to film at the Refuge and that involved a large crew, and a substantial amount of 

time and equipment, or commercial photographers and videographers wanted to visit during Refuge 

special events, or they wished to conduct their activities in areas or at times closed to public use, but 

in full view of other visitors. In such cases, this use may be denied or would be limited in space, 

time, or other manners such that effects on other Refuge visitors were avoided or greatly reduced. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-24 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Tours 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with _public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X 

proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW I, section 1.6D. for description), X 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes __.x_ No __ _ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate __ 

Actmg 

Appropriate ____X_ 

Refuge Manager: ____..ij~~ 

Iffound to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Iffound to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Rofugo and Monumont Supocvi,m: tk., tJ. ~ Datoo __ t;-'-L- JA::..;;"--~-"-' 1 $""----

A compatibility determination is requircg before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-25 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-26 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Commercial tours 

Summary: The use evaluated herein for appropriateness is more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) for this use and the documents referenced in that CD. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

This use would comply with applicable laws and regulations, including 50 CFR 29.1 (May we allow 

economic uses on national wildlife refuges?). The Refuge currently experiences a significant amount 

of public use, a large proportion which occurs on Kīlauea Point/Peninsula. Commercial tours provide 

another opportunity for members of the public to enjoy the Refuge, perhaps as part of a larger 

birding, nature, cultural, or historic tour program that also visited areas elsewhere on Kaua‘i. During 

these tours, it is expected that the public would benefit from high-quality environmental and cultural 

interpretation and enjoy opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. These activities 

would provide good field opportunities to increase public understanding and appreciation for the 

Refuge System, Kīlauea Point NWR, sea- and shorebirds, endangered species, cultural resources, and 

the value of conservation. Where appropriately regulated to reduce or eliminate adverse effects, these 

activities would contribute to achievement of the Refuge’s purposes and the Refuge System mission. 

Permittees would be required to secure and maintain the currency of all necessary local and State 

licenses, permits, and approvals. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

This use would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies. 

If found appropriate and determined compatible, commercial tours would be authorized through 

issuance of special use permits. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

Due to the narrow road leading to Kīlauea Point/Peninsula and small parking area with limited 

spaces, use of full-sized buses to bring large groups of visitors to the Refuge could create traffic and 

safety conflicts with other Refuge visitors. Permit conditions would limit permittees to use of 

medium-sized vans or smaller vehicles to transport their clients to the Refuge. 

 

Permittees would also be required to limit their use of the Refuge to specifically designated areas and 

access routes, and understand and review with their clients Refuge rules and regulations and any 

hazardous conditions. A Refuge law enforcement monitoring program would help ensure compliance 

with these and other permit requirements. With these conditions, this use would be consistent with 

public safety. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-27

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

This use would not be inconsistent with any Refuge goals, and could potentially support goal 

numbers 4, 5, and 6 that address wildlife observation and photography, and environmental and 

cultural interpretation.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

This use (guided tours) has previously been evaluated for compatibility and was determined 

compatible.

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

As discussed earlier, commercial tours at the Refuge would provide the public with high-quality 

environmental and cultural interpretation and opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. 

This would contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation for the Refuge’s natural and 

cultural resources and provide the building blocks of support for Refuge resources and management 

programs. 

Surf schools currently using Kāhili Quarry would not be allowed on the Refuge in the future. This 

use does not enhance the Refuge visitor’s knowledge and enjoyment of the key natural resources, or 

support the mission of the Refuge and the Service, or other uses otherwise determined appropriate 

and compatible with the purposes for Refuge establishment. 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

Kīlauea Point/Peninsula area and existing facilities (e.g., parking area, visitor center, and contact 

station) are relatively small for the visitation the Refuge experiences (from 2010 to 2013, the visitor 

center averaged 189,963 visitors per year). The number of vehicles that can be safely accommodated 

on the access road and in the parking area, and the number of visitors who can enjoy a high-quality, 

wildlife-dependent educational or recreational experience onsite, are limited. As long as permit 

conditions limited group sizes, it would not be expected that commercially guided tours would impair 

existing wildlife-dependent recreation or reduce the potential for such uses into the future. If 

necessary, the frequency of commercial tours could also be limited in the future and such operations 

could be prohibited during Refuge special events. Additionally, new visitor facilities could address 

current capacity limitations.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-28 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: General Access for Off-Refuge Stream, Beach, and Ocean Uses (Kahili Quarry) 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X 

proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW 1, section 1.6D. for description), X 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No __ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

NXc'ffWgopriate__ Appropriate___x_ 

Refuge Manager: -~..C ~ Date: __ q-1:/'--9-r,f_;_s-__ _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Rofugo ond Monumont Supocvi,oc s-, t.J ~ Doto _ ___;'i;....:h....:. 'J....:. O..L/ .... l ... 5 ___ _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-29 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-30 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: General Access for Off-Refuge Stream, Beach, and Ocean Uses (Kāhili Quarry) 

Summary: The uses evaluated herein for appropriateness are use of the Refuge at Kāhili

Quarry/Mōkōlea Point to access off-Refuge opportunities for boating, fishing, surfing, swimming, 

snorkeling, sunbathing, and other stream, beach, and ocean uses at Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and 

Kīlauea River. General access through Kāhili Quarry/Mōkōlea Point may include driving vehicles 

through, parking vehicles on, and launching boats from Refuge property. Collectively, these uses are 

a popular, historic use of the area. These uses are more fully described and evaluated in the 

compatibility determination (CD) and the documents referenced in that CD. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

This is the first time that use of the Refuge to access off-Refuge lands and waters for boating and 

beach uses has been evaluated. Public access to the Quarry area for swimming and surfing along the 

eastside shoreline of Mōkōlea Point was evaluated for compatibility in 1994 and was determined to 

be compatible.

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

These uses would not directly contribute to their understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural and cultural resources. However, it is likely that visitors participating in these uses would 

observe and enjoy wildlife ancillary to their primary recreational activities. 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

People have used Kāhili Quarry and Quarry Road for access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea River, and 

Kīlauea Bay for many years. Some individuals park vehicles on the Refuge. Given the limited area 

available for parking, it is possible that this use could interfere with Refuge visitors who participate 

in wildlife-dependent recreation such as fishing at Kāhili Quarry. It is expected that allowing 

continued access and use through the Kāhili Quarry, with stipulations to ensure compatibility, would 

not impair existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reduce the potential to provide quality, 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-32 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Research and Scientific Collections 

Summary: The Refuge receives requests to conduct scientific research on Refuge lands. Research 

applicants must submit a proposal that outlines (1) objectives of the study; (2) justification for the 

study; (3) detailed methodology and schedule; (4) potential impacts to Refuge wildlife and/or habitat, 

including disturbance (short- and long-term), injury, or mortality; (5) personnel required; (6) costs to 

the Refuge, if any; and (7) end products expected (i.e., reports, publications). Research proposals 

would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others as appropriate prior to the Refuge issuing a special use 

permit (SUP). Projects will not be open-ended, and at a minimum, will be reviewed annually. The 

use evaluated herein for appropriateness is more fully described and evaluated in the compatibility 

determination (CD) for this use and the documents referenced in that CD. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

Some or all of the activities would take place within Refuge boundaries. The Refuge has jurisdiction 

over those research projects that are sited within Refuge boundaries. 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

Any research activities would comply with all applicable laws and regulations and any restrictions or 

qualifications that are required to comply with laws and regulations would be specified in the SUP. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies?

Through the review of individual projects, the Refuge would ensure that they are consistent with 

applicable policies, especially the Research on Service Lands Policy (803 FW 1). 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

Through individual project review, the Refuge will ensure that each project is consistent with public 

safety. If necessary, stipulations to ensure public safety will be included in the project’s SUP. 

Permittees would be required to limit their use of the Refuge to specifically designated areas and 

access routes, and review and understand Refuge rules and regulations, including any hazardous 

conditions. 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document?

Research activities are approved in instances where they can provide meaningful data that may 

contribute to Refuge management and public appreciation of natural resources. Research activities 

would be consistent with the research priorities described in approved management plans (e.g., Goal 

3 of Chapter 2, Gather scientific information to support adaptive management decisions). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-33

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

A number of research projects have been approved or denied in earlier analyses.

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff?

The Refuge regularly receives requests for this activity, and it is manageable with available budget 

and staff.

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources?

The activity at current levels would be manageable in the future with the existing resources. 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

The use is beneficial to the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources because the types of research 

projects approved are those that have the distinct likelihood of helping achieve Refuge purposes by 

providing information useful for the management of trust resources and contributing to the public’s 

understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources. This is beneficial because it 

enhances our appreciation for and often our ability to properly manage these resources. Research 

projects that did not result in these benefits would not be a priority for the Refuge and would likely 

not be authorized.

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

The Refuge would ensure that the research activities do not impair existing or future wildlifedependent recreational use of the Refuge during individual project review, prior to issuing the SUP 

for the project. With the exception of research aimed at evaluating effects of public uses on priority 

resources of concern (Chapter 2, Goal 3), general and project-specific stipulations and conditions of 

the research would not significantly impair existing public uses or reduce the potential to provide 

quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-34 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use 

Refuge Name: Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Traditional Cultural Practices 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already 

described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision criteria: YES 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other X 

document? 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been X 

proposed? 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existingresources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the Refuge's natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge's natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see 603 FW 1, section 1.6D. for description), X 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

NO 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use ("no" to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe ("no" to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is "no" to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x_ No __ _ 

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor's concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

~ot Appropriate __ ..t1.Ctmg 

Refuge Manager: ___.z::::..~-~ 

Appropriate _X_ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor musts· 

Refuge and Monument Supervisor: __,/3. -== e-:=......-=---""---:~-= 7 A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

FWS Form 3-2319 

02/06 

Appendix A Appropriate Use Findings 

Date:. __ 'i!...C'-'-__, ~ /Jt....:.r..-S.__ __ 

A-35 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-36 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings

Finding of Appropriateness of a Refuge Use

Supplement to FWS Form 3-2319 

Further Explanation of Answers Provided for the Decision Criteria:

Project: Traditional Cultural Practices

Summary: The use evaluated herein for appropriateness involves participation in traditional 

Hawaiian cultural practices on Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. Such practices include 

fishing with hook and line, throw net, spear, or shellfish-gathering at Kīlauea (East) Cove and 

collection of plant materials, feathers, and possibly other natural resources (e.g., stone, shells, bone) 

from areas of the Refuge that are open to public use. Participants use these resources for subsistence, 

ceremonial, decorative, medicinal, or other purposes. Traditional cultural practices may also include 

site-specific ceremonial access.

The use is more fully described and evaluated in the compatibility determination (CD) for this use, 

titled “Traditional Cultural Practices” and the documents referenced in that CD. 

For the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319 and if deemed necessary, a justification has been 

provided below: 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

This use would comply with applicable laws and regulations. 

Anglers would be required to secure and have with them relevant State fishing licenses and any other 

permits needed to fish in the ocean from the Refuge, and to abide by Hawaiʻi fishing regulations. 

Unless accompanied by official Refuge personnel, each participant will be issued and need to sign an 

annual special use permit (SUP). 

Federal regulations prohibit collecting plant materials and other natural resources on refuges in the 

absence of specific authorization (“Disturbing, injuring, and damaging plants and animals,” 50 CFR 

27.51). Official authorization to access the Refuge for natural resource collection as part of 

traditional cultural practices will occur through issuance of a SUP, unless accompanied by official 

Refuge personnel. 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies?

This use would be consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies, 

including the policy on “Administration of Specialized Uses” (5 RM 17). If found appropriate and 

determined compatible, traditional cultural practices would be authorized by the Refuge manager. 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety?

Access to Kīlauea (East) Cove (Cove) for fishing requires anglers to traverse the face of the Cove’s 

steep cliffs along a narrow trail. The Cove is a traditional native Hawaiian fishing site that has been 

in use for many years. Existing and proposed use of this trail is by individuals who have personal 

knowledge and a lengthy family history of using this traditional Hawaiian fishing site, are aware of 

the safety risks, and are required to sign a liability release (“Release From Injury” form). Currently, 

anglers pull aside a short section of safety fence to access the trail. Other Refuge visitors could see 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings A-37

anglers crossing through the fence and attempt to do so themselves, potentially creating new safety 

issues.

To ensure this use remained safe into the future, access to the Cove for this traditional cultural 

practice would be limited to a small number of individuals who have personal or family knowledge 

of the access trail (i.e., individuals and families of native Hawaiian heritage who have genealogical 

ties to the local community, that is, the Kīlauea and Kāhili Ahupua‘a or surrounding ahupua‘a 

including Namahana, Kalihiwai, Kalihikai, Waiakalua, and Pīla‘a [Wilson and Jay 2010]). 

Additionally, access through the fence would need to be better secured. 

It is not expected that a limited amount of resource collection would generate any public safety 

issues.

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed?

Fishing at Kīlauea (East) Cove has previously been evaluated for compatibility and was determined 

compatible. This is the first time that resource collection has been evaluated.

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources?

Allowing traditional cultural practices would contribute to the understanding and appreciation of the 

Refuge’s natural and cultural resources by those individuals who participated. Additionally, others 

who indirectly benefitted from these practices would also be expected to have an enhanced 

understanding and appreciation for the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources. Such beneficiaries 

could include family, friends, and other community members who got to enjoy some of the harvested 

fish or shellfish, or individuals who benefitted from the ceremonial, decorative, medicinal, or other 

purposes for which resource collections were made. 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

As noted above, anglers crossing through the fence to access the Cove for fishing could encourage 

other Refuge visitors to also cross through the fence to access the Cove trail. This could create new 

safety issues. If resource collecting occurred in areas readily seen by other Refuge visitors, these 

other visitors could easily become confused regarding what activities are and are not allowed on the 

Refuge, and this could increase the amount of unauthorized collections that occurred. The fence issue 

could be addressed by better securing the access point and the second issue could be addressed with 

additional visitor information, interpretation, or law enforcement, as necessary. 

It is expected that participation in these uses would be limited; therefore, these issues would be 

expected to be minor and not impair existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reduce the 

potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. 

Literature Cited 

Wilson, J. and J. Jay. 2010. Moku & Ahupuaa of Kaua‘i Island Aha Kiole Advisory Committee. 

Mapping by IslandBreath. http://www.islandbreath.org/2010Year/04/100415kauaimokupuni.png. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

A-38 Appendix A. Appropriate Use Findings
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-1 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

B.1 Introduction

The compatibility determinations (CD) we developed during the CCP planning process evaluate uses 

as projected to occur under Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative in the draft CCP/EA, for the 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or NWR) (USFWS 2015), which was carried 

forward as the management direction for the Refuge in this CCP. The evaluation of funds needed for 

management and implementation of each use is described in Appendix C, Implementation. Chapter 6 

of the draft CCP/EA also contained analysis of the impacts of public uses to wildlife and habitats. 

That document is incorporated through reference into this set of CDs. 

B.1.1 Uses Evaluated At This Time

The following section includes full CDs for all uses at Kīlauea Point NWR that are required to be 

evaluated at this time. According to Service policy, CDs are to be completed for all uses proposed 

under a CCP that have been determined to be appropriate. Existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses must also be re-evaluated and new CDs prepared during development of a CCP. According to 

the Service’s compatibility policy, uses other than wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not 

explicitly required to be re-evaluated in concert with preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the 

use have changed or unless significant new information relative to the use and its effects have 

become available or the existing CDs are more than 10 years old. However, Service planning policy 

recommends preparing CDs for all individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses 

associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this document 

for public review. 

Table B-1. Summary of Compatibility Determinations.

Refuge Use Compatible? Year Due for 

Reevaluation

Commercial Wildlife and Landscape Filming and Photography Yes 2025

Commercial Tours Yes 2025

Environmental Education Yes 2030

Fishing and Shellfishing Yes 2030

General Access for Off-Refuge Stream, Beach, and Ocean Uses

(Kāhili Quarry)

Yes 2025

Research and Scientific Collections Yes 2025

Traditional Cultural Practices (Natural Resource Collecting) Yes 2025

Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation Yes 2030

Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) Yes 2025

B.1.2 Compatibility–Legal and Historical Context

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of national wildlife refuges. Compatibility is not new to 

the Refuge System and dates back to 1918 as a concept. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses 

of refuge lands that were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-2 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations

Legally, national wildlife refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a CD. 

Regulations require that adequate funds be available for administration and protection of refuges 

before opening them to any public uses. However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation) are to 

receive enhanced consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless 

the refuge has made a concerted effort to seek out funds from all potential partners. Once found 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at the refuge. If 

a proposed use is found not compatible, the refuge manager is legally precluded from approving it. 

Economic uses that are conducted by or authorized by the refuge also require CDs. 

Under the compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or 

management use of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing 

an economic return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to 

CDs. The Service does not prepare CDs for uses when the Service does not have jurisdiction. For 

example, the Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas where property rights are vested 

by others, where legally binding agreements exist, or where there are treaty rights held by tribes. In 

addition, aircraft overflights, emergency actions, some activities on navigable waters, and activities 

by other Federal agencies on “overlay refuges” are exempt from the compatibility review process. 

New compatibility regulations, required by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 (Improvement Act), were adopted by the Service in October 2000 (http://refuges.fws.gov/ 

policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The regulations require that a use must be compatible with both the 

mission of the Refuge System and the purpose(s) of the individual refuge. This standard helps to 

ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. The Improvement Act also requires that 

CDs be in writing and that the public have an opportunity to comment on most use evaluations. 

The Refuge System mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of 

primary consideration. The Improvement Act defined a compatible use as one that “. . . in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge.” Sound professional judgment 

is defined under the Improvement Act as “. . . a finding, determination, or decision, that is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources . . .” Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may depend on the level or extent 

of a use. 

Court interpretations of the compatibility standard have found that compatibility is a biological 

standard and cannot be used to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational interests against 

the primary purpose of the refuge (Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge)). The 

Service recognizes that CDs are complex. For this reason, refuge managers are required to consider 

“principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best available science” in making these 

determinations (House of Representatives Report 105-106). Evaluations of the existing uses on the 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge are based on the professional judgment of Refuge and 

planning personnel, including observations of Refuge uses and reviews of relevant scientific 

literature. 

In July 2006, the Service published its Appropriate Refuge Uses policy (603 FW 1). Under this 

policy, most proposed uses must also undergo a review prior to compatibility. Uses excepted from 

the policy include priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses, and uses under reserved rights—see 

policy for more detail. Appropriate Refuge Uses Findings are in Appendix A. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations B-3 

B.2 References

Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus (Ruby Lake Refuge I). 11 Envtl. Rptr. Case 2098 (D.D.C. 1978), 

p. 873. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 646 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-4 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-5 

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Commercial Wildlife and Landscape Filming and Photography (photography, video, filming, or 

audio recording—commercial)

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act) 

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 43, Subpart A, Section 5.12 (last updated 

by Federal Register dated August 22, 2013), commercial filming is defined as “the film, electronic, 

magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-6 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, 

feature film, videography, television broadcast, or documentary, or other similar projects. 

Commercial filming activities may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of 

actors, models, sets, or props.” The Commercial Filming Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460l–6d) defines 

commercial filming to include specific activities, such as filming activity that consumes more than a 

single day, and includes a film crew and special equipment, still photography that occurs in places 

where members of the public are generally not allowed, and still photography that uses models or 

props that are not part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. Service 

policy defines commercial photography to mean, “...a visual recording (motion or still) by firms or 

individuals (other than news media representatives) who intend to distribute their photographic 

content for money or other consideration. This includes the creation of educational, entertainment, or 

commercial enterprises as well as advertising audio-visuals for the purpose of paid product or 

services, publicity, and commercially oriented photo contests” (Wildlife Photography, 605 FW 5). 

For purposes of this compatibility determination (CD), commercial wildlife and landscape filming 

and photography include recording sights or sounds for commercial purposes. This includes still and 

motion pictures, photographs captured using film and digital media, and audio recordings. The use 

typically involves filming scenes for a movie, television show, public education program, or 

commercial; taking still photographs; or recording natural sounds for commercial purposes. The final 

creation would be produced for sale as a commercial product. This use is regulated by Refuge 

Manual (RM) Part 8, Chapter 16, and 43 CFR 5 This does not include image and audio recordings of 

a noncommercial nature. Official authorization to access the Refuge for commercial photography and 

videography will occur through issuance of a special use permit (SUP). 

This use will occur in areas of the Refuge specified in the SUP. The use could occur at many 

locations on the Refuge, including areas open to the general public and closed areas. Areas open to 

general public use include Kīlauea Point (Point), the cul-de-sac (turnaround) at the end of Kīlauea 

Road (Overlook), Kāhili Quarry area, and a trail on Crater Hill during guided interpretive hikes. 

Availability of Resources: 

Permit-holders for commercial filming and photography are required to pay a location fee and 

reimburse the Refuge for expenses incurred, according to 43 CFR 5. Location fees will be assessed in 

accordance with a fee schedule published in the Federal Register. The fee schedule may be adjusted 

annually. The location fee charged will be in lieu of any entrance or other special use fee; however 

the location fee is in addition to any cost recovery amount (i.e., actual costs incurred in processing 

and administering the permit; see below). 

The Administration of Specialized Uses (5 RM 17) policy requires that a refuge seek to recover its 

costs associated with administration of such a use and/or charge a fee equal to the fair market value 

of the benefit received by the user. Benefits provided to the Service by a refuge use are considered in 

establishing appropriate fees. Direct and indirect costs to administer this use on the Refuge include 

the following: 

• Costs associated with construction, repair, operation, and maintenance of associated 

facilities;

• Salaries and associated employee expenses related to evaluation of the proposed use 

(including appropriateness finding, CD, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, 

and policies such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-7 

National Historic Preservation Act) and development of the SUP; 

• Salaries and associated employee expenses related to monitoring of this use to ensure that 

permit requirements are followed and that the use remains compatible. This includes 

evaluation of effects of this use on the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, and 

compatible, especially wildlife-dependent, public use; 

• Use-related supplies, equipment, and travel; and

• An applicable portion of Refuge overhead costs. 

Following is an estimate of costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Permit administration and oversight by GS-13 Project Leader

(approximately 20 hours/year).

$1,200

2. Permit administration and oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader 

(approximately 20 hours/year).

$1,000

3. Permit administration and oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger 

(approximately 40 hours/year). $1,400

4. Permit administration by GS-4 Budget Clerk (approximately 20 

hours/year)

$400

5. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 40 

hours/year). $1,500

6. Permit monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 20 hours/year). $900

7. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $1,300

Total Costs $7,700

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

Fee revenues collected from commercial uses of this nature are not retained by the Refuge. Instead, 

these monies are deposited into the U.S. Treasury Department’s National Wildlife Refuge Fund. 

Monies from this fund are used for redistribution to refuges to help offset the costs of administering 

specialized uses (Expenses for Sales) and for payments in lieu of taxes to counties or other local 

governments under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. 

Commercial image and audio recording has the potential to share the Refuge’s valuable natural and 

cultural resources with a larger audience over a greater geographic area. This could enhance public 

understanding, appreciation, and support for native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, the Refuge’s 

cultural heritage, conservation, and the Refuge System. To the extent that this occurred, it will be a 

benefit to the Refuge. Permit fees could be adjusted to acknowledge such a benefit. 

The Refuge currently has adequate budget and staff to support limited commercial use of this nature. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

It is expected that commercial recording of Refuge sights and sounds will generate products that 

potentially will be broadly distributed through the market. To the extent that these images and 

recordings enhanced the public’s connection with wildlife, habitats, and cultural and historic richness 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-8 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

of the Refuge, and helped interpret the Refuge’s cultural resources, this use supports Refuge goals 4 

and 5. To the extent that these images and recordings enhanced public understanding and 

appreciation for conservation or the Refuge System, this use also supports the Refuge System 

mission.

The effects of commercial photography and videography upon wildlife will likely be associated with 

disturbance. Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among 

other variables, the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if 

applicable); the surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, 

noise, nature, and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal 

(Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and 

Cole 1995b). Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral 

changes including nest abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, physiological 

changes such as elevated heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even 

death (Belanger and Bedard 1990, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 

1998, Miller and Hobbs 2000, Morton et al. 1989, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term 

effects are more difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of 

individuals; altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community 

species composition and interactions.

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows within 

13 feet of visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended minimum 

approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes schlegeli) 

colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart rate in the 

birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo penguins 

(Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in penguin 

colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely observing 

a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al. 

1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance of observers from the birds (positively correlated) 

and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 2004). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threats, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-9 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) numbers are increasing in the 

main Hawaiian Islands, especially on and around Ni‘ihau and Kaua‘i (NMFS 2007, Baker and 

Johanos 2003). Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are very sensitive to human disturbance 

(NMFS 2007) and disturbance of female adults with pups is of special concern (Gilmartin 2003). 

Seals may also injure people. Seals haul out on land to rest, molt, or pup. Approaching photographers 

could force hauled-out seals to move back into the water and seek a new haul-out site, causing them 

to expend energy and increasing their exposure to predators. Repeated disturbance over time can 

cause seals to abandon preferred haul-out sites (Gilmartin 2003). It is generally recommended that 

individuals viewing or photographing seals and sea turtles maintain a distance of at least 50 yards 

from the animals and limit their viewing/photographing time to no more than 30 minutes (NOAA 

undated, NOAA Fisheries et al. undated; “Hawai‘i Viewing Guidelines: Overview, Marine Mammal 

& Sea Turtle Viewing ‘Code of Conduct’” at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/education/Hawai‘i/). 

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007, DeLong 2002, Knight and Cole 1995a). Observers and photographers often want to enhance 

their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause increased 

stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood-rearing, disturbance can 

cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face 

survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 

Commercial photography and videography could also cause trampling of native plants, erosion, and 

introduction or spread of nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species. All 

of these impacts will adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and are of special 

concern in Refuge areas struggling with re-establishment of native plant communities. The degree of 

actual effects upon reproduction, survival of individuals, and diversity and abundance of native 

species (community health) will depend on specific circumstances. Except with special permission, 

commercial photographers will be required to behave like other visitors, including remaining behind 

the perimeter fencing on the Point, not crossing fences elsewhere on the Refuge, and otherwise 

abiding by closed area signage. These and other stipulations associated with this use have been 

designed to greatly reduce the likelihood and magnitude of potential effects by commercial 

photography and videography on biological resources, including roosting, foraging, and breeding 

birds. 

The Refuge has substantial and, in some areas, dense populations of burrow-nesting seabirds. 

Although some burrows lie on the Point adjacent to the area heavily used by Refuge visitors, the vast 

majority of the burrows are elsewhere, in less disturbed areas of the Refuge, such as Crater Hill. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-10 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

Humans casually walking through nesting colonies could easily crush burrows, destroy nests and 

eggs, and kill young or adult seabirds. 

Crater Hill grasslands are primarily composed of nonnative species such as Kikuyu grass 

(Pennisetum clandestinum); however, these areas provide actual and potential habitat for roosting, 

foraging, and breeding activities by nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis), mōlī (Laysan 

albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis), and shorebirds. Additionally, major efforts have been 

undertaken to reintroduce native plants to this area. Areas on the Point and the core of the Kāhili

Quarry that receive almost all of the Refuge’s visitation are hardened and therefore experience very 

few effects from public use. However, access to Crater Hill by commercial photographers will

increase the potential for erosion and compaction of trails, for crushing of nesting burrows, and for 

disturbance to native birds using the grasslands and to outplanting of native vegetation. Access to 

Crater Hill for this use will be limited in frequency, guided, and appropriately scheduled to minimize 

adverse effects.

Public Uses

If commercial photography and videography occurred in closed areas where it was readily seen by 

other Refuge visitors, these other visitors could easily become confused regarding where activities 

are and are not allowed on the Refuge. This could increase the occurrence of unauthorized access, 

and impacts to native wildlife and plants. Additionally, if a production company wished to film at the 

Refuge and that involved a large crew, and a substantial amount of time and equipment, or 

commercial photographers and videographers wanted to visit during Refuge special events, these 

activities could adversely affect quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational experiences 

by other Refuge visitors. As noted above, stipulations associated with these uses will require visitors 

to remain behind the perimeter fencing on the Point, not cross fences, and otherwise abide by closed 

area signage elsewhere on the Refuge. These use conditions will greatly reduce potential public 

safety concerns. Stipulations associated with commercial photography and videography will limit 

this use such that effects on other Refuge visitors were avoided or greatly reduced. 

Cultural Resources 

The Refuge contains a number of historic and prehistoric resources, including the Kīlauea Point 

Light Station (the lighthouse and associated Coast Guard facilities on the Point) that was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places as a historic district in 1979 (USFWS 2006). To the extent that 

SUPs included clear maps depicting areas permittees were authorized to access and use, and 

permittees were aware of prohibitions related to cultural resources, impacts to these resources are not 

expected. Potentially commercial photography and videography could enhance public knowledge of 

and appreciation for the Refuge’s cultural resources. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-11

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Permission to use the Refuge for commercial image and audio recording will be officially 

authorized through issuance of an SUP to minimize the possibility of damage to cultural or 

natural resources or interference with other visitors to the area. Requests must be submitted in 

writing to the Refuge manager no less than 60 days prior to the requested date(s). Each request 

will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Permits may be approved or denied based on the 

availability of Refuge staff and resources to administer this use. As appropriate, each permit will

authorize a one-time use or repeated uses over a period not to exceed 1 year. SUPs will cover use 

by a specified individual or organization and cannot be assigned or sub-permitted to others (i.e., 

the permit is not transferable). 

Prior to potential permit renewal, Refuge staff will meet with permittees to share new 

information, discuss results of monitoring, review compliance with permit conditions, and 

address other issues. Other meetings will be scheduled as needed.

2. Permittees will be charged a location fee (in accordance with a fee schedule published in the 

Federal Register) and a fee equal to the fair market value of the use, an amount to cover Refuge 

costs associated with administration of the use, or another fee, consistent with applicable Service 

policy (Administration of Specialized Uses, 5 RM 17). It will benefit the Refuge if commercial 

image and audio recording generated and broadly distributed quality products that enhanced the 

public’s understanding, appreciation, and support for the Refuge’s native fish, wildlife, plants, 

their habitats, the Refuge’s cultural heritage, conservation, Kīlauea Point NWR, and the Refuge 

System. Permit fees could be adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific details 

of each permit to acknowledge such a benefit. The fee must be paid before the SUP will be 

issued. 

3. All activities must comply with 8 RM 16 and 43 CFR 5.1 and may require completion of a 

Commercial Audio-Visual Production Application and posting of a bond. 

4. Prior to recording, permittees will provide the Refuge manager with a copy of their current 

liability insurance policy. The Refuge must be named as an additional insured on the policy for 

the duration of the production. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-12 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

5. Permittees must have the SUP in their possession at all times while on the Refuge. A copy of the 

permit must also be prominently displayed on the dashboard of permittees’ vehicle(s) at all times 

while on the Refuge. The permit must be presented to Refuge officials upon request. 

6. The Refuge will provide permittees with information about the Refuge: its purposes and goals, 

natural and cultural resources of concern, open and closed areas and times, rules and regulations, 

and any hazardous conditions. Permittees are expected to review, understand, and comply with 

Refuge rules and safety, interpretive, regulatory, and other signage. 

7. Sites for photo/video shoots will be submitted in advance and approved by the Refuge manager. 

Most of Kīlauea Point NWR is closed to general public use, so SUPs will include maps clearly 

depicting the areas permittees will be authorized to access and use, including the Refuge entry 

point(s). Travel within the Refuge will be by designated road, parking lot, and/or trail. 

Permission to access Refuge closed areas will be designed to minimize effects on biological and 

cultural resources and visitors. Permission will generally not be granted to access areas on the 

Point outside the public safety fence, Mōkōlea Point, Makapili Rock, or the northern shoreline. 

Permission to access Crater Hill will require use of a guide(s) (Refuge staff or trained volunteer) 

and will be scheduled to avoid impacts to seabirds and nēnē. In the absence of specific, prior 

written approval of the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the Refuge 

manager is the Project Leader of Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex), permittees are 

prohibited from straying outside the areas depicted on the maps or accessing the Refuge at times 

it was closed.

8. No sound-making or lighting devices are permitted, unless specifically authorized by the Refuge 

manager. 

9. Only commercial filming and photography in support of conservation, Refuge purposes, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, or for educational and interpretive purposes will be 

permitted. 

10. Permittees are required to secure and maintain the currency of all licenses, permits, and approvals 

required by State and local governments to engage in the commercial activities they are

proposing or pursuing.

11. Permittees are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures or altering the 

landscape (e.g., by moving natural or built features or through cutting or removal of vegetation) 

on the Refuge without specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager. 

12. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, permittees are 

prohibited from collecting and removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, abiotic or 

biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge. 

13. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on Refuges 

(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k]—Solid 

Waste (Nonhazardous), 561 FW 5), permittees are prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, 

abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Refuge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-13

14. Permittees are required to hold the United States Government harmless from any damages or 

injury to the permittee or members of the general public in areas and facilities accessed via the 

terms of their permit. 

15. In addition to the stipulations listed here, the general permit conditions and requirements, and the 

SUP, all visitors are required to comply with Refuge System-related and other applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(50 CFR 27). 

16. No changes can be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

Commercial Image and Audio Recording 

1. The Refuge will provide photographers and others who made audio or video recordings on the 

Refuge with information about its valuable biological and cultural resources, and about 

responsible behavior when viewing and photographing or recording these resources. This could 

include, for example, the “Principles of Ethical Field Practices” developed by the North 

American Nature Photography Association. Among others, these principles include not 

distressing or otherwise interfering with animal behaviors, using telephoto lenses to photograph 

animals, and adhering to local regulatory requirements. 

2. Permittees who make audio or video recordings on the Refuge will be requested to label the 

location of photographs or other recordings as Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, 

Hawai‘i, use Hawaiian names (perhaps in addition to English and Latin names) for native 

wildlife and plant species photographed or recorded, include a conservation message with 

photographs and recordings, and mention that there is limited general public access to the 

Refuge. 

3. Permittees who make audio or video recordings on the Refuge will be requested to allow the 

Service to use selected photographs or other recordings, with attribution, for educational, 

interpretive, and other Refuge management purposes. 

 

4. Permittees who make audio or video recordings on the Refuge will be requested to donate 

selected photographs or other recordings to the Refuge Friends group to be used, with attribution, 

for educational, interpretive, and potentially fund-raising purposes. 

5. Permittees who make audio or video recordings on the Refuge are prohibited from using feed or 

call playback recordings to attract wildlife. 

6. Permittees are prohibited from obstructing Refuge areas of value for other visitors who are

participating in observation, photography, interpretation, education, or other approved uses. 

Permittees are also prohibited from engaging in active business or political operations while on 

the Refuge, such as soliciting alms and contributions, campaigning for election to any public 

office, collecting private debts, soliciting and vending for commercial purposes (including, but 

not limited to, the vending of newspapers and other publications), displaying or distributing 

commercial advertising, collecting signatures on petitions, polls, or surveys (except in association 

with Refuge monitoring and as authorized by the Refuge manager). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-14 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

7. If, in selected cases, it was determined that commercial photography and videography could 

conflict with the enjoyment of quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational 

experiences by other Refuge visitors, the Refuge manager could deny permission for these 

commercial uses. Examples include using the Refuge during Refuge special events and filming 

by a production company that involved a large crew and/or a substantial amount of time and 

equipment. 

8. All commercial photography and videography activities will avoid sensitive areas prone to 

disturbance (e.g., sensitive vegetation areas) or degradation (e.g., soil compaction), and will be 

designed to minimize impacts to nesting birds or other breeding, feeding, or resting wildlife. 

Areas that are open to this use will be evaluated on an annual, seasonal, and sometimes daily 

basis. Seasonal closures may vary year-to-year based on wildlife use and habitat conditions. 

Permittees will be expected to comply with closures. 

9. When photographing critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu (Chelonia mydas), 

whether these animals are in the water or on shore, permittees are required to maintain a distance 

of at least 50 yards and limit their viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes (NOAA undated). 

‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu are both listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ‘ilioholo-i-ka-uaua is also listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These acts have 

mechanisms to encourage management for population growth and recovery and to prohibit any 

form of "take," except for limited exceptions authorized under Federal permits. Under the ESA, 

"take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Under the MMPA, "take" includes actions such as hunting, 

harassing, killing, capturing, injuring, and disturbing a marine mammal. There are established 

civil and criminal penalties for, at a minimum, disturbing ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu by getting 

too close or staying too long, which alters their behavior, thus resulting in take. If ‘īlio-holo-i-kauaua or honu display signs of being disturbed, then that 50 yards will be expanded and/or 

viewing will be minimized or shut down to stop the disturbance and avoid potential take.

Cultural Resources 

1. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, permittees are 

prohibited from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric, historic, or other 

cultural resources on the Refuge. In the event such resources were inadvertently disturbed in the 

course of conducting otherwise permitted activities, the disturbing activity will need to be 

immediately discontinued, and the Refuge manager will need to be notified within 24 hours. If 

iwi (skeletal human remains) are encountered, the activity will need to be immediately stopped 

and the Refuge manager, police, and Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources should 

be notified. Collecting and removing any prehistoric or historic artifacts is prohibited. 

Justification:

As discussed earlier, commercial photography, filming, and audio recording have the potential to 

share Kīlauea Point NWR’s valuable natural and cultural resources, and the conservation story, with 

a larger audience over a greater geographic area. This could enhance public understanding and 

appreciation for the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, and increase support for conservation of 

the Refuge’s native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and its cultural heritage. This is consistent 

with Service policy on Audio-Visual Productions (8 RM 16) that states such productions can increase 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-15

public understanding of America’s wildlife and of the Service’s role in managing and protecting 

natural resources through the Refuge System. 

This use has the potential to generate effects on fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and cultural 

resources. The stipulations enumerated above, including Refuge information, behavioral guidance, 

use of maps, specific prohibitions, and monitoring, will greatly reduce or eliminate adverse effects 

and help enhance potential beneficial effects.

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. Violation of any of 

these stipulations could result in temporary or permanent withdrawal by appropriate Refuge 

personnel of official permission to continue this use on the Refuge. Permits could be revoked by the 

Refuge manager with 30-days written notice of noncompliance with these stipulations. 

The Refuge will monitor habitat quantity and quality, wildlife use and productivity, and other 

relevant endpoints to determine if these stipulations for commercial image and audio recording result 

in expected and desirable outcomes. In consultation with permittees, the Refuge will apply adaptive 

management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable 

results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of this use. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as a 

result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; changes to commercial image or audio recording or related practices; mutual 

agreement with the permittees; or for other legitimate reasons. Except in the case of emergencies, 

permittees will be advised of new or significantly modified stipulations at least 90 days prior to their 

becoming effective. 

Compatibility Standard

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, commercial photography, filming, and audio recording need to 

be determined compatible. By allowing these uses to occur under the stipulations described above, it 

is anticipated that wildlife which could be disturbed will find sufficient food resources and resting 

places so that their abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, 

it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, 

wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and public use. For the several reasons stated above 

and consistent with the stipulations described herein, these uses will not materially interfere with or 

detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; 

fulfillment of Kīlauea Point NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-16 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Commercial Wildlife and Landscape Filming and Photography 

(photography, video, filming, or audio recording- commercial) 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

-<'1cr 1/Jg 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

~~~ c --e:;:-

( Signature) (Date) 7 

(Signature B~ t.J- ~2) (Date) 

(Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations-Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-17 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-18 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

References Cited:

Baker, J.D. and T.C. Johanos. 2003. Distribution and Abundance of Hawaiian Monk Seals in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands. In Final Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on 

Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI.

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA.

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds – A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Gilmartin, W.G. 2003. Responses of Monk Seals to Human Disturbance and Handling. In Final 

Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on Beaches in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography B-19

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59–F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries), NOAA’s National 

Marine Sanctuaries, State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, and U.S. Coast 

Guard. Undated. Protect Marine Wildlife While Enjoying Their Natural Beauty, Hawai‘i Marine 

Mammal & Sea Turtle Viewing Guidelines. Brochure. Honolulu, HI. 

NOAA. Undated. Responsibly Watching California’s Marine Wildlife, Draft Handbook for Ocean 

Users. Available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/national/ww_handbook.pdf. 

North American Nature Photography Association. Undated. Principles of Ethical Field Practices. 

Available at http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-20 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Wild. and Land. Filming and Photography

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – 

Nomination Form. Supplementary listing record for Kīlauea Point Light Station. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-21

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Commercial Tours 

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

This use is any fee-based service providing recreational, educational, or interpretive enjoyment of 

Refuge lands and waters to the visiting public such as transportation, interpretation, educational 

materials, and programs. The services must aim to enhance the Refuge visitor’s knowledge and 

enjoyment of the key natural resources and the mission of Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-22 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

(Kīlauea Point NWR; Refuge) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Other uses may be 

determined appropriate and compatible with the purposes of Refuge establishment, including guided 

wildlife observation or photography, natural history or cultural history tours, transport of individuals 

or groups (most commonly by bus or van) to or from Refuge lands for wildlife observation or 

photography, nature study or interpretation, and other wildlife-oriented activities. 

The use may be conducted by a Service conservation partner, concessionaire, or private business, but 

will fall under the general heading of ecotourism. In all cases, participants pay a fee to the individual 

guide, business, or nonprofit organization for the unique skills, equipment, and expertise of the leader 

who enhances the experience of the participating individual or party on Refuge lands. 

Ecotourism involves travel to natural areas to foster environmental and cultural understanding, 

appreciation, and conservation. These operations are often conducted on a commercial basis, often 

attempt to integrate the local community in their ventures, and attempt to conduct their activities in 

an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner. They routinely include natural and cultural 

educational or interpretive components and offer wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

In contrast with more traditional tourism, these ventures are usually much smaller in scale. 

Areas open to general public use include Kīlauea Point (Point), the cul-de-sac (turnaround) at the end 

of Kīlauea Road (Overlook), Kāhili Quarry area, and a trail on Crater Hill during guided interpretive 

hikes. It is possible that some tours could also occur at times or in areas of the Refuge that are closed. 

This will provide individuals and small groups with access to areas that generally are not available to 

the public at large. At present, at least five different companies utilize the Point for commercial tours; 

an unknown but larger number of companies visit the Overlook. 

Commercial tours will likely take advantage of Kīlauea Point NWR’s multiple opportunities for 

observation, photography, and interpretation. The Point, where almost all public use at the Refuge 

occurs, offers outstanding opportunities for observation and photography of a diversity of native 

seabirds, nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis), and sometimes shorebirds, whales, dolphins, 

seals, and sea turtles; the Kīlauea Point Light Station; and classic Hawaiian coastal scenery, 

including undeveloped bluffs, the remnant walls of an ancient volcano, rocky beaches, and nearshore 

ocean and islands. 

Facilities on the Point that support observation, photography, and interpretation include the 

Overlook, access road, two parking areas, fee station, visitor center, contact station, outdoor 

interpretive panels, viewing scopes, paved trails, perimeter safety fence, restrooms, and recycling and 

trash receptacles. The visitor center includes indoor interpretive exhibits and a bookstore. The contact 

station has displays, information about the Refuge and lighthouse, and interpretive videos. At the fee 

station, visitor center, and contact station, visitors can secure brochures with information about the 

Refuge and its valuable natural and cultural resources. This area is accessed from the town of Kīlauea 

via Kīlauea Road. Visitors are assessed a fee to enter the main public use area on the Point and a fee 

will be charged for limited Crater Hill hikes (except during National Wildlife Refuge Week). 

In the long-term, under the management direction of the CCP, a potential new offsite visitor center

and other facilities will provide visitor contact, orientation and information, fee collection, restrooms, 

bookstore/retail space, and tour bus parking. Under this management direction, parking for private 

automobiles and tour buses on the Point will potentially be eliminated, and visitors will access the 

Refuge primarily via a shuttle from Kīlauea town and/or the new visitor center. On the Point, the 

existing visitor center will be remodeled to provide interpretive exhibits and displays, interpretation 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-23

at the contact station will be expanded, and one of the former lighthouse quarters will be restored and 

converted into a living history site. Signage at the Overlook will be enhanced to provide more 

information and interpretation. In addition, efforts will be made to increase opportunities for up-close 

wildlife observation and photography (e.g., with remote cameras and observation/photo blinds). As a 

result of these changes, it is expected that the number and quality of observation, photography, and 

interpretive opportunities will substantially increase. 

Operating a commercial program on a refuge or a program that facilitates public access to a refuge in 

areas or at times that it is closed is a specialized use under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

policy (Administration of Specialized Uses, 5 RM 17). To the extent that this use facilitates a 

program on a refuge, it is also an economic use under relevant Federal regulation (50 CFR 29.1). 

Before being allowed on the Refuge, this use will first need to be found appropriate (Appropriate 

Refuge Uses, 603 FW 1) and then be determined compatible (Compatibility, 603 FW 2). Official 

authorization to access the Refuge for this use will occur through issuance of an SUP.

Availability of Resources: 

The Administration of Specialized Uses (5 RM 17) policy requires that a refuge seek to recover its 

costs associated with administration of such a use and/or charge a fee equal to the fair market value 

of the benefit received by the user. Benefits provided to the Service by a refuge use are considered in 

establishing appropriate fees. Direct and indirect costs to administer this use on the Refuge include 

the following: 

• Costs associated with construction, repair, operation, and maintenance of associated 

facilities;

• Salaries and associated employee expenses related to evaluation of the proposed use 

(including appropriateness finding, compatibility determination, and compliance with 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies such as the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)) 

and development of the SUP; 

• Salaries and associated employee expenses related to monitoring of this use to ensure that 

permit requirements are followed and that the use remains compatible. This includes 

evaluation of effects of this use on the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources, and 

compatible, especially wildlife-dependent, public use; 

• Use-related supplies, equipment, and travel; and 

• An applicable portion of Refuge overhead costs. 

It is very early in the planning process for a potential new visitor center and other facilities for the 

Refuge. In addition, these facilities will serve multiple purposes (including administrative and 

maintenance functions in addition to visitor services), so costs will need to be appropriately allocated 

among various public uses. Therefore, no estimate is made here of the share of construction, 

operation, and maintenance costs of this set of facilities supportive of commercial tours. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-24 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the commercial tours program: 

Projects Estimated Costs1 

1. Orientation materials and/or trainings. $40,000

Total Costs $40,000

1 Costs displayed are totals for these changes. Note that many of these changes will also benefit 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental interpretation and education, and other uses of 

the Refuge. 

Following is an estimate of other costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Permit administration and oversight by GS-13 Project Leader

(approximately 20 hours/year).

$1,200

2. Permit administration and oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader 

(approximately 20 hours/year).

$1,000

3. Permit administration and oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger 

(approximately 80 hours/year). $2,800

4. Permit administration by GS-4 Budget Clerk (approximately 20 

hours/year)

$400

5. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 40 

hours/year). $1,500

6. Permit monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 20 hours/year). $900

7. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $1,600

8. Facility maintenance, repair, and materials $3,000

Total Costs $12,400

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

Fee revenues collected from commercial uses of this nature are not retained by the Refuge. Instead, 

these monies are deposited into the U.S. Treasury Department’s National Wildlife Refuge Fund. 

Monies from this fund are used for redistribution to refuges to help offset the costs of administering 

specialized uses (Expenses for Sales) and for payments in lieu of taxes to counties or other local 

governments under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. 

The Refuge currently has adequate budget and staff to support limited commercial use of this nature. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

In the long term, under the management direction of the CCP, a potential new offsite visitor center, 

maintenance, and other facilities could provide enhanced interpretive opportunities, and it is likely 

that participants in commercial tour operations will stop in to enjoy its many features. However, in 

the absence of site-specific information, attempting to assess many of the anticipated direct and 

indirect impacts of the construction and operation of these new facilities is premature. Additionally, 

these facilities will serve multiple purposes (including administrative and maintenance functions in 

addition to visitor services), so effects attributable to commercial tours will be only a portion of the 

total effects. For these reasons, many of the anticipated impacts of these potential new facilities are 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-25

beyond the scope of this evaluation and are not addressed herein. More detailed evaluations will need 

to be undertaken, including site-specific effects analysis in compliance with NEPA, NHPA, and other 

applicable laws and policies. Readers are also referred to the EA accompanying the Refuge draft 

CCP for more information. 

Commercial tours directly or indirectly support Refuge goals 4, 5, and 6. To the extent it enhanced 

the public’s understanding of or appreciation for the importance of conservation, they also support 

the Refuge System mission. 

The effects of tours upon wildlife will likely be associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has 

differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved 

and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; 

whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the 

disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 

2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b). Immediate 

responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest 

abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated 

heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger and Bedard 

1990, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 1998, Miller and Hobbs 2000, 

Morton et al. 1989, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more difficult to 

assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered 

population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition 

and interactions. 

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows closer 

to (within 13 feet of) visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended 

minimum approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart 

rate in the birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al. 

1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively 

correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 

2004). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-26 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) numbers are increasing in the 

main Hawaiian Islands, especially on and around Ni‘ihau and Kaua‘i (NMFS 2007, Baker and 

Johanos 2003). Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are very sensitive to human disturbance 

(NMFS 2007) and disturbance of female adults with pups is of special concern (Gilmartin 2003). 

Seals may also injure people. Seals haul out on land to rest, molt, or pup. Approaching photographers 

could force hauled-out seals to move back into the water and seek a new haul-out site causing them 

to expend energy and increasing their exposure to predators. Repeated disturbance over time can 

cause seals to abandon preferred haul-out sites (Gilmartin 2003). It’s generally recommended that 

individuals viewing or photographing seals and sea turtles maintain a distance of at least 50 yards 

from the animals and limit their viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes (NOAA undated, NOAA 

Fisheries et al. undated; “Hawai‘i Viewing Guidelines: Overview, Marine Mammal & Sea Turtle 

Viewing ‘Code of Conduct’” at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/education/Hawai‘i/). 

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007, DeLong 2002, Knight and Cole 1995). Observers and photographers often want to enhance 

their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause increased 

stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood-rearing, disturbance can 

cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face 

survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 

Commercial tours could also cause trampling of native plants, erosion, and introduction or spread of 

nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species. All of these impacts will

adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and are of special concern in Refuge areas 

struggling with re-establishment of native plant communities. The degree of actual effects upon 

reproduction, survival of individuals, and diversity and abundance of native species (community 

health) will depend on specific circumstances. Except with special permission, guided tour 

permittees and their clients will be required to behave like other visitors, including remaining behind 

the perimeter fencing on the Point, not crossing fences elsewhere on the Refuge, and otherwise 

abiding by closed-area signage. These and other stipulations associated with this use have been 

designed to greatly reduce the likelihood and magnitude of potential effects by commercial tours on 

biological resources, including roosting, foraging, and breeding birds. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-27

The Refuge has substantial and, in some areas, dense populations of burrow-nesting seabirds. 

Although some burrows lie on the Point adjacent to the area heavily used by Refuge visitors, the vast 

majority of the burrows are elsewhere, in less disturbed areas of the Refuge, such as Crater Hill. 

Humans casually walking through nesting colonies could easily crush burrows, destroy nests and 

eggs, and kill young or adult seabirds. 

Crater Hill grasslands are primarily composed of nonnative species (e.g., Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum 

clandestinum)); however, these areas provide actual and potential habitat for roosting, foraging, and 

breeding activities by nēnē, mōlī (Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis), and shorebirds. 

Additionally, major efforts have been undertaken to reintroduce native plants to the area. Areas on 

the Point that receive almost all of the Refuge’s visitation and the core of the Kāhili Quarry are 

hardened and therefore experience very few effects from public use. However, a substantial increase 

in public use of Crater Hill will increase the potential for erosion and compaction of trails, for 

crushing of nesting burrows, for disturbance to native birds using the grasslands, and to outplanting 

of native vegetation. Crater Hill hikes will be limited in frequency and number of participants, 

guided, and appropriately scheduled to minimize adverse effects. 

Public Uses

The Point area (approximately 31 acres in size) and existing facilities (e.g., parking area, visitor 

center, and contact station) are relatively small for the visitation the Refuge experiences (from 2010 

to 2013, the visitor center averaged about 189,963 visitors per year). The single access road is narrow 

and the parking area is small. There is no single-direction drive through of the parking area (vehicles 

must turn around to exit the Refuge). Because of all this, the number and size of vehicles that can be 

safely accommodated are limited. 

Additionally, the number of visitors who can simultaneously enjoy a quality wildlife-dependent 

educational or recreational experience onsite is limited. If guided tour permittees brought large buses 

full of clients to the Refuge, it could create traffic and safety conflicts and reduce the quality of 

experience for other Refuge visitors. Currently, large tour buses (25 passenger or larger) are 

restricted from entering the Refuge. Stipulations limit guided tour permittees to use of medium-sized 

vans or smaller vehicles to transport their clients to the Refuge and could prohibit their visits during 

special Refuge events. Many of these concerns will be alleviated with the development of a new 

visitor center and associated facilities and services.

 

As noted above, except with special permission, stipulations associated with this use will require 

visitors to remain behind the perimeter fencing on the Point, not cross fences, and otherwise abide by 

closed-area signage elsewhere on the Refuge. These use conditions will greatly reduce potential 

public safety concerns. 

If commercial tour operations were conducted in closed areas where it was readily seen by other 

Refuge visitors, these other visitors could easily become confused regarding where activities are and 

are not allowed on the Refuge. This could increase the occurrence of unauthorized access, and 

impacts to native wildlife and plants. Stipulations limit this use to reduce potential effects on other 

Refuge visitors. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-28 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

Cultural Resources 

The Refuge contains a number of historic and prehistoric resources, including the Kīlauea Point 

Light Station (the lighthouse and associated Coast Guard facilities on the Point) that was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places as a historic district in 1979 (USFWS 2006). Extensive and 

unregulated commercial tours or ecotourism have the potential to adversely affect these resources. To 

the extent that SUPs included clear maps depicting areas permittees were authorized to access and 

use, and permittees and their clients were aware of prohibitions related to cultural resources, impacts 

to these resources are not expected. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Permission to use the Refuge for commercial tours or ecotourism will be officially authorized 

through issuance of an SUP to minimize the possibility of damage to cultural or natural resources 

or interference with other visitors to the area. Each request will be reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis. As appropriate, each permit will authorize a one-time use or repeated uses over a period 

not to exceed 1 year. SUPs will cover use by a specified individual or organization and cannot be 

assigned or sub-permitted to others (i.e., the permit is not transferable). 

Prior to potential permit renewal, Refuge staff will meet with permittees to share new 

information, discuss results of monitoring, review compliance with permit conditions, and 

address other issues. Other meetings will be scheduled as needed.

2. An appropriate fee will ordinarily be charged for SUPs, but may be fully or partially waived by 

the Refuge manager. The fee will be based on the details of the SUP and is intended to recover 

costs associated with administration of the use and/or the fair market value of the benefit received 

by the user(s).

3. Most of Kīlauea Point NWR is closed to general public use, so SUPs will include maps clearly 

depicting the areas permittees will be authorized to access and use, including the Refuge entry 

point(s). Travel within the Refuge will be by designated road, parking lot, and/or trail. 

Permission to access Refuge closed areas will be designed to minimize safety concerns, effects 

on biological and cultural resources, and on other visitors. Permission will generally not be 

granted to access areas on the Point outside the public safety fence, Mōkōlea Point, Makapili 

Rock, or the northern shoreline. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge 

manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the Refuge manager is the Refuge Project Leader 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-29

of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex), permittees and their clients are prohibited 

from straying outside the areas depicted on the maps or accessing the Refuge at times it was 

closed.

4. Commercial tour participants could also access Crater Hill on the same basis as other members of 

the general public. These hikes will require the use of a guide(s) (Refuge staff or trained 

volunteer), and will be limited to individuals 9 years or older (individuals between 9 and 16 years 

old require adult accompaniment). Unless through prior written agreement with the Refuge 

manager, a maximum of 15 visitors per group will be allowed on limited hikes and will be routed 

and scheduled to avoid impacts to seabirds and nēnē. With the exception of special, free hikes 

during National Wildlife Refuge Week, reservations (up to four persons per reservation) will be 

required and permittees and their clients (adults age 16 years or older) will be charged the same 

fee as other member of the public to join these hikes. An injury waiver (i.e., “Release from 

Injury” form) will be required. 

The Service will assess erosion and compaction on trails and wildlife effects of visitation (e.g., 

disturbance and crushing of burrows) on Crater Hill and elsewhere and develop solutions to any 

problems. Potentially, actions could include hardening of trails, rebuilding or rerouting of trails, 

reducing the frequency of use of trails, rescheduling use of trails, and/or closing trails. 

5. All commercial tours will avoid sensitive areas prone to disturbance (e.g., sensitive vegetation 

areas) or degradation (e.g., soil compaction), and will be designed to minimize impacts to nesting 

birds or other breeding, feeding, or resting wildlife. Areas that are open to this use will be 

evaluated on an annual, seasonal, and sometimes daily basis. Seasonal closures may vary year-toyear based on wildlife use and habitat conditions. Permittees are expected to comply with 

closures. 

6. Permittees are required to secure and maintain the currency of all licenses, permits, and approvals 

required by State and local governments to engage in the commercial activities they are

proposing or pursuing.

7. Permittees are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures on the Refuge 

without specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager. 

8. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, permittees and their 

clients are prohibited from collecting and removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, 

abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge. 

9. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on Refuges 

(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) – Solid 

Waste (Nonhazardous), 561 FW 5), permittees and their clients are prohibited from littering, 

dumping refuse, abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the 

Refuge. Permittees will be required to bring and use recycling and trash receptacles on tours 

through the Refuge.

10. Permittees are required to hold the United States Government harmless from any damages or 

injury to the permittee or members of the general public in areas and facilities accessed via the 

terms of their permit. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-30 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

11. In addition to the stipulations listed here, the general permit conditions and requirements, and the 

special permit conditions, all visitors are required to comply with Refuge System-related and 

other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 

12. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

Commercial tours 

1. Permittees will be required to provide all tour participants (clients) with written and/or oral 

information about the Refuge System, the Refuge, its purposes and goals, natural and cultural 

resources of concern, areas and times open and closed to public use, rules and regulations, and 

any hazardous conditions. The Refuge will provide permittees with information needed to 

comply with these requirements, and will provide mandatory annual training on interpretation 

and other subjects for permittees. 

2. Permittees will be expected to comply and ensure their clients complied with Refuge rules and 

safety, interpretive, regulatory, and other signage. Appropriate signage will be installed and 

maintained. Permittees will be required to advise Refuge staff within 48 hours of signs that were 

missing or damaged. 

3. Commercial tours or ecotourism permittees and their clients who accessed the Point beyond the 

fee station will be required to pay Refuge entrance fees in the same manner as all Refuge visitors. 

4. Permittees are prohibited from obstructing Refuge areas of value for other visitors who are

participating in observation, photography, interpretation, education, or other approved uses. 

Permittees are also prohibited from engaging in active business or political operations while on 

the Refuge, such as soliciting alms and contributions, campaigning for election to any public 

office, collecting private debts, soliciting and vending for commercial purposes (including, but 

not limited to, the vending of newspapers and other publications), displaying or distributing 

commercial advertising, collecting signatures on petitions, polls, or surveys (except in association 

with Refuge monitoring and as authorized by the Refuge manager). 

5. When viewing or photographing ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu (Chelonia mydas), whether these 

animals are in the water or on shore, permittees and their clients are required to maintain a 

distance of at least 50 yards and limit their viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes (NOAA 

undated). ‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu are both listed under the ESA and ‘ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua is 

also listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These acts have mechanisms to 

encourage management for population growth and recovery and to prohibit any form of "take," 

except for limited exceptions authorized under Federal permits. Under the ESA, "take" means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. Under the MMPA, "take" includes actions such as hunting, harassing, killing, 

capturing, injuring and disturbing a marine mammal. There are established civil and criminal 

penalties for, at a minimum, "disturbing" ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu by getting too close or 

staying too long, which alters their behavior, thus resulting in take. If ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu 

display signs of being disturbed, then that 50 yards will be expanded and/or viewing will be 

minimized or shut down to stop the disturbance and avoid potential take.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-31

6. In order to ensure safety and reduce conflicts with other users, guided tour permittees will be 

limited to use of medium-sized or smaller vans or buses to transport their clients to the Refuge. 

Additionally, if determined desirable, the frequency of commercial tours on the Refuge could be 

limited and they could be prohibited from visiting during Refuge special events. 

Cultural Resources 

1. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, permittees and their 

clients are prohibited from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric, historic, 

or other cultural resources on the Refuge. In the event such resources were inadvertently 

disturbed in the course of conducting otherwise permitted activities, the disturbing activity will

need to be immediately discontinued, and the Refuge manager will need to be notified within 24 

hours. If iwi (skeletal human remains) are encountered, the activity must be immediately stopped 

and the Refuge manager, police, and Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources should 

be notified. Collecting and removing any prehistoric or historic artifacts is prohibited. 

Justification:

Commercial tours provide another opportunity for members of the public to enjoy the Refuge, 

perhaps as part of a larger birding, nature, or cultural/historic tour program that also visited areas 

elsewhere on Kaua‘i. During these tours, it is expected that the public will benefit from high-quality 

environmental and cultural interpretation and enjoy opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography. Consistent with relevant law and policy (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee; Wildlife 

Observation, 605 FW 4; Photography, 605 FW 5; and Interpretation, 605 FW 7), these wildlifedependent general public uses are to be given special consideration in refuge planning and 

management.

This use has the potential to generate effects on fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and cultural 

resources. The stipulations enumerated above, including Refuge information, training, use of maps, 

signage, specific prohibitions, and monitoring, will greatly reduce or eliminate adverse effects and 

help enhance potential beneficial effects.

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. Violation of any of 

these stipulations could result in temporary or permanent withdrawal of official permission to 

continue this use on the Refuge by appropriate Refuge personnel. Permits could be revoked by the 

Refuge manager with 30 days’ written notice of noncompliance with these stipulations. 

The Refuge will monitor the quality of the visitor experience provided by permittees. Service policy 

includes criteria to be used in evaluating the quality of wildlife-dependent public use programs 

(General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation, 605 FW 1.6). 

The Refuge will monitor habitat quantity and quality, wildlife use and productivity, and other 

relevant endpoints to determine if these stipulations for commercial tours result in expected and 

desirable outcomes. In consultation with permittees, the Refuge will apply adaptive management 

principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of this use. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as a 

result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-32 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; changes to commercial tour activities or related practices; mutual agreement with 

the permittees; or for other legitimate reasons. Except in the case of emergencies, permittees will be 

advised of new or significantly modified stipulations at least 90 days prior to their becoming 

effective.

Economic Uses 

Regulations at 50 CFR 29.1 require that the Service only authorize an economic use of Refuge 

natural resources where a determination has been made that the use contributes to the achievement of 

Refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. The regulations define an economic use to include 

“operations that facilitate approved programs on national wildlife refuges,” so commercial tours, as 

defined in this CD, qualify as an economic use subject to these regulations. 

Commercial tour operations on the Refuge will provide field opportunities to increase public 

understanding and appreciation for the Refuge System, Kīlauea Point NWR, seabirds and shorebirds, 

endangered species, cultural resources, and the value of conservation. Where appropriately regulated 

to reduce or eliminate adverse effects, these activities will contribute to achievement of the Refuge’s 

purposes and the Refuge System mission.

Compatibility Standard 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, commercial tours need to be determined compatible. By 

allowing this use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife which 

could be disturbed will find sufficient food resources and resting places so that their abundance and 

use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as 

needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, 

cultural resources, and other public uses. For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the 

stipulations described herein, this use will not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance 

of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of Kīlauea Point 

NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-33

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Commercial Tours 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

Acting 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

~g. 

(Signature) 

Refuge Complex: ~~, 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

(Signature) 

9/rk 

(D~te) 7 

(Date) 

(Date) 

B-34 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations-Commercial Tours 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-35

References Cited:

Baker, J.D. and T.C. Johanos. 2003. Distribution and Abundance of Hawaiian Monk Seals in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands. In Final Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on 

Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI.

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA.

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds – A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Gilmartin, W.G. 2003. Responses of Monk Seals to Human Disturbance and Handling. In Final 

Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on Beaches in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-36 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59–F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NOAA. Undated. Responsibly Watching California’s Marine Wildlife, Draft Handbook for Ocean 

Users. Available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/national/ww_handbook.pdf. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries), NOAA’s National 

Marine Sanctuaries, State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, and U.S. Coast 

Guard. Undated. Protect Marine Wildlife While Enjoying Their Natural Beauty, Hawai‘i Marine 

Mammal & Sea Turtle Viewing Guidelines. Brochure. Honolulu, HI. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205-210. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours B-37

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – 

Nomination Form. Supplementary listing record for Kīlauea Point Light Station. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-38 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Commercial Tours
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education B-39

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Environmental Education

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy defines environmental education (EE) to be “...a 

process designed to teach citizens and visitors the history and importance of conservation and the 

biological and the scientific knowledge of our Nation’s natural resources. Through this process, 

...[the Service]... can help develop a citizenry that has the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-40 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education

motivation, and commitment to work cooperatively towards the conservation of our Nation’s 

environmental resources. Environmental education within the Refuge System incorporates onsite, 

offsite, and distance learning materials, activities, programs, and products that address the audience’s 

course of study, refuge purpose(s), physical attributes, ecosystem dynamics, conservation strategies, 

and the Refuge System mission” (Environmental Education, 605 FW 6). 

EE is a formal, structured program that incorporates measurable learning objectives and uses 

audience-appropriate curricula to satisfy State or other standards. EE activities can be provided by 

Refuge personnel, a volunteer(s), other Service-authorized agent(s), or through partnerships with 

groups that share similar goals (e.g., the Kīlauea Point Natural History Association (KPNHA) or 

others). For purposes of this compatibility determination (CD), EE includes education regarding 

natural and cultural resources and values. 

At Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge), the Service currently offers an EE

program with a focus on activities at Kīlauea Point (Point), an area of approximately 31 acres in size. 

With the assistance of interns and volunteers, the Refuge conducts EE programs throughout the year 

with the greatest number of students visiting January–May. Between 2010 and 2013, education 

participants involved in on- and offsite EE programs ranged from 7,200 to 12,032 per year (USFWS 

2014). 

The Point is accessed from the town of Kīlauea via Kīlauea Road. At the end of the road, school 

buses travel the winding, narrow, and steep Refuge entrance road to one of the parking areas, two of 

which are hardened. If they park in one of the hardened parking areas, the buses must turn around 

after discharging their passengers because there is no drive through. The other parking areas are 

grassy and serve as nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis) habitat. These areas become soft 

and muddy following a heavy rain. After being discharged, students, teachers, and chaperones walk 

the path from the parking area to the main public use area of the Point. KPNHA funds bus 

transportation for EE and participants are not charged a Refuge entrance fee. 

EE activities are typically scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. This is intended to avoid conflicts 

with other Refuge visitors by allowing students to depart the Point and the school buses to exit along 

the narrow entry road prior to the Refuge opening to general public use. However, not all school 

groups manage to depart by 10:00 a.m. This can create traffic conflicts in the parking area and along 

the entrance road, create safety problems for school children, and require substantial support by 

Refuge staff to facilitate a safe departure. In light of the time consumed by unloading, walking, 

restroom breaks, and loading, approximately 1 hour remains for formal EE. 

EE activities are offered in the multi-purpose room in the basement of the visitor center or in the 

contact station adjacent to Kīlauea Lighthouse. Both areas are also used for other purposes and are 

limited in size and the number of students they can accommodate. This problem is exacerbated 

during inclement weather. Occasionally, EE activities are offered on Crater Hill. EE is also an 

element of Refuge special events and work parties. 

To support and supplement the onsite EE activities, the Refuge—with the assistance of volunteers, 

KPNHA, and interns—has developed EE materials for teachers, including a teachers’ manual, field 

trip leader packets, a traveling trunk, a website, and a junior ranger program. In addition, Refuge staff 

or interns visit some school classrooms on Kaua‘i. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education B-41

In the long term, under the management direction of the CCP, a potential new offsite new visitor 

center and other facilities will provide visitor contact, orientation and information, fee collection, 

restrooms, bookstore/retail space, multipurpose room, outdoor spaces, public bus stop, and shuttle 

pick up/drop off. Under this management direction, parking for private automobiles and tour buses 

on the Point will potentially be eliminated and visitors will access the Refuge primarily via a shuttle

from Kīlauea town or the new visitor center. Additional changes for the Point potentially include 

remodeling of the existing visitor center to provide EE or interpretive exhibits and displays, 

expanding interpretation at the contact station, and restoring and converting one of the former 

lighthouse quarters into a living history site. In addition, efforts will be made to increase 

opportunities for up-close wildlife observation and photography (e.g., with remote cameras and 

observation/photo blinds). The Refuge is also planning to resume EE trainings for teachers and 

potentially offering EE activities in the Kāhili Quarry area (e.g., water quality sampling and 

analyses). 

Students often enjoy wildlife observation and photography and environmental interpretation 

opportunities ancillary to their participation in formal EE activities at the Refuge. Observation, 

photography, and interpretation opportunities at Kīlauea Point NWR are addressed in a separate CD 

(CD for Wildlife Observation and Photography and Environmental Interpretation). 

EE is a wildlife-dependent general public use and is to be given special consideration in refuge 

planning and management. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, a wildlifedependent use becomes a priority public use for that refuge and is to be facilitated, subject to such 

restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate (National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act). 

Availability of Resources: 

It is early in the planning process for a potential new visitor center and other facilities for the Refuge. 

In addition, these facilities will serve multiple purposes (including administrative and maintenance 

functions in addition to visitor services), so costs will need to be appropriately allocated among 

various public uses. Therefore, no estimate is made here of the share of construction, operation, and 

maintenance costs of this set of facilities supportive of EE. 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the EE program: 

Projects Estimated Costs1 

1. Conversion of visitor center to provide interpretive exhibits and displays. $200,000

2. Expansion of interpretation at the contact station. $150,000

3. Restoration and conversion of former lighthouse quarters into a living 

history site.

$550,000

4. Update curricula and materials as necessary. $20,000

5. Develop a multifaceted Junior Ranger program to reach all ages of young 

visitors to the Refuge.

$20,000

Total Costs $940,000

1 Costs displayed are totals for these changes. Note that many of these changes will also benefit 

wildlife observation and photography, environmental interpretation and other uses of the Refuge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-42 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education

Following is an estimate of other costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Administration and oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger, including 

recruiting and training staff and volunteers (approximately 830 

hours/year).

$29,800 

2. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $6,000

3. Facility maintenance, repair, and materials $3,000

4. Supplies (including brochures) $3,000

Total Costs $41,800

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

With the substantial support of KPNHA and volunteers, the Refuge has adequate budget and staff to 

support the current level of EE on the Refuge.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

In the long term, under the management direction of the CCP, a potential new offsite visitor center, 

maintenance, and other facilities could provide enhanced EE opportunities. However, in the absence 

of site-specific information, attempting to assess many of the anticipated direct and indirect impacts 

of the construction and operation of these new facilities is premature. Additionally, these facilities 

will serve multiple purposes (including administrative and maintenance functions in addition to 

visitor services), so effects attributable to EE will be only a portion of the total effects. For these 

reasons, many of the anticipated impacts of these potential new facilities are beyond the scope of this 

evaluation and are not addressed herein. More detailed evaluations will need to be undertaken, 

including site-specific effects analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other applicable laws and policies. 

Readers are also referred to the EA accompanying the Refuge draft CCP for more information. 

It is not anticipated that other offsite EE activities, such as those conducted in area schools, will have 

measurable impacts on the Refuge or its natural or cultural resources. 

EE activities support Refuge goal numbers 4, 5, and 6. It is expected that EE will enhance 

participants’ understanding of and appreciation for the importance of conservation; therefore, this use 

will also support the Refuge System mission. 

The vast majority of public use at the Refuge, including EE, occurs at the Point. Visitors have 

incredible opportunities to hear and view numerous seabirds as they soar overhead, roost or nest on 

adjacent cliffs and grassy knolls, and forage in the ocean. Nēnē are routinely seen close up, on the 

grounds. Nēnē are fairly tolerant of human disturbance, but many seabirds are wary and flush when 

approached too closely. 

The effects of EE upon wildlife will likely be associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has 

differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved 

and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education B-43

whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the 

disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 

2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b). Immediate 

responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including nest 

abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated 

heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger and Bedard 

1990, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 1998, Miller and Hobbs 2000, 

Morton et al. 1989, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more difficult to 

assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; altered 

population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition 

and interactions. 

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows closer 

to (within 13 feet of) visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended 

minimum approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart 

rate in the birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al.1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively 

correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 

2004). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-44 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

Participants in EE programs could also cause trampling of native plants, erosion, and introduction or 

spread of nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species. All of these 

impacts will adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and are of special concern in 

Refuge areas struggling with re-establishment of native plant communities. The degree of actual 

effects upon reproduction, survival of individuals, and diversity and abundance of native species 

(community health) will depend on specific circumstances. 

The Refuge has substantial and, in some areas, dense populations of burrow-nesting seabirds. 

Although some burrows lie on the Point adjacent to the area heavily used by Refuge visitors, the vast 

majority of the burrows are elsewhere, in less disturbed areas of the Refuge, such as Crater Hill. 

Humans casually walking through nesting colonies could easily crush burrows, destroy nests and 

eggs, and kill young or adult seabirds. 

Crater Hill grasslands are primarily composed of nonnative species such as Kikuyu grass 

(Pennisetum clandestinum); however, these areas provide actual and potential habitat for roosting, 

foraging, and breeding activities by nēnē, mōlī (Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis), and 

shorebirds. Additionally, major efforts have been undertaken to reintroduce native plants to this area. 

Areas on the Point that receive almost all of the Refuge’s visitation are hardened and therefore 

experience very few effects from public use. However, a substantial increase in public use of Crater 

Hill will increase the potential for erosion and compaction of trails, for crushing of nesting burrows, 

and for disturbance to native birds using the grasslands and to outplanting of native vegetation. 

Access to Crater Hill for EE will be limited in frequency and number of participants, guided, and 

appropriately scheduled to minimize adverse effects. 

The several stipulations associated with this use have been designed to greatly reduce the likelihood 

and magnitude of potential biological effects. Importantly, on the Point—where many EE activities 

occur—participants will be required to remain behind the perimeter fencing. Elsewhere on the 

Refuge, visitors will be required to not cross fences and otherwise abide by closed-area signage. 

These use conditions will greatly reduce disturbance to roosting and breeding birds. 

Public Use

Almost all visitation to the Refuge occurs on the Point. This area and existing facilities (e.g., parking 

area, visitor center, and contact station) are relatively small for the visitation the Refuge experiences 

(from 2010 to 2013, the visitor center averaged about 189,963 visitors per year). The single access 

road is narrow and the parking areas are small. There is no single-direction drive through of the 

parking areas (buses and other vehicles must turn around to exit the Refuge). Because of all this, the 

number and size of vehicles that can be safely accommodated are limited. Additionally, the number 

of visitors who can simultaneously enjoy a quality wildlife-dependent educational or recreational 

experience onsite is limited. Consequently, onsite EE activities are typically scheduled from 8:30 

a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Peak time for utilization of the Refuge is between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., with parking 

overflowing between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Earlier EE hours are intended to avoid conflicts with other 

Refuge visitors by allowing students to depart the Point and the school buses to exit along the narrow 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education B-45

entry road prior to the peak visitation hours. Many of these concerns could be alleviated with the 

development of a new visitor center and associated facilities and services. 

A potential new visitor center will allow development of larger facilities for EE, plus interpretive 

exhibits and displays, and a larger bookstore. Potential changes for the Point include remodeling of 

the existing visitor center to provide EE or interpretive exhibits and displays, expanding 

interpretation at the contact station, and restoring and converting one of the former lighthouse 

quarters into a living history site; these changes will provide a higher quality EE experience for 

participants. Restoration of habitat underlying the current parking area and maintenance facilities will

allow visitors additional opportunities to observe and photograph native wildlife and plants and 

efforts will be made to increase opportunities for up-close wildlife observation and photography 

(e.g., with remote cameras and observation/photo blinds). If implemented, all of these changes will

enhance and increase opportunities for EE. As noted above, stipulations associated with these uses 

will require visitors to remain behind the perimeter fencing on the Point, not cross fences, and 

otherwise abide by closed-area signage elsewhere on the Refuge. These use conditions will greatly 

reduce potential public safety concerns.

Cultural Resources and Values 

The Refuge contains a number of historic and prehistoric resources, including the Kīlauea Point 

Light Station (the lighthouse and associated Coast Guard facilities on the Point) that was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places as a historic district in 1979 (USFWS 2006). It is not expected 

that EE will have any effects on cultural resources. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Kīlauea Point NWR is mostly closed to general public use. Information about visitation to the 

Refuge, including maps clearly depicting open areas and Refuge entry point(s), will be provided 

to teachers and posted on signs, in kiosks, online, and at other appropriate locations. Travel 

within the Refuge will be limited to designated roads, parking lots, and trails. In the absence of 

special permission of the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the Refuge 

manager is the Project Leader of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex), students, 

teachers, and chaperones are prohibited from straying outside the areas depicted on the maps and 

beyond the closed area signs. For their safety and to minimize disturbance to roosting and 

breeding birds, participants in EE programs on the Point will be required to remain behind the 

perimeter fencing. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-46 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education

2. Refuge facilities are limited in size and sometimes prescheduled, so teachers will be required to 

contact the Refuge to schedule EE activities at the Refuge at least 3 weeks prior to a proposed 

visit. Only teachers who have successfully participated in an EE Teach-the-Teacher workshop 

conducted or condoned by Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex will be allowed to lead EE

groups at the Refuge. 

3. Occasional EE hikes on Crater Hill will require the use of a guide(s) (Refuge staff or trained 

volunteer), will be limited to individuals 9 years or older (individuals between 9 and 16 years old 

require adult accompaniment) and, unless through prior written agreement with the Refuge 

manager, a maximum of 30 visitors per group. Hikes will be routed and scheduled to avoid key 

breeding areas and seasons by seabirds and nēnē. An injury waiver (i.e., “Release from Injury” 

form) will be required. The Service will assess erosion and compaction on trails, wildlife effects 

of visitation (e.g., disturbance and crushing of burrows) on Crater Hill and elsewhere, and 

develop solutions to any problems. Potentially, actions could include hardening of trails, 

rebuilding or rerouting of trails, reducing the frequency of use of trails, rescheduling use of trails, 

and/or closing trails. 

4. In order to avoid harassment, disease, and/or death of native wildlife, or transport of nonnative or 

invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, individuals participating in EE are 

prohibited from bringing dogs or other pets with them to the Point. An exception is legitimate, 

leashed guide animals. 

5. Environmental education participants are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining 

existing structures; from littering, dumping refuse, abandoning equipment or materials, or 

otherwise discarding any items; and from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any 

prehistoric, historic, or other cultural resources. With the exception of items specifically 

associated with approved EE curricula, or in the absence of specific, prior written approval of the 

Refuge manager, students and teachers are prohibited from collecting and removing any 

archaeological or historic artifacts, abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or mementos from 

the Refuge. The Refuge will provide visitors with information and maintain facilities at the Point 

(e.g., recycling and trash containers) to encourage recycling of water bottles and other 

recyclables and discourage littering. Additionally, visitors will continue to be able to recycle 

Refuge brochures at the entrance fee station. 

6. In addition to the stipulations listed here, participants in EE programs are required to comply 

with Refuge System-related and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including 

“Prohibited Acts” listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 

 

7. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

Justification:

Environmental education is a popular, valuable, and proven program at Kīlauea Point NWR. Service 

policy states that EE programs can, “...promote understanding and appreciation of natural and 

cultural resources and their management on all lands and waters in the Refuge System” 

(Environmental Education, 605 FW 6). Service policy strongly encourages Refuge managers to 

provide quality, compatible EE programs. At Kīlauea Point NWR, it is expected that students and 

teachers will also enjoy some wildlife observation and photography and environmental interpretation 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education B-47

ancillary to their EE experiences. These are also wildlife-dependent public uses that are to be given 

special consideration in refuge planning and management. 

EE could potentially cause some wildlife disturbance. However, this program has been provided on 

the Refuge for decades and existing facilities and program management have appropriately 

minimized public safety concerns and effects upon native wildlife, plants, habitats, and cultural 

resources. Most of the EE activities take place within structures or on hardened or otherwise 

developed areas of the Point that are of limited value to wildlife. If the new visitor center and 

associated facilities are developed, the quality and capacity of the Refuge’s EE program will be 

measurably enhanced. The stipulations included herein continue the positive efforts of the past and 

provide additional protection to biological and cultural resources and the public. 

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations. The Refuge will also monitor wildlife and 

habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine if these stipulations result in expected 

and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply adaptive management principles to modify 

stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as 

a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Visitors will be appropriately advised of any such 

changes.

The Refuge reserves the right to terminate permission for this use if individuals violate Refuge rules 

or regulations; if unacceptable impacts occur to native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural 

resources, Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors; or for other legitimate reasons. 

Compatibility Standard 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, EE needs to be determined compatible. By allowing this use to 

occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife which could be disturbed 

will find sufficient food resources and resting places so that their abundance and use will not be 

measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will

prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, other public uses, 

and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations 

described herein, this use will not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the 

Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of Kīlauea Point 

NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date:

 X Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-48 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Environmental Education 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

A.ctiJ1g 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

(Signature) 

(Signatur~ 13~ CJ- ~ 

(Signature) 

Appendix B Compatibility Determinations-Environmental Education 

1/tfs- / (Date) 

9/9/r- . / 

(Date) 

(Date) 

(Date) 

B-49 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-50 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education

References Cited: 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59-F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education B-51

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – 

Nomination Form. Supplementary listing record for Kīlauea Point Light Station. 

USFWS. 2014. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP), Multi-year measures, 2010–2013. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-52 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Environmental Education
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing B-53

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Fishing and Shellfishing 

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s): 

This use involves recreational fishing on Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) in 

the ocean at Kāhili Quarry (Quarry) and in the estuary of Kīlauea River. Included are fishing on a 24-

hour basis with hook and line, throw net, spear, and shellfish-gathering. Fishing (including shellfishgathering) is the only activity allowed at night on Kilauea Point NWR. Anglers can fish from the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-54 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing

shore or by wading into the surf or into Kīlauea River. Species that could be harvested include, but 

are not limited to, āholehole (Hawaiian flagtail, Kuhlia sandvicensis), akule (big-eye scad, Selar 

crumenophthalmus), ‘ama‘ama (striped mullet , Mugil cephalus), large-mouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), Samoan crab (Scylla serrata), halalu (juvenile akule), moi (Pacific threadfin,

Polydactylus sexfilis), ‘o‘opu (various gobies in the families Gobiidae and Eleotridae), ‘opae oeha‘a 

(Hawaiian shrimp, Macrobrachium grandimanus aka), ulua (giant trevally, Caranx ignobilis, and 

other jacks of the family Carangidae), pāpio (ulua under 10 pounds), uouoa (sharpnose mullet,

Neomyxus leuciscus), weke (goatfish in the family Mullidae), and oama (juvenile goatfish). The 

Refuge is currently open for salt water fishing per Refuge-specific regulations for fishing, Hawai‘i, 

50 CFR 32.30. From 2010 to 2013, the number of participants reported ranged from 18–104 per year 

(USFWS 2014). 

Anglers access the area by motor vehicle, foot, horse, or bicycle down Kāhili Quarry Road; by boat 

from the ocean or across Kīlauea River; or by wading or swimming across Kīlauea River. Anglers 

and others can also easily access Kāhili Beach (east of the Quarry across Kīlauea River) and Kīlauea 

Bay via Wailapa Road, an all-weather road. While on the Quarry site, some anglers have open fires, 

some bring their pets (usually dogs), and some erect temporary shelters or camp overnight. To access 

other fishing sites or for other purposes, some anglers and perhaps other visitors also walk north from 

the Quarry area along the east base of Mōkōlea Point on the rocks adjacent to the ocean. There is no 

formal trail and the cliff-side vegetation is not fenced through this area. It is expected that anglers 

enjoy some wildlife observation and photography ancillary to their fishing efforts. 

To the west of the Quarry are cliffs that define Mōkōlea Point and are densely vegetated with 

naupaka (Scaevola sericea) and other plants. Mōkōle Point has a fence partway up the slope in the 

main Quarry area. Vegetation extends a short distance below the fence onto the relatively flat Quarry 

site. The remainder of the Quarry site shows signs of many years of heavy public use, including 

vehicle use, and has a few scattered trees but little other vegetation. The area has several fire pits, 

trash, plastic fishing rod holders with their ends encased in concrete, and abandoned motor vehicles. 

At the south end, between the main road and stream, there are more trees and low vegetation 

interspersed with additional rutted roads and cleared areas that have been used for camping. The 

Quarry area is also occasionally used by squatters. There are no designated parking spaces, 

designated camping sites, potable water, toilets, recycling/garbage cans, or other improvements in the 

area. 

Fishing will continue to be allowed 24 hours a day at Kāhili Quarry in accordance with State 

regulations. It is expected that anglers could engage in swimming or wading while fishing, depending 

on the method used. Anglers will be allowed to set up temporary shade or rain shelters during 

daylight hours only. Anglers will be allowed to bring and use portable stoves or self-contained 

barbeques (e.g., off-the-ground portable enclosed fires) or fires within a Refuge-designated fire ring 

or pit. Refuge-designated fire rings or pits will be sited to minimize the potential spread of 

uncontrolled fires. Visitors will need to bring charcoal or firewood. Fires must be attended at all 

times. Dogs will be required to be on-leash and under direct control at all times (see separate

compatibility determination for dog walking). Kāhili Quarry Road will be repaired and maintained to 

a standard approved by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the County of Kaua‘i 

(e.g., using crushed coral). In addition to welcome and orientation, educational, and interpretive 

signage and messaging, the Refuge will post sign(s) notifying visitors of the rules and regulations 

surrounding use at Kāhili Quarry and that the area has no drinking water, toilets, or other developed 

facilities.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing B-55

The Refuge will appropriately post its jurisdictional boundary in the Quarry area. A new, predatorresistant fence will replace the existing fence and be constructed at the base of vegetation growing 

down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point. The fence line will extend to the ocean at the northern end of 

the main Quarry area. 

This compatibility determination (CD) does not address traditional native Hawaiian fishing at 

Kīlauea (East) Cove. Instead, see the “Traditional Cultural Practices” CD. 

This use is a wildlife-dependent general public use and is to be given special consideration in refuge 

planning and management (Recreational Fishing, 605 FW 3). When determined compatible on a 

refuge-specific basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a priority public use for that refuge and is to 

be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and 

appropriate (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Kīlauea Point NWR. 

Availability of Resources: 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the fishing and shellfishing program: 

Projects Estimated Costs1 

1. Posting of jurisdictional boundary with signage and low-profile 

monuments.

$20,000

2. Installation of new informational and regulatory signage. $10,000

Total Costs $30,000

1 Costs displayed are totals for these changes. Note that many of these changes will also benefit other 

uses occurring at Kāhili Quarry. 

Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Oversight by GS-13 Project Leader (approximately 10 hours/year). $600

2. Oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,000

3. Oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger (approximately 80 

hours/year). $2,800

4. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 120

hours/year). $4,400

5. Monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 20 hours/year). $900

6. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $2,000

7. Signage and fence maintenance, repair, and materials $3,000

Total Costs $14,700

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-56 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing

The Refuge currently has adequate budget and staff to support the annual costs associated with a 

limited recreational fishing program on the Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Allowing recreational fishing on the Refuge will not directly conflict with any Refuge goals. 

Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, 

the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the 

surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, 

and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 

2006, Holmes et al. 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as 

elevated heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 1998, Miller and 

Hobbs 2000, Morton et al. 1989, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more 

difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; 

altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species 

composition and interactions. 

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows closer 

to (within 13 feet of) visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended 

minimum approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart 

rate in the birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al. 

1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively 

correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 

2004). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing B-57

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

Angling is expected to cause some wildlife disturbance. Seabirds nest in the vegetation at the base of 

the cliffs at Kāhili Quarry. Nesting birds and their young are expected to experience stress, possibly 

flush, and potentially be more vulnerable to predation if anglers approached nesting sites too closely, 

too quickly, too noisily, in large groups, or with dogs. Distance to the birds will be greatest (and 

effects are expected to be lowest) when anglers fish on the ocean side of the Quarry. Conversely, 

potential impacts are expected to be greatest if anglers spent time on the cliff side of the Quarry 

where they will be in proximity to the dense vegetation and bird-nesting sites. The several 

stipulations associated with this use have been designed to greatly reduce the likelihood and 

magnitude of potential biological effects. The new fencing and signage will reduce the likelihood that 

anglers will disturb roosting and nesting birds. 

Fishing will have direct, lethal effects on individual fish or shellfish, the target game species. The 

amount of loss will depend on the angling pressure (i.e., the number of anglers, days of effort, catch 

success). To the extent that anglers engage in catch-and-release practices, the number of individual 

fish lost per angler will be reduced, but there will still be some percentage of mortality. Angling on 

the Refuge is expected to have negligible to minor effects on populations of fish or shellfish because 

the State of Hawai‘i regulates fishing consistent with sustained yield population management 

principles.

Fishing tournaments can create significant additional pressure on local fisheries and the surrounding 

environment. If such activities are conducted as commercial enterprises (e.g., a fee is charged and 

monetary awards are offered) the tournament could qualify as a commercial use and additional 

requirements (e.g., permits and fees) could be triggered (Administration of Specialized Uses, 5 RM 

17). 

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) and honu (Chelonia mydas) are 

known to use Kaua‘i’s north shore. Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are especially sensitive 

to human disturbance (NMFS 2007). Approaching anglers could force hauled-out individuals to 

move back into the water and seek a new haul-out site, causing them to expend energy and increasing 

their exposure to predators. Potential disturbance of female adults with pups is of special concern. 

Seals and threatened green sea turtles could also be injured or potentially killed if they became 

hooked or entangled in fishing lines or nets (NMFS 2007, NMFS and USFWS 1998). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-58 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing

Anglers and their vehicles can trample native plants, cause soil compaction and/or erosion, and 

potentially introduce or spread nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive 

species. As noted earlier, the Quarry area has received substantial public use for many years. Its 

naturalness is already seriously compromised and it includes many nonnative plants. 

Nighttime fires associated with fishing activities could cause ‘a‘o (Newell’s Shearwater, Puffinus 

auricularis newelli) or ‘ua‘u kani (wedge-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) returning from 

foraging all day at sea to become disoriented and not be able to find their burrows and young. 

Fledglings could similarly become disoriented in their initial flights to the sea and circle such lights 

until exhausted or crash into obstacles. Fires may also spread to vegetation, destroying habitat for 

ground-nesting birds. 

Cooking and eating food onsite will result in an increase in litter and a buildup of food scraps and 

will increase the potential for direct feeding of wildlife. These foods will likely attract undesirable 

pests and predators (e.g., cats and rats) to the Quarry. The presence of food could also attract native 

wildlife species, reducing their fear of humans and habituating them more to people and human 

foods. Exposing wildlife to human foods could also reduce their foraging on natural foods and cause 

young wildlife not to fully develop critical foraging skills, potentially decreasing their survivability 

in areas and at times when such foods were less or not available. Potentially, human foods could also 

sicken wildlife or reduce their fitness and affect growth, reproductive potential, and survivability 

(Heiser undated). 

Cultural Resources and Values 

Fredericksen and Fredericksen (1989) described the ruins of a sugar-loading complex located on 

Mōkōlea Point above the fishing areas. However, the same study identified no Hawaiian artifacts 

from either the historic or prehistoric periods within the affected areas. It is not expected that 

continued fishing at this site will further impact cultural resources. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Anglers are allowed to bring dogs, but prohibited from bringing cats or other pets with them. All 

dogs brought onto the Refuge in this area will be required to be leashed on a short (8-foot 

maximum) leash and under direct control at all times and will not be allowed to run free. Dogs 

will not be allowed to accompany pedestrians past the northeastern end of the main Quarry area. 

Additionally, signage will be used to delineate accessible and nonaccessible areas. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing B-59

In association with their fishing, anglers will be allowed to erect temporary shelters (protections 

from the sun and/or rain) in the Quarry area during daylight hours only. Camping is prohibited. 

Poles and other fishing equipment must be attended at all times. Barbeques and other equipment, 

supplies, trash, and human and pet waste must be removed from the Quarry area at the end of 

each angler’s stay. Anglers could bring and use portable stoves or self-contained barbeques (e.g., 

off-the-ground portable enclosed fires) or fires within a Refuge-designated fire ring or pit. 

Refuge-designated fire rings or pits will be sited to minimize the potential spread of uncontrolled 

fires. Visitors will need to bring charcoal or firewood. Fires must be attended at all times. 

2. Visitors are prohibited from using motorized or other vehicles off designated routes of travel. At 

the Quarry, designated routes of travel include Kāhili Quarry Road, the vehicle access to the 

unimproved boat slide into Kīlauea River, and the hardened vehicle access and parking area in 

the core of the Quarry area. 

3. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these 

stipulations, the Refuge manager is the Project Leader of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex) or unless specifically allowed by State of Hawai‘i fishing regulations, anglers are 

prohibited from collecting and removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, abiotic or 

biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge. 

4. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, anglers are prohibited 

from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric, historic, or other cultural 

resources on the Refuge.

5. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on refuges 

(“Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) – 

Solid Waste (Nonhazardous),” 561 FW 5), anglers are prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, 

abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Refuge, including 

unused or excess fishing line, hooks, lures, and bait. 

6. In addition to the stipulations listed here anglers are required to comply with Refuge Systemrelated and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 

7. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

Fishing

1. Anglers will be required to secure and have with them relevant State fishing licenses and any 

other permits needed to fish in the ocean from the Refuge. Anglers will be required to abide by 

Hawai‘i fishing regulations when fishing on or from the Refuge. 

2. Anglers will be allowed to fish at Kāhili Quarry 24 hours a day. Poles and other fishing gear 

must be attended at all times. 

3. Fishing and other activities are not be allowed within 50 yards of ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu, 

whether these animals are in the water or on shore. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-60 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing

4. In order to reduce the potential for hooking of ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu, anglers are

encouraged to use barbless circle hooks while fishing from the shore. 

5. Anglers are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures or fixtures 

(including rod holders) on the Refuge without specific, prior written approval of the Refuge 

manager. 

6. Prior to holding any fishing tournaments using any part of the Refuge, tournament organizers 

will be required to contact and receive specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, 

possibly including a permit, payment of fees, and a tournament-specific compatibility 

determination.

Justification:

By its nature, fishing will have direct, lethal effects on individual fish or shellfish. However, angling 

on the Refuge is expected to have negligible to minor effects on populations of fish or shellfish

because the State of Hawai‘i regulates fishing consistent with sustained yield population 

management principles. 

Angling has the potential to cause some disturbance to seabirds and potentially seals and/or turtles. 

The planned construction of a new fence at the base of vegetation on the west side of the Quarry 

area, allowing dogs only in the western portion of the area, and prohibiting cats, other pets, and freeroaming dogs onsite will limit potential disturbance to seabirds roosting or nesting in cliff-side 

vegetation. Additionally, fishing and associated activities will not be allowed within 50 yards of seals 

or turtles. 

Increased Refuge law enforcement is expected to reduce violations of rules and regulations, 

including camping and squatting. Tournament fishing will require special approval of the Refuge 

manager. 

Fishing is a wildlife-dependent, general public use and is to be given special consideration in refuge 

planning and management. As noted earlier, it is also expected that anglers will enjoy some wildlife 

observation and photography ancillary to their fishing efforts. These uses are also wildlife-dependent 

general public uses that are to be given special consideration in refuge planning and management 

when compatible. 

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. This will include 

enforcement of Hawai‘i fishing regulations. 

 

The Refuge will monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine if 

these stipulations result in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply adaptive 

management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable 

results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as 

a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; changes to fishing practices; or for other legitimate reasons. Refuge personnel will
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing B-61

appropriately advise anglers of any such changes. Any significant changes to rules for fishing on the 

Refuge will be appropriately promulgated as Federal regulations. These regulations will be 

supplemented by Refuge-specific information available onsite or at the Kaua‘i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex headquarters office. 

The Refuge also reserves the right to terminate or modify privileges to fish at the Refuge if anglers 

violate Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts occur to native fish, wildlife, plants, their 

habitats, cultural resources, Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors, or for other legitimate reasons. 

Compatibility Standard 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, angling at Kāhili Quarry needs to be determined compatible. 

By allowing this use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife 

which could be disturbed will find sufficient food resources and resting places so that their

abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their 

habitats, other public uses, and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated above and consistent 

with the stipulations described herein, this use will not materially interfere with or detract from 

maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of 

Kīlauea Point’s NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 X Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Fishing and Shellfishing 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

A.ctjllg 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

(Signature) 

~~ 

(Signature) 

(Signature 

(Signature) 

rh!s- , 7 

(Date) 

r}fk (Dat6) 

q /1()/J.s 

(Date) 

(Date} 

B-62 Appendix B Compatibility Determinations-Fishing and Shell fishing 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing B-63

References Cited: 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Fredericksen, D. and W. Fredericksen. 1989. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Crater Hill and 

Mokolea Point of Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kilauea, Kauai, Hawaii. Xamanek 

Researches, Pukalani, Maui, HI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Heiser, C.A. Undated. Feeding Wildlife: Food for Thought. Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/wild-in-the-woods/feeding-wildlife-food-forthought.pdf. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-64 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Fishing and Shellfishing

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59–F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. 

Recovery Plan for the U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP), 

Multi-year measures, 2010–2013. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-65

Compatibility Determination 

Use: General Access for Off-Refuge Stream, Beach, and Ocean Uses (Kāhili Quarry)

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission:

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

This use involves access through Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) at Kāhili

Quarry (Quarry) or near the mouth of Kīlauea River (aka Kāhili Stream) to access off-Refuge areas 

(Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River) for boating, fishing, and other stream, beach, and 

ocean uses such as surfing, swimming, sunbathing, snorkeling, and walking, including dog walking. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-66 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) 

Uses on the Refuge include driving, walking, riding horses, or bicycling on Kāhili Quarry Road; 

parking vehicles on the Refuge; and launching and loading canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, and 

surfboards. Canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, surfboards, and perhaps other small watercraft, are 

launched into Kīlauea River near its mouth. This boat launching site is an unimproved slide cut 

through the dirt bank into the river. Visitors can also easily access Kāhili Beach (east of the Quarry 

across Kīlauea River) and Kīlauea Bay via Wailapa Road, an all-weather road. 

While in the Quarry area, some visitors have open fires, some bring their pets (usually dogs), and 

some erect temporary shelters or camp overnight. Some visitors also walk north from the Quarry area 

along the east base of Mōkōlea Point on the rocks adjacent to the ocean. There is no formal trail and 

the cliff-side vegetation is not fenced through this area. It is expected that boaters, beach goers, and 

others enjoy some wildlife observation and photography ancillary to their primary activities; 

however, the core access uses evaluated herein are not wildlife-dependent general public uses.

To the west of the Quarry are cliffs that define Mōkōlea Point which are densely vegetated with 

naupaka (Scaevola sericea) and other plants. Mōkōlea Point has a fence partway up the slope in the 

main Quarry area. Vegetation extends a short distance below the fence onto the relatively flat Quarry 

site. The remainder of the Quarry site shows signs of many years of heavy public use, including 

vehicle use, and has a few scattered trees but little other vegetation. The area has several fire pits, 

trash, and abandoned motor vehicles. At the south end between the main road and stream there are 

more trees and low vegetation interspersed with additional rutted roads, cleared areas that have been 

used for camping, and the small boat slide. The Quarry area is also occasionally used by squatters. 

There are no improvements in the area. There are no designated parking spaces, designated camping 

sites, potable water, toilets, recycling/garbage cans, or other improvements in the area. 

Under the management direction of the CCP, we will continue to allow visitors to access Kāhili 

Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River through the Kāhili Quarry area 24 hours a day. Visitors 

may walk, bicycle, ride horses, and drive motor vehicles on Quarry Road. Off-road travel is 

prohibited. Visitors may park vehicles and launch and load canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, and 

surfboards from the unimproved slide along the Kīlauea River. Visitors are allowed to bring and use 

portable stoves or self-contained barbeques (e.g., off-the-ground portable enclosed fires) or fires 

within a Refuge-designated fire ring or pit. Refuge-designated fire rings or pits will be sited to 

minimize the potential spread of uncontrolled fires. Visitors will need to bring charcoal or firewood. 

Fires must be attended at all times. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will continue to work with the Kīlauea community to 

maintain a passable road to the beach and shoreline. The road will be repaired and maintained to a 

standard approved by both the Service and the County of Kaua‘i (e.g., using crushed coral). In 

addition to welcome and orientation, educational, and interpretive signage and messaging, the 

Refuge will post sign(s) notifying visitors of the rules and regulations surrounding use at Kāhili 

Quarry and that the area has no drinking water, toilets, or other developed facilities. 

The Refuge will appropriately post its jurisdictional boundary in the Quarry area. A new, predatorresistant fence will replace the existing fence and will be constructed at the base of vegetation 

growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point. The fence line will extend to the ocean at the 

northern end of the main Quarry area (see map). 

This CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-67

Availability of Resources: 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with the Kāhili Quarry public use program: 

Projects Estimated Costs1 

1. Replacement of existing fence with new predator-resistant fence along the 

base of vegetation growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point.

$300,000

2. Posting of jurisdictional boundary with signage and low-profile 

monuments.

$20,000

3. Installation of new informational and regulatory signage. $10,000

Total Costs $330,000

1 Costs displayed are totals for these changes. Note that many of these changes will also benefit other 

uses occurring at Kāhili Quarry. 

Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Oversight by GS-13 Project Leader (approximately 10 hours/year). $600

2. Oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,000

3. Oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger (approximately 80 

hours/year). $2,800

4. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 120 

hours/year). $4,400

5. Monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 20 hours/year). $900

6. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $2,000

7. Signage and fence maintenance, repair, and materials $3,000

Total Costs $14,700

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

The Refuge currently has adequate budget and staff to support the annual costs associated with a 

limited amount of visitor access through the Kāhili Quarry area.

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Allowing recreational access in the Kāhili Quarry area under the stipulations described below will

not directly conflict with any Refuge goals. 

Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, 

the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the 

surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, 

and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 

2006, Holmes et al. 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as 

elevated heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 1998, Miller and 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-68 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) 

Hobbs 2000, Morton et al. 1989, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more 

difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity or death of individuals; 

altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species 

composition and interactions. 

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows closer 

to (within 13 feet of) visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended 

minimum approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart 

rate in the birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al. 

1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively 

correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 

2004). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-69

Walking through the Quarry area and along the ocean-side trail at the east base of Mōkōlea Point is 

expected to cause some wildlife disturbance. Seabirds nest in the vegetation at the base of the cliffs at 

Kāhili Quarry. Nesting birds and their young are expected to experience stress, possibly flush, and 

potentially be more vulnerable to predation if visitors approached nesting sites too closely, too 

quickly, too noisily, in too large of groups, or with dogs. 

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) and honu (Chelonia mydas) are 

known to use Kaua‘i’s north shore. Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are especially sensitive 

to human disturbance (NMFS 2007). Approaching visitors could force hauled-out individuals to 

move back into the water and seek a new haul-out site, causing them to expend energy and increasing 

their exposure to predators. Potential disturbance of female adults with pups is of special concern. 

Refuge visitors, their vehicles, and pets can trample native plants, cause soil compaction and/or 

erosion, and potentially introduce or spread nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and 

invasive species. As noted earlier, the Quarry area has received substantial public use for many years. 

Its naturalness is already seriously compromised and it includes many nonnative plants. It is unlikely 

that continued access through the area will further exacerbate this situation. 

Bringing human food onto the Refuge and cooking/eating onsite will result in an increase in litter and 

a buildup of food scraps and will increase the potential for direct feeding of wildlife. These foods 

will likely attract undesirable pests and predators (e.g., cats and rats) to the Refuge. The presence of 

food could also attract native wildlife species, reducing their fear of humans and habituating them 

more to people and human foods. This can result in adverse impacts for both wildlife and humans. 

Visitors contribute to wildlife mortality by feeding birds. For example, feeding causes endangered 

nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis) to beg at road-sides and parking lots and approach 

vehicles on highways, increasing bird-vehicular injuries and deaths. Road casualties are a major 

cause of nēnē mortality at two Hawai‘i National Parks (55 deaths from 1989 to 1999) (USFWS 2004) 

and on or adjacent to Kīlauea Point NWR (20 deaths 2010 to 2014) (USFWS unpublished). 

Exposing wildlife to human foods could also reduce their foraging on natural foods and cause young 

wildlife not to fully develop critical foraging skills, potentially decreasing their survivability in areas 

and at times when such foods were less or not available. Potentially, human foods could also sicken 

wildlife or reduce their fitness and affect growth, reproductive potential, and survivability (Heiser 

undated). 

The several stipulations associated with this use have been designed to greatly reduce the likelihood 

and magnitude of potential biological effects. The new fencing and signage will reduce the likelihood 

that visitors and/or their dogs will disturb roosting and nesting wildlife. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

Fredericksen and Fredericksen (1989) described the ruins of a sugar-loading complex located on 

Mōkōlea Point above the fishing areas. However, the same study identified no Hawaiian artifacts 

from either the historic or prehistoric periods within the affected areas. It is not expected that 

continued public use at this site will further impact cultural resources. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-70 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) 

Public Use

As noted earlier, providing recreational access to off-Refuge areas is not a wildlife-dependent public 

use and is of lower priority for Refuge management than the fishing and wildlife observation and 

photography uses that also occur in the Quarry area. These uses have occurred side-by-side in this 

area for many years. It is not expected that continued use and access through the Quarry area will

adversely impact fishing or other wildlife-dependent public uses at the Refuge. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Access through Kahili Quarry to access Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River will be 

allowed 24 hours a day. 

2. Visitors will be allowed to bring dogs, but prohibited from bringing cats or other pets with them 

to the Kāhili Quarry area. All dogs brought onto the Refuge in this area will be required to be 

leashed on a short (8-foot maximum) leash and under direct control at all times and will not be 

allowed to run free. Dogs will not be allowed to accompany pedestrians past the northeastern end 

of the main Quarry area (refer to map). Additionally, signage will be used to delineate accessible 

and nonaccessible areas.

3. When viewing or photographing ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu, whether these animals are in the 

water or on shore, visitors are required to maintain a distance of at least 50 yards and limit their 

viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes (NOAA undated). ‘Ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu are 

both listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ‘ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua is also listed under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These acts have mechanisms to encourage 

management for population growth and recovery and to prohibit any form of “take,” except for 

limited exceptions authorized under Federal permits. Under the ESA, “take” means to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Under the MMPA, “take” includes actions such as hunting, harassing, killing, capturing, 

injuring and disturbing a marine mammal. There are established civil and criminal penalties for, 

at a minimum, disturbing ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu by getting too close or staying too long 

which alter their behavior, thus resulting in take. If ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu display signs of 

being disturbed, then that 50 yards will be expanded and/or viewing will be minimized or shut 

down to stop the disturbance and avoid potential take.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-71

4. Visitors are allowed to erect temporary shelters (protections from the sun and/or rain) in the 

Quarry area during daylight hours only; however, camping is prohibited. All temporary shelters 

or other structures must be taken down at the end of each day. Visitors could also bring and use 

self-contained barbeques (i.e., off-the-ground portable enclosed fires) or fires within a Refugedesignated fire ring or pit. Refuge-designated fire rings or pits will be sited to minimize the 

potential spread of uncontrolled fires. Visitors will need to bring charcoal or firewood. Fires must 

be attended at all times. With the exception of those structures specifically described herein, 

visitors are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures on the Refuge 

without specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these 

stipulations, the Refuge manager is the Refuge Project Leader of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex). 

5. Visitors are prohibited from use of motorized or other vehicles off designated routes of travel. At 

the Quarry, designated routes of travel include Kāhili Quarry Road, the vehicle access to the 

unimproved boat slide into Kīlauea River, and the hardened vehicle access and parking area in 

the core of the Quarry area. 

6. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, visitors are prohibited 

from collecting and removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, abiotic or biological 

specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge. 

7. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, visitors are prohibited 

from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric, historic, or other cultural 

resources on the Refuge.

8. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on refuges 

(“Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) – 

Solid Waste (Nonhazardous),” 561 FW 5), visitors are prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, 

abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Refuge, including 

glass. 

9. In addition to the stipulations listed here, visitors are required to comply with Refuge Systemrelated and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 

10. No changes could be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

Justification:

Kāhili Quarry is an important buffer area for wildlife resources on Mōkōlea Point and Crater Hill, 

including breeding sites for nēnē, mōlī (Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis), ‘ua‘u kani, 

koa‘e ‘ula (red-tailed tropicbirds, Phaethon rubricauda), as well as roosting or foraging sites for 

pueo (Hawaiian short-eared owl, Asio flammeus sandwichensis) and ‘iwa (great frigatebird, Fregata 

minor). Additionally, accessing Kīlauea River, Kīlauea Bay, and Kāhili Beach through the Kāhili

Quarry area on the Refuge has the potential to cause some disturbance to seals and/or turtles. The

primary concern in allowing any public access and use at the Quarry is to maintain adverse impacts 

within acceptable limits. Specific concerns about allowing public access and use at the Quarry 

include evening and nighttime disturbance from light, noise, human occupation, traffic, and dogs to 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-72 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) 

seabirds nesting on Mōkōlea Point; ground fires spreading to vegetation; impacts to environmental 

quality from trash and pollution; and illegal uses such as squatting that may occur during the 

nighttime.

In addition to the stipulations listed above, a combination of strategies is required to limit the 

potential for adverse impacts to wildlife and habitats. These strategies include building trust and 

relationships with local nonprofit organizations and community leaders of Kīlauea to help foster 

stewardship of this area, maintaining a passable road, posting the Refuge boundary, replacing and realigning the predator-resistant fence, adding bollards, exploring the possibility of cooperatively 

managing with the State, and requiring all dogs to be on a short leash and under direct control at all 

times. 

Not providing drinking water, toilets, or making other improvements onsite is expected to continue to 

limit the number of individuals who use this area. Visitors could also easily access Kāhili Beach and 

Kīlauea Bay via Wailapa Road, an all-weather road east of the Quarry across Kīlauea River. 

Increased Refuge law enforcement will be needed to reduce violations of rules and regulations, 

including squatting.

Although providing recreational access to off-Refuge areas is not a wildlife-dependent public use as 

defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) and is of lower priority for Refuge management than the 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental interpretation uses that also occur 

in the Quarry area, this non–wildlife-dependent use will facilitate compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation; it is expected that visitors will enjoy some wildlife observation and photography ancillary 

to their primary activities. To the extent this occurred, it is supportive of one of the Refuge purposes 

to provide fishing and wildlife-oriented recreation. 

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. The Refuge will also 

monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine if these stipulations 

result in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply adaptive management principles to 

modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as 

a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; changes to access practices; or for other legitimate reasons. Refuge personnel will

appropriately advise visitors of any such changes. 

The Refuge also reserves the right to terminate or modify privileges to access the stream, ocean, or 

beach through the Refuge if visitors violate Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts 

occur to native fish, wildlife, plants, or their habitats, cultural resources, Refuge facilities, or other 

Refuge visitors; or for other legitimate reasons. 

Compatibility Standard 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, access through the Kāhili Quarry area needs to be determined 

compatible. By allowing this use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that 

wildlife which could be disturbed will find sufficient food resources and resting places so that their

abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-73

monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their 

habitats, other public uses, and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated above and consistent 

with the stipulations described herein, this use will not materially interfere with or detract from 

maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of 

Kīlauea Point’s NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
KT!auea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: General Access for Off-Refuge Stream, Beach, and Ocean Uses 

(Kahili Quarry) 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

A..cting 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

B-74 

~~~-~ 

(Signature) 

-----c~~~ 

(Signature) 

9/r//s-

(Date) ' 

'1 /to (IS 

(Date) 

~~~~ ~~~ qltb/1> 

(S ignatur ) (Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations-General Access (Kahili Quarry) 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-75

!y

Kīlauea

River

Kāhili

Beach

Large Refuge Sign with

Rules and Regulations

Area closed signs 

along road

Refuge boundary posted with signs

Dog/vehicle barrier

and signage marked with

bollards or fenceline with

unsecured gate

Public Use

Kāhili Quarry/Mōkōlea Point, Kīlauea Point NWR

Map Date: 11/19/2014 File: 11-106-5.mxd

Data: USFWS 2014, DigitalGlobe 2010

E

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch

0 300 600

feet

0 100 200

meters

LEGEND

Refuge Ownership

Future Fence Alignment

Future Dog/Vehicle Barrier

Public Use

Open to Public

!y Unimproved Boat Launch

No Dogs or Vehicles
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-76 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) 

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) B-77

References Cited: 

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133

Fredericksen, D. and W. Fredericksen. 1989. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Crater Hill and 

Mokolea Point of Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kīlauea, Kauaʻi, Hawaiʻi. Xamanek 

Researches, Pukalani, Maui, HI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Heiser, C.A. Undated. Feeding Wildlife: Food for Thought. Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries. Available at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/wild-in-the-woods/feeding-wildlife-foodfor-thought.pdf. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-78 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—General Access (Kāhili Quarry) 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59–F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft revised recovery plan for the nēnē or Hawaiian 

goose (Branta sandvicensis). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 

Portland, OR. 148 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-79

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Research and Scientific Collections

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

This use involves research and scientific collections conducted by non-National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) parties on Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-80 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Research refers to a planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature. Such 

studies are designed to determine the cause(s) of observed biotic or abiotic phenomenon over a finite 

period, where cause-and-effect relationships usually can be inferred through statistical analyses. 

Scientific collecting involves gathering of Refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific 

purposes. Examples include collection of vegetation, small mammals, and soils; contaminant 

sampling; and collection and curation of cultural resources. 

Refuge staff periodically receive requests from outside parties (e.g., universities, State agencies, 

other Federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations) to conduct research and scientific 

collections on Refuge lands. These project requests can involve a wide range of natural and cultural 

resources as well as public use management issues, including collection of new species for 

identification, habitat use and life-history requirements for specific species/species groups, practical 

methods for habitat restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to 

control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and 

associated habitat/wildlife response, modeling of wildlife populations, bioprospecting, and assessing 

response of habitat/wildlife to disturbance from public uses. Projects may be species-specific, refugespecific, or evaluate the relative contribution of refuge lands to larger landscape (ecoregion, region, 

flyway, national, and international) issues and trends. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service’s) Research and Management Studies (4 RM 6) and 

Appropriate Refuge Uses (603 FW1) policies indicate priority for scientific investigatory studies that 

contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refugespecific needs for resource management goals and objectives, where applicable, will be given a 

higher priority over other requests. Attached to this compatibility determination (CD) are examples 

of high-priority research and scientific collection topics for Kīlauea Point NWR (Attachment 1). 

Research and scientific collections on the Refuge will generally be authorized through individual 

special use permits (SUPs) consistent with Service policy (Administration of Specialized Uses, 5 RM 

17). 

Projects that are public or private economic uses of the natural resources of the Refuge will need to 

comply with relevant Federal regulations for such uses (50 CFR 29.1). In such cases, the Refuge 

needs to first determine that the use contributes to the achievement of Refuge purposes or the Refuge 

System mission prior to making a determination regarding the project’s compatibility. 

This programmatic CD has been developed and made publicly available concurrent with the 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for Kīlauea 

Point NWR. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-81

Availability of Resources: 

Refuge staff responsibilities for research and scientific collections by non-Refuge System entities are 

primarily limited to the following: review of proposals, preparation of an SUP(s) and other 

appropriate compliance documents (e.g., Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), and monitoring project implementation to ensure that 

impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels (remain compatible) over time. Additional 

administrative, logistical, and operational support could also be provided depending on each specific 

request. Estimated costs for one-time (e.g., prepare SUP) and annually recurring tasks by Refuge 

staff or other Service employees will be determined on a project-by-project basis. Sufficient funding 

in the Refuge’s general operating budget will need to be available to cover expenses for these 

projects. The terms and conditions for funding and staff support necessary to administer each project 

on the Refuge will be clearly stated in the SUP(s). 

The Refuge has the following staffing and funding to administratively support and monitor research 

and scientific collections that are currently taking place on Kīlauea Point NWR (see table below). 

Any substantial increase in the number of projects will create a need for additional resources to 

satisfy administrative and monitoring needs to ensure the projects were implemented in a compatible 

manner. Any substantial additional costs above those itemized below could result in determining a 

project not compatible unless expenses were offset by the investigator, sponsoring organization, or 

other party. 

Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge. 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Oversight by GS-13 Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,200

2. Oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,000

3. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 20 

hours/year). $700

4. Permit monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 60 hours/year). $2,600

5. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $1,100

6. Special equipment, facilities, improvements, and travel.

Total Costs $6,600

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Use of the Refuge to conduct research and scientific collecting will generally provide information of 

benefit to native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, or cultural resources. Scientific findings gained 

through these projects could provide important information regarding life-history needs of species 

and species groups, as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve natural or cultural 

resource management objectives. Reducing uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to 

Refuge management actions undertaken in order to achieve desired outcomes (objectives) is essential 

for adaptive management (Adaptive Management, 522 DM 1). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-82 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Potentially, some projects’ methods could impact or conflict with Refuge-specific natural or cultural 

resources, priority wildlife-dependent public uses, other research, or Refuge management programs. 

In such cases, in order for the project to be determined compatible, it needs to be clearly 

demonstrated that the project’s scientific findings will contribute to Refuge management and that the 

project could not be conducted off-Refuge. The investigator(s) will need to identify 

methods/strategies in advance to eliminate or minimize potential impacts and conflicts. If 

unacceptable impacts, including long-term and cumulative impacts, could not be avoided, then the 

project could not be determined compatible. 

Impacts will be project- and site-specific, and they will vary depending upon the nature and scope of 

the field work. Data collection techniques will generally have no or minimal animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. 

To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers will coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. For example, if one investigator collects fish for a diet study 

and another research examines otoliths, then it may be possible to accomplish sampling for both 

projects with one collection effort. 

 

Investigator(s) obtaining required Federal and State collecting permits will also ensure minimal 

impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. If, even after incorporating the above strategies, 

projects will result in long-term or cumulative effects, projects will not be found compatible. A 

Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as 

amended, Pub. L. 93-205) will be required for activities that may affect a federally listed species 

and/or critical habitat. Only projects that have no effect or will result in not likely to adversely affect 

determinations will be considered compatible. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but will be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper cleaning 

of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary (Attachment 

5). If, after all practical measures are taken and unacceptable spread of invasive species is anticipated 

to occur, then the project will be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support a projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 

monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) will usually be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative 

unacceptable effects cannot be avoided, the project will not be found compatible. Project proposals 

will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-term, 

long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to Refuge management issues and 

understanding of natural systems. 

At least 6 months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval of the 

Refuge Manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format provided 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-83

in Attachment 2. Project proposals will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess 

the potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation 

to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment will form the 

primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which result in unacceptable 

Refuge impacts will not be found compatible. If allowed and found compatible after approval, all 

projects also will be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain within 

acceptable levels. 

If the proposal is approved, then the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the 

Refuge manager is the Refuge Project Leader of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex) will

issue an SUP(s) with required stipulations (terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or 

minimize potential impacts to Refuge resources as well as conflicts with other public use activities 

and Refuge field management operations. After approval, projects are monitored during 

implementation to ensure impacts and conflicts remain within acceptable levels based upon 

documented stipulations. 

The combination of stipulations identified and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure that 

proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of native 

wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these projects will help fulfill 

Refuge purposes; contribute to the Refuge System mission; and maintain the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Projects which are not covered by the CCP (objectives under Goal 3 (Gather scientific information 

(surveys, research, and assessments) to support adaptive management decisions)) will require 

additional NEPA documentation. 

It is likely that most proposed research and scientific collection projects will support one or more of 

the Refuge goals, but each will need to be evaluated separately. Projects that are determined 

supportive of Refuge goals and the Refuge System mission have a greater chance of being found 

appropriate, determined compatible, and authorized for implementation. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Permission to use the Refuge for research and scientific collections will be officially authorized 

through issuance of an SUP. Generally, permits will be issued on a year-to-year basis. SUPs will

cover use by a specified individual or organization and cannot be assigned or sub-permitted to 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-84 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

others (i.e., the permit is not transferable). Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; 

however, some permits will be longer, if needed, to allow completion of the project. All SUPs 

will have a definite termination date in accordance with 5 RM 17.11. Renewals will be subject to 

Refuge manager review and approval based on timely submission of and content in progress 

reports, compliance with SUP stipulations, and required permits. 

Prior to potential permit renewal, researchers will meet with Refuge staff to share new 

information, discuss results of monitoring, review compliance with permit conditions, and 

address other issues. Other meetings will be scheduled as needed.

2. Most of Kīlauea Point NWR is closed to general public use, so SUPs will include maps clearly 

depicting the areas researchers will be authorized to access and use, including the Refuge entry 

point(s). Travel within the Refuge will be by designated road or trail. Permittees are prohibited 

from straying outside the areas depicted on the maps. 

3. In order to reduce conflicts with other approved public uses, especially wildlife-dependent public 

uses, permittees will not be allowed to use the Point, Upper Overlook and associated parking lot, 

or Crater Hill for research and scientific collections during Refuge special events. An exception 

to this general stipulation involves research and scientific collections associated with high levels 

of public use. Special consideration could be made in such situations; however, additional 

stipulations will likely apply.

4. The Refuge will supply researchers with information about the Refuge; its purposes and goals; 

natural and cultural resources of concern; open and closed areas, dates, and times; rules and 

regulations; and any hazardous conditions. Researchers are responsible for reviewing and 

understanding this information and ensuring that their colleagues also receive, review, and 

understand this information. 

5. Researchers are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures on the 

Refuge without specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager. 

6. Unless it was an element included in their approved project proposal, researchers and their 

colleagues are prohibited from collecting and removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, 

abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge. 

7. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on refuges 

(“Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) – 

Solid Waste (Nonhazardous),” 561 FW 5), permittees are prohibited from littering, dumping 

refuse, abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items on the Refuge. 

8. Researchers are required to hold the United States Government harmless from any damages or 

injury to the permittee or members of the general public in areas and facilities accessed via the 

terms of their permit. 

9. In addition to the stipulations listed here, the general permit conditions and requirements, and the 

special permit conditions, researchers and their colleagues are required to comply with Refuge 

System-related and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including “Prohibited Acts” 

listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-85

10. No changes can be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

 

Research and Scientific Collections

1. The Refuge will issue a call for research proposals. Proposals received by the stated deadline will

be evaluated and considered for approval during the next cycle. 

2. At least 6 months before initiation of field work, a researcher(s) is required to submit a detailed 

proposal (Attachment 2). Among other things, proposals need to adhere to scientifically 

defensible protocols for data collection, where available and applicable. 

Project proposals will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed. This review will

assess—relative to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems—the 

potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) of the investigation. This assessment 

forms the primary basis for determining whether or not the project could be approved. 

3. Researchers will be required to submit progress reports at least annually for multiple-year 

projects. A list of the minimum required elements for these reports is attached (Attachment 3). 

Final project reports are due 1 year after completion of the project unless negotiated otherwise 

with the Refuge manager. 

Researchers will be required to provide Refuge staff with the following: 

a. An opportunity to review and comment on draft manuscripts prior to their submittal to a 

scientific journal for consideration for publication;

b. Copies (reprints) of all publications resulting from a project permitted on the Refuge; and 

c. At the conclusion of the project, raw data (preferably in an electronic database format). 

 In all written and oral presentations resulting from projects on the Refuge, researchers are

required to appropriately cite and acknowledge the Refuge System, Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge, and Refuge staff and other Service personnel who supported or contributed to 

the project. 

 Upon completion of the project or annually (at the discretion of the Refuge manager), researchers 

will be required to remove all equipment and physical markers (unless required for long-term 

projects) and restore sites to the Refuge manager’s satisfaction. SUPs will specify conditions for 

removal and clean-up. 

4. Researchers will need to obtain all required local, State, and Federal permits for collections and 

other purposes. 

5. A Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act will be required for all projects and 

activities that may affect federally listed species and/or critical habitat. Only projects which will

have “no effect” or will result in a “not likely to adversely affect” determination will be 

considered for potential approval. 

6. To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates, and artifacts) will be collected for identification and/or 

experimentation and statistical analysis.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-86 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Where possible, researchers will be required to coordinate and share collections. This could 

reduce sampling needed for multiple projects and any associated mortality and disturbance. For 

example, if one investigator collected fish for a diet study and another researcher was examining 

otoliths, then it could be possible to accomplish sampling for both projects with one collection 

effort. 

All samples collected on Refuge lands or from Refuge waters are the property of the Service 

even while in the possession of the researcher. Any future work with previously collected 

samples not clearly identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent 

proposal for Refuge review and approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional 

project work. For samples or specimens to be stored at other facilities (e.g., museums), a 

memorandum of understanding will be necessary (Attachment 4). 

7. Except where it was an essential element of an approved research proposal associated with ‘īlioholo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) or honu (Chelonia mydas) to do 

otherwise, researchers are required to maintain a distance of at least 50 yards from these animals 

and limit their viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes. 

8. To minimize the introduction and/or spread of nonnative plants or animals, diseases, or other 

pests, sampling equipment and researcher’s clothing and vehicles (e.g., ATVs, boats) will need to 

be thoroughly cleaned (free of dirt and plant material) before being used on the Refuge. 

Depending on the project, quarantine methods could be necessary (Attachment 5). 

9. Researchers are required to secure approval from the Service prior to use of any pesticide 

(including uses of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) on the Refuge. This involves 

researchers submitting to the Refuge manager a completed Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) for each 

proposed pesticide use. These PUPs will need to be submitted at least 60 days prior to proposed 

use of the pesticide to allow adequate time for evaluation and processing. 

10. At any time, Refuge staff can accompany researchers in the field. 

11. Researchers are required to report dead or sick endangered birds or other wildlife to Refuge staff 

within 24 hours. 

Cultural Resources 

1. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, researchers and their 

colleagues are prohibited from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric, 

historic, or other cultural resources on the Refuge. In the event such resources were inadvertently 

disturbed in the course of conducting otherwise permitted activities, the disturbing activity will

need to be immediately discontinued, and the Refuge manager will need to be notified within 24 

hours. If iwi (skeletal human remains) are encountered, the activity will need to be immediately 

stopped and the Refuge manager, police, and Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

should be notified. Collecting and removing any prehistoric or historic artifacts is prohibited. 

Justification:

Suitable research and scientific collections on refuges are inherently valuable to the Service when

they expand scientific information available for resource management decisions about fish, wildlife, 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-87

plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and/or public use. In many cases, if it were not for the 

Refuge staff providing access to Refuge lands and waters along with some support, the project would 

never occur and less scientific information would be available to aid the Service in managing and 

conserving Refuge resources. 

By allowing the use to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife 

which could be disturbed by this use will find sufficient food resources and resting places so that 

their abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated 

that monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, 

their habitats, cultural resources, and public use. Where this was not the case, the proposed project 

will likely not be compatible and will not be authorized for implementation. As a result, potential 

research and scientific collections, consistent with the stipulations described herein, will not 

materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health; fulfillment of Kīlauea Point NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s 

mission.

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. Violation of any of 

these stipulations could result in temporary or permanent withdrawal by appropriate Refuge 

personnel of official permission to continue research or scientific collections on the Refuge. Permits 

could be revoked by the Refuge manager with 30 days’ written notice of noncompliance with these 

stipulations.

The Refuge will also monitor habitat quantity and quality, wildlife use and productivity, water 

quality, cultural resources, and other relevant endpoints to determine if stipulations associated with 

research and scientific collections result in expected and desirable outcomes. In consultation with 

researchers, the Refuge will apply adaptive management principles to modify stipulations or adjust 

objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of this use. New or modified stipulations will be instituted as a 

result of ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy requirements; significant changes to 

the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, or their habitats; as a result of 

mutual agreement with researchers; or for other legitimate reason. Researchers will be advised of 

new or significantly modified stipulations at least 90 days prior to their becoming effective. 

The Refuge also reserves the right to terminate permission for these uses if permittees violate Refuge 

rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts occur to native fish, wildlife, plants, or their habitats, 

cultural resources or Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors; or for other legitimate reasons. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-88 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR. 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-90 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Attachment 1

High-Priority Research and Scientific Collections

Following are examples of high-priority research and scientific collection topics for Kīlauea Point 

NWR. They are not listed in priority order. 

• Assess the effectiveness of social and other attraction methods to attract seabirds (e.g., Newell’s 

shearwater and Laysan albatross) to the Refuge. Determine feasibility of relocating Newell’s 

shearwater chicks to the Refuge. 

• Assess the effectiveness of various habitat management techniques in enhancing nēnē nesting 

habitat on Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point. 

• Monitor and assess the causes of seabird and nēnē mortality.

• Evaluate the ability of various fencing systems to bar access to Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point by 

mammalian pests and predators such as cats, dogs, mice, pigs, and rats. Evaluate the 

effectiveness of trapping, bait stations, shooting, and other methods to reduce onsite pest and 

predator populations. 

• Determine the most effective methods to remove nonnative vegetation and restore and maintain 

native plant species.

• Use pollen core studies and other techniques to reconstruct prehistoric vegetation communities. 

Continue to explore the most effective techniques to propagate and outplant native plants. 

• Design and implement a program(s) to inventory and monitor high-priority plant and animal 

species and communities, including seabirds and shorebirds, Hawaiian monk seals and green sea 

turtles, Hawaiian hoary bat, endangered plants, and nonnative pests and predators. 

• Map Refuge soils and vegetation communities. Identify important wildlife uses and problems 

such as nonnative species and erosion. 

• Assess the effects of public use on seabirds and shorebirds, including the effects of new or 

expanded programs such as hikes on Crater Hill. Develop appropriate mitigation measures. 

• Assess the effects of leashed dogs on wildlife use and productivity at Kāhili Quarry. 

• Enhance understanding of the effects of commercial uses on compatible recreational and 

educational public uses, especially wildlife-dependent public uses, and develop appropriate 

mitigation measures.

• Inventory and assess the status of the Refuge’s cultural resources, and enhance knowledge and 

management with archival research and oral histories. 

• Design and implement an appropriate climate change monitoring program for the Refuge. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-91

Attachment 2 

FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH OR LONG-TERM 

MONITORING ON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

A Special Use Permit (SUP) is required to conduct research and/or long-term monitoring on refuge 

lands. To receive an SUP, a detailed project proposal using the following format must be submitted 

to the Refuge manager approximately 6 months prior to the start of the project. 

Title:

Principal Investigator(s): 

Provide the name(s) and affiliation(s) of all principal investigator(s) that will be responsible for 

implementation of the research and/or long-term monitoring described in the proposal. In addition, 

provide a brief description or attach vitae of expertise for principal investigator(s) germane to work 

described in the proposal. 

Background and Justification: 

In a narrative format, describe the following as applicable: 

• The resource management issue (e.g., decline in Pisonia rainforest) and/or knowledge gap 

regarding ecological function that currently exists with any available background 

information. 

• Benefit of project findings (e.g., management implications) to resources associated with the 

refuge. 

• Potential consequences if the conservation issue and/or knowledge gap regarding ecological 

function is not addressed. 

Objectives:

Provide detailed objective(s) for the proposed project. 

Methods and Materials: 

Provide a detailed description of the methods and materials associated with field and laboratory 

work (if applicable) to be conducted for the project. Methods should include the following: 

• study area(s); 

• number of samples; 

• sampling dates and locations; 

• sampling techniques; and 

• data analyses including statistical methods and significance levels. 

Previously published methods should be cited without explanation; whereas, new or modified 

techniques should be described in detail. Include number of personnel as well as all facilities and 

equipment (e.g., vehicles, boats, structures, markers) required to collect samples/data. Provide a 

clear description of the relationships among study objectives, field methods, and statistical analyses. 

Permits:

Identify all State or Territorial and Federal permits required if applicable. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-92 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Potential Impacts to Refuge Resources: 

Describe potential impacts to threatened or endangered species as well as other refuge plants, 

wildlife, and fish species that could result from the implementation of project activities on the refuge. 

Consider the cumulative impacts associated with this project. 

Animal Welfare Plan: 

If appropriate, attach a copy of the Institutional Animal Care and Use review and/or animal welfare 

plans that are required by the principle investigator’s affiliation. 

Partnerships and Funding Sources:

List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals as well as the nature and 

magnitude of their cooperative involvement (e.g., funding, equipment, personnel). 

Project Schedule:

Provide estimated initiation and completion dates for field sampling, laboratory work, data analyses, 

and report/manuscript preparation. If the project is divided into phases to be accomplished 

separately, provide separate initiation and completion dates for each phase. 

Reports and Raw Data: 

Establish a schedule for annual progress and final reports; include adequate time for peer review of 

the final report/manuscript. Draft reports/manuscripts should be submitted to the Refuge manager 

for review prior to submission for consideration of publication. At the conclusion of a research study 

(manuscripts accepted for publication), an electronic copy of the data (e.g., GIS vegetation layers, 

animal species composition and numbers, genetics) should be provided to the Refuge manager. For 

long-term monitoring projects, the Service also requires raw data for management and planning 

purposes for the Refuge.

Publications:

Describe the ultimate disposition of study results as publications in scientific journals, presentation 

at professional symposiums, or final reports. 

Disposition of Samples:

If the project entails the collection of biotic and/or abiotic (e.g., sediment) samples, then describe 

their storage. Although the samples may be in the possession of scientists for the purposes of 

conducting the project in accordance with the SUP, the Service retains ownership of all samples 

collected on refuge lands. If the samples will be used for subsequent research activities that are not 

described within the original proposal, a new proposal must be submitted to the Refuge manager to 

obtain an SUP before initiation of the follow-up project. After conclusion of the research activities, 

consult with the refuge manager regarding the final disposition of the samples. If specimens will be 

curated at a museum, then prepare an MOU using the format provided in Attachment 3. 

 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-93

Attachment 3 

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR REFUGE RESEARCH AND LONG-TERM 

MONITORING PROJECTS

Study title: 

Fiscal year:

Progress:

In a narrative format, summarize the work that was completed on the study including the number and 

types of samples collected and/or data analyses. 

Important findings: 

In narrative format, generally describe any conclusions and/or management recommendations that 

may be drawn from the work completed to date. 

Describe problems encountered:

In narrative format, describe any problems that were encountered during the year and their effects 

upon the study. 

Proposed resolution to problems: 

For each problem encountered, describe the actions that have been taken to remediate it. 

Preparer:

Date prepared:
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-94 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Attachment 4 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

FOR CURATORIAL SERVICES

BETWEEN THE

(Name of the Federal agency) 

AND THE

(Name of the Repository) 

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this (day) day of (month and year), between 

the United States of America, acting by and through the (name of the Federal agency), hereinafter 

called the Depositor, and the (name of the Repository), hereinafter called the Repository, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory). 

The Parties do witnesseth that

WHEREAS, the Depositor has the responsibility under Federal law to preserve for future use certain 

collections of paleontological specimens and/or biological samples as well as associated records, 

herein called the Collection, listed in Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, 

and is desirous of obtaining curatorial services; and 

WHEREAS, the Repository is desirous of obtaining, housing, and maintaining the Collection, and 

recognizes the benefits which will accrue to it, the public, and scientific interests by housing and 

maintaining the Collection for study and other educational purposes; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the Federal Government’s continued ownership and control 

over the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, listed in Attachment B 

which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, provided to the Repository, and the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Collection is suitably managed and preserved for the 

public good; and

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the mutual benefits to be derived by having the Collection 

suitably housed and maintained by the Repository; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties do mutually agree as follows: 

1. The Repository shall: 

a. Provide for the professional care and management of the Collection from the (names 

of the resources) sites, assigned (list site numbers) site numbers. The collections 

were recovered in connection with the (name of the Federal or federally

authorized project) project, located in (name of the nearest city or town), (name 

of the county, if applicable) county, in the State/Territory of (name of the 

State/Territory) 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-95

b. Assign as the Curator, the Collections Manager and the Conservator having 

responsibility for the work under this Memorandum, persons who are qualified 

museum professionals and whose expertise is appropriate to the nature and content of 

the Collection.

c. Begin all work on or about (month, day, and year) and continue for a period of 

(number of years) years or until sooner terminated or revoked in accordance with 

the terms set forth herein. 

d. Provide and maintain a repository facility having requisite equipment, space, and 

adequate safeguards for the physical security and controlled environment for the 

Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property in the 

possession of the Repository. 

e. Not in any way adversely alter or deface any of the Collection except as may be 

absolutely necessary in the course of stabilization, conservation, scientific study, 

analysis, and research. Any activity that will involve the intentional destruction of 

any of the Collection must be approved in advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

f. Annually inspect the facilities, the Collection, and any other U.S. Government-owned 

personal property. Every (number of years) years inventory the Collection and any 

other U.S. Government-owned personal property. Perform only those conservation 

treatments as are absolutely necessary to ensure the physical stability and integrity of 

the Collection, and report the results of all inventories, inspections, and treatments to 

the Depositor. 

g. Within five (5) days of discovery, report all instances of and circumstances 

surrounding loss of, deterioration and damage to, or destruction of the Collection and 

any other U.S. Government-owned personal property to the Depositor, and those 

actions taken to stabilize the Collection and to correct any deficiencies in the physical 

plant or operating procedures that may have contributed to the loss, deterioration, 

damage, or destruction. Any actions that will involve the repair and restoration of any 

of the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property must be 

approved in advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

h. Review and approve or deny requests for access to or short-term loan of the 

Collection (or a part thereof) for scientific and educational uses. In addition, refer 

requests for consumptive uses of the Collection (or a part thereof) to the Depositor for 

approval or denial. 

i. Not mortgage, pledge, assign, repatriate, transfer, exchange, give, sublet, discard, or 

part with possession of any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned 

personal property in any manner to any third party either directly or indirectly 

without the prior written permission of the Depositor, and redirect any such request to 

the Depositor for response. In addition, not take any action whereby any of the 

Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property shall or may be 

encumbered, seized, taken in execution, sold, attached, lost, stolen, destroyed, or 

damaged.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-96 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

2. The Depositor shall: 

a. On or about (month, day, and year), deliver or cause to be delivered to the 

Repository the Collection, as described in Attachment A, and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property, as described in Attachment B. 

b. Assign as the Depositor’s Representative having full authority with regard to this 

Memorandum, a person who meets pertinent professional qualifications. 

c. Every (number of years) years, jointly with the Repository’s designated 

representative, have the Depositor’s Representative inspect and inventory the 

Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property and inspect the 

repository facility.

d. Review and approve or deny requests for consumptively using the Collection (or a 

part thereof). 

3. Removal of all or any portion of the Collection from the premises of the Repository for 

scientific or educational purposes; any conditions for handling, packaging and transporting 

the Collection; and other conditions that may be specified by the Repository to prevent 

breakage, deterioration, and contamination. 

4. The Collection or portions thereof may be exhibited, photographed, or otherwise reproduced 

and studied in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Attachment C to this 

Memorandum. All exhibits, reproductions, and studies shall credit the Depositor, and read as 

follows: “Courtesy of the (name of the Federal agency).” The Repository agrees to provide 

the Depositor with copies of any resulting publications. 

5. The Repository shall maintain complete and accurate records of the Collection and any other 

U.S. Government-owned personal property, including information on the study, use, loan, 

and location of said Collection which has been removed from the premises of the Repository. 

6. Upon execution by both parties, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on 

this (day) day of (month and year), and shall remain in effect for (number of years) years, 

at which time it will be reviewed, revised, as necessary, and reaffirmed or terminated. This 

Memorandum may be revised or extended by mutual consent of both parties, or by issuance 

of a written amendment signed and dated by both parties. Either party may terminate this 

Memorandum by providing 90 days’ written notice. Upon termination, the Repository shall 

return such Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property to the 

destination directed by the Depositor and in such manner to preclude breakage, loss, 

deterioration, and contamination during handling, packaging, and shipping, and in 

accordance with other conditions specified in writing by the Depositor. If the Repository 

terminates, or is in default of, this Memorandum, the Repository shall fund the packaging and 

transportation costs. If the Depositor terminates this Memorandum, the Depositor shall fund 

the packaging and transportation costs. 

7. Title to the Collection being cared for and maintained under this Memorandum lies with the 

Federal Government. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-97

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum.

Signed: (signature of the Federal Agency Official) Date: (date) 

Signed: (signature of the Repository Official) Date: (date) 

Attachment 3A: Inventory of the Collection 

Attachment 3B: Inventory of any other U.S. Government-owned Personal Property 

Attachment 3C: Terms and Conditions Required by the Depositor 

 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-98 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

Attachment 5 

ALIEN SPECIES QUARANTINE RESTRICTIONS 

FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

A. Introduction 

Thank you for your interest in conducting research/monitoring on the refuge(s). To protect wildlife 

and habitat communities found on the refuge, visitation is carefully regulated and requires that each 

individual, or group, secure a Special Use Permit (SUP) to gain access to the refuge. Each SUP 

clearly outlines the responsibilities of each permittee, including specific quarantine policies, which 

may be more detailed than the policies listed within this document. Details for securing an SUP can 

be found by contacting the refuge manager. Prospective scientific researchers must apply for the SUP 

at least 6 months prior to their proposed study period. 

One of the gravest threats to the refuge(s) is the introduction of alien plant and animal species. The 

practices described below are complex, but the Service has found them to be effective at greatly 

reducing additional introductions of invasive species on refuge(s). 

 

B. Definitions 

1. Clothing - all apparel, including shoes, socks, over and under garments. 

2. Soft gear - all gear such as books, office supplies, daypacks, fannypacks, packing foam or 

similar material, camera bags, camera/binocular straps, microphone covers, nets, holding or 

weighing bags, bedding, tents, luggage, or any fabric or material capable of harboring seeds 

or insects. 

3. New Clothing/Soft Gear - new retail items, recently purchased and never used. 

4. Refuge-Dedicated Clothing/Soft Gear - items that have ONLY been used at the refuge(s), 

and which have been stored in a quarantined environment between trips to the refuge(s).

5. Sensitive Gear - computers, optical equipment, and other sensitive equipment. 

6. Non-Sensitive Equipment and Construction Materials - building materials, power and 

hand tools, generators, misc. machinery, etc.

7. Suitable Plastic Packing Container - packing containers must be constructed of smooth, 

durable plastic which can be easily cleaned and will not harbor seeds or insects. Packing 

containers may be re-used for multiple trips to the refuge(s), but must be thoroughly cleaned 

before each trip and strictly dedicated to refuge-related projects. 

• Examples of APPROPRIATE plastic packing containers are 5-gallon plastic buckets and 

plastic totes constructed with a single layer and having a smooth surface. All appropriate 

packing containers must have tight fitting plastic lids. 

• An example of an INAPPROPRIATE plastic packing container is a US mail tote. Mail 

totes are typically constructed of cardboard-like plastic that provides a porous multilayered surface, allowing seeds and insects to easily hitchhike. 

C. Special Use Permit (SUP) 

All persons requesting use of the refuge(s) must secure an SUP, as described in Section A above, and 

agree to comply with all refuge requirements to minimize the risk of alien species introductions.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections B-99

D. Quarantine Inspections

All personal gear, supplies, equipment, machinery, vehicles (e.g., ATVs, trucks, trailers), and vessels 

(e.g., planes, boats, ships, barges) will be inspected for quarantine compliance by Service staff prior 

to entering the refuge(s) and again before departing the refuge(s). A concerted effort will be made to 

ensure that alien pests are not transported. Service staff on the refuge(s) will inspect outbound cargo 

prior to transport. 

E. Prohibited Items (Transport of the following items are strictly prohibited) 

1. Rooted plants, cuttings, flowers, and seeds (raw or propagative). 

2. Soil, sand, gravel, or any other material that may harbor unwanted plant and animal species.

3. Animals (no exceptions). 

4. Cardboard (paper and plastic cardboard harbors seeds and insects). 

F. Regulated Items (Transport of the following items are strictly regulated) 

1. Food items have the potential to carry alien pests and are therefore selected, packed, and 

shipped with great care for consumption on the refuge(s). Foods will not be allowed on the 

refuge(s) without prior authorization. 

2. Because wood products often harbor seeds and insect, only treated wood that has been 

painted or varnished may be allowed on the refuge(s). Approved wood products must also be 

frozen for 48 hours or fumigated as described in Section K below.

G. Packing Procedures

Ensure that the environment selected for packing has been well cleaned and free of seeds and insects. 

Keep packing containers closed as much as possible throughout the packing process so insects cannot 

crawl in before the containers have been securely closed. Quarantine procedures should be performed 

as close to the transportation date as possible to ensure that pests do not return as hitchhikers on the 

packing containers. 

H. Packing Containers

1. All supplies and gear must be packed and shipped in SUITABLE PLASTIC PACKING 

CONTAINERS (see Section A for definitions of packing containers). Packing containers 

must be constructed of smooth, durable plastic that has been thoroughly cleaned prior to use. 

2. Packing containers may be re-used for multiple trips to the refuge(s), but must be thoroughly 

cleaned before each trip and strictly dedicated to refuge-related projects. Cardboard 

containers are strictly prohibited because they can harbor seeds and insects. 

I. Clothing and Soft Gear 

1. All persons entering the refuge(s) must have NEW or REFUGE-DEDICATED clothing and 

soft gear (including all footwear). 

a. Freeze all clothing and soft gear for 48 hours (including both new and refugededicated).

b. Fumigation under a tarp or in a large container is also an option. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-100 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Research and Scientific Collections

J. Sensitive Equipment 

All sensitive gear (e.g., optical equipment, computers, satellite phones, other electronic equipment) 

must be thoroughly inspected and cleaned. 

K. Non-Sensitive Equipment and Construction Materials

1. All non-sensitive equipment, machinery, and construction materials that are water resistant 

must be steam cleaned or pressure washed to ensure the removal of all dirt, insects, and seeds 

from external surfaces. 

2. All non-water resistant items must be tented and fumigated to kill unwanted pests or frozen 

for 48 hours. 

3. Quarantine procedures should be performed as close to the transportation date as possible to 

ensure that pests do not return to the equipment or packing containers. 

L. Aircraft Quarantine 

Aircraft personnel will ensure that the plane has been thoroughly cleaned and free of any alien 

species prior to flying to refuge(s). The aircraft captain will notify the Service at least 10 full working 

days prior to all flights departing for the refuge(s) in order to arrange a quarantine inspection of all 

cargo bound for the refuge(s). Inspections will take place the scheduled day of departure. 

M. Commercial Ships and Barges, and Private Sailing and Motor Vessel Quarantine

1. Ship owners or captains will notify the Service at least 10 full working days prior to all vessels 

departing for the refuge(s) in order to arrange a quarantine inspection of all vessels and cargo 

bound for the refuge(s). The inspection will be scheduled as close to the departure date as 

possible. 

2. Ship owners or captains will ensure that all ships and barges entering the refuge(s) have had their 

hulls cleaned of fouling marine/freshwater organisms. The ships and barges must depart for the 

refuge(s) within 14 days of having had the hulls cleaned. All ship and barge hulls must be recleaned should the vessel return to a port for greater than 14 days before returning to the 

refuge(s). Results of all hull cleanings must be submitted to the Service 2 full working days prior 

to the vessel departure. Contact the refuge office for additional details. 

3. No discharge of ballast water, grey water, sewage, or waste of any kind will be allowed by any 

vessel within the refuge boundary (e.g., 12-mile territorial sea).
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-101

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Traditional Cultural Practices 

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

This use involves participation in traditional Hawaiian cultural practices on Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). Such practices include fishing with hook and line, throw net, 

spear, or shellfish-gathering at Kīlauea (East) Cove (Cove) and collection of plant materials, feathers, 

and possibly other natural resources (e.g., stone, shells, bone) from areas of the Refuge that are open 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-102 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices

to public use. Participants use these resources for subsistence, ceremonial, decorative, medicinal, or 

other purposes. Traditional cultural practices may also include site-specific ceremonial access.

The rocky shore of the Cove is a traditional native Hawaiian fishing site. Access is from the bluff 

area on top of Kīlauea Point (Point) along a narrow trail that descends the Cove’s steep cliffs. 

Currently, anglers pull aside a short section of safety fence to access the trail. Because of concerns 

regarding safety of the access trail, individuals fishing at this site are required to sign a liability 

release and officially check in with Refuge personnel each day they access the Cove. 

Refuge files reveal that fishing at the Cove has occurred year-round and, during the past decade, on 

an average of approximately 40 days per year. Fishing usually occurs by a single angler or perhaps a 

few family members at a time. At present, almost all the fishing is by a handful of individuals with 

genealogical ties to the local community.

The Refuge is currently open for saltwater fishing in designated areas (Refuge-Specific Regulations 

for Hunting and Fishing, Hawai‘i, 50 CFR 32.30). The Refuge boundary along the coast is the 

highest wash of the waves. Anglers fish at the Cove with hook and line, throw net, spear, or gather 

shellfish and can cast from the shore or wade into the surf. Species that could be harvested at the 

Cove include, but are not limited to, āholehole (Hawaiian flagtail, Kuhlia sandvicensis), akule (bigeye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus), halalu (juvenile akule), moi (Pacific threadfin, Polydactylus 

sexfilis), ulua (giant trevally, Caranx ignobilis, and other jacks of the family Carangidae), pāpio (ulua 

under 10 pounds), weke (goatfish in the family Mullidae), and oama (juvenile goatfish). 

Examples of natural resources of potential interest for collection include, but are not limited to, hala 

leaves and fruit seeds for weaving mats and baskets, for thatching, and for lei (Pandanus spp.); ‘ilima 

flowers for lei and medicinal purposes (Sida fallax); milo wood for woodworking (Thespesia 

populnea); naupaka kahakai flowers and fruits for lei, food, and medicinal purposes (Scaevola 

sericea); nuts, fronds, and wood of niu (coconut, Cocos nucifer) for food, oil, containers, and fiber 

for cordage, for thatching and weaving baskets, and for woodworking; ti leaves for wrapping food, 

making clothes, and thatching (Cordyline fruitcosa); and possibly other native and naturalized plants 

(Kāne 1997). Feathers could be gathered, strung, and used to make lei and other items. 

Resource collection and access to closed areas are uses not usually available to the general public. 

Such uses are defined as specialized uses under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy 

(Administration of Specialized Uses, 5 RM 17). Official authorization to access the Refuge for these 

uses will occur through issuance of a special use permit (SUP), unless accompanied by official 

Refuge personnel. 

This compatibility determination (CD) has been developed and made publicly available concurrent 

with the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for 

Kīlauea Point NWR. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-103

Availability of Resources: 

Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Oversight by GS-13 Project Leader (approximately 10 hours/year). $600

2. Oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,000

3. Oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger (approximately 20 

hours/year). $700

4. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 20 

hours/year). $700

5. Permit monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 10 hours/year). $400

6. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $700

7. Signage and fence maintenance, repair, and materials $3,000

Total Costs $7,100

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

The Refuge currently has adequate budget and staff to support the limited traditional cultural 

practices on the Refuge, as described herein. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

With appropriate stipulations, allowing kama‘āina to participate in traditional cultural practices is

consistent with Refuge goals 4 and 5. 

The vast majority of public use at the Refuge occurs at the Point. Visitors have incredible 

opportunities to hear and view numerous seabirds as they soar overhead, roost or nest on adjacent 

cliffs and grassy knolls, and forage in the ocean. Nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis) are 

routinely seen close up, on the grounds. Nēnē are fairly tolerant of human disturbance, but many 

seabirds are wary and flush when approached too closely. 

Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and is dependent upon, among other variables, 

the species involved and its age; the time of year; the breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the 

surrounding environment; whether the activity involves vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, 

and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 

2006, Holmes et al. 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational activity can range from behavioral changes including 

nest abandonment, altered nest placement, change in food habits, physiological changes such as 

elevated heart rates and increased energetic costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger 

and Bedard 1990, Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 1998, Miller and 

Hobbs 2000, Morton et al. 1989, Smith-Castro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more 

difficult to assess but may include altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; 

altered population abundance, distribution, or demographics; and altered community species 

composition and interactions. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-104 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows closer 

to (within 13 feet of) visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended 

minimum approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart 

rate in the birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al. 

1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively 

correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 

2004). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

Fishing will have direct, lethal effects on individual fish and shellfish, the target game species. The 

amount of loss will depend on the angling pressure (i.e., the number of anglers, days of effort, catch 

success). To the extent that anglers engaged in catch-and-release practices, the number of individual 

fish lost per angler will be reduced, but there will still be some percentage of mortality. Angling on 

the Refuge will be expected to have negligible to minor effects on populations of fish or shellfish 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-105

because the State of Hawai‘i regulates fishing consistent with sustained yield population 

management principles. 

Angling is also expected to cause some wildlife disturbance. Walking down and back up the narrow 

trail that traverses the Cove’s cliffs has the potential to disturb seabirds that use cliff-side vegetation 

for roosting and nesting. Once on the Cove’s rocky shore, the angler will be separated by substantial 

vertical distance from such birds and disturbance is less likely. The amount of disturbance will

depend on the proximity of the angler to the birds and the duration of his or her presence. 

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) numbers are increasing in the 

main Hawaiian Islands, especially on and around Ni‘ihau and Kaua‘i (NMFS 2007, Baker and 

Johanos 2003), and ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu (Chelonia mydas) are known to use the Cove’s 

ocean waters and rocky shore. Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are especially sensitive to 

human disturbance (NMFS 2007). Seals can be disturbed by people, vehicles, and dogs; disturbance 

of female adults with pups is of special concern (Gilmartin 2003). Seals may also injure people. 

Seals, like other pinnipeds, may be vulnerable to diseases transmitted from livestock, pets, and feral 

animals including heartworm, canine distemper, leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis, and brucellosis (Braun 

2003). 

Seals haul-out on land to rest, molt, or pup. Approaching anglers could force hauled-out seals to 

move back into the water and seek a new haul-out site, causing them to expend energy and increasing 

their exposure to predators. Repeated disturbance over time can cause seals to abandon preferred 

haul-out sites (Gilmartin 2003). It is generally recommended that individuals viewing or 

photographing seals and sea turtles maintain a distance of at least 50 yards from the animals and limit 

their viewing/photographing time to no more than 30 minutes (NOAA undated, NOAA Fisheries et 

al. undated; “Hawai‘i Viewing Guidelines: Overview, Marine Mammal & Sea Turtle Viewing ‘Code 

of Conduct’” at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/education/Hawai‘i/). The base of the Cove where 

fishing occurs is less than 50 yards wide. Seals and threatened green sea turtles could also be injured 

or potentially killed if they became hooked or entangled in fishing lines or nets (NMFS 2007, NMFS 

and USFWS 1998).

Anglers are expected to cause trampling of native plants, erosion, and potential introduction or 

spread of nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species. These impacts will

be focused in the Cove and surrounding cliffs, and could adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats. The degree of actual effects upon reproduction, survival of individuals, and 

diversity and abundance of native species (community health) will depend on specific circumstances. 

In light of the fact that this trail has been in use for many years, and future use is expected to be light, 

additional impacts of this nature will be expected to be minimal. 

To access the Cove trail, anglers pull away a portion of the public safety fence. If this portion of 

fence is not properly replaced, cats or dogs could access the area outside the fence that is used by 

seabirds for roosting and nesting, resulting in additional predation. 

The effects associated with collection of plants, feathers, and potentially other natural resources will

depend on whether collections were made from live plants or birds, whether the species were natives 

versus nonnatives, the volume of materials collected, and the areas in which and times of day and 

year during which the collections occurred. If parts were collected from live plants or birds, the 

survival of those individuals could be impacted. “Surplus” plant materials, including those that drop 

or otherwise break off parent plants and lay decomposing on the ground, and detached bird feathers 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-106 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices

serve various ecological roles in the environment. Plant parts (e.g., nuts, berries, flowers, and leaves) 

provide forage for herbivores. Dead and decaying plant parts and feathers are consumed by 

detritivores and eventually help replenish soil nutrients. Additionally, these materials are used by 

wildlife for cover and nesting materials. However, if parts were not removed from live organisms and 

in light of the substantial rainfall and year-round growing period on Kaua‘i (especially on the North 

Shore), it is unlikely that a modest amount of collection and removal of such materials will

measurably impact such ecological cycles or adversely affect associated wildlife values at the 

Refuge. 

A greater impact could result from wildlife disturbance and other indirect effects associated with 

these collections. If collectors were allowed to freely roam in areas used for foraging, roosting, 

loafing, or nesting by any of the native species of special management concern, adverse effects could 

occur. As noted earlier regarding potential effects associated with fishing access, approaching birds 

too closely raises their alert levels and creates stress. Flushing requires birds to expend energy that 

would otherwise be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. Disturbance can cause nest desertion; impact survival of 

individual birds, eggs, nestlings, or broods; and alter behavior of nonbreeding birds. Breeding birds 

are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005). 

Additionally, the Refuge has substantial and, in some areas, dense populations of burrow-nesting 

seabirds. Although some burrows lie on the Point within the area heavily used by Refuge visitors, the 

vast majority of the burrows are elsewhere, in less disturbed areas of the Refuge. Humans casually 

walking through nesting colonies could easily crush burrows, destroy nests and eggs, and kill young 

or adult seabirds. Collectors could also trample native plants, accelerate erosion, and potentially 

introduce or spread nonnative species, including invertebrates, plants, and invasive species. These 

impacts could adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, and are of special concern 

in Refuge areas struggling with re-establishment of native plant communities.

Public Use

As noted earlier, anglers pull away a portion of the public safety fence to access the Cove trail. Other 

Refuge visitors could see anglers crossing through the fence and attempt to do so themselves, 

creating new safety issues. 

If resource collecting occurred in areas readily seen by other Refuge visitors, these other visitors 

could easily become confused regarding what activities are and are not allowed on the Refuge, and 

this could increase the amount of unauthorized collections that occurred. 

Otherwise, it is not expected that participation in traditional cultural practices by a limited number of 

Refuge visitors will adversely impact other public use at the Refuge. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

The Refuge contains a number of historic and prehistoric resources, including the Kīlauea Point 

Light Station (the lighthouse and associated Coast Guard facilities on the Point) that was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places as a historic district in 1979 (USFWS 2006). It is not expected 

that fishing at Kīlauea (East) Cove, including accessing the site along the cliff trail, or limited 

collecting of plant materials, feathers, and possibly other natural resources will have any effects on 

cultural resources. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-107

The activities discussed herein are of special cultural significance to native Hawaiians. Providing 

opportunities for such individuals to use the traditional native Hawaiian fishing site at Kīlauea (East) 

Cove or to collect and use materials from native plants or canoe plants, feathers, and possibly other 

natural resources for traditional subsistence, ceremonial, decorative, medicinal, or other purposes will

support restoration and maintenance of native Hawaiian cultural values. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Individuals participating in traditional cultural practices on the Refuge are allowed to engage in 

these activities for subsistence, ceremonial, medicinal, decorative, or other similar personal, 

family, and/or community purposes. Participating in traditional cultural practices on the Refuge 

for commercial purposes is prohibited.

2. Requests for access to closed areas for nonconsumptive traditional cultural practices (e.g., oli and 

hula) have been infrequent in the past and therefore will be administered on a case-by-case basis. 

Access to closed areas is a use not usually available to the general public; such uses are defined 

as specialized uses and typically require an SUP. In this case, unless the cultural practitioner is 

accompanied by official Refuge personnel, an SUP will be required. Stipulations within the SUP 

will take into account impacts to wildlife resources including timing, place, and limits on 

construction of structures during nesting season. The practice of nonconsumptive traditional 

cultural activities in open areas (e.g., Kāhili Quarry) will not require a permit. Prior to 

participating in consumptive traditional cultural practices on the Refuge (including fishing at the 

Cove and resource collections), unless accompanied by official Refuge personnel, each

participant will be issued and need to sign an annual SUP. 

3. All resource collectors and anglers will be required to sign a “Release from Injury” form prior to 

collecting materials from the Refuge or fishing at the Cove. The existing form will undergo a 

legal review and needed changes will be made, as appropriate. Those who have signed a previous 

version of the form will have to sign the updated version. 

4. Participation in traditional cultural practices at the Cove will be allowed during daylight hours 

only, when the Refuge is open to visitation by the general public. 

5. In order to avoid harassment, disease, and/or death of native wildlife, or transport of nonnative or 

invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, individuals participating in traditional 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-108 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices

cultural practices are prohibited from bringing dogs or other pets with them onto the Refuge. If a 

ho‘okupu is comprised of plants or other natural materials, these should be native. 

6. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these 

stipulations, the Refuge manager is the Refuge Project Leader of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex), or unless specifically allowed by State of Hawai‘i fishing regulations, 

individuals participating in traditional cultural practices are prohibited from collecting and 

removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, abiotic or biological specimens or samples, or 

mementos from the Refuge. 

7. Consistent with Service policy regarding management of nonhazardous solid waste on refuges 

(“Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) – 

Solid Waste (Nonhazardous),” 561 FW 5), individuals participating in traditional cultural 

practices are prohibited from littering, dumping refuse, abandoning equipment or materials, or 

otherwise discarding any items on the Refuge, including unused or excess fishing line, hooks, 

lures, and bait. A ho‘okupu is not considered litter or refuse. 

8. In addition to the stipulations listed here, individuals participating in traditional cultural practices 

are required to comply with Refuge System-related and other applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 

9. No changes can be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager. 

Fishing

1. Prior to fishing at the Cove, individuals will first need to officially check in with Refuge 

personnel to sign in and learn of any changes that could affect their practices that day or into the 

future. Due to limited areas and to ensure trail safety, group size will be limited to a maximum of 

five individuals. 

2. Prior to descending the Cove trail, Refuge personnel will scan the shore and adjacent waters of 

the Cove for ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua and honu. Fishing will not be allowed if either seals or turtles 

are present. Additionally, if an angler is already at the Cove and either seals or turtles appear in 

Cove waters or on the shore, fishing will be discontinued while these animals are present and the 

angler will depart the Cove. 

3. In order to minimize potential disturbance to roosting and nesting seabirds, anglers will need to 

descend and ascend the cliff-side Cove trail in as quickly a manner as they could safely do so. 

4. In order to reduce the potential for hooking ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu, anglers will be 

encouraged to use barbless circle hooks while fishing from the shore. 

5. Anglers are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures or fixtures 

(including rod holders) on the Refuge without specific, prior written approval of the Refuge 

manager. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-109

6. Anglers are required to abide by Hawai‘i fishing regulations when fishing on the Refuge. This 

includes securing and having with them relevant State fishing licenses and any other permits 

needed to fish in the ocean from the Refuge. 

7. Participation in fishing at the Cove will be limited to individuals of native Hawaiian heritage who 

have genealogical ties to the local community, that is, the Kīlauea and Kāhili Ahupua‘a or 

surrounding ahupua‘a including Namahana, Kalihiwai, Kalihikai, Waiakalua, and Pīla‘a (Wilson 

and Jay 2010). This restriction is based on a list of Kīlauea sugar plantation families who were 

previously allowed to fish on Service land. Over generations, a few of these families have 

acquired and passed down through genealogical ties the knowledge of how to safely access the 

Cove. 

Resource Collecting 

1. Prior to resource collecting on the Refuge, traditional cultural practitioners first need to officially 

check in with Refuge personnel to sign in and learn of any changes that could affect their 

practices that day or into the future. Individuals wishing to make collections will be provided a 

map or shown in-person the areas approved for collections and areas that are off-limits to such 

activities.

2. Individuals wishing to collect from migratory birds or species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act need to acquire appropriate Federal and State permits and have those permits with 

them when collecting on the Refuge. 

3. Individuals will be limited to a specific amount of material that can be collected each day. Such 

limits can vary depending on the species or parts to be collected. No collections of feathers or 

other animal parts may be made from live animals. No collections may be made from live plants 

listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

4. The collection and use of materials from native plants or canoe plants, feathers, and possibly 

other natural resources for traditional subsistence, ceremonial, decorative, medicinal, or other 

purposes will not be restricted to specific ahupua‘a. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

1. In the absence of specific, prior written approval of the Refuge manager, individuals participating 

in traditional cultural practices are prohibited from disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting 

any prehistoric, historic, or other cultural resources on the Refuge. 

Justification:

By its nature, fishing has direct, lethal effects on individual fish and shellfish. However, angling on 

the Refuge is expected to have negligible to minor effects on populations of fish or shellfish because 

of the very limited nature of this use and because the State of Hawai‘i regulates fishing consistent 

with sustained yield population management principles. 

Angling has the potential to cause some disturbance to seabirds and potentially seals and/or turtles. 

Proposed stipulations will limit the duration of any potential disturbance to seabirds using cliff-side 

vegetation by requiring that anglers descend and ascend the cliff-side Cove trail in as quickly a 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-110 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices

manner as they can safely do so. Additionally, fishing will not be allowed if either seals or turtles are

present. 

Fishing at the Cove will remain a safe activity because access will be limited to daylight hours and to 

individuals who have personal knowledge and a lengthy family history of using this traditional 

Hawaiian fishing site. The Refuge will install a locked gate with a warning sign along the section of 

fence used to access the Cove trail. This will minimize the likelihood that unauthorized visitors will

access the steep and narrow Cove trail.

As with fishing at the Cove, it is expected that a limited number of individuals will participate in 

resource collecting at the Refuge. Refuge personnel will direct collectors away from areas of the 

Refuge where native plants and animals could be disturbed or destroyed. Additionally, there will be 

daily collection limits by species or parts, and no collections could be made from live animals or 

plants listed under the Endangered Species Act. With these stipulations, it is expected that resource 

collecting will not have a measurable effect on Refuge resources. 

Providing opportunities for traditional cultural practices on the Refuge supports perpetuation of 

native Hawaiian cultural values. 

As noted earlier, one of the purposes of the Refuge is to provide fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. 

Although the activities discussed herein are of special cultural significance, fishing and resource 

collecting could also be considered wildlife-oriented recreational activities and therefore could help 

support achievement of Refuge purposes. 

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. This will include 

enforcement of Hawai‘i fishing regulations. 

 

The Refuge will monitor fishing, resource collecting, wildlife and habitat disturbance, conflicts with 

other Refuge visitors, and other potential impacts to determine if these stipulations result in expected 

and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply adaptive management principles to modify 

stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results. 

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as 

a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; changes to fishing practices; or for other legitimate reasons. Refuge personnel will

advise individuals participating in traditional cultural practices of any such changes. Any significant 

changes to rules for fishing on the Refuge will be appropriately promulgated as Federal regulations. 

These regulations will be supplemented by Refuge-specific information available onsite or at the 

Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex headquarters office. 

The Refuge also reserves the right to terminate permission for these uses if individuals participating 

in traditional cultural practices violate Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts occur to 

native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, Refuge facilities, or other Refuge 

visitors; or for other legitimate reasons. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-111

Compatibility Standard 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, traditional cultural practices need to be determined compatible. 

By allowing these uses to occur under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife 

which could be disturbed will find sufficient food resources and resting places so that their

abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that 

monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their

habitats, other public uses, and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated above and consistent 

with the stipulations described herein, this use will not materially interfere with or detract from 

maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of 

Kīlauea Point NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Traditional Cultural Practices 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

Acting 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

~?-2::::.-~ 

(Signature) 

9/rk 

(Date)' ' 

Refuge Complex: ~k::: .---z::< 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

B-112 

(Signature) 

(Date) 

\{UJ\..J J,' 'uw-t.L-- q II (I, ( 

(Signature) ~ ~ 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations-Traditional Cultural Practices 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-113

References Cited: 

Baker, J.D. and T.C. Johanos. 2003. Distribution and Abundance of Hawaiian Monk Seals in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands. In Final Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on 

Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI.

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Braun, R.C. 2003. Handling Risks and Disease Considerations of Hawaiian Monk Seals in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands. In Final Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on 

Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI.

Gilmartin, W.G. 2003. Responses of Monk Seals to Human Disturbance and Handling. In Final 

Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on Beaches in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kāne, H.K. 1997. Ancient Hawai‘i. The Kawainui Press, Captain Cook, HI. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-114 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59–F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. 

Recovery Plan for the U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

NOAA. Undated. Responsibly Watching California’s Marine Wildlife, Draft Handbook for Ocean 

Users. Available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/national/ww_handbook.pdf. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries), NOAA’s National 

Marine Sanctuaries, State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, and U.S. Coast 

Guard. Undated. Protect Marine Wildlife While Enjoying Their Natural Beauty, Hawai‘i Marine 

Mammal & Sea Turtle Viewing Guidelines. Brochure. Honolulu, HI. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices B-115

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – 

Nomination Form. Supplementary listing record for Kīlauea Point Light Station. 

Wilson, J. and J. Jay. 2010. Moku & Ahupuaa of Kaua‘i Island Aha Kiole Advisory Committee. 

Mapping by IslandBreath. Available at 

http://www.islandbreath.org/2010Year/04/100415kauaimokupuni.png. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-116 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Traditional Cultural Practices
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-117

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography and Interpretation 

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act) 

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

Interpretation is the communication of information about, or the explanation of, the nature, origin, 

and purpose of historical, natural, or cultural resources, objects, sites, and phenomena. The National 

Association for Interpretation defines interpretation as “...a mission-based communication process

that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-118 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

meanings inherent in the resource” (http://www.interpnet.com/). For national wildlife refuges, the 

purposes of interpretation are to convey an understanding of and appreciation for refuge resources, 

the issues that affect them, and the conservation techniques and programs pursued in their 

management (Interpretation, 605 FW 7). For purposes of this compatibility determination (CD),

interpretation addresses environmental and cultural resources and values. 

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation are often enhanced with the provision of 

brochures, wildlife and plant lists, interpretive signs and displays, trails, vehicle pullouts, viewing 

platforms or towers, viewing equipment, photography or viewing blinds, interpretive presentations 

and tours, visitor stations or centers, and bookstores or similar retail outlets. Many of these facilities 

and information sources serve all three activities. In addition, all three activities are often enjoyed 

together. Information can be conveyed in person, in writing, with images, with sound, and, 

increasingly, through a diversity of electronic media and devices. 

For purposes of this CD, observation and photography include viewing and capturing images of wild 

plants and animals, wildlife habitats, wildlands, waters, landscapes, cultural resources, and cultural 

activities; noncommercial recording of all types (e.g., filming, videography, audiography, writing, 

and drawing or painting); and general nature study and appreciation. Recording of images and audio 

for commercial purposes is addressed in a separate CD for commercial wildlife and landscape 

filming and photography. Observation, photography, and interpretation opportunities offered by 

commercial tours are addressed in the CD for commercial tours. 

Kīlauea Point NWR provides multiple opportunities for visitors to enjoy observation, photography, 

and interpretation. Refuge visitors can engage in these activities during open times (10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

on Tuesday–Saturday, except Federal holidays) by visiting any of Kīlauea Point National Wildlife 

Refuge’s (NWR or Refuge) open areas, including Kīlauea Point (Point), the cul-de-sac (turnaround) 

at the end of Kīlauea Road (Overlook), Kāhili Quarry area, and a trail on Crater Hill during guided 

interpretive hikes. Almost all public use on the Refuge occurs on the Point, the same location for the 

vast majority of current observation, photography, and interpretation opportunities. This area offers 

outstanding opportunities for observation and photography of a diversity of native seabirds, nēnē 

(Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis), and sometimes shorebirds, whales, dolphins, seals, and sea 

turtles; the Kīlauea Point Light Station; and classic Hawaiian coastal scenery, including undeveloped 

bluffs, the remnant walls of an ancient volcano, rocky beaches, and nearshore ocean and islands. 

The Point is approximately 31 acres in size. Facilities that support observation, photography, and 

interpretation include the Overlook, access road and two parking areas, fee station, visitor center, 

contact station, outdoor interpretive panels, viewing scopes, trails, perimeter safety fence, restrooms, 

and recycling and trash receptacles. The visitor center includes indoor interpretive exhibits and a 

bookstore. The contact station has displays, information about the Refuge and lighthouse, and 

interpretive videos. At the fee station, visitor center, and contact station, visitors can obtain brochures 

with information about the Refuge and its valuable natural and cultural resources. Visitors can access 

the lighthouse on a guided tour, currently offered weekly and on Lighthouse Day. Visitor services 

provided on a regular basis on the Point include in-person orientation, information, and interpretation 

by roving volunteer interpreters, binoculars and field guides available to borrow, and a golf cart to 

provide local transportation for visitors with disabilities and others wishing assistance. In addition to 

its regular offerings, the Refuge also provides extra visitor opportunities and services during Refuge 

special events, such as Lighthouse Day and National Wildlife Refuge Week. During these events, 

special interpretive guides and hikes (e.g., on Crater Hill and Mōkōlea Point) are offered. Crater Hill 

includes a rustic trail(s) and two overlooks. The Kīlauea Point Natural History Association (KPNHA, 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-119

the Refuge’s cooperating association and Friends group) provides substantial staffing support for the 

visitor services program on the Point. This area is accessed from the town of Kīlauea primarily by 

automobile via Kīlauea Road. Efforts are ongoing to provide a trail connection between Kīlauea 

Town and the Refuge, and to increase exhibits and workshops focused on wildlife observation and 

photography. Visitors are assessed a fee to enter the main public use area on the Point and a fee will

be charged for limited Crater Hill hikes (except during National Wildlife Refuge Week). 

Refuge visitors can also enjoy observation and photography ancillary to fishing or other activities at 

Kāhili Quarry, or associated with invasive species control or a habitat restoration work party, or a 

special tour led by Refuge personnel, a volunteer, or other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- (Service) 

authorized agent. Observation, photography, and interpretation opportunities are also provided 

through ecotourism operations. Such operations are addressed in a separate CD (Commercial Tours). 

Under the management direction of the CCP, a new visitor center, maintenance, and other facilities 

and functions will potentially be developed off the Refuge. This new set of facilities will provide 

visitor contact, orientation and information, fee collection, restrooms, bookstore/retail space, a 

multipurpose room, outdoor spaces, administration offices, private vehicle and tour bus parking, 

public bus stop, shuttle pick up/drop off, and maintenance baseyard (with buildings to store supplies 

and store and maintain/repair equipment). A location has not been chosen for these new facilities, but 

they could be sited adjacent to the Refuge boundary or up to 1 mile away. Additionally, parking for 

private automobiles on the Point will potentially be eliminated and visitors will primarily access the 

Refuge via a shuttle from Kīlauea town and/or the new visitor center. It is also proposed that bicycle 

parking be provided at the Overlook. 

On the Point, the existing visitor center will be remodeled to provide EE or interpretive exhibits and 

displays, interpretation at the contact station will be expanded, one of the former lighthouse quarters 

will be restored and converted into a living history site, another of the former lighthouse quarters will

be remodeled to provide basic administrative and volunteer offices, at least one guided interpretive 

activity will be offered daily, and potentially a limited number of guided interpretive hikes to Crater 

Hill will be offered. Signage at the Overlook will be enhanced to provide more information and 

interpretation. In addition, efforts will be made to increase opportunities for up-close wildlife 

observation and photography (e.g., with remote cameras and observation/photo blinds). As a result of 

all these changes, it is expected that the number and quality of observation, photography, and 

interpretive opportunities will substantially increase.

Observation, photography, and interpretation are wildlife-dependent general public uses and are to be 

given special consideration in refuge planning and management. When determined compatible on a 

refuge-specific basis, a wildlife-dependent use becomes a priority public use for that refuge and is to 

be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and 

appropriate (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act). 

This compatibility determination (CD) has been developed and made publicly available concurrent 

with the comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and associated environmental assessment (EA) for 

Kīlauea Point NWR. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-120 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

Availability of Resources: 

It is early in the planning process for a potential new visitor center and other facilities for the Refuge. 

In addition, these facilities will serve multiple purposes (including administrative and maintenance 

functions in addition to visitor services), so costs will need to be appropriately allocated among 

various public uses. Therefore, no estimate is made here of the share of construction, operation, and 

maintenance costs of this set of facilities supportive of observation, photography, and interpretation. 

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with this program: 

Projects Estimated Costs1 

1. Conversion of visitor center to provide interpretive exhibits and displays. $200,000

2. Expansion of interpretation at the contact station. $150,000

3. Restoration and conversion of former lighthouse quarters into a living 

history site.

$550,000

4. Orientation materials and/or trainings. $40,000

Total Costs $940,000

1 Costs displayed are totals for these changes. Note that many of these changes will also benefit 

environmental interpretation and education and other uses of the Refuge. 

Following is an estimate of other costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Oversight by GS-13 Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,200

2. Oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader (approximately 20 hours/year). $1,000

3. Administration and oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger, including 

recruiting and training staff and volunteers (approximately 80 hours/year). $2,900

4. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 40 

hours/year). $1,500

5. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $1,300

6. Facility maintenance, repair, and materials $5,000

7. Supplies (including brochures) $3,000

Total Costs $15,900

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

With the substantial support of KPNHA and volunteers, the Refuge has adequate budget and staff to 

support the current level of observation, photography, and interpretation on the Refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

In the long term, under the management direction of the CCP, a potential new offsite visitor center, 

maintenance, and other facilities could provide enhanced interpretation opportunities, and wildlife 

observers and photographers will likely stop in to enjoy its many features. However, in the absence 

of site-specific information, attempting to assess many of the anticipated direct and indirect impacts 

of the construction and operation of these new facilities is premature. Additionally, these facilities 

will serve multiple purposes (including administrative and maintenance functions in addition to 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-121

visitor services), so effects attributable to wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation will

be only a portion of the total effects. For these reasons, many of the anticipated impacts of these 

potential new facilities are beyond the scope of this evaluation and are not addressed herein. More 

detailed evaluations will need to be undertaken, including site-specific effects analysis in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

and other applicable laws and policies. Readers are also referred to the EA accompanying the Refuge 

CCP for more information. 

Wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation activities support Refuge goal numbers 4, 5, 

and 6. It is expected that these uses will enhance the public’s understanding of and appreciation for 

the importance of conservation; therefore, they will also support the Refuge System mission. 

The vast majority of public use, including observation, photography, and interpretation, at the Refuge 

occurs at the Point. Visitors have incredible opportunities to hear and view numerous seabirds as they 

soar overhead, roost or nest on adjacent cliffs and grassy knolls, and forage in the ocean. Nēnē are 

routinely seen close-up on the grounds. Nēnē are fairly tolerant of human disturbance, but many 

seabirds are wary and flush when approached too closely. 

The effects of wildlife observation and photography, and environmental interpretation upon wildlife 

will likely be associated with disturbance. Human disturbance has differential effects on wildlife and 

is dependent upon, among other variables, the species involved and its age; the time of year; the 

breeding cycle stage (if applicable); the surrounding environment; whether the activity involves 

vehicles; the intensity, speed, noise, nature, and frequency of the disturbing activity; and the 

directness of approach to an animal (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998, 

Knight and Cole 1995a, Knight and Cole 1995b). Immediate responses by wildlife to recreational 

activity can range from behavioral changes including nest abandonment, altered nest placement, 

change in food habits, physiological changes such as elevated heart rates and increased energetic 

costs due to flight or flushing, or even death (Belanger and Bedard 1990, Knight and Cole 1995a,

Knight and Swaddle 2007, Miller et al. 1998, Miller and Hobbs 2000, Morton et al. 1989, SmithCastro and Rodewald 2010). The long-term effects are more difficult to assess but may include 

altered behavior, vigor, productivity, or death of individuals; altered population abundance, 

distribution, or demographics; and altered community species composition and interactions. 

Kitaysky et al. (2003) found levels of corticosterone (a major stress hormone) in ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus) at the Refuge to be higher in chicks occupying burrows closer 

to (within 13 feet of) visitor-use areas. Holmes et al. (2005) found that, even at the recommended 

minimum approach distance (~16 feet), a single wildlife observer in a royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) colony on Macquarie Island, Australia, triggered vigilance behavior and an increased heart 

rate in the birds. In another study, Holmes et al. (2007) found that vigilance behavior of gentoo 

penguins (Pygoscelis papua) increased as the numbers of observers increased. Additional studies in 

penguin colonies revealed that a slow approach that ended with a visitor sitting quietly and closely 

observing a bird had little effect on the bird’s heart rate, yet a rapid approach that ended with a visitor 

remaining standing and closely observing a bird resulted in an elevated heart rate (Nimon et al. 

1995). 

A variety of factors affect flushing distances among waterbirds, including the species involved; the 

activity the birds are engaged in (e.g., foraging versus nesting); and the type, speed, and noise of 

disturbance (e.g., approaching birds by walking versus in a motorized boat) (Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Rodgers 1991). Flushing of birds or even raising their alert levels (which usually occurs at a 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-122 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

greater distance than that for flushing) creates stress and requires animals to expend energy that 

otherwise would be invested in essential life history activities such as foraging, mating, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and predator avoidance. 

Breeding birds are especially sensitive to human disturbance (Trulio 2005, Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

A study of visitors to a colony of kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and guillemots (Uria aalge) revealed 

that nesting success was influenced by the distance observers were from the birds (positively 

correlated) and the number of observers involved (negatively correlated) (Beale and Monaghan 

2004). 

Studies have had mixed results regarding potential habituation of birds and some other taxa to human 

disturbance. Wildlife are often less disturbed by routine human activities that repeatedly occur along 

defined routes (e.g., trails, roads, or water channels), especially frequent disturbance that does not 

involve direct contact or other threat, compared with those activities that occur irregularly and 

outside predictable paths/channels (Blanc et al. 2006, Holmes et al. 2007, Knight and Cole 1995b). 

In studies of breeding yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes), a timid and secretive species, 

Ratz and Thompson (1999) found that the birds appeared to have habituated to the presence of 

guided tourists who approached the colony through trenches and closely observed or photographed 

birds from camouflaged blinds. Jungius and Hirsch (1979) studied seabird colonies and found that 

birds that were believed to have habituated to tourists and revealed no outward behavioral changes in 

their presence, nonetheless exhibited stress (as reflected in elevated heartbeat frequencies) when 

approached by visitors. The scientists speculated that the stress could have a negative effect on 

breeding. Habituation to some types and levels (intensity and frequency) of human disturbance 

appears to vary among species, within species, between resident and migratory populations, and 

potentially between inexperienced and experienced breeders. This makes it difficult to forecast 

habituation in actual field situations.

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) numbers are increasing in the 

main Hawaiian Islands, especially on and around Ni‘ihau and Kaua‘i (NMFS 2007, Baker and 

Johanos 2003). Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are very sensitive to human disturbance 

(NMFS 2007) and disturbance of female adults with pups is of special concern (Gilmartin 2003). 

Seals may also injure people. Seals haul out on land to rest, molt, or pup. Approaching observers, 

photographers, or participants in an interpretation program could force hauled-out seals to move back 

into the water and seek a new haul-out site, causing them to expend energy and increasing their 

exposure to predators. Repeated disturbance over time can cause seals to abandon preferred haul-out 

sites (Gilmartin 2003). It is generally recommended that individuals viewing or photographing seals 

and sea turtles maintain a distance of at least 50 yards from the animals and limit their 

viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes (NOAA undated, NOAA Fisheries et al. undated; 

“Hawai‘i Viewing Guidelines: Overview, Marine Mammal & Sea Turtle Viewing ‘Code of 

Conduct’” at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/education/Hawai‘i/). 

Wildlife disturbance can be a special concern with wildlife observation and photography (Cline et al. 

2007, DeLong 2002, Knight and Cole 1995). Observers and photographers often want to enhance 

their view or photograph by encroaching closer and closer to their subject. This can cause increased 

stress in wildlife and eventually lead to flushing. If a bird is nesting or brood-rearing, disturbance can 

cause temporary or permanent nest desertion. Even if only temporary, eggs and nestlings can face 

survival challenges associated with temperature extremes and predation. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-123

Observers, photographers, or participants in interpretation programs could also cause trampling of 

native plants, erosion, and introduction or spread of nonnative species, including invertebrates, 

plants, and invasive species. All of these impacts will adversely affect native fish, wildlife, plants, 

their habitats, and are of special concern in Refuge areas struggling with re-establishment of native 

plant communities. The degree of actual effects upon reproduction, survival of individuals, and 

diversity and abundance of native species (community health) will depend on specific circumstances. 

The Refuge has substantial and, in some areas, dense populations of burrow-nesting seabirds. 

Although some burrows lie on the Point adjacent to the area heavily used by Refuge visitors, the vast 

majority of the burrows are elsewhere, in less disturbed areas of the Refuge, such as Crater Hill. 

Humans casually walking through nesting colonies could easily crush burrows, destroy nests and 

eggs, and kill young or adult seabirds. 

Crater Hill grasslands are primarily composed of nonnative species such as Kikuyu grass 

(Pennisetum clandestinum); however, these areas provide actual and potential habitat for roosting, 

foraging, and breeding activities by nēnē, mōlī (Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis), and 

shorebirds. Additionally, major efforts have been undertaken to reintroduce native plants to this area. 

Areas on the Point that receive almost all of the Refuge’s visitation and the core of the Kāhili Quarry 

are hardened and therefore experience very few effects from public use. However, a substantial 

increase in public use of Crater Hill will increase the potential for erosion and compaction of trails, 

for crushing of nesting burrows, for disturbance to native birds using the grasslands, and to 

outplanting of native vegetation. Crater Hill hikes will be limited in frequency and number of 

participants, guided, and appropriately scheduled to minimize adverse effects. 

The Refuge’s Kāhili Quarry area is also open to general public use, including observation and 

photography. Walking through the Quarry area and along the ocean-side trail at the east base of 

Mōkōlea Point is expected to cause some wildlife disturbance. Seabirds nest in the vegetation at the 

base of the cliffs at Kāhili Quarry. Nesting birds and their young are expected to experience stress, 

possibly flush, and potentially be more vulnerable to predation if visitors approached nesting sites too 

closely, too quickly, too noisily, in too large of groups, or with dogs. The proposed new fencing 

alignment and north end gate, along with restrictions on dog walking, will greatly reduce public use 

impacts to wildlife.

The several stipulations associated with these uses have been designed to greatly reduce the 

likelihood and magnitude of potential biological effects. Importantly, on the Point—where almost all 

observation, photography, and interpretation occur—visitors will be required to remain behind the 

perimeter fencing. Elsewhere on the Refuge, visitors will be required to not cross fences and 

otherwise abide by closed area signage. These use conditions will greatly reduce disturbance to 

roosting and breeding birds. 

Public Use

The vast majority of visitors to the Refuge enjoy observation, photography, and interpretation on the 

Point. This area (approximately 31 acres in size) and existing facilities (e.g., parking area, visitor 

center, and contact station) are relatively small for the visitation the Refuge experiences. The single 

access road is narrow and the parking areas are small. There is no single-direction drive through of 

the parking areas (vehicles must turn around to exit the Refuge). Because of this, the number and size 

of vehicles that can be safely accommodated are limited. Additionally, the number of visitors who 

can simultaneously enjoy a high quality, wildlife-dependent educational or recreational experience 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-124 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

onsite is limited. If implemented, a new visitor center will allow development of more and higher 

quality interpretive exhibits, displays, and a larger bookstore. The new visitor center could have 

many more parking spaces than currently provided on the Point, which, along with the shuttle, will

allow more visitors to access and enjoy the Point. 

Improved signage will reduce the likelihood that visitors wishing to visit the Point do not become 

lost in Kīlauea Town. Restoration of habitat underlying the current parking area and maintenance 

facilities will allow visitors additional opportunities to observe and photograph native wildlife and 

plants. As noted above, stipulations associated with these uses will require visitors to remain behind 

the perimeter fencing on the Point, and not cross fences and otherwise abide by closed area signage

elsewhere on the Refuge. These use conditions will greatly reduce potential public safety concerns. 

Cultural Resources and Values 

The Refuge contains a number of historic and prehistoric resources, including the Kīlauea Point 

Light Station (the lighthouse and associated Coast Guard facilities on the Point) that was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places as a historic district in 1979 (USFWS 2006). It is not expected 

that observation, photography, and interpretation will have any effects on cultural resources. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination: 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

General

1. Until the potential new visitor center and associated transportation infrastructure are developed 

and operating, visitors will continue to access the Point area of the Refuge along the narrow 

access road and park in one of the small parking areas. Once the parking areas filled, the Refuge 

will be closed to new vehicles until an existing vehicle has departed. 

2. The Point area of the Refuge will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday–Saturday, except 

on Federal holidays. Hours and days may be adjusted depending upon the availability of staff and 

resources. Visitors will be charged an entrance fee. For their safety and to minimize disturbance 

to roosting and breeding birds, visitors to this area will be required to remain behind the 

perimeter fencing. Similarly, visitors elsewhere on the Refuge will be required to not cross fences 

and otherwise abide by closed area signage. The Refuge will continue to maintain trails, fences, 

and adjacent vegetation to ensure safety and enhance wildlife and landscape viewing and 

photography opportunities. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-125

3. Visitors will be informed of desired behaviors when viewing and photographing wildlife. 

Examples include the “Principles of Ethical Field Practices” developed by the North American 

Nature Photography Association. Among others, these principles include not distressing or 

otherwise interfering with animal behaviors, using telephoto lenses to photograph animals, and 

adherence to local regulatory requirements. Other practices that can reduce wildlife disturbance 

when observing or photographing wildlife include use of observation/photo blinds and use of 

binoculars or spotting scopes to enable good viewing while maintaining a respectful distance 

from individuals or colonies. Observers and photographers are prohibited from using feed or call 

playback recordings on the Refuge to attract wildlife. 

When viewing or photographing ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu (Chelonia mydas), whether these 

animals are in the water or on shore, visitors are required to maintain a distance of at least 50 

yards and limit their viewing/photographing time to 30 minutes (NOAA undated). ‘Ilio-holo-ika-uaua and honu are both listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ‘ilio-holo-i-kauaua is also listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These acts have 

mechanisms to encourage management for population growth and recovery and to prohibit any 

form of “take,” except for limited exceptions authorized under Federal permits. Under the ESA, 

“take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Under the MMPA, “take” includes actions such as hunting, 

harassing, killing, capturing, injuring and disturbing a marine mammal. There are established 

civil and criminal penalties for, at a minimum, disturbing ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu by getting 

too close or staying too long which alter their behavior, thus resulting in take. If ‘īlio-holo-i-kauaua or honu display signs of being disturbed, then that 50 yards will be expanded and/or 

viewing will be minimized or shut down to stop the disturbance and avoid potential take.

4. Hikes on Crater Hill will require the use of a guide(s) (Refuge staff or trained volunteer), will be 

limited to individuals 9 years or older (individuals between 9 and 16 years old require adult 

accompaniment) and, unless through prior written agreement with the Refuge manager, a 

maximum of 15 visitors per group. Hikes will be offered at a limited frequency, and will be 

routed and scheduled to avoid key breeding areas and seasons by seabirds and nēnē. With the 

exception of special, free hikes during National Wildlife Refuge Week, reservations (up to four 

persons per reservation) will be required and adults (16 years or older) will be charged a 

moderate fee to join these hikes. An injury waiver (“Release from Injury” form) will be required. 

The Service will assess erosion and compaction on trails and wildlife effects of visitation (e.g., 

disturbance and crushing of burrows) on Crater Hill and elsewhere and develop solutions to any 

problems. Potentially, actions could include hardening of trails, rebuilding or rerouting of trails, 

reducing the frequency of use of trails, rescheduling use of trails, and/or closing trails. 

5. To ensure that visitors are provided high quality orientation, information, and interpretation, the 

Refuge will continue to provide comprehensive training, at least annually, to roving volunteer 

interpreters and other Refuge volunteers. 

6. In order to avoid harassment, disease, and/or death of native wildlife, or transport of nonnative or 

invasive plant parts, insects, or other undesirable species, individuals participating in wildlife

observation, photography, and interpretation are prohibited from bringing dogs or other pets to 

the Point. An exception is legitimate, leashed guide animals. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-126 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

7. At Kāhili Quarry area, the Refuge proposes to build a new, predator-resistant fence at the base of 

vegetation growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point. The fence line will extend to the 

ocean at the northern end of the main Quarry area. Visitors will be allowed to bring dogs, but 

prohibited from bringing cats or other pets with them to the Kāhili Quarry area. All dogs brought 

onto the Refuge in this area are required to be leashed on a short (8-foot maximum) leash and 

under control at all times and are not be allowed to run free. Dogs will not be allowed to 

accompany pedestrians past the northeastern end of the main Quarry area. 

8. Visitors are prohibited from constructing new or maintaining existing structures; from littering, 

dumping refuse, abandoning equipment or materials, or otherwise discarding any items; from 

disturbing or otherwise adversely impacting any prehistoric, historic, or other cultural resources; 

or collecting and removing any archaeological or historic artifacts, abiotic or biological 

specimens or samples, or mementos from the Refuge. The Refuge will provide visitors with 

information and will maintain facilities at the Point (e.g., recycling and trash containers) to 

encourage recycling of water bottles and other recyclables and discourage littering. Additionally, 

visitors will continue to be able to recycle Refuge brochures at the entrance fee station. 

9. In addition to the stipulations listed here, visitors are required to comply with Refuge Systemrelated and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies including “Prohibited Acts” listed in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 27). 

 

10. No changes can be made to any of these stipulations without specific, prior written approval of 

the Refuge manager (for the purpose of these stipulations, the Refuge manager is the Refuge 

Project Leader of the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex). 

Justification:

Service policy states that, “Viewing and photographing wildlife in natural or managed environments 

should foster a connection between visitors and natural resources” (General Guidelines for WildlifeDependent Recreation, 605 FW 1). Policy also advises that wildlife observation and photography can 

promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources and their management across the 

Refuge System (Wildlife Observation, 605 FW 4 and Wildlife Photography, 605 FW 5). 

Participation in Refuge interpretive and informational programs can instill a sense of wonder; 

cultivate a connection with nature; foster a life-long relationship with a Refuge and the Refuge 

System; encourage a conservation ethic; and enhance the public’s understanding of and appreciation 

for fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, and Refuge management programs to 

conserve these valuable resources.

Service policy and Federal law require that wildlife-dependent public uses, including wildlife 

observation, photography, and environmental interpretation, be given special consideration in refuge 

planning and management, and opportunities to allow these uses are to be considered in each refuge 

CCP (Refuge Planning Overview, 602 FW 1 and NWRS Administration Act). When determined 

compatible on a refuge-specific basis, a wildlife-dependent use, including interpretation, becomes a 

priority public use for that refuge and is to be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as 

may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act).
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-127

Visitation figures (19th highest in the Refuge System) reflect the popularity of the observation, 

photography, interpretation, and other public use opportunities currently available at Kīlauea Point 

NWR. Maintaining these uses will continue that tradition and open the way for new and exciting 

enhancements.

These activities can cause some wildlife disturbance. However, they have been available on the 

Refuge for decades and existing facilities and program management have appropriately minimized 

effects upon native wildlife, plants, their habitats, and cultural resources. The stipulations included 

herein continue those efforts and provide additional protection. 

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. The Refuge will also 

monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine if these stipulations 

result in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply adaptive management principles to 

modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results. 

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as 

a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 

or their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Visitors will be appropriately advised of any such 

changes.

The Refuge also reserves the right to terminate permission for these uses if individuals violate 

Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts occur to native fish, wildlife, plants, their 

habitats, cultural resources, Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors; or for other legitimate reasons. 

Compatibility Standard 

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation need to 

be determined compatible. By allowing these uses to occur under the stipulations described above, it 

is anticipated that wildlife which could be disturbed will find sufficient food resources and resting 

places so that their abundance and use will not be measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, 

it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, 

wildlife, plants, their habitats, other public uses, and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated 

above and consistent with the stipulations described herein, these uses will not materially interfere 

with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health; fulfillment of Kīlauea Point NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 X Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-128 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

A..ctfng 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

~.-.?: 

(Signature) 

~ 

~::::::~-==-=~:::::::::::::::~=====~11?-:z:::::... (Signature) 

(Signature) ~~bh~,£. '~ 

9/c;/;.5 

(Date) 1 

er/rk 

; I (Date) 

G /tofts-

(Date) 

(Date) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations-Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-129 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-130 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

References Cited: 

Baker, J.D. and T.C. Johanos. 2003. Distribution and Abundance of Hawaiian Monk Seals in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands. In Final Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on 

Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI.

Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? British 

Ecological Society, Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Stewart. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife 

Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1111. Reston, VA.

DeLong, A.K. 2002. Managing Visitor Use & Disturbance of Waterbirds – A Literature Review of 

Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

Gilmartin, W.G. 2003. Responses of Monk Seals to Human Disturbance and Handling. In Final 

Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on Beaches in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI. 

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Second 

Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 

Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines 

for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126, 339–350. 

Holmes, N.D., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2007. Linking Variation in Penguin Responses to 

Pedestrian Activity for Best Practise Management on Subantartic Macquarie Island. Polarforschung 

77 (1), 7–15. 

Jungius V.H. and U. Hirsch. 1979. Herzfrequenzänderungen bei Brutvögeln in Galapagos als Folge 

von Störungen durch Besucher. Journal für Ornithologie 120, S. 299–310. 

Kitaysky, A., M. Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. Kitaiskaia, M. Shultz, and B. Zaun. 2003. Effects of 

Tourist Disturbance on Stress Physiology of Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) Chicks at 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i, HI. Report for the pilot study. Unpublished refuge 

report. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation B-131

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995a. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995b. Factors that Influence Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In 

Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and 

K.J. Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 71–79. 

Knight C.R. and J.P. Swaddle. 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and disturbance with 

fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological Conservation 138(1-2):189–197. 

Miller, J.R. and N.T. Hobbs. 2000. Recreational trails, human activity, and nest predation in lowland 

riparian areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 50(4):227–236. 

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162–169.

Morton, J.M. 1995. Management of human disturbance and its effects on waterfowl. Pages F59–F86 

in: William Raymond Whitman, ed. Waterfowl habitat restoration, enhancement and management in 

the Atlantic Flyway, 3rd ed. Dover, DE: Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway 

Council Technical Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 

Nimon, A.J., R.C. Schroter, and B. Stonehouse. 1995. Heart rate of disturbed penguins. Nature Vol. 

374, 415. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. Undated. Responsibly Watching California’s Marine Wildlife, Draft Handbook for Ocean 

Users. Available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/national/ww_handbook.pdf. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries), NOAA’s National 

Marine Sanctuaries, State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources, and U.S. Coast 

Guard. Undated. Protect Marine Wildlife While Enjoying Their Natural Beauty, Hawai‘i Marine 

Mammal & Sea Turtle Viewing Guidelines. Brochure. Honolulu, HI. 

North American Nature Photography Association. Undated. Principles of Ethical Field Practices. See 

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Rodgers, J. A. and H.T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing 

waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1):139–145. 

Rodgers, J.A. 1991. Minimum Buffer Zone Requirements to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies from 

Human Disturbance. Final Report. Bureau of Wildlife Research, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish 

Commission, Tallahassee, FL.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-132 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations— Wildlife Observation, Photography, and Interpretation

Smith-Castro, J.R. and A.D. Rodewald. 2010. Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human 

disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81(2):130–138. 

Trulio, L. 2005. Understanding the Effects of Public Access and Recreation on Wildlife and their 

Habitats in the Restoration Project Area. San Jose State University, Department of Environmental 

Studies, CA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – 

Nomination Form. Supplementary listing record for Kīlauea Point Light Station. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) B-133

Compatibility Determination 

Use: Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 

Refuge Name: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

County and State: County of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

• Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 667b–667d) 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k–460k-4) 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544) 

• Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–481) 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR have been identified in historic legal documentation 

establishing and adding refuge lands and are specified as follows: 

“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program ...” 

(Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act)

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species..." "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may 

be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors 

...” (Refuge Recreation Act) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species...or (B) plants...” (Endangered Species Act)

“(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...” (Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

“The mission of the [National Wildlife 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.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee).

Description of Use(s):

The public comes to Kāhili Quarry (Quarry) with several objectives, including (1) fishing or 

shellfishing; (2) viewing or photographing wildlife; or (3) accessing off-Refuge areas for surfing, 

swimming, kayaking, and other uses. Some bring their dogs with them while engaging in these 

activities. The Code of Federal Regulations states that no dog shall be permitted to roam at large on 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-134 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 

refuge lands (50 CFR 26.21(b)). Kaua‘i County ordinance requires dogs to be on-leash when off the 

owner’s property (Kaua‘i County Code Leash Law Section 22, Article 2: “Dogs must be under 

control of the owner by a leash (not more than 8 feet long) when off the owner’s property”). 

However, qualitative observations have shown that a substantial percentage of dogs at Kāhili Quarry, 

as well as adjacent off-Refuge areas (e.g., Kāhili Beach), are unleashed. Dogs may also be present at 

night, either accompanying visitors engaged in night fishing or unauthorized overnight camping. 

The Quarry area has received substantial public use for many years. Its naturalness is already 

compromised and it includes many nonnative plants. However, the Quarry is an important buffer area 

for wildlife resources on Mōkōlea Point and Crater Hill, including breeding sites for nēnē (Hawaiian 

goose, Branta sandvicensis), mōlī (Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis), ‘ua‘u kani (wedgetailed shearwaters, Puffinus pacificus), koa‘e ‘ula (red-tailed tropicbirds, Phaethon rubricauda), as 

well as roosting or foraging sites for pueo (Hawaiian short-eared owl, Asio flammeus sandwichensis) 

and ‘iwa (great frigatebird, Fregata minor). 

The Refuge will allow people to walk dogs on Kīlauea Point NWR, at the southwestern end of the 

Quarry while engaging in one or more of the existing wildlife-dependent public uses (fishing, 

wildlife observation, and photography) or while accessing off-Refuge areas (Kīlauea River, Kīlauea 

Bay, and Kāhili Beach) for stream, beach, and ocean uses. 

Dogs are required to be on-leash (8 feet or less) and under control at all times. Leashed dogs on the 

designated area will be allowed concurrent with other public use on a year-round basis. Visitors 

walking their dogs on-leash are required to pick up after their dogs(s) and remove all feces from the 

Refuge. Dogs will not be allowed past the northeastern end of the main Quarry area. The Refuge will

appropriately post its jurisdictional boundary in the Quarry area. A new, predator-resistant fence will

replace the existing fence and be constructed at the base of vegetation growing down the cliffs 

defining Mōkōlea Point. The fence line will extend to the ocean at the northern end of the main 

Quarry area. 

The Refuge will post a sign(s) at the end of pavement on Kāhili Road advising visitors that dogs 

must be on-leash, under direct control at all times, and that dog feces must be picked up and removed 

from the Refuge. The northeastern end of the main Quarry area will also be signed to indicate that 

dogs may not be walked in that area. The Refuge will enforce these regulations through warnings and 

ticketing by the Kauaʻi National Wildlife Refuge Complex law enforcement officer. Periodic 

evaluations will be done to ensure that dog walking does not interfere with compatible, wildlifedependent uses or impact wildlife resources. Unacceptable levels of violations or disturbance will

result in eliminating or restricting dog walking at the Quarry. This CD will be revised within 10 years 

of this CCP or sooner, to incorporate additional data and new information. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) B-135

Availability of Resources

Following is an estimate of one-time costs associated with this program: 

Projects Estimated Costs1 

1. Replacement of existing fence with new predator-resistant fence along the 

base of vegetation growing down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point.

$300,000

2. Posting of jurisdictional boundary with signage and low-profile 

monuments.

$20,000

3. Installation of new informational and regulatory signage. $10,000

Total Costs $330,000

1 Costs displayed are totals for these changes. Note that many of these changes will also benefit other 

uses occurring at Kāhili Quarry. 

Following is an estimate of annual costs associated with administering this use on the Refuge: 

Tasks Estimated Costs 

per Year1

1. Oversight by GS-13 Project Leader (approximately 10 hours/year). $600

2. Oversight by GS-12 Deputy Project Leader (approximately 10 hours/year). $500

3. Oversight by GS-9 Supervisory Park Ranger (approximately 40 

hours/year). $1,400

4. Law enforcement by GL-9 Law Enforcement Officer (approximately 80

hours/year). $3,000

5. Monitoring by GS-11 Biologist (approximately 20 hours/year). $900

6. Refuge overhead costs associated with the above-listed work.2 $1,300

7. Signage and fence maintenance, repair, and materials $3,000

Total Costs $10,700

1

 Annual personnel costs = 2014 step 1 salary for appropriate GS level x 12.25% COLA x 40% for 

benefits. 

2

 Overhead costs = salary + benefit costs x 0.22. Overhead expenses include building rent, utilities, 

equipment and supplies, and support personnel, and do not include salary-related benefits. 

The Refuge currently has adequate budget and staff to support the annual costs associated with dog 

walking at Kāhili Quarry. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

Domestic dogs have retained instincts to hunt and chase (Sime 1999) and dogs can chase and kill 

wildlife (Knight and Cole 1995). Dogs can also disrupt roosting, foraging, and breeding activities 

among birds and flush birds from nests (Thomas 2000, Sime 1999). Ground-dwelling birds appear to 

be most affected. The mere presence of a dog can cause stress (evidenced by an increased heart rate 

(Knight and Cole 1995)) or other disturbance to wildlife, and when a dog accompanies a human, the 

dog can exacerbate the disturbance effects of the human. In a study of disturbance to birds in natural 

areas, Banks and Bryant (2007) found that on-leash dog walking caused significant reductions in 

species diversity and abundance, substantially more than when humans walked the same trails 

without dogs. This occurred even in areas where dog walking was frequent. Also, dog walkers are 

apparently more likely to leave designated paths, which increases the potential for wildlife 

disturbance. When dogs are running free, off-leash, they cause even more wildlife disturbance than 

when being walked on-leash (Blanc et al. 2006). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-136 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 

A report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game found that dog harassment of 

wildlife is opportunistic and is associated with the concentration of wildlife in a given area (Jones 

and Stokes 1977). A follow-up study exploring the effects of dog density and wildlife abundance on 

the frequency of dog-induced wildlife flushes in an area of low vegetative cover suggests that doginduced wildlife flushes in this type of habitat are a function of dog-human densities and wildlife 

concentration, among other variables (Abraham 2001). In a wildlife-rich environment, with its 

stimulating sights, sounds, and smells, free-roaming dogs at the Quarry are expected to disturb and 

potentially kill seabirds.

Free-roaming dogs can harass, injure, or kill wildlife. On Kaua‘i, free-roaming dogs have killed 

shearwaters and mōlī at nesting colonies, sometimes in large numbers in a single incident (Hawaiʻi 

Department of Land and Natural Resources 2013a and 2013b). As a result, Hawaiʻi DNR now 

recommends that all dogs be leashed and all cats kept indoors. As noted above, Kaua‘i County 

regulations require dogs to be on leashes when off their owners’ property. 

‘Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua (Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi) and honu (Chelonia mydas) are 

known to use Kaua‘i’s north shore. Critically endangered ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua are especially sensitive 

to human disturbance (NMFS 2007). Approaching dog-walkers could force hauled-out individuals to 

move back into the water and seek a new haul-out site, causing them to expend energy and increasing 

their exposure to predators. Potential disturbance of female adults with pups is of special concern. 

Dogs have been known to attack, injure, and kill ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua, and can potentially transmit 

diseases to seals (Braun 2003, MMC et al. 2003, NOAA 2014). Dogs can also transport parasites and 

nonnative seeds into wildlife habitat and transmit diseases to wildlife (e.g., distemper, parvovirus, 

rabies, and plague) (Sime 1999, NOAA undated). 

Refuge-specific impacts:

 

Impacts from dog walking can be contained most effectively, mitigating the overall effect on Refuge 

wildlife and on visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent uses, by ensuring that dogs are always onleash, under direct control, and remain in designated areas. This public use management strategy will 

continue to be implemented under the CCP. The Refuge is aware that some visitors already disobey 

Federal regulations prohibiting free-roaming dogs on refuges, and county ordinances requiring dogs 

to be on-leash. Dog walking and any potential impacts from this public use will be monitored by 

Refuge law enforcement to ensure it does not interfere or have any negative impacts to compatible, 

wildlife-dependent uses or wildlife resources. 

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination was submitted for 44-day public review and comment as an 

appendix to the Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. 

Determination 

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) B-137

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

User stipulations

1. Visitors will be allowed to bring leashed dogs only to Kāhili Quarry. Dogs will not be allowed 

past the northeastern end of the main Quarry area. Signage will be used to delineate accessible 

and nonaccessible areas. Dogs are not allowed elsewhere at Kilauea Point. Cats or other pets are 

prohibited throughout the Refuge. 

2. Dogs must be kept leashed (8 feet or less) and under direct control at all times. 

3. Visitors must pick up and remove their dog(s)’ feces from the Refuge. 

4. Visitors are required to maintain a distance of at least 50 yards to ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or honu, 

whether these animals are in the water or on shore (NOAA undated). If ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or 

honu display signs of being disturbed, then that 50 yards will be expanded and the activity will be 

shut down to stop the disturbance and avoid potential take. 

Administrative stipulations

1. Regulations will be available to the public through a Refuge brochure. 

2. Signs will be posted to inform the public of regulations concerning dogs. 

Justification

Dog walking in the Kāhili Quarry area of the Refuge has the potential to cause disturbance to 

seabirds and potentially seals and/or turtles. The construction of a new fence at the base of vegetation 

on the west side of the Quarry area, limiting dog walking to the western portion of the area, and 

requiring dogs to be on-leash and under direct control will limit potential disturbance to seabirds 

roosting or nesting in cliff-side vegetation. Additionally, visitors are not allowed within 50 yards of 

seals or turtles. 

Dog walking is not a wildlife-dependent use of the Refuge, as defined by statute (16 U.S.C. 668dd et 

seq.). However, it is expected that visitors will enjoy some wildlife observation and photography 

ancillary to walking dogs. The Refuge will use this opportunity to reach out to dog owners, to 

educate them about how to minimize the effects of dogs on wildlife, and to encourage them to 

observe wildlife and to learn about the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Refuge will monitor compliance with the stipulations enumerated herein. The Refuge will also 

monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine if these stipulations 

result in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply adaptive management principles to 

modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to achieve desirable results.

The Refuge reserves the right to add to or otherwise modify the stipulations listed herein in order to 

ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. New or modified stipulations could be instituted as 

a result of new information generated by ongoing or new studies; new legal, regulatory, or policy 

requirements; significant changes to the Refuge environment or status of native fish, wildlife, plants, 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-138 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 

or their habitats; or for other legitimate reasons. Refuge personnel will appropriately advise visitors 

of any such changes. 

The Refuge also reserves the right to terminate or modify privileges to walk dogs on the Refuge if 

visitors violate Refuge rules or regulations; if unacceptable impacts occur to native fish, wildlife, 

plants, their habitats, cultural resources, Refuge facilities, or other Refuge visitors; or for other 

legitimate reasons.

Compatibility Standard

In order to be allowed on the Refuge, dog walking in the Kāhili Quarry area needs to be determined 

compatible. By limiting dog walking to west side of Kāhili Quarry, and allowing this use to occur 

under the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife which could be disturbed would 

find sufficient food resources and resting places so that their abundance and use will not be 

measurably lessened on the Refuge. Additionally, it is anticipated that monitoring, as needed, will

prevent unacceptable or irreversible impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, other public uses, 

and cultural resources. For the several reasons stated above and consistent with the stipulations 

described herein, this use will not materially interfere with or detract from maintenance of the 

Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health; fulfillment of Kīlauea Point’s 

NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s mission. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date: 

 Mandatory 15-year re-evaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses)

 X Mandatory 10-year re-evaluation date (for all uses other than wildlife-dependent public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: (check one below)

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

This compatibility determination was developed and issued concurrently with the draft CCP and EA 

for Kīlauea Point NWR.
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Compatibility Determination: Dog Walking (Kahili Quarry) 

Refuge Determination: 

Prepared by: 

.A..cti11g 

Approved by Project Leader, 

Kaua'i National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex: 

Concurrence: 

Refuge and Monument 

Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Refuges and Monuments 

Office: 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Pacific 

Region: 

(Signature) 

~.:::z: ~ 

..---?~~ 

(Signature) 

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations-Dog Walking (Kahili Quarry) 

(Date) 

9/rLscnate)" 

(Date) 

~ 

nf.; l.r 

B-139 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-140 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 

References 

Abraham, K. 2001. Interactions between dogs and wildlife in parks on the Berkeley Marina. 

Unpublished report, submitted to Berkeley Parks and Recreation. Available at: http://istsocrates.berkeley.edu/~es196/projects/2001final/Abraham.pdf. 

Banks, P.B. and J.V. Bryant. 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds 

from natural areas. Biology Letters 3, 611–613. 

Blanc, R., M. Guillemain, J-B. Mouronval, D. Desmonts, and H. Fritz. 2006. Effects of NonConsumptive Leisure Disturbance to Wildlife. Rev. Ecol. (Tierre Vie) Vol. 61, 117–133. 

Braun R.C. 2003. Handling Risks and Disease Considerations of Hawaiian Monk Seals in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands. In Final Report, Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on 

Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2013a. Kaua‘i south shore shearwater colony 

decimated by dogs and cats. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2013/09/18/nr13-114/. 

Accessed August 4, 2014. 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2013b. DLNR issues plea to dog owners as 

returning albatross are slaughtered. Available at: http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2013/12/13/nr13-169/. 

Accessed August 4, 2014. 

Jones and Stokes Associates. 1977. Dog depredation on wildlife and livestock in California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. Jones & Stokes. Sacramento, CA. 64 pp. 

Knight, R.L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife Responses to Recreationists. In Wildlife and 

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Ed by R.L. Knight and K.J. 

Guzwiller. Island Press, Washington, DC. 51–69. 

MMC, NMFS, and HDAR (Marine Mammal Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources). 2003. Appendix 1, Terms of Reference. In Final Report, 

Workshop on the Management of Hawaiian Monk Seals on Beaches in the Main Hawaiian Islands. 

Cosponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Hawai‘i 

Division of Aquatic Resources. Koloa, Kaua‘i, HI. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi), Second Revision. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Ratz, H. and C. Thompson. 1999. Who is Watching Whom? Checks for Impacts of Tourists on 

Yellow-Eyed Penguins Megadyptes Antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27:205–210. 

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pages 8.1–8.17 in: G. Joslin and H. Youmans, 

coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on 

Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) B-141

Thomas, K. 2000. The Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings (Calidris 

alba). A Capstone Project Presented to the Faculty of Earth Systems Science and Policy in the Center 

for Science, Technology, and Information Resources at California State University, Monterey Bay, 

CA. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

B-142 Appendix B. Compatibility Determinations—Dog Walking (Kāhili Quarry) 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-1 

Appendix C. Implementation 

C.1 Overview

Implementation of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be sought from a variety of 

sources including congressional allocations and public and private partnerships and grants. There are 

no guarantees that additional Federal funds will be made available to implement any of these 

projects. Activities and projects identified will be implemented as funds become available. 

Many of the infrastructure and facility projects will be eligible for funding through construction or 

Federal Lands Highway Program funds (i.e., Refuge roads). 

The CCP identifies several projects to be implemented over the next 15 years. Some of these projects 

are included in the Refuge Management Information Systems (RONS–Refuge Operational Needs 

System or SAMMS–Service Asset Maintenance Management System) which are used to request 

funding from Congress. Upon completion of the CCP, new projects that are needed to meet Refuge 

goals and objectives and legal mandates will be entered into RONS documents or SAMMS 

databases. Currently, a large backlog of maintenance needs exists on the Refuge. Prioritized staffing 

needs identified in RONS will be necessary to implement the CCP to meet Refuge goals and 

objectives and legal mandates. The SAMMS database documents and tracks repairs, replacements, 

and maintenance of facilities and equipment. Smaller proposed projects will be implemented as 

funding allows, and funding would be sought for these projects through a variety of sources. 

Unless congressionally directed, annual revenue sharing payments to Kaua‘i County will continue. If 

the Refuge expands through the purchase of inholdings (privately owned lands within the current 

approved boundary) or through an expanded Refuge boundary, additional in lieu of tax payments will 

be made to the county. 

Monitoring activities will be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and activities 

to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and responses to 

management practices. Actual monitoring and evaluation procedures will be detailed in step-down 

management plans (see below). 

C.2 Step-Down Plans

The CCP is one of several necessary plans used by managers, biologists, and staff for Refuge 

management. The CCP provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for several 

Refuge program areas, but may lack some of the specifics needed for implementation. All step-down 

plans require appropriate NEPA compliance, and implementation may require additional county, 

State, and Federal permits. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA compliance, may be 

prepared outside of these step-down plans. Step-down plans for the Refuge follow: 

• Sign plan (initiate planning after completion of CCP); 

• Facilities, equipment, and vehicle maintenance plan (includes rotation);

• Safety plan;

• Visitor Services plan (KNWRC-wide); 

• Inventory and monitoring plan (2017); 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-2 Appendix C. Implementation

• Cultural/Historic resource management plan (2019); 

• Historic structure treatment plan for the Kīlauea Point Light Station (2020); 

• Fire management plan (originally done in 2004); 

• Master Site Plan;

• Habitat management plan (2017); 

• Plant restoration strategy (2017). 

C.3 Costs to Implement CCP

The following sections detail both one-time and recurring costs for various projects as described 

within the CCP. One-time costs (Table C-1) reflect the initial costs associated with a project, such as 

the purchase of equipment, contracting services, construction, or other activity. Recurring costs 

(Tables C-2 and C-3) reflect the future operational and maintenance costs associated with the project. 

Table C-4 summarizes the total budgets needed to implement the CCP. The potential funding sources 

identify both base funding that is appropriated by Congress as part of the Refuge’s budget (e.g., 

126X series such as 1261, 1262, etc.) and grants/external funds received (e.g., ES, NAWCA, I&M). 

Note that for both Tables C-1 and C-2, only costs the Refuge is directly responsible for have been 

identified. For partnering strategies identified, due to the unknown associated costs and timing, these 

costs have not been identified in the tables below. 

C.3.1 One-time costs

One-time costs have a start-up cost associated with them, such as purchasing equipment necessary 

for wildlife and habitat monitoring, or designing, constructing, and installing an interpretive sign. 

Some cost estimates are for projects that can be completed in 3 years or less. One-time costs can 

include the cost of temporary or term salary associated with a short-term project. Salary for existing 

and new positions, and operational costs, are reflected in operational (or recurring) costs. 

Funds for one-time costs would be sought through increases in Refuge base funding, special project 

funds, and grants. Projects listed below in Table C-1 show one-time start-up and implementation 

costs, such as those associated with building and facility needs, including replacement of buildings, 

public use facilities, road/trail improvements, and new signs. One-time costs in Table C-1 are also 

associated with projects such as habitat restoration, research, and infrastructure developments. In 

many cases, new research projects, because of their relatively high initial establishment cost, are 

considered one-time projects and include costs of contracting services or hiring a temporary staff 

position for the short-term project. Some project costs are estimated from past projects and RONS or 

SAMMS proposals. Others are not yet in any project database and their costs have been estimated, 

particularly if the scope of the project is unknown at this time due to lack of baseline data. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-3 

Table C-1. One-time Costs (in Thousands). 

CCP objective/strategy (5 year interval 

timeline)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

Source

Species and Habitat Restoration and Protection

Obj. 1.1: Explore the possibility of expansion 

of or additions to the Nihoku Ecosystem 

Restoration Project predator-proof fence

TBD 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, KPNHA, 

grants

Obj. 1.2: Rehabilitate and maintain irrigation 

system at Crater Hill for native plant 

establishment

$100 DM, 1113(ES)

Obj. 1.3: Stabilize areas of accelerated 

erosion identified in the road and trail 

assessment and analysis

$70

Surveys, Inventories, Monitoring, and Research

Obj. 1.3 and 3.3: Conduct a road and trail 

assessment and analysis and identify 

problem areas (e.g., accelerated erosion, 

compaction) and solutions (e.g., water bars, 

erosion matting, revegetation) 

$10 $10 1260 funds

Obj. 1.3 and 3.1: Design and implement a 

monitoring program for 1–2 indicator species 

(e.g., ‘ā) to detect natural or anthropogenic 

variation in habitat conditions 

$75 1260 funds

Obj. 3.1: Within 1 year, map type and status 

of all fences and gates (2016)

$8 DM, 1113(ES)

Obj. 3.1: Within first 2–3 years, re-evaluate, 

develop, or initiate Refuge-specific 

monitoring plans (protocols, sample designs, 

and databases) for high-priority taxa (e.g., 

listed, highly pest, or indicator species, 

species/species groups of regional concern) 

within the regional I&M framework; work 

with USGS Biological Resources Discipline, 

universities, and other partners to develop 

efficient systems for synthesis, analysis, and 

reporting of Refuge monitoring data (2017)

$75 I&M, USGS

Obj. 3.1: Within first 2 years, design and 

conduct a vegetation monitoring program 

that will allow for assessment in reaching 

habitat management objectives (2017)

$0 Costs supported 

in other 

strategies

Obj. 3.1: Within first 5 years, conduct a 

comprehensive inventory of plants, 

invertebrates, and vertebrates occurring at 

the Refuge. Use initial inventories as 

baseline data to assess past and future 

changes in plant and animal communities 

(2020)

$25 I&M, 1113 

(ES), USGS

Obj. 3.1: Map soils, vegetation, and bird 

distributions

$65 $65 USGS, NRCS, 

1113 (ES)
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-4 Appendix C. Implementation

CCP objective/strategy (5 year interval 

timeline)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

Source

Obj. 3.1: Develop GIS layers to support 

biological goals and objectives and I&M 

program (2020)

$15 USGS, RO, 

I&M

Obj. 3.1: Conduct early detection and rapid 

response pest plant species assessment; rank 

species to target for control

$20 ISST

Obj. 3.2: Investigate effects of visitor 

activities on survival and reproduction of 

priority bird species

$75

Obj. 3.2: Investigate the relative importance 

of causes of mortality (e.g., predators, 

disease, vehicle strikes) for nēnē and seabirds 

of concern

$75

Obj. 3.2: Investigate daily and seasonal 

movements of nēnē

$75

Obj. 3.2: Investigate status and distribution 

of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a; identify management priorities

TBD

Obj. 3.2: Investigate status and distribution 

of endemic insects, particularly species of 

concern

$0 Costs supported 

in other 

strategies

Obj. 3.2: Develop survey methods to reliably 

estimate population size for species of high 

conservation concern

$40

Obj. 3.2: Investigate breeding and foraging 

ecology of nēnē in lowlands

$150

Obj. 5.1: Prepare a cultural resource 

overview and management step-down plan of 

each Refuge by compiling a library of 

pertinent cultural resource sites, surveys, 

historical documents, maps, GIS files, etc., 

and prepare report that presents this 

information (within 4 years of CCP 

completion) (2019)

$25 $25 126x, 8081, 

KPNHA/

Friends

Obj. 5.1: Conduct a field inventory and 

evaluation of cultural resources identified 

and predicted by the archival research and 

communication program described above in 

concert with the information provided by the 

cultural resources overview (2019)

$180 $180 126x, 8081, 

KPNHA/

Friends

Obj. 5.1: Conduct archival research and 

communication with Native Hawaiian 

organizations, kūpuna, communities, and 

institutions to document the stories, 

occupation, and land use history of the 

Refuge and to consult on the protection of 

cultural resources (2025) 

$20 $20 126x, 8081
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-5 

CCP objective/strategy (5 year interval 

timeline)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

Source

Cultural and Historic Resources

Obj. 5.2: Prepare and/or update historic 

structure reports for each element of the 

Kīlauea Point Light Station (2019)

$25 $25

Obj. 5.2: Prepare a historic structure 

treatment plan that addresses the needs, 

priorities, costs, and schedule for 

maintenance, restoration, and reuse of each 

element of the Kīlauea Point Light Station 

(2020)

$25 $25

Obj. 5.2: Develop an outreach program and 

materials so that cultural resource messages 

become part of events in the area, including 

the State’s Archaeology Month, National 

Wildlife Refuge Week, and appropriate local 

festivals

$15

Facilities Development

Obj. 4.1: Provide bicycle parking at overlook $10

Obj. 4.1: Explore options for removing

parking currently on Refuge and renovate 

area for shuttle stop from the visitor welcome 

and orientation center. Improve pedestrian 

circulation

$25

Obj. 4.2: Explore options for redesigning and 

enhancing the scenic overlook at the entrance 

to the Refuge to provide greater orientation 

and information, increased interpretation

$75 $75

Obj. 1.2: In conjunction with transportation 

planning, evaluate the feasibility of 

redesigning the Overlook area in order to 

provide a corridor for nēnē transiting 

between the Point and Crater Hill.

TBD Costs identified 

in other 

strategies

Obj. 4.2: Explore the establishment of a new 

offsite Welcome and Orientation Center on 

lands adjacent to or within 1 mile of the 

Refuge, including within Kīlauea Town,

which would include the following: visitor 

contact, orientation and information, fee 

collection, restrooms, bookstore/retail, 

multipurpose room, outdoor spaces, 

administrative offices, private vehicle and 

tour bus parking, public bus stop, and shuttle 

pick-up/drop-off

TBD

Obj. 4.2: Re-examine the site layout at 

Kīlauea Point and evaluate non–sitedependent functions currently located there 

and move as many as feasible and possible 

TBD Costs identified 

in other 

strategies
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-6 Appendix C. Implementation

CCP objective/strategy (5 year interval 

timeline)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

Source

off the Point (e.g., bookstore, administrative 

and maintenance functions, equipment 

storage, fee collection, parking) to improve 

the visitor experience

Obj. 4.2, 4.3: Explore options for remodeling

the existing VC for either EE or new 

interpretive exhibits and displays. Maintain 

bookstore operations at the new welcome 

and orientation center

$200

Obj. 4.3: Remodel the contact station (radio 

beacon building) to provide expanded 

interpretation and/or scenic view

$150

(expand scenic 

view)

Obj. 4.3: Explore the restoration and 

conversion of one of the former lighthouse 

keeper’s homes (Quarters #1) to house other 

functions (e.g., living history site, bookstore) 

$550

(living history 

site, book store 

offsite)

Obj. 4.3, 4.5: Offer a limited number of 

guided interpretive hikes to Crater Hill 

designed (location of trail, timing, group 

size) to have negligible negative effects on 

breeding birds yet provide a quality 

experience for visitors

$0 Costs reflected 

in other 

strategies

Obj. 4.6: Replace the existing fence with a 

predator-resistant fence in a modified 

alignment for approximately 600 feet, 

following the base of vegetation growing 

down the cliffs defining Mōkōlea Point

$300 $300 126x, RO, DM, 

ISST, ES, 

KPNHA, grants

Obj. 4.6: Install bollards at the northeast end 

of the Quarry area to protect seabird nesting 

areas

TBD

Obj. 6.1: Develop new maintenance baseyard 

(e.g., storage sheds, bays, pole barns, 

nursery)

TBD (offRefuge)126x,DM,CI

ENG

Obj. 6.1: Remodel Quarters #3 for basic 

administrative and volunteer offices

$100 126x, DM

Public Use/Visitor Services

Obj. 4.1: Develop a data collection plan (e.g., 

better traffic and parking count, documenting 

“overage”, accident and incident data,) that is 

updated and reviewed annually to continue to 

evaluate transportation network efficacy

TBD TBD

Obj. 4.1: Within the first 5–10 years, 

implement recommendation from the 

Transportation Assistance Group

TBD TBD

Obj. 4.1: Explore options for a mandatory 

shuttle which would prohibit private 

vehicles from traveling into the Refuge and 

TBD
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-7 

CCP objective/strategy (5 year interval 

timeline)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

Source

would require all visitors to use a shuttle 

system from a visitor welcome and 

orientation center

Obj. 4.1: If a shuttle system is implemented, 

examine the feasibility of allowing 

pedestrian and/or bicycle access from the 

Overlook into the Point

TBD

Obj. 4.2: Identify and develop methods to 

provide greater information to visitors prior 

to entering the Refuge (e.g., volunteers at 

overlook, cell phone audio tour at overlook, 

AM radio station, rangers onboard shuttles to 

the Refuge, operating hours on highway 

signage)

$200 $200

Obj. 4.3: Develop orientation materials 

and/or train Service staff, volunteers, 

partners and tour operators to ensure 

understanding of the significant resources 

and messages that the interpretive program 

should be addressing

$40 $40

Obj. 4.4: Update curricula and materials as 

necessary to ensure that programs support 

and complement the Service’s mission and 

current initiatives, as well as the Refuge’s 

purposes and goals

$15

Obj. 4.4: Develop a multifaceted Junior 

Ranger program to reach young visitors to 

the Refuge

$10

Obj. 4.5: Expand program offerings, 

workshops, activities, and exhibits used to 

teach and enhance wildlife viewing skills and 

ethics

$50

Obj. 4.5: Increase compatible opportunities 

for up-close and personal viewing of wildlife 

(e.g., remote cameras, observation/photo 

blinds, guided ranger- and/or volunteer-led 

hikes)

$25

Obj. 4.8: Enhance and expand existing 

volunteer/intern program (e.g., complete 

needs assessment and create new position 

descriptions for volunteers and interns, 

recruit, and train) to a corps of at least 200 

volunteers/interns in order to support a 

greater variety of Refuge programs

$25

Obj. 4.8: Develop a volunteer program that 

combines resource management (e.g., pest 

control, plant restoration) with interpretation 

(e.g., guided hike and birding on Crater Hill)

$25 $25
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-8 Appendix C. Implementation

CCP objective/strategy (5 year interval 

timeline)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

Source

Obj. 6.2: Develop outreach tools (e.g., 

brochures, website) specifically for Refuge 

protection and safety issues and identify 

methods for circulation (2024)

$10 126x, 8081, 

KPNHA/

Friends, Grants 

Additional Costs

To support strategies, additional equipment 

costs include vehicle for staff and field 

work. Average cost is $35,000.

$350

(10 vehicles)

126x

C.3.2 Annual Operational (Recurring) Costs

Operational costs reflect Refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations and projects that last longer 

than 3 years. Operational costs use base funding in Service fund code 1260. 

Table C-2 displays projected annual operating costs to implement strategies under the CCP. The CCP 

will require increased funding for new or expanded public uses and facilities, habitat management 

and restoration activities, and new monitoring needs. This table includes such things as salary and 

operational expenditures such as travel, training, supplies, utilities, and maintenance costs. Project 

costs listed in Table C-2 include administrative support for all programs and projects as well as 

permanent and seasonal staff needed year after year to accomplish each project. These staffing costs 

are not isolated in this table but are included as part of the entire project cost. 

Table C-2. Operational (Recurring) Costs (Annual in Thousands).

CCP objective/strategy (these costs will 

run through the entire 15-year plan and 

are annual)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

source

Species and Habitat Restoration and Protection

Obj. 1.1: Reduction in pest ironwood and 

other species by 2–5 acres/year in priority 

areas (e.g., obstacles to flight, limiting 

nesting) 

$1 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, KPNHA, 

grants

Obj. 1.1: Mowing an additional 2–3 acres of 

grasslands per year to set back invasive 

shrub succession, <6 inch vegetation height

$3 $3 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, KPNHA, 

grants

Obj. 1.1: Small-scale outplanting native 

plants (e.g., ‘āheahea, hala) that provide 

suitable habitat structure and function for 

seabirds

$1 DM, 1113 (ES)
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-9 

CCP objective/strategy (these costs will 

run through the entire 15-year plan and 

are annual)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

source

Obj. 1.1, 1.2, 2.2: Use IPM strategies 

including mechanical/physical (e.g., 

mowing, brush-cutting, excavation, 

prescribed fire), cultural, chemical (e.g., 

herbicides), biological, and other suitable 

techniques to control Christmasberry, 

lantana, ironwood, and other 

pest/undesirable plants

$20 $20 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, ISST, 

KPNHA, grants

Obj. 1.1, 2.2: If insect threats (e.g., 

mosquitoes, ants, scale insects) to breeding 

seabirds are detected during monitoring, use 

IPM control techniques (e.g., removing 

potential breeding sites for mosquitoes, ant 

bait stations (e.g., Fipronil), approved 

biocontrols, hand removal of infected leaves, 

granular and spot-treating plants with 

insecticides (e.g., Sevin ®)) 

TBD TBD 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, ISST, 

KPNHA, grants

Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Maintain or replace 2.7 miles 

of existing hogwire fencing 

$6 $6 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, KPNHA, 

grants

Obj. 1.1: Keep the area under the chain-link 

fence at the Point free from weeds to prevent 

bird entrapment

$0 $0 Costs covered in 

other strategies 

(e.g., 126x, RO, 

ISST, ES 

KPNHA, grants) 

Obj. 1.1: Evaluate the potential for 

restoration of some portion of the parking 

areas on the Point focusing on shrubland 

revegetation for the benefit of shearwaters

TBD

Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Live-trapping, shooting, and 

bait stations to reduce predation on 

migratory birds by introduced vertebrate 

pests

$15 $15 126x, RO, ISST, 

ES, KPNHA, 

grants

Obj. 1.1: With partners, maintain predatorproof fence east of Crater HillTBD TBD

Obj. 1.2: Mowing at a frequency to stimulate 

vigorous growth of grasses; maintain <4-6 

inches tall

$0 $0 Costs covered in 

other strategies 

(e.g., 126x, RO, 

ISST, ES

KPNHA, grants) 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-10 Appendix C. Implementation

CCP objective/strategy (these costs will 

run through the entire 15-year plan and 

are annual)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

source

Obj. 1.2: Enhance grasslands with native 

shrubland plant communities that provide 

suitable habitat structure and function for 

nēnē (e.g., naupaka, ‘akoko, nehe for nēnē 

food and cover) 

$5 DM, 1113 (ES)

Obj. 2.1: Continue to maintain ‘a‘o colony 

on the Point (NESH Hill), while increasingly 

putting emphasis for ‘a‘o recovery on Crater 

Hill/Mōkōlea Point areas (including the 

Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project area)

TBD TBD 126x, 1113 (ES)

Obj. 2.1: Sustain or expand current 

distribution of seabirds

$0 Costs covered 

by other 

strategies

Obj. 2.1: Re-establish populations of 

extirpated seabird species

$1,000

Obj. 2.1: Use social attraction techniques to 

enhance the ‘a‘o and other seabird 

populations; monitor for bird and predator 

responses to stimuli

$20 $20

Surveys, Inventories, Monitoring, and Research

Obj. 1.1: Explore the use of a predator 

control index based on the loss of mōlī eggs 

and chicks, on a 5-year average

$2

Obj. 2.1, 3.2: With partners, determine 

feasibility of the Refuge as a potential ‘a‘o 

and/or ‘ua‘u chick translocation site

TBD

Obj. 3.1: Monitor population size of all 

native breeding birds at least each decade 

and species of high conservation concern 

annually (e.g., ‘a‘o, mōlī, nēnē) 

$2

Obj. 3.1: Monitor seabird and nēnē 

populations and mortality and morbidity 

$2

Obj. 3.1: Monitor response of pest species 

and habitat to management actions within an 

adaptive management framework

$2

Obj. 3.1: Monitor sex structure and 

demography of the mōlī population using 

molecular or other techniques 

$2
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-11

CCP objective/strategy (these costs will 

run through the entire 15-year plan and 

are annual)

Current 

Management 

Future 

Management 

Potential Fund 

source

Obj. 3.1: Monitor effects of visitor activities 

on wildlife and re-evaluate the program 

every 5 years

$2

Obj. 4.2: Every 5 years, evaluate Refuge fees 

and conduct a visitor survey to evaluate 

existing programs as well as new programs 

under development, analyze current and 

potential Refuge visitor profiles, and explore 

visitation trends

$300 ($60 every 

5 years)

$300 ($60 every 

5 years)

Obj. 4.3: Every 5–10 years, conduct an 

analysis of visitation trends and their 

implications for interpretation

$0 $0 Costs covered 

under other 

strategies

Public Use/Visitor Services

Obj. 4.3: Continue to provide, on an on-call

basis, golf carts to transport visitors who 

may need assistance getting to the VC or 

lighthouse

$16 $16

Obj. 4.4: Annually disseminate current EE 

program guidelines and activities offered to 

all educators within the target audience

$1 $1

Obj. 4.7: Provide staff with opportunities for 

outreach training (e.g., outreach basics, 

building community support, working with 

news media, congressional operations) 

$10

Facilities Development

Maintaining infrastructure as identified 

under one-time costs table (including public 

use/ visitor services) 

$50 $70 126x

C.3.3 Maintenance Costs

The Refuge maintenance program funding need over the next 15 years is defined as funds needed to 

repair or replace buildings, equipment, and facilities. Maintenance actions include preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; repairs; replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment; 

adjustments, lubrication, and cleaning (nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting; resurfacing; 

rehabilitation; special safety inspections; and other actions to assure continuing service and to 

prevent breakdown. Maintenance costs include the maintenance backlog needs that are due but are as 

yet unfunded, as well as the increased maintenance need associated with new facilities.

The facilities associated with the Refuge that require maintenance include trails, interpretive panels, 

regulatory signs, roads, parking lots, fencing, septic systems, water storage tanks and distribution 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-12 Appendix C. Implementation

systems, and office and other buildings (e.g., nursery, sheds). Major equipment includes vehicles and 

heavy equipment. Operational (nonproject) maintenance funding for KNWRC is expended on all 

three Complex refuges including Kīlauea Point NWR and varies significantly by year. Operational 

funding is determined by station, regional office, and Washington office priorities and allocations. 

C.3.4 Staffing

To fulfill Complex visions and Refuge System mission, a full and skilled workforce must be fostered 

that operates with integrity to achieve their greatest potential in an environment that promotes 

appreciation, team work, efficient business practices, and effective communication. Current (2014) 

staffing and proposed staffing to implement the programs detailed within the CCP are shown in 

Table C-3. 

Table C-3. Staffing Costs (Annual). Costs include salary (assumed at Step 1), 12.25 percent COLA 

and benefits at 40 percent (applicable only to Federal employees). Salaries are based on 2014 salary 

tables (OPM 2014a, OPM 2014b, DCPAS 2014). Note that (*) positions are Complex-wide. As a 

result, for Complex-wide positions, staffing cost identified is proportional. If multiple grade levels 

are specified, the full performance level is assumed.

Staff Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Potential Funding 

Source

Current Staff

Project Leader (GS-13)* $42,804 $42,804 1261, 1263

Deputy Project Leader (GS-12)* $35,996 $35,996 1261, 1263

Wildlife Biologist (GS-11)* $30,031 $30,031 1261

Supervisory Park Ranger (GS-9)* $59,572 $59,572 8081

Park Ranger (GS-5) $49,145 $49,145 8081

Park Ranger (GS-3) $39,128 $39,128 8081

Park Ranger (GS-3) $39,128 $39,128 8081

Administrative Officer (GS-9)* $24,822 $24,822 1261

Administrative Support Assistant 

(GS-5)*

$16,382 $16,382 1261

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement 

Officer) (GL-9)*

$25,649 $25,649 8081, 1264

Engineer Equipment Operator 

(Supervisory) (WG-8/10)*

$28,033 $28,033 1262

Facilities Maintenance Worker 

(WG-8)

$73,877 $73,877 8081

Tractor Operator (WG-5) $58,502 $58,502 8081

Janitorial Laborer (WG-2) $25,894 $25,894 8081

Janitorial Laborer (WG-2) $25,894 $25,894 8081

Biological Science Technician 

(Predator Control) (GS-5)*

$16,382 $16,382 1262-A111, ES. Could be 

contracted

Interpretation/biological interns

(AmeriCorps)*

$4,662 $4,662 1261, 8081 

Interpretation/biological interns

(AmeriCorps)*

$4,662 $4,662 1261, 8081 

Interpretation/biological interns

(AmeriCorps)*

$4,662 $4,662 1261, 8081 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-13

Staff Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Potential Funding 

Source

Proposed Staff

Restoration Ecologist (GS-7/9/11) * $30,031 TBD

Biological Science Technician 

(TERM GS-5/7)*

$20,292 TBD

Biological Science Technician 

(TERM GS-5/7)*

$20,292 TBD

Biological Science Technician 

(TERM GS-5/7)*

$20,292 TBD

Mechanic (WG-7/8)* $24,626 $24,626 TBD

Mechanic (WG-7/8)* $24,626 $24,626 TBD

Wildlife Refuge Specialist (GS5/7/9)* $24,822 RONS – 1261; (HAN –

FY08 5336) 

Wildlife Refuge Specialist (GS5/7/9) * $24,822 RONS – 1261; (HAN –

FY08 5336) 

Park Ranger (Law Enforcement 

Officer) (GL-5/7/9)*

$25,649 $20,292 RONS – 1264; FY08-

7150 or FY10-1286

Cultural Resources Specialist 

(TERM GS-7)*

$30,031 TBD

GIS Specialist (GS-5/7/9/11)* $30,031 $30,031 TBD

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(GS-4/5)

$49,145 TBD

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(Americorps) 

$10,000 AmeriCorps

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(GS-4/5) 

$49,145 TBD

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(Americorps)

$10,000 AmeriCorps

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(GS-4/5) 

$49,145 TBD

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(GS-4/5) 

$49,145 TBD

Environmental 

Education/Interpretation Specialist 

(GS-4/5) 

$49,145 TBD

Maintenance Worker (TERM WG5/6) $63,656 TBD

Maintenance Worker (WG-5/6) $63,656 TBD
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-14 Appendix C. Implementation

Staff Current 

Management

Future 

Management

Potential Funding 

Source

Maintenance Worker (WG-5/6) $63,656 TBD

Maintenance Worker (WG-6/7/8) $73,877 $73,877 TBD

GS: General Schedule Federal Employee, WG: Wage Grade Federal Employee, GL: Law 

Enforcement Officers (LEOs) 

C.3.5 Budget Summary

Table C-4 summarizes the data from Tables C-1 and C-2 and displays the overall funding needed for 

KNWRC to implement the CCP for Kīlauea Point NWR. 

Table C-4. Budget Summary (Annual in Thousands).

Budget Category Current Management Future Management

One- time 

cost

Annual 

recurring cost

One- time 

cost

Annual 

recurring cost

Species and Habitat Restoration 

and Protection

$64 x 15 years 

= $960

$170 $1,071 x 15 

years =$16,065

Surveys, Inventories, 

Monitoring, and Research

$300 $20 x 15 years 

= $300

$933 $32 x 15 years 

= $480

Cultural Resources $50 $65

Facilities Development $375 $50 x 15 years 

= $750

$1,410 $70 x 15 years 

= $1,050

Public Use/Visitor Services $265 $17 x 15 years 

= $255

$400 $27 x 15 years 

= $405

Additional Costs $350 $350

Staffing $784 x 15 years = $11,761 $1,402 x 15 years =$21,024

Total: $15,366 $42,352

NOTE: For offsite facilities, figures are to be determined (TBD). However, for the purposes of this 

summary and separate from Tables C-2 and C-3, a cost equivalent to an onsite facility was estimated. 

C.4 Partnering Opportunities 

Partnerships are an important component of the implementation of this CCP. Toward this end, we 

rely on partnering opportunities, both in terms of funding and personnel. Partnering opportunities are 

reflected in the goals, objectives, and strategies identified in Chapter 2. Coordinated partnership 

efforts focus on species and habitat restoration and protection; surveys, inventories, and research; 

visitor services; and cultural/historic resources management. Refuge staff will work to strengthen 

existing partnerships and will actively look for new partnerships to assist in achieving the goals, 

objectives, and strategies in this CCP. Current and past partners include Federal and State agencies, 

nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, volunteers, and other individuals. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix C. Implementation C-15

C.5 References 

U.S. Department of Defense – Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS). 2014. Federal 

wage system regular and special production facilitating wage rate schedules for the State of Hawaiʻi 

(Island of Kauaʻi) (HI) wage area. http://www.cpms.osd.mil/Content/AF%20Schedules/surveysch/044/044R-05Aug2014.html 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 2014a. Salary table 2014-HI. 

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2014/HI.pdf

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 2014b. Salary table 2014-HI (LEO). 

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salarytables/pdf/2014/HI%20(LEO).pdf
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

C-16 Appendix C. Implementation
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review for Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge

D.1 Introduction 

D.1.1 Policy and Direction for Wilderness Reviews

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy (Part 602 FW 3.4 C.(1) (c)) requires that wilderness 

reviews be completed as part of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process. This review 

includes the re-evaluation of refuge lands existing during the initial 10-year review period of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136), as well as new lands and waters added 

to the Refuge System since 1974. A preliminary inventory of the wilderness resources is to be 

conducted during pre-acquisition planning for new or expanded refuges (341 FW 2.4 B., “Land 

Acquisition Planning”). Refuge System policy on Wilderness Stewardship (610 FW 1–5) includes 

guidance for conducting wilderness reviews (610 FW 4—Wilderness Review and Evaluation). 

A wilderness review is the process of determining whether the Service should recommend Refuge 

System lands and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process 

consists of three phases: wilderness inventory, wilderness study, and wilderness recommendation. 

Wilderness Inventory

The inventory is a broad look at a refuge to identify lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria 

for wilderness: size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. All areas meeting the criteria are preliminarily classified as 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). If WSAs are identified, the review proceeds to the study phase. 

Wilderness Study

During the study phase, WSAs are further analyzed: 

1) for all values ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, symbolic; 

2) for all resources, including wildlife, vegetation, water, minerals, soils; 

3) for existing and proposed public uses; 

4) for existing and proposed refuge management activities within the area; 

5) to assess the refuge’s ability to manage and maintain the wilderness character in perpetuity, 

given the current and proposed management activities. Factors for evaluation may include, 

but are not limited to, staffing and funding capabilities, increasing development and 

urbanization, public uses, and safety. 

We evaluate at least an “All Wilderness Alternative” and a “No Wilderness Alternative” for each 

WSA to compare the benefits and impacts of managing the area as wilderness as opposed to 

managing the area under an alternate set of goals, objectives, and strategies that do not involve 

wilderness designation. We may also develop “Partial Wilderness Alternatives” that evaluate the 

benefits and impacts of managing portions of a WSA as wilderness. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review

In the alternatives, we evaluate:

1) the benefits and impacts to wilderness values and other resources; 

2) how each alternative will achieve the purposes of the Wilderness Act and the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS); 

3) how each alternative will affect achievement of refuge purpose(s) and the refuge’s 

contribution toward achieving the Refuge System mission; 

4) how each alternative will affect maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring BIDEH at 

various landscape scales; 

5) other legal and policy mandates; 

6) whether a WSA can be effectively managed as wilderness by considering the effects of 

existing private rights, land status and Service jurisdiction, refuge management activities and 

refuge uses, and the need for or possibility of eliminating Section 4(c) prohibited uses. 

Wilderness Recommendation 

If the wilderness study demonstrates that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the NWPS, 

a wilderness study report should be written that presents the results of the wilderness review, 

accompanied by a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). The wilderness study report 

and LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted through the Secretary of the 

Interior to the President of the United States, and ultimately to the United States Congress for action. 

Refuge lands recommended for wilderness consideration by the wilderness study report will retain 

their WSA status and be managed as “... wilderness according to the management direction in the 

final CCP until Congress makes a decision on the area or we amended the CCP to modify or remove 

the wilderness recommendation” (610 FW 4.22B). When a WSA is revised or eliminated, or when 

there is a revision in “wilderness stewardship direction, we include appropriate interagency and tribal 

coordination, public involvement, and documentation of compliance with NEPA” (610 FW 3.13). 

D.1.2 Criteria for Evaluating Lands for Possible Inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System

The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136), provides the following description 

of wilderness: 

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act as an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions...” 

The following criteria for identifying areas as wilderness are outlined in Section 2(c) of the Act and 

are further expanded upon in Refuge System policy (610 FW 4). The first three criteria are evaluated 

during the wilderness inventory phase; the fourth criterion is evaluated during the wilderness study 

phase: 

1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-3 

3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of a sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition; 

4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

Criterion 3 is further defined in Section 3(c) of the Act as (1) a roadless area of 5,000 contiguous 

acres or more, or (2) a roadless island. Roadless is defined as the absence of improved roads suitable 

and maintained for public travel by means of 4-wheeled motorized vehicles that are intended for 

highway use. 

D.2 Wilderness Inventory

The following constitutes the wilderness inventory phase of the wilderness review for Kīlauea Point 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge). 

D.2.1 Process of Analysis

The following evaluation process was used in identifying the suitability of the Refuge units for 

wilderness designation: 

• Determination of Refuge unit sizes;

• Assessment of the units’ capacity to provide opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation; 

• Assessment of “naturalness” of Refuge units. 

More detail on the actual factors considered and used for each assessment step follows: 

Unit Size: Roadless areas meet the size criteria if any one of the following standards apply: 

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres solely in Service ownership. 

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or an area that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features. 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management.

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency, such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of 

Land Management.

Inventory Unit A consists of the entire Kīlauea Point NWR (acquired lands only, Figure E-1), and is

199 acres. 

This unit does not meet the criteria identified above as it is not over 5,000 contiguous acres, is not a 

roadless island, is not an area of sufficient size as to make its preservation in accordance with 

wilderness management, and is not contiguous with any other wilderness areas (existing or potential) 

as there are no adjacent Federal land owners.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-4 Appendix D. Wilderness Review

Outstanding Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. 

A designated wilderness area must provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. Possession of only one of these outstanding opportunities is sufficient 

for an area to qualify as wilderness, and it is not necessary for one of these outstanding opportunities 

to be available on every acre. Furthermore, an area does not have to be open to public use and access 

to qualify under these criteria. 

“Opportunities for solitude” refers to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other 

visitors in the area. “Primitive and unconfined recreation” means nonmotorized, dispersed, outdoor 

recreation activities that are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical 

transport. Primitive recreation activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, 

self-reliance, and adventure.

Inventory Unit A contains a portion that is open to the general public and receives approximately 

400,000–500,000 visitors annually. There are several structures, including facilities listed on the 

National Historic Register, which are onsite. The portion of the Refuge closed to the general public 

has some facilities that include a radio tower, water storage, and protective fencing. In addition, this 

portion of the Refuge is maintained by staff to provide habitat for endangered nēnē and nesting 

seabirds. This includes fence maintenance, mowing of grasses, invasive weed management, and 

predator control. Additionally, adjacent to the Refuge on the east side is a popular beach area where 

people often surf, camp, picnic, fish, and participate in other recreational activities. Due to this, 

Inventory Unit A does not offer opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Naturalness and Wildness: the area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. 

This criterion must be evaluated in the context of current natural conditions and societal values and 

expectations without compromising the original intent of the Wilderness Act. It is well recognized 

that there are few areas remaining on the planet that could be truly classified as primeval or pristine, 

with even fewer, if any, existing in the conterminous United States. Likewise, few areas exist that do 

not exhibit some impact from anthropogenic influences, be it noise, light, or air pollution, water 

quality or hydrological manipulations, past and current land management practices, road or trails, 

suppression of wildfires, invasions by pest species of plants and animals, or public uses. While 

allowing for the near-complete pervasiveness of modern society on the landscape, the spirit of the 

Wilderness Act is to protect lands that still retain the wilderness qualities of being: (1) natural, (2) 

untrammeled, (3) undeveloped. These three qualities are cornerstones of wilderness character. For 

areas proposed or designated as wilderness, wilderness character must be monitored to determine 

baseline conditions and thereafter be periodically monitored to assess the condition of these 

wilderness qualities. Proposed and designated wilderness areas by law and policy are required to 

maintain wilderness character through management and/or restoration in perpetuity. 

Defining the first two qualities (natural and untrammeled) requires a knowledge and understanding of 

the ecological systems which are being evaluated as potential wilderness. Ecological systems 

comprise three primary attributes—composition, structure, function. Composition is the components 

that make up an ecosystem, such as the habitat types, native species of plants and animals, and 

abiotic (physical and chemical) features. These contribute to the diversity of the area. Structure is the 

spatial arrangement of the components that contribute to the complexity of the area. Composition and 

structure are evaluated to determine the naturalness of the area. Function is the processes that result 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-5 

from the interaction of the various components, both temporally and spatially, and the disturbance 

processes that shape the landscape. These processes include, but are not limited to, predator-prey 

relationships, insect and disease outbreaks, nutrient and water cycles, decomposition, fire, 

windstorms, flooding, and both general and cyclic weather patterns. Ecological functions are 

evaluated to determine the wildness or untrammeled quality of the area. 

The third quality assessment is whether an area is undeveloped. Undeveloped refers to the absence of 

permanent structures such as roads, buildings, dams, fences, and other human alterations to the 

landscape. Exceptions can be made for historic structures or structures required for safety or health 

considerations, providing they are made of natural materials and are relatively unobtrusive on the 

landscape. 

General guidelines used for evaluating areas for wilderness potential during this wilderness inventory 

process include: 

1) The area should provide a variety of habitat types and associated abiotic features, as well as a 

nearly complete complement of native plants and wildlife indicative of those habitat types.

Pest species should compose a negligible portion of the landscape. 

2) The area should be spatially complex (vertically and/or horizontally) and exhibit all levels of 

vegetation structure typical of the habitat type, have an interspersion of these habitats, and 

provide avenues for plant and wildlife dispersal. 

3) The area should retain the basic natural functions that define and shape the associated 

habitats including, but not limited to, flooding regimes, fire cycles, unaltered hydrology and 

flowage regimes, and basic predator-prey relationships, including herbivory patterns. 

4) Due to their size, islands may not meet the habitat guidelines in 1 and 2 above. Islands 

should, however, exhibit the natural cover type with which they evolved and continue to be 

shaped and modified by natural processes. Islands should be further analyzed during the 

study portion of the review if they provide habitat for a significant portion of a population, or 

key life-cycle requirements for any resources of concern or listed species. 

5) Potential wilderness areas should be relatively free of permanent structures or human 

alterations. Areas may be elevated to the study phase if existing structures or alterations can 

be removed or remediated within a reasonable timeframe, and prior to wilderness 

recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Inventory Unit A does provide a variety of habitat types and associated abiotic features, but is a fairly 

degraded habitat due to the presence of invasive species, so a nearly complete complement of native 

plants and wildlife does not exist. The unit is not spatially complex nor does it exhibit all levels of 

vegetation structure typical of the habitat type. Basic natural functions are retained; however, there 

are several permanent structures and human alterations that will not be removed due to historic 

properties. The land bears substantial human alterations given its past history as a U.S. Coast Guard 

and Army facility and ranching/plantation operations. Consequently, Inventory Unit A does not meet 

this criterion. 

Evaluation of Supplemental Values

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.”
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-6 Appendix D. Wilderness Review

Inventory Unit A has ecological value as it supports breeding populations of endangered nēnē, and 

efforts to establish breeding populations of the endangered Newell’s shearwater have been ongoing. 

The area is also home to several species of seabirds that are rarely found in the main Hawaiian 

Islands due to loss of habitat and predators such as cats and rats. As a result, Inventory Unit A has 

large educational values as it is the only place where viewing such wildlife can be done accessibly by 

the general public. Several school groups each year area also brought to the Refuge. There are 

several structures at the Refuge that are listed on the National Historic Register, lending it the historic 

value. The vast views of the coastline from the peninsula provide its scenic value. 

D.2.2 Inventory Summary and Conclusion

Based on the analysis conducted above, Inventory Unit A does not meet the wilderness inventory 

criteria, therefore no wilderness study is recommended. 

Wilderness Inventory Analysis Inventory Unit A: 

KPNWR (199 ac)

(1) Has at least 5,000 ac of land or is of sufficient size to make practicable 

its preservation and use in an unconfined condition, or is a roadless island. 

No

(2) Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. 

No

(3a) Has outstanding opportunities for solitude. No

(3b) Has outstanding opportunities for a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.

No

(4) Contains ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historical value. 

Yes (ecological, 

historic, educational, 

and scenic values)

Parcel qualifies as a wilderness study area (meets criteria 1, 2 & 3a, or 3b). No
Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-7

Figure D-1. Land Status, Kīlauea Point NWR.

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Kīlauea

Road

Kīlauea

River

Pacific Ocean

Â$56

ST15

ST ST12

14

ST12R

ST11R

ST10

ST13a

ST11

ST12R-1

ST10R

ST12C

159°23'0"W

159°23'0"W

159°24'0"W

159°24'0"W

22°14'0"N

22°14'0"N

22°13'0"N

22°13'0"N

22°12'0"N

22°12'0"N

Map Date: 9/16/2014 File: 11-065-3.mxd

LEGEND

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Inholding

Acquired: Fee

Acquired: Road Easement

Highways

Rivers

The spatial and positional accuracy of land status features vary depending 

on the elements of the legal description and the accuracy of the source data. 

We strive to improve the accuracy of our boundaries and do so when better 

base data or surveys are available.

Approved acquisition boundaries represent the extent of lands authorized by 

Congress for purchase by the USFWS for inclusion into the National Wildlife

Refuge System. Inholdings are lands within this boundary that have not been, 

and might not ever be, acquired.

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

0 500 1,000

Meters E

!(

!( !(

Kīlauea Point NWR

Kaua‘ i

Kekaha Līhu‘e

Hanalei

Overview Map

Title: Land Status, Kilauea Point

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

D-8 Appendix D. Wilderness Review

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-1 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

E.1 Introduction 

Management direction of individual refuges is driven by refuge purposes and statutory mandates, 

coupled with species and habitat priorities. Management on a refuge should first and foremost 

address the individual refuge purposes. Additionally, management should address maintenance and, 

where appropriate, restoration of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health as well as 

management for Refuge System resources of concern. In this approach, a refuge contributes to the 

goals of the Refuge System (601 FW 1) and achievement of the Refuge System mission. 

In concert with this approach, and as an initial step in planning, the planning team identified 

resources of concern for Kīlauea Point NWR. As defined in the Policy on Habitat Management Plans 

(620 FW 1), resources of concern are: 

 “all plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in 

refuge purpose(s), System mission, or international, national, regional, State, or ecosystem 

conservation plans or acts. For example, waterfowl and shorebirds are a resource of concern 

on a refuge whose purpose is to protect ‘migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.’ Federal or 

State threatened and endangered species on that same refuge are also a resource of concern 

under terms of the respective endangered species acts (620 FW 1.4G).” 

To provide a framework for development of goals and objectives in the CCP, the planning team 

identified resources of concern, following the process outlined in the handbook Identifying Refuge 

Resources of Concern and Management Priorities: A Handbook (USFWS 2010). 

E.2 Comprehensive Resources of Concern

A comprehensive list of potential resources of concern for the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (KNWRC or Complex) was created early in the planning process. The team identified 

species, species groups, and communities of concern, based upon a review of the Kīlauea Point, 

Hanalei, and Hulē‘ia Refuges’ establishing history and purposes (see Section 1.6 of the CCP), a 

description of the key habitat types existing at each Refuge and a review of numerous conservation 

plans (see Section 1.7 of the CCP), many of which highlight priority species or habitats for 

conservation. The Comprehensive Resources of Concern list for the Complex is contained in Table 

E-1. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-2 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Table E-1. Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex comprehensive resources of concern.

Species/Habitat

Refuge(s) Purpose SpeciesIndicator of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Federally listed Threatened or Endangered or of special Refuge Concern with no Federal statusState-listed Threatened or EndangeredBirds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Bird Conservation Region #67 (Table 36)Birds of Management Concern BCC – Region 1 (Table 39)Waterbird Plan CategoryHI Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation PlanRecovery PlansNorth American Waterfowl Management PlanNatural Heritage Program Rank

Birds

Mōlī/Laysan albatross 

(Phoebastria immutabilis) X X X F H X G3

Ka‘upu/Black-footed 

albatross 

(Phoebastria nigripes)

X X Co T X F X HI X G3/

G4

ʻUa ʻu/Hawaiian petrel 

(Pterodroma 

sandwichensis)

X X E E T/E HI X X G2/

T2

‘A‘o/Newell’s shearwater

(Puffinus auricularis 

newelli)

X X T T T/E HI X X G2/

T2

‘Ua‘u kani/Wedge-tailed 

shearwater 

(Puffinus pacificus)

X X X G4/

G5

Koa‘e‘ula/Red-tailed 

tropicbird 

(Phaethon rubricauda)

X X X G4/

G5

Koa‘e kea/White-tailed 

tropicbird 

(Phaethon lepturus)

X X H X G5

‘A/Red-footed booby 

(Sula sula) X X H X G5

‘A/Brown booby

(Sula leucogaster) X X H X G5

ʻIwa/Great frigatebird

(Fregata minor 

palmerstoni)

X X X G4

‘Ou/Bulwer’s petrel 

(Bulweria bulwerii) X G4

Great blue heron 

(Ardea herodias) G5

‘Au‘ku‘u/Black-crowned 

night-heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax)

X G5

White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi) G5

Greater white-fronted 

goose (Anser albifrons) X X G5

Canada goose 

(Branta canadensis) F X G5

Cackling goose 

(Branta hutchinsii) F X G5

Nēnē/Hawaiian goose

(Branta sandvicensis) X X E E T/E X X X G1
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-3 

Table E-1. Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex comprehensive resources of concern.

Species/Habitat

Refuge(s) Purpose SpeciesIndicator of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Federally listed Threatened or Endangered or of special Refuge Concern with no Federal statusState-listed Threatened or EndangeredBirds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Bird Conservation Region #67 (Table 36)Birds of Management Concern BCC – Region 1 (Table 39)Waterbird Plan CategoryHI Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation PlanRecovery PlansNorth American Waterfowl Management PlanNatural Heritage Program Rank

Black brant 

(Branta bernicla 

nigricans)

F X G5

Eurasian wigeon

(Anas penelope) X G5

American wigeon

(Anas americana) X X X G5

Eurasian teal

(Anas crecca) X G5

Green-winged teal 

(Anas carolinensis) X X G5

Mallard

(Anas platyrhynchos) X X G5

Laysan duck 

(Anas laysanensis) E E T/E X X X G1

Koloa maoli/Hawaiian 

duck (Anas wyvilliana) X X E E T/E X X X G1

Northern pintail

(Anas acuta) X X X G5

Garganey

(Anas querquedula) X G5

Blue-winged teal

(Anas discors) X X G5

Cinnamon teal 

(Anas cyanoptera) X X G5

Northern shoveler 

(Anas clypeata) X X X G5

Canvasback 

(Aythya valisineria) X X G5

Redhead 

(Aythya americana) X X G5

Ring-necked duck 

(Aythya collaris) X X X G5

Tufted duck

(Aythya fuligula) X X G5

Greater scaup

(Aythya marila) X F X G5

Lesser scaup

(Aythya affinis) X F X X G5

Bufflehead

(Bucephala albeola) X X G5

Northern harrier

(Circus cyaneus) G5

Peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus) DL X X G4
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-4 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Table E-1. Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex comprehensive resources of concern.

Species/Habitat

Refuge(s) Purpose SpeciesIndicator of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Federally listed Threatened or Endangered or of special Refuge Concern with no Federal statusState-listed Threatened or EndangeredBirds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Bird Conservation Region #67 (Table 36)Birds of Management Concern BCC – Region 1 (Table 39)Waterbird Plan CategoryHI Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation PlanRecovery PlansNorth American Waterfowl Management PlanNatural Heritage Program Rank

‘Alae‘ula/Hawaiian 

moorhen (Gallinula 

chloropus sandvicensis)

X X E E T/E X X G5/

T2

‘Alae ke‘oke‘o/Hawaiian 

coot (Fulica alai) X X E E T/E X X G2

Ae‘o/Hawaiian stilt

(Himantopus mexicanus 

knudseni)

X X E E T/E X 5 X G5/

T2

Kōlea/Pacific goldenplover (Pluvialis fulva) X 5 G5

Black-bellied plover

(Pluvialis squatarola) G5

Semipalmated plover

(Charadrius 

semipalmatus)

G5

Killdeer

(Charadrius vociferus) G5

Black-tailed godwit

(Limosa limosa)

Bar-tailed godwit

(Limosa lapponica) X G5

Marbled godwit

(Limosa lapponica) F X G5

Whimbrel

(Numenius phaeopus) X X G5

Kioea/Bristle-thighed 

curlew

(Numenius tahitiensis)

Co X X X X 5 G2

Marsh sandpiper

(Tringa stagnatilis)

Greater yellowlegs

(Tringa melanoleuca) G5

Lesser yellowlegs

(Tringa flavipes) X 

Solitary sandpiper

(Tringa solitaria) X G5

Spotted sandpiper

(Actitis macularia)

‘Ulili/Wandering tattler

(Tringa incana) X 4 

‘Akekeke/Ruddy turnstone

(Arenaria interpres) X 3 G5

Wilson's phalarope

(Phalaropus tricolor) G5
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-5 

Table E-1. Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex comprehensive resources of concern.

Species/Habitat

Refuge(s) Purpose SpeciesIndicator of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Federally listed Threatened or Endangered or of special Refuge Concern with no Federal statusState-listed Threatened or EndangeredBirds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Bird Conservation Region #67 (Table 36)Birds of Management Concern BCC – Region 1 (Table 39)Waterbird Plan CategoryHI Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation PlanRecovery PlansNorth American Waterfowl Management PlanNatural Heritage Program Rank

Red phalarope

(Phalaropus fulicarius) G5

Wilson's snipe

(Gallinago delicate) X 

Short-billed dowitcher

(Limnodromus griseus) X X G5

Long-billed dowitcher

(Limnodromus 

scolopaceus)

G5

Red knot

(Calidris canutus) F X G4

Hunakai/Sanderling

(Calidris alba) X G5

Semipalmated sandpiper

(Calidris pusilla) G5

Western sandpiper

(Calidris mauri) G5

Red-necked stint

(Calidris ruficollis) G5

Least sandpiper

(Calidris minutilla) G5

Pectoral sandpiper

(Calidris melanotos) G5

Sharp-tailed sandpiper

(Calidris acuminata)

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) G5

Curlew sandpiper

(Calidris ferruginea) G5?

Stilt sandpiper

(Micropalama 

himantopus)

Ruff 

(Philomachus pugnax) G5

Caspian tern

(Sterna caspia) G5

Arctic tern

(Sterna paradisaea) H G5

Least tern

(Sterna antillarum) G4

Pueo/Short-eared owl

(Asio flammeus 

sandwichensis)

X Co E X X X X G5/

T2

Plants

Alula (Brighamia insignis) E E X X G1
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-6 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Table E-1. Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex comprehensive resources of concern.

Species/Habitat

Refuge(s) Purpose SpeciesIndicator of Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Federally listed Threatened or Endangered or of special Refuge Concern with no Federal statusState-listed Threatened or EndangeredBirds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Bird Conservation Region #67 (Table 36)Birds of Management Concern BCC – Region 1 (Table 39)Waterbird Plan CategoryHI Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS)U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation PlanRecovery PlansNorth American Waterfowl Management PlanNatural Heritage Program Rank

Oha‘i (Sesbania 

tomentosa ) X X E E X X G2

Loulu (Pritchardia 

napaliensis) X X E E X X 

Native plants X X X

Mammals

Ilio-holo-i-kauaua/Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi)

X X E E X X G2

‘Ōpe‘ape‘a/ Hawaiian 

hoary bat (Lasiurus 

cinereus semotus)

X X E E X X G2 / 

T2

Reptiles

Honu/Pacific green turtle 

(Chelonia mydas) X X T T X X G3

Hawksbill turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) X X E E X X G3

Freshwater Fish

O‘opu alamo‘o

(Lentipes concolor) Co Co X 

Federal Status

T = Threatened

E = Endangered

C = Candidate

Co = Refuge Species of Concern, no Federal status

NFS = No Federal status

DL = Delisted

State Status

T = Threatened

E = Endangered

Co = Species of Concern

BMC Designations: F = Focal species; X = Birds of management concern; T/E = Threatened or Endangered

Waterbird Plan Category of Conservation (listed only categories above High): HI = Highly Imperiled; H= High Concern

Shorebird Plan Area Importance: 5 = Area of high importance, supporting hemispheric populations; 4 = Area of high importance 

especially within the flyway; 3 = Area is within the primary range of the species but birds present in low abundance relative to 

other areas

North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Listed only species mentioned in the plan with breeding population objectives or 

listed habitat to restore/enhance

Natural Heritage Program Ranks: G1 = Critically imperiled; G2 = Species secure; G3 = Vulnerable; G4 = Apparently secure; G5 

= Species secure; T2 = Subspecies imperiled

E.3 Priority Resources of Concern

The priority resources of concern for Kīlauea Point NWR (Table E-2) were selected from the 

Comprehensive Resources of Concern list as particular indicators by which to gauge habitat 

conditions. The priority resources of concern table includes focal species, including birds, fish, 

reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants that were selected as representatives or indicators for 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-7 

the overall condition of important Refuge habitats. Most of the biological emphasis of the CCP is 

focused on maintaining and restoring these priority resources. 

Several different conservation focal species may be listed for specific habitats to cover the variety of 

habitat structures and plant associations. In addition, species with specific “niche” ecological 

requirements may be listed as a focal species. Other species utilizing the habitat are generally 

expected to benefit as a result of management for the focal species. 

Definitions for the column headings in Table E-2 are as follows: 

• Focal Species: Species selected as representatives or indicators for the overall condition of 

the conservation target. In situations where the conservation target may include a broad 

variety of habitat structures and plant associations, several different conservation focal 

species may be listed. In addition, species with specific “niche” ecological requirements may 

be listed as a focal species. Management will be focused on attaining conditions required by 

the focal species. Other species utilizing the conservation target are generally expected to 

benefit as a result of management for the focal species. 

• Habitat Type: The general habitat description utilized by the focal species.

• Habitat Structure: The specific and measurable habitat attributes considered necessary to 

support the focal species. 

• Life History Requirement: The general season of use for the focal species.

• Other Benefiting Species: Other species that are expected to benefit from management for 

the selected focal species. The list is not comprehensive; see the table of potential resources 

of concern for the Refuge for a more complete list. 

Table E-2. Kīlauea Point NWR priority resources of concern. 

Focal 

Resources

Habitat Type Habitat 

Structure

Life History 

Requirements

Other Benefiting 

Species

Mōlī/ka‘upu 

(albatrosses) 

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland

Variable. Large 

windward sandy, 

grassy, or shrubby 

areas with open 

runways for takeoff and landing. 

Breeding, 

prospecting 

‘Ua‘u kani, nēnē, 

koa‘e ‘ula, ‘ā, ‘iwa, 

kōlea and other 

shorebirds, 

associated native 

plant and insect 

communities

‘A‘o/‘ua‘u 

kani 

(shearwaters) 

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland and 

sea cliff

Substrates with 

good soil or root 

structure, or subcanopy layer for 

burrowing, rock 

and root crevices, 

with open flight 

corridors.

Breeding, 

prospecting 

Nēnē, koa‘e ‘ula, 

koa‘e kea, ‘a, ‘iwa, 

‘ou, associated native 

plant and insect 

communities 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-8 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

Focal 

Resources

Habitat Type Habitat 

Structure

Life History 

Requirements

Other Benefiting 

Species

‘Ā/‘iwa (redfooted booby 

and 

frigatebird) 

Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland, sea 

cliff, and 

beach strand 

Variable. Woody 

vegetation >1.5–3 

ft tall

Breeding, roosting, 

prospecting 

Koa‘e ‘ula, koa‘e 

kea, ‘a, ‘iwa, ‘ou, 

‘a‘o, ‘ua‘u kani, 

associated native 

plant and insect 

communities 

Nēnē/pueo Coastal mixed 

woodlandgrassland, sea 

cliff

Sward-forming 

grass-legume mix

with high 

moisture content, 

managed <6 

inches tall.

Shrublands with 

an open 

understory, forage 

value, adjacent to 

grasslands. 

Breeding, roosting, 

foraging

‘Ua‘u kani, koa‘e 

‘ula, mōlī, ka‘upu, 

kōlea, kioea, and 

other shorebirds, 

associated native 

plant and insect 

communities 

‘Ilio-holo-ika-uaua/ 

honu 

Beach strand Protected, unvegetated or 

sparsely-vegetated 

beaches with little 

to no human 

activity.

Hauling out and 

nursing (‘ilio-holo-ika-uaua), basking 

(honu) 

Migratory 

shorebirds, ‘iwa, ‘ā, 

and rare native 

coastal plant 

communities. 

E.4 References 

Engilis, Jr, A. and M. Naughton. 2004. U.S. Pacific Islands regional shorebird conservation plan. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 66 pp. 

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C. 78 pp. 

http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/nawcp.html. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern E-9 

Mitchell, C., C. Ogura, D.W. Meadows, A. Kane, L. Strommer, S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A. 

McClung. 2005. Hawaiʻi’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. 722 pp. 

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 

7.1. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

NAWMP (North American Waterfowl Management Plan) Plan Committee. 2004. North American 

waterfowl management plan 2004. Strategic guidance: strengthening the biological foundation. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales. 22 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998a 

Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 97 pp. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1998b Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 95 pp. 

NMFS. 2007. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), second 

revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 165 pp. 

PIF (Partners in Flight). 2010. Species assessment database. 

http://www.rmbo.org/pif/scores/scores.html. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel and Newell’s manx 

shearwater recovery plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 

Portland, OR. 61 pp. 

USFWS. 1995. Recovery plan for the Kaua‘i plant cluster. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 270 pp. 

USFWS. 1998. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 50 pp. 

USFWS. 2004. Draft revised recovery plan for the nēnē or Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 148 pp. 

USFWS. 2008a. Birds of conservation concern 2008. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 85 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/. 

USFWS. 2009. Revised recovery plan for the Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis). U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 127 pp. 

USFWS. 2010. Identifying resources of concern and management priorities for a refuge: A 

handbook. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 61 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

E-10 Appendix E. Biological Resources of Concern

USFWS. 2011a. Recovery plan for Hawaiian waterbirds, second revision. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 223 pp. 

USFWS. 2011b. Birds of management concern. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/management/BMC%20Focal%20Species%20

November%202011.pdf. 

USFWS. 2014. Endangered species in the Pacific Islands. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/teslist.html. 

 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-1 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

for Implementation of the 

Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i County, Hawai‘i 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

The following Executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

 Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 307. Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires each Federal agency conducting or 

supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone to conduct or support those activities 

in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state 

coastal management programs. 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973. This Act provides for the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by encouraging the 

establishment of state programs. It provides for the determination and listing of endangered 

and threatened species and the designation of critical habitats. CCP implementation is 

expected to result in supporting listed species and their recovery. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform consultations before initiating projects which affect or may affect 

endangered species. The Refuge will conduct consultations under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for any Refuge management program actions that have the potential 

to affect listed species.

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. Under this order Federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

flood plains.” The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 11988 because CCP 

implementation would protect floodplains from adverse impacts as a result of modification or 

destruction. 

 Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

affected Tribal, local and State governments, other Federal agencies, and the landowners has 

been completed through personal contact by the Refuge manager and supervisors, and 

Service planners. 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, 

disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in 

the United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental 

effects were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

F-2 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance

 Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds. The CCP is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the CCP and National 

Environmental Policy Act analyses evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds 

and, through its proposed actions, supports conservation of these species. 

Executive Order 13112 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies Pertaining to Invasive 

Species. This EO requires federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and 

provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health 

impacts that invasive species cause.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975. The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975 (7 USC 2801-

2814, January 3, 1975, as amended, 1988 and 1994) provides for the control and management 

of nonnative weeds that injure of have the potential to injure the interests of agriculture and 

commerce, wildlife resources, or the public health. 

Integrated Pest Management, 517 DM 1 and 7 RM 14. In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 

7 RM 14, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach has been adopted to eradicate, 

control, or contain pest and invasive species. In accordance with 517 DM 1, only pesticides 

registered with the EPA in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act and as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA may be 

applied on lands and waters under Refuge jurisdiction. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Established in 1918, with subsequent amendments and 

provisions following, this Act protects birds migrating between the U.S. and Canada, 

Mexico, Russia, and Japan. This Act makes it illegal for people to “take” migratory birds, 

their eggs, feathers, or nests (take is any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, 

pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part 

thereof). 

 National Environmental Policy Act (1969). The planning process has been conducted in 

accordance with NEPA Implementing Procedures, Department of the Interior and Service 

procedures, and has been performed in coordination with the affected public. 

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that integrated the CCP into the NEPA 

document and process. The draft CCP/EA was released for a 44-day public comment period. 

The affected public was notified of the availability of the draft CCP/EA through a Federal 

Register notice, news release to local media outlets, the Service’s Refuge and Refuge 

planning websites, and a planning update. Copies of the draft CCP/EA and/or planning 

update were distributed to an extensive mailing list. 

The CCP is programmatic in many respects and specific details of certain projects and 

actions cannot be determined until a later date, depending on funding and implementation 

schedules. Certain projects or actions may require additional NEPA compliance. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966). Implementation of the CCP should not affect 

cultural resources. The Service will comply with the NHPA if any management actions have 

the potential to affect any historic properties which may be present. 
Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by The National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). Appropriate Use 

Findings and Compatibility Determinations have been prepared and can be found under 

Appendices A and B of this CCP. 

Wilderness Act. The Service has evaluated the suitability of the Refuge for wilderness 

designation and recommended no wilderness study. 

Date 

Appendix F. Statement of Compliance F-3 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

F-4 Appendix F. Statement of Compliance
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-1 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

G.1 Background

IPM is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or control 

pest species in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to achieve 

wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives. IPM is also a scientifically based, adaptive 

management process where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the 

refuge staff as well as other resource experts would be used to identify and implement appropriate 

management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, sitespecific management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 CFR 

46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where long-term impacts may be 

uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation 

decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of 

refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations 

thereof, would be selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, 

including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, 

volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding would be considered when determining 

feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as CCP strategies (see Chapter 2 of this CCP) in an 

adaptive management context to achieve refuge resource objectives. In order to satisfy requirements 

for IPM planning as identified in the Director’s Memo (dated September 9, 2004) entitled Integrated 

Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance, and an Online Database, 

the following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into this CCP: 

• Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to 

indicate the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

• Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives 

including pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality in accordance with effects analyses (environmental 

consequences) of this CCP. Only pesticide uses that likely would cause minor, temporary, or 

localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality with appropriate best 

management practices (BMPs), where necessary, would be allowed for use on the Refuge. 

This appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. Moreover, it does not address effects of mosquito control with 

pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides). However, the basic framework to assess potential

effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides 

or use of insecticides for mosquito management would be similar to the process described in this 

appendix for ground-based treatments of other pesticides. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-2 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

G.2 Pest Management Laws and Policies

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate pests on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System can be controlled to ensure balanced 

wildlife and fish populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management 

objectives. Pest control on Federal (refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following 

legal mandates: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd668ee); 

• Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC 7701 et seq.); 

• Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 USC 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 USC 136-136y); 

• National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 USC 4701); 

• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 USC 4701); 

• Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 USC 136); 

• Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

• Executive Order 13112; and 

• Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 USC 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “...living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from Department 

policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as 

“...invasive plants and introduced or native organisms that may interfere with achieving our 

management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 517 

DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this CCP, the terms pest and invasive species 

are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife and 

habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the Refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 569 FW 

1, animal or plant species that are considered pests may be managed if the following criteria are met1

: 

• Threat to human health and well being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by 

the pest has been exceeded, or State or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

• Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

 

1 Note that during the 15-year life span of the CCP, policies, such as 569 FW 1, may be updated and revised. As 

such, the Refuge will comply with the most updated Service policies related to IPM.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-3 

• Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purpose(s) for which 

the Refuge was established.

The specific justifications for pest management activities on the Refuge are the following: 

• Protect human health and well being; 

• Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources; 

• Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species;

• Control nonnative (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native 

species;

• Prevent damage to private property; and 

• Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the Refuge: 

• “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species in the United States or elsewhere.” 

• “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize 

unacceptable change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded 

infestations of invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, 

control, or eradicate invasive species...” 

Animal species damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the management 

program of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control 

Operations). 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of 

in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species will only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 [Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens]). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to federal and state laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 [Sale of Wildlife Specimens]). 

G.3 Strategies

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the Refuge for each pest species. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-4 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

G.3.1 Prevention

This is the most effective and least expensive long-term management option for pests. It 

encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the established pests to 

uninfested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to reduce the likelihood of 

infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning can be used to determine 

if current management activities on a refuge may introduce and/or spread invasive species in order to 

identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for more information 

about HACCP planning. 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; exclusion 

methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent re-introductions by 

various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, and loose livestock. Because invasive species are 

frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention would require a reporting 

mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick response to eliminate any new 

satellite pest populations. Prevention would require consideration of the scale and scope of land 

management activities that may promote pest establishment within uninfested areas or promote 

reproduction and spread of existing populations. Along with preventing initial introduction, 

prevention would involve halting the spread of existing infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). 

The primary reason of prevention would be to keep pest-free lands or waters from becoming infested. 

Executive Order 11312 emphasizes the priority for prevention with respect to managing pests. 

The following are methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge lands: 

• Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge staff 

would identify pest species on-site or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity.

Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in uninfested areas before 

working in pest-infested areas.

• The refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid or 

minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of seed 

or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

• The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation sites 

where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff would clean 

equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This practice does 

not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area that will remain on 

roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be collected, where practical. 

The refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before 

moving it into a project area. 

• The refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in 

areas infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when 

appropriate, identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

• Refuge staff, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, inspect, 

remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on their clothing and 

equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and then properly 

discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-5 

• The refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites with 

on-going restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would revegetate disturbed soil 

(except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment for each specific 

site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, 

and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff would use native material, where 

appropriate and feasible. The refuge staff would use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free 

hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably available. 

• The refuge staff would provide information, training, and appropriate pest identification 

materials to permit holders and recreational visitors. The refuge staff would educate them 

about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention measures.

• The refuge staff would inspect borrowed material for invasive plants prior to use and 

transport onto and/or within refuge lands. 

• The refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance activities. 

• The refuge staff would restrict off-road travel to designated routes. 

The following would be methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests into refuge 

waters: 

• The refuge staff would inspect boats (including air boats), trailers, and other boating 

equipment and where possible, remove any visible plants, animals, or mud before leaving any 

waters or boat launching facilities. Where possible, staff would drain water from motor, live 

well, bilge, and transom wells while on land before leaving the site. If possible, the refuge 

staff would wash and dry boats, downriggers, anchors, nets, floors of boats, propellers, axles, 

trailers, and other boating equipment to kill pests not visible at the boat launch. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were taken 

verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of the U.S. Forest Service’s Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement (2005). 

G.3.2 Mechanical/Physical Methods 

These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth of, or interfere with the reproduction 

of pest species. For plants species, these treatments can be accomplished by hand, hand tool 

(manual), or power tools (mechanical) and include pulling, grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, 

swathing, grinding, shearing, girdling, mowing, and mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical 

methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. Based upon 50 CFR 

31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced 

conservation program” in accordance with Federal or state laws and regulations. In some cases, nonlethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the state. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. In 

general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. However, to 

control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout and continue to 

grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of destroying a perennial plant’s 

root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, plowing) may damage root systems, they 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-6 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant population that may aid in the spread depending 

upon the target species. In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions would be major factors that can 

limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 

Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), used in combination with herbicides, can be a 

very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing perennial plants followed 

sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide often would improve the 

efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide only treatment.

G.3.3 Cultural Methods 

These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest mortality by reducing its 

suitability to the pest. Cultural methods could include water-level manipulation, mulching, changing 

planting dates to minimize pest impact, prescribed burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide 

efficacy, and remove litter to assist in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, 

trap crops, crop rotations that would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition 

of beneficial insect habitat, reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable 

species to shade or out-compete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation, 

prescriptive grazing, and other habitat alterations. 

G.3.4 Biological Control Agents 

Classical biological control would involve the deliberate introduction and management of natural 

enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce pest populations. Many of the most 

ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the United States originated in foreign 

countries. These newly introduced pests, which are free from natural enemies found in their country 

or region of origin, may have a competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This 

competitive advantage often allows introduced species to flourish, and they may cause widespread 

economic damage to crops or out compete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest 

species population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be cost 

prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations have 

become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low cost/acre, 

capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to hosts’ life 

cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. Disadvantages would 

include the following: limited availability of agents from their native lands, the dependence of 

control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, biotype matching, the difficulty 

and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host specificity when host populations 

are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and 

efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does work well 

in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to survive 

over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially understood or 

not at all.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-7 

Biological control agents will not completely eradicate a target pest. When using biological control 

agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or survival 

would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the population 

of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural cycle. Some pest 

populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a biological control 

agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the agents search 

behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include diseases, 

invertebrates, vertebrates, and invasive plants (most common group). Often it is assumed that 

biological control would address many if not most of these pest problems. There are several welldocumented success stories of biological control of invasive species in Hawai‘i, including banana 

poka and Eurythrina gall wasps. However, historically, each new introduction of a biological control 

agent in the United States has only about a 30% success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be selected 

as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related plants in 

their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, Hasan and Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. Except 

for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by USEPA under FIFRA, 

most biological control agents are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ). State departments of 

agriculture and, in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or weed districts, have additional 

approval authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents from 

another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

4700 River Road, Unit 113 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Or through the internet at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/organism/plantpest_howtoapply.shtml 

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, safe, 

and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or they 

may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial sources 

should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds (USDA-PPQ 

Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific biological control agents in a state and/or county. 

Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific epithet, 

sub-species and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic 

contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-8 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). In 

addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical 

Biological Control of Weeds (http://wiki.bugwood.org/Code_of_Best_Practices) as ratified by 

delegates to the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, July 9, 

1999. This code identifies the following:

• Release only approved biological control agents; 

• Use the most effective agents;

• Document releases; and

• Monitor for impact to the target pest species, nontarget species, and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the USEPA (e.g., Bti) 

are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental conditions 

of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control agents released; 

and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. Systematic monitoring to 

determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also recommended. 

The NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents prepared by another federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of releases on 

refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA documents include the 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be 

appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s) from the review. 

Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It 

also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only must identify the documents that 

are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions must be summarized in the Service 

NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision maker and public with an 

understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current analysis. 

G.3.5 Pesticides

The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including mode of reproduction), 

the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, topography), known 

efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to utilize best management practices (BMPs) 

to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species, sensitive habitats, and potential to 

contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage (pesticide, target species, application rate, 

and method of application) would comply with the applicable federal (FIFRA) and state regulations 

pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, disposal, and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to 

eradicate, control, or contain pests on refuge lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would 

be prepared and approved in accordance with 569 FW 1. The PUP records would provide a detailed, 

time-, site-, and target-specific description of the proposed use of pesticides on the Refuge. All PUPs 

would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), 

which is a centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records 

for a refuge in this database. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-9 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and degradation of 

surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., backpack sprayer, 

wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to apply pesticides would 

include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, hatchets, or syringes for 

direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using seeders or other specialized 

dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or helicopter) would only be used where 

access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution of infestations precludes practical use of 

ground-based methods. 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on refuge lands 

and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a growing 

season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to achieve 

resource objectives. Integrated chemical and non-chemical controls also are highly effective, where 

practical, because pesticide-resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least expensive 

pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product would be 

selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential to degrade 

environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well as least potential effect to native 

species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats would be acceptable for use on 

refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

G.3.6 Habitat Restoration/Maintenance 

Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge habitats associated with achieving wildlife and 

habitat objectives would be essential for long-term prevention, eradication, or control (at or below 

threshold levels) of pests. Promoting desirable plant communities through the manipulation of 

species composition, plant density, and growth rate is an essential component of invasive plant 

management (Masters et al. 1996, Masters and Sheley 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). The following three 

components of succession could be manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site 

availability, species availability, and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). Although a 

single method (e.g., herbicide treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species in the short term, the 

resulting gaps and bare soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion by the species and/or 

other invasive plants. On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low abundance, 

revegetation with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary to direct and 

accelerate plant community recovery, and achieve site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame.

The selection of appropriate species for revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors 

including resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, 

precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of 

establishment, seed production, and competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

G.4 Priorities for Treatments

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) of pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the Refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-10 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 

purpose(s), Refuge System resources of concern (Federally listed species, migratory birds, selected 

marine mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested 

areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks of 

invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. They 

also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well-established pests. In this case, initial efforts would 

focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation is not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta-population growth rates. 

Although State listed noxious weeds would always of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, shortspined kiawe may not be listed by a State as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in the 

coastal dryland shrub habitat resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs. Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from Refuge staff. 

Essential to the long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, 

assessment of the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when 

proposed methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

G.5 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

The BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of the Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the 

Service Integrated Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), the use of applicable 

BMPs (where feasible) also would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally 

listed species and/or their critical habitats through determinations made using the process described 

in 50 CFR part 402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based upon targetand site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the 

most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

G.5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

• As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-11 

• All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

• All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be 

used as part of the makeup water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

• The refuge staff would dispose of triple-rinsed pesticide containers per label directions. 

• All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

• Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

• The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label.

• All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill response plan. 

G.5.2 Applying Pesticides 

• Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service 

personnel and non-Service applicators with the appropriate state or Bureau of Land 

Management certification to safely and effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands 

and waters. 

• The refuge staff would comply with all federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and 

regulations as well as Department, Service, and Refuge System pesticide-related policies. For 

example, the refuge staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific 

pest(s) identified on the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

• Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time 

each season, all applicators would review the labels, MSDSs, and Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUPs) for each pesticide, determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), PPE, and other 

requirements listed on the pesticide label.

• A 1-foot no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable and where it 

does not detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

• Use low-impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, 

other larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

• Use low-volume rather than high-volume foliar applications where low-impact methods 

above are not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct 

and uniform application rates. 

• Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

• Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-12 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

• Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

• Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average<7 mph and preferably 3-5 mph) 

and consistent direction wind conditions with moderate temperatures (typically <85°F). 

• Where possible, applicators would avoid spraying during inversion conditions (often 

associated with calm and very low wind conditions) that can cause large-scale herbicide drift 

to non-target areas.

• Equipment would be calibrated regularly to ensure that the proper rate of pesticide is applied 

to the target area or species. 

• Spray applications would be made at the lowest height for uniform coverage of target pests to 

minimize/eliminate potential drift.

• If windy conditions frequently occur during afternoons, spraying (especially boom 

treatments) would typically be conducted during early morning hours. 

• Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within 6 

hours, except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to 

minimize/eliminate potential runoff. 

• Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

• Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated 

as well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a 

leak is discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

• For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as 

appropriate, would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

• When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of 

applications. The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is 

blowing the opposite direction. 

• Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary 

pesticide applications. 

• The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

• Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

• Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, all-terrain vehicle, tractor) would be thoroughly 

cleaned and personal protective equipment (PPE) would be removed/disposed of on-site by 

applicators after treatments to eliminate the potential spread of pests to uninfested areas. 

• Cleaning boots (or use rubber boots to aid in sanitation) and brush off clothing in a place 

where monitoring is feasible to control for new seed transportation. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-13 

G.6 Safety

G.6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific personal protective equipment (PPE) identified on the 

pesticide label. The appropriate PPE will be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and applying. 

PPE can include the following: disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, rubber, 

or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to concentrated 

product is usually greatest during mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing pesticide 

solutions. Persons mixing these solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an apron, 

footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers will be consistent with label requirements, USEPA and OSHA requirements, and Service 

policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical examination 

(including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of the 

respirator. 

G.6.2 Notification 

The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents of 

the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the Refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. The refuge staff would 

also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 

individuals who have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby 

individuals who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

G.6.3 Medical Surveillance

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 [Pesticide Users] and 242 FW 4 [Medical 

Surveillance]). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically monitoring 

if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to concentrations at or 

above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 242 FW 4); use 

pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides in a manner that requires 

a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 FW 7.7A, “Frequent Pesticide 

Use means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies pesticides, with a Health 

Hazard rating of 3 or higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 16 or more hours in any 30-day 

period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be medically monitored who use pesticides 

infrequently (see Section G.7.7), experience an acute exposure (sudden, short-term), or use pesticides 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-14 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This decision would consider the individual’s health and 

fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health risks, and the potential risks from other pesticide-related 

activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., cooperative farmers) and other authorized agents (e.g., state and 

county employees) would be responsible for their own medical monitoring needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

G.6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and state or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW 7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon USEPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the state. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing 

of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 

G.6.5 Record Keeping 

Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets 

Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the refuge shop and 

laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, 

where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be 

mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, 

approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide 

labels and MSDSs.

Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs)

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable.

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo [December 12, 2007]), refuge staff may 

receive up to five-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses 

based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where necessary (see 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan (requirements 

described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or a habitat 

management plant (HMP) if IPM strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately 

addressed within appropriate NEPA documentation. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-15 

The PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use 

Proposal System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this database.

Pesticide Usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge Project Leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other Federal agencies, state and county governments, non-government 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

desiccants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

• Pesticide trade name(s); 

• Active ingredient(s); 

• Total acres treated; 

• Total amount of pesticides used (lbs. or gallons); 

• Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs.); 

• Target pest(s); and 

• Efficacy (% control) . 

To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife response 

to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat Management 

Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands GIS [RLGIS]) 

to facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, data 

analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

G.7 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as croplands/facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-16 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section G.7.5). These profiles would include 

threshold values for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for 

environmental fate that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In 

general, only pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section G.4) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 

G.7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazard, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment 

of pesticide uses on the Refuge were developed through research and established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in 

Section G.7.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the USEPA to meet regulatory requirements 

under FIFRA. These studies assess the acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated 

with short- and long-term exposure to pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, 

freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly 

available would also be utilized for risk assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint and 

environmental fate data are available from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful resources 

can be found at the end of Section G.7.5. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-17 

Table G-1. Ecotoxicity Tests Used to Evaluate Potential Effects to Birds, Fish, and Mammals to 

Establish Toxicity Endpoints for Risk Quotient Calculations 

Species Group Exposure Measurement Endpoint 

Bird

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)1

Fish 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)2

Mammal Acute Oral Lethal Dose (LD50)

Chronic No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC)3

1

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of eggs, number of offspring, 

eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs).

2

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time to hatch, growth, and time to 

swim-up. 3

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental anomalies, evidence of mutagenicity or 

genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair. 

G.7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the Refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using USEPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (USEPA 2004). This 

deterministic approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of 

environmental concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk 

assessments. This method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration 

[EEC] and toxicological endpoints [e.g., LC50 and oral LD50]) to evaluate the potential for adverse 

effects to species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for managing 

units of the Refuge System. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) calculated by 

dividing the EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized toxicological 

endpoints or published effect (Table G-1). 

RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by USEPA (1998 [Table G2]). The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for screening potential adverse effects to fish 

and wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The following are four exposure-species group 

scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological risk to fish and wildlife on the Refuge: acutelisted species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-18 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended-Public Law 

93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQ<LOC would indicate the 

proposed pesticide use “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” individuals (listed species) and it 

would not pose an unacceptable risk for adverse effects to populations (non-listed species) for each 

taxonomic group (Table G-2). In contrast, a RQ>LOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse 

effects to nonlisted species. 

Table G-2. Presumption of Unacceptable Risk for Birds, Fish, and Mammals (USEPA 1998)

Risk Presumption Level of Concern

Listed Species Non-listed Species

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5

Fish 0.05 0.5

Mammals 0.1 0.5

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0

Fish 1.0 1.0

Mammals 1.0 1.0

Environmental Exposure 

Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the soil 

into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to lower 

soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999, Pope et al. 1999, Butler et al. 

1998, Ramsay et al. 1995, EXTOXNET 1993). Pesticides which would be injected into the soil may 

also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means complete, but 

it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with transfers occurring 

continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these exchanges occur not 

only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation of pesticides over 

long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

Terrestrial Exposure 

The estimated environmental concentration (ECC) for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be 

quantified using an USEPA screening-level approach (USEPA 2004). This screening-level approach 

is not affected by product formulation because it evaluates pesticide active ingredient(s). This 

approach would vary depending upon the proposed pesticide application method: spray or granular. 

Terrestrial – Spray Application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (USEPA 

2005a, USEPA 2004, USEPA 2012, Pfleeger et al. 1996) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue 

Exposure model (T-REX) version 1.2.3 (USEPA 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-19 

residue on short grass (<20 cm tall) as a general food item category for terrestrial vertebrate species, 

T-REX input variables would include the following from the pesticide label: maximum pesticide 

application rate (pounds active ingredient [acid equivalent]/acre) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil. 

Although there are other food item categories (tall grasses; broadleaf plants and small insects; and 

fruits, pods, seeds and large insects), short grass was selected because it would yield maximum EECs 

(240 ppm per lb. ai/acre) for worst-case risk assessments. Short grass is not representative of forage 

for carnivorous species (e.g., raptors), but it would characterize the maximum potential exposure 

through the diet of avian and mammalian prey items. Consequently, this approach would provide a 

conservative screening tool for pesticides that do not biomagnify. 

For RQ calculations in T-REX, the model would require the weight of surrogate species and Mineau 

scaling factors (Mineau et al. 1996). For example, body weights of bobwhite quail and mallard are 

included in T-REX by default, but body weights of other organisms (Table G-3) would be entered 

manually. The Mineau scaling factor accounts for small-bodied bird species that may be more 

sensitive to pesticide exposure than would be predicted only by body weight. Mineau scaling factors 

would be entered manually with values ranging from 1 to 1.55 that are unique to a particular 

pesticide or group of pesticides. If specific information to select a scaling factor is not available, then 

a value of 1.15 would be used as a default. Alternatively, zero would be entered if it is known that 

body weight does not influence toxicity of pesticide(s) being assessed. The upper bound estimate 

output from the T-REX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This 

approach would yield a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table G-3. Average Body Weight of Selected Terrestrial Wildlife Species Frequently Used in 

Research to Establish Toxicological Endpoints (Dunning 1984) 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1,000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

Terrestrial – Granular Application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-20 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (a.i.) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area 

equal to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight 

(Table G-3). An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and 

in-furrow applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without 

incorporation of the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100% of the granules 

remain on the soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat 

with the soil surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the 

soil during band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 

15% of the applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1% of the 

granules are available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 

calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft2

) for comparison to USEPA Level of Concerns (USEPA

1998). The T-REX version 1.2.3 (USEPA 2005) contains a submodel which automates Kanaga 

exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas will be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular pesticide 

application: 

• In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 ft.

2

/acre)/(row 

spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft

2 

= [(lbs product/1,000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1,000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, and seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/1,000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft.

2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft.

2

/acre) 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft.

2

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-21 

Where: 

• % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates 

• Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft.2

 using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would be used to calculate a RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would be divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied 

by the body weight (Table G-3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, a RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological risk. 

A RQ<LOC would be a presumption of acceptable risk with only minor, temporary, or localized 

effects to species. 

Aquatic Exposure 

Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance. The primary exposure pathway for aquatic 

organisms from any ground-based treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide 

application. However, different exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting 

application equipment and techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands 

(especially those cultivated by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) and 

facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed habitats on 

the Refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done <25 feet of the high water mark of 

aquatic habitats for habitat management treatments; whereas, no-spray buffers (≥25 feet) would be 

used for croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. 

Habitat Treatments 

For the worst-case exposure scenario to non-target aquatic habitats, EECs (Table G-4) would be 

would be derived from Urban and Cook (1986) that assumes an intentional overspray to an entire, 

non-target water body (1-foot depth) from a treatment <25 feet from the high water mark using the 

max application rate (acid basis [see above]). However, use of BMPs for applying pesticides (see 

Section G.4.2) would likely minimize/eliminate potential drift to non-target aquatic habitats during 

actual treatments. If there would be unacceptable (acute or chronic) risk to fish and wildlife with the 

simulated 100% overspray (RQ>LOC), then the proposed pesticide use may be disapproved or the 

PUP would be approved at a lower application rate to minimize/eliminate unacceptable risk to 

aquatic organisms (RQ=LOC). 

Table G-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) of Pesticides in Aquatic Habitats (1 

foot depth) Immediately after Direct Application (Urban and Cook 1986) 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb)

0.10 36.7

0.20 73.5

0.25 91.9
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-22 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Lbs/acre EEC (ppb)

0.30 110.2

0.40 147.0

0.50 183.7

0.75 275.6

1.00 367.5

1.25 459.7

1.50 551.6

1.75 643.5

2.00 735.7

2.25 827.6

2.50 919.4

3.00 1103.5

4.00 1471.4

5.00 1839

6.00 2207

7.00 2575

8.00 2943

9.00 3311

10.00 3678

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration spray 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer 

model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® 

model version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift 

of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a ≥25-foot distance 

(buffer) from treated area to water. 

Use of Information on Effects of Biological Control Agents, Pesticides, Degradates, and 

Adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-23 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts 

or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique used to 

avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which 

only would identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions 

would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the decision 

maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the current 

analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the U.S. Forest Service 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/management/fhm-invasives-plants.shtml) and Bureau of Land 

Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). These risk assessments and 

associated documentation also are available in total with the administrative record for the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program – 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USFS 2005) and Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) 

(Bureau of Land Management 2007). In accordance with 43 CFR 46.120(d), use of existing NEPA 

documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous NEPA 

environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the U.S. Forest 

Service would be incorporated by reference: 

• 2,4-D 

• Chlorsulfuron 

• Clopyralid 

• Dicamba

• Glyphosate 

• Imazapic

• Imazapyr

• Metsulfuron methyl 

• Picloram

• Sethoxydim 

• Sulfometuron methyl 

• Triclopyr 

• Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-24 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

• Bromacil 

• Chlorsulfuron 

• Diflufenzopyr

• Diquat 

• Diuron 

• Fluridone 

• Imazapic

• Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) 

• Sulfometuron methyl 

• Tebuthiuron 

• Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals) 

Assumptions for Ecological Risk Assessments

There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the USEPA’s (2004) process. These 

assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or underestimation of risk from pesticide 

exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following describes these assumptions, their 

application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or not they may lead to 

recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological risk from potential 

pesticide exposure. 

• Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include 

the mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or 

small mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with 

pesticide application activities.

• Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar 

or substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may 

be exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the 

formulation as they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information 

for both the active ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the 

greatest potential toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (USEPA 

2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-25 

• Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not 

available, data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. 

Specifically, bobwhite quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for 

evaluating potential toxicity to federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, 

and fathead minnow are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater 

fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for 

coastal environments. Rats and mice are the most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity 

for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major source of uncertainty in pesticide 

assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data are selected for the most sensitive species 

tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the quality of the data is 

acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a particular group are 

available, the selected data will not be limited to the species previously listed as common 

surrogates. 

• The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an 

average daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a timeweighted-average (TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for 

both acute and chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or 

maximum EEC derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected 

instantaneous or acute exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using 

a single exposure to a known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value 

is assumed to represent ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, 

chronic risk to pesticide exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of 

exposure to the pesticide. An organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result 

from either the concentration of the pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of 

both factors. Standardized tests for chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism to 

several different pesticide concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, months, 

years or generations). For example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week exposure 

phase. Because a single length of time is used in the test, time response data are usually not 

available for inclusion into risk assessments. Without time response data it is difficult to 

determine the concentration which elicited a toxicological response.

• Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of 

exposure that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC 

would be used for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk.

TWAs may be used for chronic risk assessments, but they will be applied judiciously 

considering the potential for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the 

number of days exposure exceeds a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a 

pesticide use. The greater the number of days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern 

translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a qualitative assessment, and is subject to 

reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and tolerance for risk. 

• The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to 

avian reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for 

bioaccumulative compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-26 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

duration needed to elicit a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, 

may achieve a steady-state concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for 

calculating TWAs will require justification and it will not exceed the duration of exposure in 

the chronic toxicity test (approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). 

An alternative to using the duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the 

application interval. In this case, increasing the application interval would suppress both the 

estimated peak pesticide concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs 

would be to consider the number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

• Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, 

these data are often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is 

prone to “wash-off.” Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. 

Dissipation or degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of 

refuge lands would be utilized, if available. 

• For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. 

• Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and 

exclusively occupy the treated area (USEPA 2004). 

• Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests <15% of the diet can consist of 

incidentally ingested soil depending upon species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. 1994). 

An assessment of pesticide concentrations in soil compared to food item categories in the 

Kanaga nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion would not likely increase dietary 

exposure to pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall 

dietary concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists of a 

contaminated food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied 

pesticides in which exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for 

pesticide exposure under this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides 

and overestimated for foliar-applied pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would 

likely be less than predicted on food items. 

• Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in droplet 

form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, 

and airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA (1990) 

reported exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an appreciable 

route of exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable 

particle size (particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum diameter of 2 to 5 

microns. The spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application scenarios 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-27 

indicate that less than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable particle size. This 

route of exposure is further limited because the permissible spray drop size distribution for 

ground pesticide applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser drop size distribution. 

• Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application, and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA 

is currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including 

near-field and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based 

models. Risk characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

• The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed 

generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of 

the applied pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

• Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray 

and incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 

1991). However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is 

extremely limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as 

human surrogates (rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling 

dermal exposure. Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, 

particularly with high- risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate 

insecticides. If protocols are established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to 

pesticides, they will be considered for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

• Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on 

treated surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have the potential to dissolve in surface runoff and 

puddles in a treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower 

organic carbon partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater 

potential to dissolve in dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the 

extent to which such pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would 

depend upon the partitioning characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the 

treatment area, and the meteorology of the treatment area. In addition, the use of various 

water sources by wildlife is highly species-specific. Currently, risk characterization for this 

exposure mechanism is not available. The USEPA is actively developing protocols to 

quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and dew. If and when protocols are formally 

established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to pesticides through drinking water, these 

protocols will be incorporated into pesticide risk assessment protocols. 

• Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be 

subject to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is 

potential for uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as 

changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific 

areas in or near the treated field that are associated with mixing and handling and application 

equipment as well as applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of 

spills represent a potential underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk 

characterization. All pesticide applicators are required to be certified by the state in which 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-28 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

they apply pesticides. Certification training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and 

mixing of pesticides; equipment calibration; and proper application with annual continuing 

education. 

• The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a 

specific percentile estimate is difficult to quantify.” Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that 

the pesticide active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95th 

percentile estimate. However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA 

residue assumptions for short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared 

USEPA residue assumptions with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the 

USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk 

characterization. This is particularly evident when wildlife individuals are likely to have 

selected a variety of food items acquired from multiple locations. Some food items may be 

contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others are not contaminated. However, it is 

important to recognize differences in species feeding behavior. Some species may consume 

whole above-ground plant material, but others will preferentially select different plant 

structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item although multiple food items 

may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding foraging behavior 

characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible.

• Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with 

LC50 or NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate 

with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight 

estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake 

estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between 

wildlife food items and laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between 

laboratory and wild diets suggest that current screening assessment methods are not 

accounting for a potentially important aspect of food requirements. 

• There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the 

risk assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying 

two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the 

environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of 

multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) 

and behavioral changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some 

level contributing to adverse effects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized 

in the published literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment 

process. 

• It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the possible 

exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed that no 

habitat use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer 

proximity to pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure 

or risk characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be 

found in aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-29 

the spatial distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are 

often related to habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result 

in an under- or over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide 

concentration occurs relative to the species or species habitat. 

• For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable 

fraction of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water 

column. Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or 

food items is not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. 

Adsorption and bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared 

with older more persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the 

listed species level of concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be 

a limitation of risk assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be 

underestimated. 

• Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk 

assessment. The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients 

entering as runoff, drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that 

pesticide active ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, 

nor is concentration reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near 

maximum possible water-borne concentration. However, this assumption would not account 

for the potential to concentrate pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may 

have the greatest impact on water bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as 

ephemeral wetlands, where evaporative losses are accentuated and applied pesticides have 

low rates of degradation and volatilization. 

• For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration 

to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-totoxic event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

• For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 

21-28 days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of 

effect) to pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA 

relies on chronic exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the 

potential for any latent toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an 

acceptable chronic risk assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of 

exposure from water-borne concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure 

depends on several factors. These include the following: localized meteorological conditions, 

runoff characteristics of the watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological 

characteristics of receiving waters, environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and 

the method of pesticide application. It should also be understood that chronic effects studies 

are performed using a method that holds water concentration in a steady state. This method is 

not likely to reflect conditions associated with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-30 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

the field increase and decrease in surface water on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide 

use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the dependency of this assumption on 

several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic exposure may in some situations 

underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 

• There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic 

effects from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location 

of pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of 

action, effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic 

[not pesticides] and biotic factors), and sub-lethal effects such as behavioral changes induced 

by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse 

effects to non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. 

Therefore, information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk 

assessment process. As this type of information becomes available, it would be included, 

either quantitatively or qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 

• USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism.

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

G.7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must 

be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier (such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations). For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6, which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 

as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-31 

• List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern 

• List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients 

• List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity

• List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally-occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some of 

the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the U.S. Forest Service (2005) found 

that mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

• TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous 

Substance Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

• USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific 

papers published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

• TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers. 

• Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s).

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less mobile 

and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 2003). 

Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides and 

degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a less 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-32 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater effects 

on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of degradates for 

many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

A USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not be possible to quantify the potential effects 

of these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality.

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the Refuge. This is especially 

relevant when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an 

effect(s) associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a 

tank mix under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or 

potential to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In general, 

adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection of 

adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential for 

the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

G.7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996):

• Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

• Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from runoff or wind; 

• Dissolve in water that can be subjected to runoff or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-33 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t1⁄2), represents the length of time required for 50% of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be categorized as 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days (Kerle et al. 1996). Half-life data are usually available for aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data cited 

in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data are not available, soil half-life data may be 

used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism will be 

selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et al. 1996) is expressed 

as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as micrograms of 

pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. Pesticides with 

higher Koc values are strongly absorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/L or parts per million [ppm]). Pesticide with solubility <0.1 ppm are virtually insoluble in water, 

100-1000 ppm are moderately soluble, and >10,000 ppm highly soluble (USGS 2000). As pesticide 

solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site movement. 

The Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the 

following formula.

GUS = log10 (t1⁄2) × [4 − log10 (Koc)]

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

<0.1 would considered to have an extremely low potential to move toward groundwater. Values of 

1.0-2.0 would be low, 2.0-3.0 would be moderate, 3.0-4.0 would be high, and >4.0 would have a very 

high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/L or ppm. Solubility is useful as a comparative measure because 

pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by runoff or leaching. GUS, water solubility, 

t1⁄2, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide Properties 

Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were derived from 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-34 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making (Wauchope et 

al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

• Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size 

and they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The 

more permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down 

through the soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county 

soil survey reports. 

• Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils 

with high clay content would absorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay 

content. In contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would 

have a greater potential for water to leach through them. 

• Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well-developed soil structure have 

looser, more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both 

characteristics would allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting 

in greater infiltration.

• Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in 

soils. Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of 

downward movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend 

to hold more water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

• Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff rather than infiltrate into 

the soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, 

which affects pesticide degradation. 

• Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting 

environmental quality.

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through runoff and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-35 

• Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. 

Pesticides that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be 

dislodged and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides 

in the surface runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The 

rainfall intensity and route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide 

concentrations and losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also 

would have an effect. Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch), 

which is called the mixing zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the 

mixing zone would tend to leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly 

the soil surface becomes saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching 

would decrease the amount of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to 

runoff during the initial rainfall event following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

• Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. 

In addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

• Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to 

leach into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is 

shallow, pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water 

tables that persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater 

contamination. Soil survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports 

provide data in tabular format regarding the water table depths and the months during which 

it persists. In some situations, a hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent 

pesticide contamination from leaching. 

G.7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I<10 would have a low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides with 

I>1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor pressure 

values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) pesticide database.

G.7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data are available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-36 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

scientific information would be used to complete Chemical Profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used 

to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological 

risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to 

determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application 

rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, 

temporary, and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 

G.5), the proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any 

application rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In 

some cases, the Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled 

rate in order to protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically 

updated with new scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed 

for use on the Refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name, and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/Information on Ingredients. A Chemical 

Profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, desiccant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, piscicide, or 

rodenticide. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-37 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA Establishment 

Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. No. for each 

trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components usually 

contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in 

MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications,” “Exposure Control/Personal Protection,” and 

“Regulatory Information.” If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds 

identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the 

Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s 

website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

G.7.7 Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data are available in references” would be recorded as the 

data entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) 

would be cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common test 

species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals (see 

Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found for a 

rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 

Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-38 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would 

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the scientific literature 

are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game species 

may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be used as a 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test species 

available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for 

other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species (preferably 

freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see 

Table G-1 in Section G.7.1). 

Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, 

or EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test invertebrate 

species available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). Green 

algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test 

species for aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

G.7.8 Ecological Incident Reports

After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be exposed to these chemical(s). When 

exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-39 

(incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. The USEPA maintains a database 

(Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. This database stores information 

extracted from incident reports submitted by various federal and state agencies and non-government 

organizations. Information included in an incident report is date and location of the incident, type, 

and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of 

contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and cholinesterase activity analyses 

conducted during the investigation. 

Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

G.7.9 Environmental Fate

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble <0.1 ppm, moderately 

soluble = 100 to 1000 ppm, highly soluble >10,000 ppm (USGS 2000). As pesticide Sw increases, 

there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through runoff and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical’s mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see 

Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t1⁄2), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) 

in the soil. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-40 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t1⁄2 values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation 

only. As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t1⁄2, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t1⁄2 is 

the most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data are 

not available, soil half-life data would be used in a Chemical Profile. The average or representative 

half-life value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis 

for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 

days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t1⁄2) would be used in evaluating the potential to 

degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t1⁄2, which represents the 

length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) in 

water. Based upon the t1⁄2 value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days (Kerle et 

al. 1996). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-41 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic t1⁄2 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic t1⁄2 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t1⁄2 describes the rate for degradation only. 

As for t1⁄2, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the DT50 value, 

environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of the following: nonpersistent <30 days, moderately persistent = 30 to 100 days, and persistent >100 days. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that 

can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) = log10(soil t 1⁄2) x [4 – 

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t 1⁄2 value to calculate a GUS 

score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as 

one of the following categories: extremely low potential <1.0, low—1.0 to 2.0, moderate—2.0 to 3.0, 

high—3.0 to 4.0, or very high >4.0. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-42 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface runoff and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is <10 feet and average 

annual precipitation >12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move off-target 

into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor pressure that 

is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. Vapor 

pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure would 

be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10-7), where I represents a vapor pressure 

index. In general, pesticides with I<10 would have low potential to volatilize; whereas, pesticides 

with I >1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor 

pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If I ≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect 

air quality. 

If I >1,000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

• Do not treat when wind velocities are <2 or >10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

• Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments.

• Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85o

F.

• Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

• Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible during 

or after application. 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil t1⁄2>30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (USGS 2000). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-43 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP 

would be approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1,000 or Sw<1 mg/L and soil 

t1⁄2>30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low – 0 to 300, 

moderate – 300 to 1,000, or high >1,000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If BAF or BCF≤1,000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If BAF or BCF>1,000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application rate 

of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv basis).” This 

table would be prepared for a Chemical Profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (ECC) represents potential exposure to fish and 

wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel 

using an USEPA screening-level approach (USEPA 2004). For each max application rate [see 

description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service personnel would record 2 

EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case terrestrial and aquatic 

exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance treatments. For terrestrial and 

aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under Presumption of Unacceptable 

Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in a 

Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section G.7.2 

for discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be derived 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-44 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100% overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water body using 

the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT® model version 

2.01 under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate 

(acid basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section G.7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for 

habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s T-REX version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables 

would include the following: max application rate (acid basis [see above]) and pesticide half-life 

(days) in soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue concentration on general food items 

for terrestrial vertebrate species in short (<20 cm tall) grass. 

For granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed with a unique route of exposure for 

terrestrial avian and mammalian wildlife, see Section G.7.2 for the procedure that would be used to 

calculate RQs. 

All calculated RQs in both tables would be compared with Levels of Concern (LOCs) established by 

USEPA (see Table G-2 in Section G.7.2). If a calculated RQ exceeds an established LOC value (in 

brackets inside the table), then there would be a potential for an acute or chronic effect (unacceptable 

risk) to federally listed (T&E) species and nonlisted species. See Section G.7.2 for detailed 

descriptions of acute and chronic RQ calculations and comparison to LOCs to assess risk. 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If RQs≤LOCs, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 

If RQs>LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species:

• Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs

• For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-45 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section G.4 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information for 

a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 

1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative 

effort of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, 

Cornell University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon. (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management 

Unit, Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, 

Forest Health Protection, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://www.clemson.edu/extension/pest_ed/safety_ed_prog/label_msds/factshee.html) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of 

Energy; and Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/efed_databasesdescription.htm). 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-46 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, 

Inc. (CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained 

by agrichemical companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_productsL2K/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment 

Canada, Ontario, Canada. (http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/96287/publication.html) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and 

Registration Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

(http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/) 

15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The 

Invasive Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. 

(https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/invasive/Weed%20Control%20Methods%

20Handbook.pdf) 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, 

DC. (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, DC. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-47 

Chemical Profile

Date:

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical 

Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration 

Number:

Pesticide Class: CAS Number:

Other Ingredients:

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian LD50:

Mammalian LC50:

Mammalian Reproduction:

Avian LD50:

Avian LC50:

Avian Reproduction:

Fish LC50:

Fish ELS/Life Cycle:

Other:

Ecological Incident Reports

Environmental Fate

Water solubility (Sw):
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-48 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Soil Mobility (Koc):

Soil Persistence (t1⁄2):

Soil Dissipation (DT50):

Aquatic Persistence (t1⁄2):

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50):

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg):

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient 

(Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: BAF:

BCF:

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application 

Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae 

basis)

Habitat Management:

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance:

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management):

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management):

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance):
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-49 

Habitat Management Treatments:

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ)

Listed (T&E) 

Species

Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5]

Mammals [0.1] [0.5]

Fish [0.05] [0.5]

Chronic Birds [1] [1]

Mammals [1] [1]

Fish [1] [1]

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments:

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk Risk Quotient (RQ)

Listed (T&E) 

Species Nonlisted Species

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5]

Mammals [0.1] [0.5]

Fish [0.05] [0.5]

Chronic Birds [1] [1]

Mammals [1] [1]

Fish [1] [1]

Justification for Use:

Specific Best 

Management Practices 

(BMPs):

References:
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-50 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Table CP.1 Pesticide Name

Trade 

Namea

Treatment 

Typeb

Max Product 

Rate – Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre)

Max Product 

Rate -Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - AI 

on acid equiv 

basis)

Max Number 

of Applications 

Per Season

Max Product 

Rate Per 

Season 

(lbs/acre/

season or 

gal/acre/

season)

Minimum 

Time Between 

Applications 

(Days)

a

From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel would record application 

information associated with possible/known uses on Service lands.

b

Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is labeled for both types of 

treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications. 

G.8 References 

AgDRIFT. 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift 

of pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance manual for the assessment of joint toxic action of chemical mixtures. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, Division of Toxicology. 

62 pp. (+ appendices). 

Baehr, C.H. and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. Presentation at the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Tenth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, April 2000, 

Toronto, Canada. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495. Iowa State University Extension. Ames, IA. 6 pp. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application 

for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 15 pp. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and transformation 

products in surface waters of the midwestern United States. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of 

Land Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Bureau of Land 

Management. Washington, D.C. 539 pp. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. 

Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 

54:77-88. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-51 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Gainesville, FL. 4 pp. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing ecological risk assessments. Chelsea, MI: Lewis

Publishers. 

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray, Jr. 1997. Biological control. Pages 245-263 in: D. 

Simberloff, D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown, eds. Strangers in paradise: impact and management of 

nonindigenous species in Florida. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Coombs, E.M., J.K. Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 

Cox, R.D. and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. Cave Creek, AZ: Eldon Publishing. 

EXTOXNET. 1993. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, 

University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State 

University. 4 pp. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kanaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. 

Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. Corvallis, OR. 4 pp. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, and P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension Service. 

Corvallis, OR. 8 pp. 

Masters, R.A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-52 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, and L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1-9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E. and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An invasive species assessment 

protocol: evaluating nonnative plants for their impact on biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe, 

Arlington, VA. 40 pp. 

Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. Invasive plant 

species. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Issue Paper (13):1-18.

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide Information 

Profiles. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA, and Iowa Department of 

Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, IA. 6 pp. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington—protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644. Washington State 

University Extension. Pullman, WA. 12 pp. 

SDTF 2003 (Spray Drift Task Force 2003). 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. 

Spray Drift Task Force. Macon, MO. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 1997. A user’s guide for 

AgDRIFTTM 1.0: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of pesticides. Technical Note No. 

95-10. CDI. Princeton, NJ. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. AgDRIFT®: 

a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry 21:659-671. 

Urban, D.J. and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. 94 pp. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Laboratory test methods of exposure to 

microbial pest control agents by the respiratory route to nontarget avian species. EPA/600/3-90/070. 

Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. 82 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-53 

USEPA. 1998. A comparative analysis of ecological risks from pesticides and their uses: 

background, methodology and case study. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 105 pp. 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and threatened species effects 

determinations. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC. 101 pp. 

USEPA. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment risk characterization; Approaches 

for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed applications. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2005b. User’s Guide TREX v1.2.3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program preventing and 

managing invasive plants final environmental impact statement. U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR. 

359 pp. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota—current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00. U.S. Geological 

Survey. Sacramento, CA. 4 pp. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI. 8 pp. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

G-54 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management 

 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Common Acronyms and Abbreviations H-1 

Appendix H. Common Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABC American Bird Conservancy 

Ac Acres

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee) 

AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ATS Alternative Transportation Study 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

AUF Appropriate Use Findings 

BASH Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard 

BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

BMP Best Management Practices

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CD Compatibility Determination

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

CWRM Hawai‘i Commission on Water Resource Management 

DBEDT Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism 

DLNR Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DM Departmental Manual

DFM Deferred Maintenance

DO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director’s Order 

DOFAW Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

DOH Hawai‘i Department of Health

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

Draft CCP/EA Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

EA Environmental Assessment

EE Environmental Education

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FHWA Federal Highways Administration

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FLREA Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-2 Appendix H. Common Acronyms and Abbreviations

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register

FW U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 

FY Fiscal Year

Ft Feet (Foot) 

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office 

GHG Greenhouse Gases 

HDOE Hawai‘i Department of Education

HDOT Hawai‘i Department of Transportation 

HEEA Hawai‘i Environmental Education Alliance 

HELP Hawai‘i Environmental Literacy Plan

HIHWNMS Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

HPINWRC Hawaiian and Pacific Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex

I&M Inventory and Monitoring 

IBA Important Bird Area 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

In Inch(es) 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPM Integrated Pest Management

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

KNWRC Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

KPNHA Kīlauea Point Natural History Association 

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LE Law Enforcement 

LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MBCA Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MGR Median Gross Rent 

MHI Main Hawaiian Islands 

Mi Mile(s)

MMS Maintenance Management System

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Repatriation Act

NAS National Audubon Society 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix H. Common Acronyms and Abbreviations H-3 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRC National Wildlife Refuge Complex

NWPS National Wilderness Preservation System 

NWRS or 

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RM National Wildlife Refuge System Manual

OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs

ORV Off-road Vehicles

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation

PICCC Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative 

PIFWO Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

PUP Pesticide Use Proposal

RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Plan 

RHPO Regional Historic Preservation Officer

RO Regional Office

ROC Resource of Concern

RONS Refuge Operational Needs System

RRS Refuge Revenue Sharing 

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance and Management System

SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

SDMP Step-down Management Plan

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SLR Sea Level Rise

SOC Species of Concern 

SUP Special Use Permit

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TAG Transportation Assistance Group

TBD To Be Determined

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

USFWS, FWS, 

the Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USC United States Code 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

H-4 Appendix H. Common Acronyms and Abbreviations
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement I-1 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement

I.1 CCP Team Members

The CCP was developed and prepared primarily by a core team made up of local Refuge staff and 

Regional Office (RO) staff. The core team sought expertise and review from professionals from 

several different agencies and organizations. The List of Preparers below includes core team 

members as well as the people who wrote specific portions of the plan. Many others provided 

assistance in developing and reviewing the CCP and associated products and in providing advice 

through the planning process. These people are captured in the List of Reviewers and Advisors. 

Table I-1. List of Preparers (in alphabetical order). 

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Noreen Bautista, Administrative Officer, 

KNWRC

Developer/reviewer: visitor services 

goals/objectives/strategies; analysis; budget

Shayna Carney, Acting Visitor Services 

Manager, KNWRC (departed 2011) 

Writer/reviewer: lead on visitor services 

goals/objectives/strategies; affected environment and 

environmental consequences; research/analysis

Liz Cruz, Geographer/GIS Specialist, RO 

replaced, 

David Hoy, Geographer/GIS Specialist, RO

GIS data gathering and analysis (e.g., habitats and 

vegetation, infrastructure, public use, alternatives 

development); development of maps for public 

involvement and documents

Catherine Cullinane-Thomas, Economist, Policy 

Analysis & Science Assistance Branch, Fort 

Collins Science Center/US Geological Survey

Writer/analysis: affected environment and 

environmental consequences (economics) 

Padraic Gallagher, Park Ranger (previously 

Administrative Assistant), KNWRC (departed 

2015) 

Developer/reviewer: cultural and historic 

goals/objectives/strategies; CCP mailing list; 

administrative support for workshops, meetings, and 

public open houses

Sandra Hall, External Affairs, HPINWRC

(retired 2015)

Layout and reviewer of planning updates; assisted 

with formatting of CCP document

Lynne Koontz, Economist, Policy Analysis & 

Science Assistance Branch, Fort Collins Science 

Center/US Geological Survey

Writer/analysis: affected environment and 

environmental consequences (economics) 

Laurie Miskimins, Transportation Planner,

Federal Highways Administration-Central 

Federal Lands Highway Division

Writer/analysis: affected environment and 

environmental consequences 

Michael Mitchell, Deputy Project Leader, 

KNWRC

Writer/reviewer: biological and maintenance and 

facilities goals/objectives/strategies, affected 

environment and environmental consequences; assist 

coordination with staff and public/partners; reviewed 

AUFs/CDs

Steve Moore, Big Foot Consulting Writer of environmental consequences and 

appendices A and B 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-2 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Robert Petersen, Facilities and Maintenance, 

KPNWR replaced, 

Ron Langdon, Facilities and Maintenance 

(departed 2008)

Writer/reviewer: maintenance and facilities 

goals/objectives/strategies, affected environment and 

environmental consequences 

Sheri Saari, Park Ranger, KPNWR (departed) Writer/reviewer: visitor services 

goals/objectives/strategies; writer: affected 

environment

Natalie Sexton, Policy Analysis & Science 

Assistance Branch, Fort Collins Science 

Center/US Geological Survey

Writer/analysis: affected environment and 

environmental consequences (social)

Chadd Smith, Facilities and Maintenance, 

Hanalei and Hulē‘ia NWRs

Assisted with public open houses and participated in 

development of goals and objectives

Shannon Smith, Project Leader, KNWRC 

(departed 2015) replaced, 

Mike Hawkes, Project Leader, KNWRC 

(departed 2008) 

Decision-maker and document quality reviewer; 

public involvement and communications (including 

coordination of Federal, State, County, partner, and 

community organizations); compatibility 

determinations and implementation; overall guidance 

for CCP development and coordination with staff

Khem So, Conservation Planner, RO, replaced

Christine Ogura, Natural Resource Planner, 

HPINWRC (departed 2013) replaced, 

Bill Perry, Refuge Conservation Planner, 

HPINWRC (departed 2010) replaced, 

Charlie Pelizza, Refuge Conservation Planner, 

HPINWRC (departed 2008)

CCP team leader responsible for regional and 

Honolulu office coordination and process and policy 

guidance for CCP development; CCP schedule 

manager; facilitator of team, partner, and public 

meetings/workshops; document and related product 

management (including planning record), format and 

review; writer of affected environment and 

environmental consequences and planning updates; 

public involvement and communications 

Andrew Swan, Park Ranger, KPNWR (departed 

2010) 

Developer: visitor services 

goals/objectives/strategies; writer: affected 

environment

Kimberly Uyehara, Biologist, KNWRC replaced,

Brenda Zaun, Biologist, KNWRC (departed 

2008) 

Writer/reviewer: lead on biological 

goals/objectives/strategies, biological component on 

affected environment and related environmental 

consequences; biological resources of concern, taxa 

lists and habitats, integrated pest management; 

research/analysis; coordinate with biological and 

natural resource management partners; reviewed 

AUFs/CDs

Jennifer Waipa, Supervisory Park Ranger,

KPNWR

Writer/reviewer: lead on cultural and historic 

goals/objectives/strategies, affected environment, and 

environmental consequences
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement I-3 

Table I-2. List of Reviewers and Advisors (in alphabetical order). 

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Marie Bruegmann, Botanist, Ecological Services, 

USFWS-Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

Reviewer of plant restoration strategies

Joe Engler, Assistant Regional Biologist, RO Review of biological goals/objectives/strategies; 

AUFs and CDs; IPM

Bridgette Flanders-Wanner, Assistant Regional 

Refuge Biologist and Regional IPM Coordinator, 

RO

Lead reviewer of biological 

goals/objectives/strategies; AUFs and CDs; IPM

Kevin Foerster, Regional Chief of Refuges, RO 

replaced,

Robin West, Regional Chief of Refuges, RO 

(retired 2014)

Major decisions on CCP direction, CCP/EA, and 

Federal Register Notice approvals

Glenda Franich, Visitor Services and 

Communication, RO, replaced, 

Patrick Stark, Visitor Services and 

Communication, RO (departed)

Document and related products (e.g., planning 

update) print management; CCP cover design

Holly Freifeld, Biologist, Division of Migratory 

Birds and Habitat Programs, RO (departed)

Reviewer of biological goals/objectives/strategies

Ben Harrison, Deputy Regional Chief of Refuges 

(formerly Division Chief, Natural and Cultural 

Resources), RO (retired 2014)

CCP advisor, reviewer of policy, AUF, CDs, 

environmental consequences, and wilderness 

Jeff Holm, Chief, Branch of Transportation, 

Refuge Assets and Planning, RO

Review of transportation-related 

goals/objective/strategies

Charles Houghten, Division Chief, Lands 

Division, RO

CCP advisor for planning policy and guidance; 

reviewer; coordination with other divisions and the 

Washington, DC, office

Jean Kenyon, Regional Inventory and 

Monitoring Specialist, (RO-Honolulu)

Reviewer of biological inventory and monitoring 

strategies

Kay Kier-Haggenjos, Writer/Editor, RO Technical edit and processing of Federal Register 

notices; review and processing of document and 

related products (e.g., planning updates); website 

management 

Kevin Kilbride, Regional Inventory and 

Monitoring Coordinator, RO

Reviewer of biological goals/objectives/strategies; 

AUFs and CDs; IPM

Nicole McCarthy, Writer/Editor, RO Technical edit and review of CCP and processing of 

Federal Register notices; assist with public comment 

period coordination

Scott McCarthy, Chief, Planning, RO CCP advisor for planning policy and guidance; 

planning workload priorities; coordination with other 

divisions and the Washington, DC, office

Mike Marxen, Branch Chief ,Visitor Services

and Communication, RO

Visitor Services review and guidance on public use 

goals/objectives/strategies; assistance with related 

alternatives development workshop
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-4 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement

Name and title CCP Contributions 

Don Palawski, Deputy Project Leader, 

HPINWRC (retired), 

Jerry Leinecke, Deputy Project Leader, 

HPINWRC (retired 2009)

Assist with Regional Office coordination; reviewer 

of document and related products; guidance on 

overall process and components 

Charles Parrott, Realty Specialist, RO Realty analysis, review of related sections in 

document, assisted with verifying map accuracy 

Fred Paveglio, Branch Chief Refuge Biology, 

RO (retired 2010)

Development and review of biological 

goals/objectives 

Anan Raymond, Regional Archaeologist, RO Review of cultural and historic resources 

goals/objectives/strategies and affected environment 

and environmental consequences

Andre Raine, Coordinator, Kaua‘i Endangered 

Seabird Recovery Project

Review of biological objectives and strategies

Barry Stieglitz, Project Leader, HPINWRC Decision-maker; reviewer of document and related 

products

Robyn Thorson, Regional Director, RO Final decision-maker, CCP/EA, and Federal Register 

Notice approvals

Jared Underwood, Zone Inventory and 

Monitoring Biologist, HPINWRC

Reviewer of biological inventory and monitoring 

strategies

Lee Ann Woodward, Resource Contaminants 

Specialist, Pacific Reefs NWRC

Reviewer of contaminants section in affected 

environments

I.2 Summary of Public Involvement

The initial CCP planning process for the Kaua‘i National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes 

three national wildlife refuges—Hanalei, Hulē‘ia, and Kīlauea Point—began in 2007. A core team 

and an expanded team were formed to guide development of the CCP. However, CCP development 

was not restricted to just these teams; we held workshops and meetings with local, State, and Federal 

agencies, elected officials, community groups, Refuge users, nonprofit organizations, and others. 

Additionally, public scoping occurred during 2009–2010 and over 80 people participated. This 

helped us to further identify issues and priorities to consider during CCP development (see Chapter 

1). Another public open house to share the draft alternatives we developed was held in August 2011; 

over 20 people participated during the public comment period. We provided planning updates 

throughout the development of the draft CCP/EA, which allowed for comment opportunities to assist 

with alternatives development. Following is a brief summary of public involvement: 

• September 28, 2009 – Federal Register Notice announcing a notice of intent to prepare the 

draft CCP/EA and public open house meetings; 

• October 8, 2009 – Talk story session at Hanalei; 

• November 4, 2009 – Talk story session at Kīlauea; 

• January 2010 – Planning Update 1 announcing the official start of public scoping with public 

open house meetings, summarizing talk story sessions already held, and previewing 

preliminary issues and goals for CCP consideration; 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement I-5 

• January 12, 2010 – Talk story session at Hulē‘ia; 

• January 22, 2010 – News release to announce public open house meetings; 

• January 26, 2010 – Public open house at Līhu‘e Public Library; 

• January 28, 2010 – Public open house at Kīlauea Elementary School; 

• February 2011 – Planning Update 2 summarized the public scoping efforts and outlined the 

next steps in CCP development; 

• March 21–25, 2011 – Alternative Transportation Workshop with various agencies (County, 

State, Federal);

• August 10, 2011 – Public open house to share initial draft alternatives developed; 

• 2010-2011 – Refuge staff also held specific meetings to provide updates and discuss 

management considerations with partners and interested parties (e.g., Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife, KPNHA, NOAA, elected officials); 

• February 12, 2015 – Federal Register Notice and Planning Update 3 announcing the 

availability of the draft CCP/EA for public comment and review; 

• February 24, 2015 – Public open hose at Kīlauea Neighborhood Center; 

• February 25, 2015 – Public open house at Kīlauea Elementary School; 

• February 25–March 27, 2015 – Refuge staff also held specific meetings to solicit feedback on 

the draft CCP/EA from partners and interested parties (e.g., Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife, County of Kaua‘i, one Kaua‘i County Council member, the Kīlauea Neighborhood 

Association, and kūpuna) 

Distribution and notification of the opportunities above was done using multiple methods including 

news releases, a mail/email list of over 800 people—interested individuals, kūpuna, local 

conservation and interest groups, research organizations, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, 

State, and Federal government agencies and elected officials—community and association events and 

meetings, and a CCP-specific website 

(http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Kilauea_Point/what_we_do/planning.html). 

The draft CCP/EA and final CCP reflect this extensive public involvement in all chapters as issues 

identified, related goals/objectives/strategies and alternatives drafted, and final management direction

were shaped by the feedback received during public involvement. The following table summarizes 

the comments heard during public scoping and identifies where or how they were addressed in the 

draft CCP/EA. 

Table I-3. Summary of Scoping Comments. 

Issue Where/How Addressed in Draft CCP/EA

Focus visitors at Kīlauea Point NWR with 

smaller-scale opportunities at Hanalei

NWR

Visitor use has been focused at Kīlauea Point NWR (see 

Chapter 2 for the preferred alternative) 

Concern about being overrun by tours to 

raise money for the Refuge

It is not the intent of the Refuge to grow visitation. It is our 

desire to provide high-quality visitor experiences. For this 

reason, the Refuge’s preferred alternative is D, which 

would allow more focused visitation that is managed in a 

quality way (see Chapter 2)

Ensure there are ample opportunities for We would provide opportunities through environmental 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-6 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement

Issue Where/How Addressed in Draft CCP/EA

young people on the Refuge education as well as research/partnership strategies to 

involve young people (see Chapter 2)

Other visitor services opportunities: 

expansion of hiking opportunities at all 

three refuges and an interpretive person at 

both the Kīlauea Point NWR and Hanalei 

NWR overlooks

Interpretive hiking opportunities and increased 

interpretation with more available staff are identified as 

strategies under several of the alternatives proposed for 

visitor services, including the preferred alternative (see 

Chapter 2)

Partnerships with specific organizations 

such as local high schools and the Kaua‘i 

Community College

This has been incorporated as part of research and 

partnerships (see Chapter 2) 

Develop additional outreach and education 

opportunities (e.g., web cams and a virtual 

tour on the Refuge website)

These opportunities are identified in Chapter 2

Add a goal of evaluating expansion of the 

sites to include other important habitats on 

the island or adjacent to existing Refuge 

areas

At this time, given the 15-year horizon of this plan and the 

fact that the Refuge already underwent an expansion 

process in 2007, there are no strategies for additional 

expansion for habitat purposes identified. However, we 

will continue to work with willing sellers to acquire the 

current inholdings. Please see Chapter 2 under Common to 

All Alternatives under acquisition of inholdings.

Develop a walking trail up Crater Hill for 

wildlife and sunset viewing and a parking 

lot for sunset viewing

Crater Hill interpretive hikes are listed under several of the 

alternatives (including the preferred). Sunset viewing was 

considered but not developed (see Chapter 2 for reasoning 

on both issues)

Create pedestrian or bicycle access path or 

lane to the lighthouse

A pedestrian path was identified under some alternatives as 

well as providing bike parking at the overlook. However, 

neither are offered directly to the lighthouse (see Chapter 

2)

Enhance the overlook including public 

toilets, trash cans, and signage

See Chapter 2 related to the objective 4.2, improving 

visitor information and orientation

The Service should consider having a more 

formal visitor center/facility at Kīlauea

Point NWR

This is identified in alternatives C and D, the preferred 

alternative. See Chapter 2

The Service should incorporate and 

interpret Hawaiian culture, potential to do 

cultural demonstrations for fishing

Better integration of Native Hawaiian culture into our 

interpretive program is identified in Goal 5 in Chapter 2

Enhance community partnerships, 

especially in the areas of transportation 

planning at Kīlauea Point NWR

See Chapter 2 where several partnering strategies have 

been identified. Additionally, the draft CCP/EA was 

developed using previous transportation planning 

initiatives such as the Alternative Transportation Study and 

Transportation Assistance Group (TAG), which involved 

community participation 

Implement small-scale improvements to 

improve traffic congestion and visitor 

safety 

This is a Common to All Alternatives strategy and can be 

seen in Chapter 2 as part of implementing some of the 

recommendations which came out of TAG

Kīlauea Point NWR’s expansion should It is Service policy to work with willing sellers. Please see 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement I-7 

Issue Where/How Addressed in Draft CCP/EA

continue in coordination with willing 

sellers

Chapter 2 under Common to All Alternatives under 

acquisition of inholdings 

Fishing outside of the normal operating

hours. Fish do not run at 10 a.m.; sunset 

and sunrise are key fishing times

Fishing is addressed in the related compatibility 

determination, which can be found in Appendix B 

Protection of important historic properties 

and consideration of moving the 

administrative facilities to adjacent lands 

and restoring historic structures. This 

would provide an opportunity to interpret 

the history of Kīlauea Point, including the 

light station

Please see Goal 5 for protection of historic properties and 

Goal 4 where the moving of administrative facilities and 

interpretation are proposed under alternatives C and D (see 

Chapter 2) 

Closing the Refuge, will that really make a 

difference to wildlife; [Closing the refuge] 

Resources and employees (healthier for 

longevity) need rest; Very important to 

close 1 day/week (Sunday suggested), will 

set [positive] precedent; Would like to see 

Refuge opened 7 days a week if at all 

possible 

Due to flat and declining budgets, starting in February 

2014, the Service reduced the days that Kīlauea Point 

proper is opened to the general public from 7 to 5 days a 

week. The Refuge is closed each Sunday and Monday. 

After a trial period of 1 year, the visitation days will be 

reassessed to see if it would be possible to reopen on a 6- 

or 7-day-a-week schedule. However, closures will continue 

to be a management option depending upon the availability 

of staff and resources.

Keep the bookstore on the Point This is one option offered in two out of the four

alternatives considered

Possibly expand current [visitor services] 

footprint (e.g., interactive exhibits)

This is identified under several of the alternatives 

proposed, including the preferred alternative

Increase wildlife, not tourism; Purpose of 

Kīlauea Point NWR is for the birds (it 

doesn’t have to be Disneyland); Getting 

cars out of there will set an example for 

fragile places; Maintain historical and 

biological integrity of the Point (Point 

cannot deal with 10–15% increase in 

visitation); Restore center of “where the 

birds live” – more meaningful than closing 

the Refuge for 1 day/week; Taking things 

off the Point is very good; Wildlife first, no 

Crater Hill hikes; Keeping areas free of 

human disturbance (e.g., Crater Hill hikes).

Any hikes during nēnē breeding season and 

red-footed booby breeding are of concern 

as hikes will be negative and these birds 

are generally sensitive to human 

disturbance. Keep current Crater Hill 

access status (only for maintenance, 

biological monitoring, one or two time 

periods during as NWRS week). Other 

parts of Kīlauea Point NWR are managed 

for visitors and EE so Mōkōlea Point and 

Our preferred alternative focuses on increasing wildlife at 

the Refuge, while minimizing impacts of visitor use. As 

stated previously, it is not the intent of the Refuge to grow 

visitation or to turn it into a Disneyland-like venue. It is our 

desire to provide quality (not quantity) visitor experiences. 

For this reason, the Refuge’s preferred alternative would 

allow more focused visitation that is managed in a quality 

way (see Chapter 2). 

Interpretive hikes are still considered in our alternatives as 

they help to build biological knowledge as well as 

conservation support for Refuge management 

Mōkōlea Point and Crater Hill are not open to the general 

public in any of the alternatives. Interpretive hikes would 

only be allowed on Crater Hill in limited numbers and not 

during important breeding seasons or other sensitive times 

of the year. Additionally, these hikes would be guided by 

Refuge-authorized personnel 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-8 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement

Issue Where/How Addressed in Draft CCP/EA

Crater Hill should be for habitats and 

native plants/seabirds; Concern over 

concentration of time, attention, and 

resources going into VS program, possibly 

at the expense of biological program. 

Should not go away from primary purpose 

and mission (conservation, management 

and restoration of habitat and biological 

resources)

No buildings on Crater Hill/Building on 

Crater Hill corner is an encroachment on 

habitat, therefore Alt D is better 

Our preferred alternative does not build on Crater Hill, 

though this strategy is still retained in Alternative C

Building on Service-owned property would 

require less overall funding to move the 

project forward, location is closer to the 

Refuge and this might benefit both staff 

and visitors

This strategy was kept, but is not our preferred

Secondary hub should be in commercial 

area; Pavilion’s property better alternative; 

If the Visitor Center (VC) location were on 

the highway in the area behind the existing 

VC and a new bypass road was 

constructed, I would support this 

alternative; Do not like a site in Kīlauea 

Town Center (Refuge/Lighthouse is a 

“stand alone” site and should have its own 

unique and separate [site] from the town 

location); Buy agricultural park from 

county along Kahili Rock quarry road and 

place VC/trans hub there

Actual location would be identified in a separate planning 

process should the alternative containing these strategies be 

selected and funding made available to proceed. Efforts 

would be made to coordinate the location with potential 

bypass (see Chapter 2 paragraph on the bypass issue) 

Consider combining the hub with other 

entities (NOAA-Haena State Park); 

Expand the area to be considered out to 3 

miles to include Princeville airport; 

Shuttles from 2 miles away are another 

expenditure that would have to be paid for 

from Refuge funds or by increased fees; 

deters visitors, takes time away from 

visitor vacation day, and typically less time 

would be spent on the Refuge because 

spent shuttling to and from

Every effort would be made to partner with other initiatives 

in the area, however, it was determined that looking within 

1 mile of the Refuge boundary would allow visitors to have 

a better visitor experience by being closer to the Refuge 

and its resources and fulfill our objective of providing 

“quality” visitor services

Will there be snacks at the VC? Bids for 

local Kīlauea vendors [should be sought]. 

Should be available to local family. [Bids 

should go to local vendors and local 

families.] KPNHA bookstore should 

incorporate a café (coffee, snack, drinks—

this would provide an opportunity to talk 

These details will be identified in a separate planning 

process should the alternative containing these strategies be 

selected and funding made available to proceed 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement I-9 

Issue Where/How Addressed in Draft CCP/EA

over experience just had); Movie booths in 

new VC; what type of shuttle and will 

there be a related park and ride; Could 

charge a small fee for Lighthouse tours; 

Could charge a small fee for Crater Hill 

tours

Would like to see history of WWII on 

Crater Hill (offer guided hikes 2–3x/day)

See Goals 4 and 5 in Chapter 2. Though the history of 

WWII would not necessarily be the sole focus of proposed 

interpretive hikes, it would be woven into the narrative

Utilize other surfaces that are porous and 

still ADA/Reduce asphalt if possible

See alternatives C and D for reducing cars on the Point.

Also note that Goal 4 wording identifies “Ensure that 

visitors and kama‘āina of all ages and abilities feel 

welcome” 

Like objectives in goals 1 and 3 (habitat 

restoration, predator control), a predator 

control staff person is important; Recruit 

more volunteers to work on habitat

For staffing and funding information, please see Appendix 

C. Volunteers are identified as important in supporting 

Refuge management. See Chapter 2

Provide direct trail access to the overlook 

area in Sea Cliff (not through gated 

subdivision for sunset viewing and or 

environmental viewing)

This access is already provided for non-vehicular users

Provide safe public access to Rock Quarry 

by fixing road access way 

The road to this area is owned by multiple entities. The 

Refuge maintains its portion of the road and is open to 

partnering with the other landowners for road repairs to 

allow for safe public access

Crater Hill – install a boardwalk and have 

information stops along the way. Self-tours 

and the boardwalk would keep people off 

the Hill itself

Boardwalks would be difficult to maintain given the sea 

salt and windy environment. Interpretive hikes, given the 

species present, will be conducted by a Refuge-authorized 

agent to ensure a quality experience, while minimizing 

biological impacts

Erect some small, elevated areas on all 

sides of the Point where children could get 

a better view. A clear plastic barrier could 

be used for protection

Current viewfinders already have a step-up for children 

attached to them and binoculars are also provided 

Feasibility was a common comment with 

everyone

Please see Appendix C for funding information and cost 

comparisons between alternatives

The CCP planning team also reviewed and evaluated all of the comments received during the draft 

CCP/EA comment period. These comments and the Service’s responses are presented in Appendix 

K, Public Comments and Service Responses. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I-10 Appendix I. CCP Team Members and Public Involvement
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Species Lists J-1 

Appendix J. Kīlauea Point NWR Species Lists

Partial list of species that occur at Kīlauea Point NWR

Status: End = Endemic, Ind = Indigenous, Mig = Migratory, Pol = Polynesian introduced, Int = 

Introduced, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, SOC = Species of Concern, R = Rare 

PLANTS

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

 Dicots

Acanthaceae - Acanthus Asystasia gangetica Chinese violet Int

Acanthaceae - Acanthus Barleria repens Barleria Int

Acanthaceae - Acanthus Justicia betonica White shrimp plant Int

Acanthaceae - Acanthus

Pseuderanthemum 

carruthersii Golden eldorado Int

Acanthaceae - Acanthus Thunbergia fragrans Sweet clock-vine Int

Aizoaceae - Fig-marigold Sesuvium portulacastrum Sea purslane ‘ākulikuli Ind

Aizoaceae - Fig-marigold Tetragonia tetragonioides

New Zealand 

spinach Int

Amaranthaceae -

Amaranth Amaranthus viridis Slender amaranth

pakai, 

`āheahea Int

Anacardiaceae - Mango Schinus terebinthifolius Christmasberry wilelaiki Int

Apocynaceae - Dogbane Allamanda cathartica Yellow allamanda Int

Apocynaceae - Dogbane Thevetia peruviana

Be-still tree, yellow 

oleander, lucky nut Int

Araliaceae - Ivy Schefflera actinophylla Octopus tree Int

Araliaceae - Ivy Tetraplasandra kavaiensis ‘ohe‘ohe End

Asteraceae - Sunflower Ageratum conyzoides Tropic ageratum

maile 

hohono, 

maile 

honohono, 

maile kula Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower

Aster subulatus var. 

sandwicensis

Annual saltmarsh 

aster Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Bidens alba var. radiata Beggartick Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Bidens pilosa

kī, kī nehe, 

kī pipili, 

nehe Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Conyza bonariensis Hairy horseweed Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Cyanthillium cinereum Little ironweed Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Eclipta prostrata False daisy Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Emilia fosbergii pualele Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-2 Appendix J. Species Lists 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Asteraceae - Sunflower Erigeron bellioides Daisy fleabane Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Lipochaeta lobata nehe End

Asteraceae - Sunflower Lipochaeta succulenta nehe End

Asteraceae - Sunflower Parthenium hysterophorus Santa Maria Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Pluchea carolinensis Sourbush Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Pluchea indica

Indian fleabane, 

Indian pluchea Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Pluchea x fosbergii Marsh fleabane Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Pseudognaphalium sp. Gnaphalium Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Sonchus oleraceus pualele Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Sphagneticola trilobata

Bay Biscayne 

Creeping-oxeye Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower Synedrella nodiflora Node weed Int

Asteraceae - Sunflower

Xanthium strumarium var. 

canadense cocklebur Int

Bignoniaceae - Bignonia Tabebuia sp. Trumpet tree Int

Boraginaceae - Borage Carmona retusa Fukien tea Int

Boraginaceae - Borage Cordia subcordata kou Ind

Brassicaceae - Mustard Cardamine flexuosa Bittercress Int

Brassicaceae - Mustard Lepidium virginicum Peppergrass Int

Campanulaceae -

Bellflower Cyanea sp. Cyanea hāhā End

Campanulaceae -

Bellflower Hippobroma longiflora Star of bethlehem Int

Caricaceae - Papaya Carica papaya Papaya

mīkana, 

hē‘ī, 

milikana, 

papaia Int

Casuarinaceae - She-oak Casuarina equisetifolia Common ironwood paina Int

Chenopodiacea -

Goosefoot Chenopodium murale Lamb's quarters `āheahea Int

Chenopodiacea - 

Goosefoot Chenopodium oahuense

`āheahea, 

ahea, 

`āhewahew

a, alaweo, 

`āweoweo, 

kāha`iha`i End

Clusiaceae - Mangosteen Clusia rosea Autograph tree Int

Combretaceae - 

Combretums Terminalia catappa

Tropical or Indian 

almond

false 

kamani, 

kamani 

haole, 

kamani 

`ula Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Species Lists J-3 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Convolvulaceae - 

Morning glory Ipomoea obscura

Obscure morning 

glory Int

Convolvulaceae - 

Morning glory Ipomoea pes-caprae

Beach morning 

glory pohuehue Ind

Convolvulaceae - 

Morning glory

Jaquemontia ovalifolia 

sandwicensis

pā`ūohi`iak

a, 

kākuaohi`ia

ka, kaupo`o End

Crassulaceae - Orpine Kalanchoe pinnata Air plant

‘oliwa kū 

kahakai Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Aleurites moluccana Kukui nut Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge

Chamaesyce celastroides var. 

celastroides

`akoko, 

koko, 

`ekoko, 

kōkōmālei End

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge

Chamaesyce celastroides var. 

stokesii

`akoko, 

koko, 

`ekoko, 

kōkōmālei End

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Codiaeum variegatum Croton Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Euphorbia hypericifolia Graceful spurge Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Euphorbia serpens Matted sandmat Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Euphorbia thymifolia Spurge Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Pedilanthus tithymaloides Slipper flower Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Phyllanthus debilis Niruri Int

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Ricinus communis Castor bean Int

Fabaceae - Pea Acacia koa koa, koai‘a End

Fabaceae - Pea Canavalia cathartica maunaloa Int

Fabaceae - Pea Chamaecrista nictitans Partridge pea Int

Fabaceae - Pea Crotalaria incana Fuzzy rattle pod Int

Fabaceae - Pea Desmanthus pernambucanus Slender mimosa Int

Fabaceae - Pea Desmodium incanum Spanish clover Int

Fabaceae - Pea Desmodium triflorum Tick clover Int

Fabaceae - Pea Leucaena leucocephala Lead tree

ēkoa, haole 

koa, koa 

haole, 

lilikoa Int

Fabaceae - Pea Mimosa pudica

Sensitive plant, 

sleeping grass pua hilahila Int

Fabaceae - Pea Neonotonia wightii Glycine Int

Fabaceae - Pea Senna pendula Pendant senna Ind
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-4 Appendix J. Species Lists 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Fabaceae - Pea Vigna marina Beach pea

nanea, 

mohihihi, 

lemuomakili Ind

Goodeniaceae - Goodenia Scaevola sericea

naupaka 

kahakai, 

huahekili, 

naupaka 

kai Ind

Lamiaceae - Mint Hyptis pectinata Comb hyptis Int

Lamiaceae - Mint Stachys arvensis Staggerweed Int

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Abutilon grandifolium Hairy abutilon Int

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Hibiscus Int

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Hibiscus tiliaceus Sea rosemallow hau Pol?

Malvaceae - Hibiscus

Malvastrum 

coromandelianum subsp. 

Coromandelianum False mallow Int

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Sida acuta Sida Int

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Sida ciliaris Red ilima Int

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Sida fallax ‘ilima Ind

Malvaceae - Hibiscus Sida rhombifolia Cuban jute Int?

Moraceae - Mulberry Ficus elastica Rubber tree Int

Moraceae - Mulberry Ficus microcarpa

Chinese banyan 

tree Int

Myoporaceae -

Myoporum Myoporum sandwicense

Bastard 

sandalwood

naio, naeo, 

naieo Ind

Myrtaceae - Myrtle Metrosideros polymorpha

‘ōhi‘a 

lehua End

Myrtaceae - Myrtle Psidium cattleianum Strawberry guava Int

Myrtaceae - Myrtle Psidium guajava Common guava

kuawa, 

kuawa 

ke‘oke‘o, 

kuawa 

lemi, 

kuawa 

momona, 

puawa Int

Myrtaceae - Myrtle Syzygium cumini Java plum Int

Nyctaginaceae - Fouro'clock Boerhavia coccinea Boerhavia Int

Nyctaginaceae - Fouro'clock Boerhavia repens Alena alena Ind

Nyctaginaceae - Fouro'clock Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Species Lists J-5 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Nyctaginaceae - Fouro'clock Mirabilis jalapa Four-oclock Int

Oleaceae - Olive Noronhia emarginata Madagascar olive Int

Oxalidaceae - Wood 

sorrel Oxalis corniculata Yellow wood sorrel

‘ihi ‘ai, ‘ihi 

‘awa Pol?

Passifloraceae - Passion 

flower Passiflora edulis

Passion fruit, 

purple granadilla liliko‘i Int

Passifloraceae - Passion 

flower Passiflora foetida Love-in-a-mist

lani wai, 

pōha-pōha Int

Passifloraceae - Passion 

flower Passiflora laurifolia Yellow granadilla Int

Phytolaccaceae -

Pokeberry Rivina humilis Coral berry Int

Plantaginaceae - Plantain Plantago lanceolata

Narrow-leaved or 

English plantain Int

Plantaginaceae - Plantain Plantago major

Broad-leaved or 

common plantain

laukahi, 

kūhēkili Int

Portulacaceae - Purslane Portulaca lutea ‘ihi Ind

Portulacaceae - Purslane Portulaca oleracea Pigweed

‘ākulikuli 

kula Int

Portulacaceae - Purslane Portulaca pilosa ‘ākulikuli Int

Primulaceae - Primrose Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Int

Primulaceae - Primrose Ardisia elliptica Shoebutton ardisia Int

Rhizophoraceae - 

Mangrove Rhizophora mangle

American 

mangrove, red 

mangrove Int

Rosaceae - Rose Osteomeles anthyllidifolia ‘ūlei Ind

Rubiaceae - Coffee Morinda citrifolia Indian mulberry noni Pol

Rubiaceae - Coffee Richardia brasiliensis Int

Rutaceae - Rue Citrus x latifolia Tahitian lime Int

Sapindaceae - Soapberry Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrot wood Int

Sapotaceae - Sapodilla Chrysophyllum oliviforme Satin leaf Int

Scrophulariaceae -

Figwort Bacopa monnieri Water hyssop ‘ae‘ae Ind

Solanaceae - Nightshade Lycium sandwicense

‘ōhelo kai, 

‘ae‘ae Ind

Solanaceae - Nightshade Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco paka Int

Solanaceae - Nightshade Physalis peruviana Cape gooseberry

pohā, 

pa‘ina Int

Solanaceae - Nightshade Solanum americanum Glossy nightshade

pōpolo, 

‘olohua 

polopolo Ind?

Solanaceae - Nightshade Solanum seaforthianum Vining solanum Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-6 Appendix J. Species Lists 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Sterculiaceae - Cacao Waltheria indica ‘uhaloa Ind?

Urticaceae - Nettle Cecropia obtusifolia

Guarumo, trumpet 

tree Int

Urticaceae - Nettle Pilea microphylla

Artillery plant, 

rockweed Int

Verbenaceae - Verbena Lantana camara Lantana

lā‘au 

kalakala, 

lākana, 

mikinolia 

hihiu, 

mikinolia 

hohono, 

mikinolia 

kukū Int

Verbenaceae - Verbena Stachytarpheta dichotoma ōwī, oī Int

Verbenaceae - Verbena Verbena litoralis

ōwī, oī, 

ha‘uoi Int

Verbenaceae - Verbena Vitex rotundifolia Beach vitex

kolokolo 

kahakai, 

hinahina 

kolo, 

mānawana

wa, 

māwanawa

na, 

pōhinahina Ind

 Monocots

Agavaceae - Agave Cordyline fruticosa Ti kī Pol

Araceae - Philodendron Epipremnum pinnatum

Golden pothos, taro 

vine Int

Araceae - Philodendron Philodendron sp. Philodendron Int

Araceae - Philodendron Syngonium sp. Syngonium Int

Arecaceae - Palm Chrysalidocarpus lutescens Areca palm Int

Arecaceae - Palm Cocos nucifera Coconut palm niu, ololani Pol

Arecaceae - Palm Dypsis decaryi Triangle palm Int

Arecaceae - Palm Pritchardia thurstonii Fiji fan palm Int

Arecaceae - Palm Veitchia merrillii Manila palm Int

Asparagaceae -

Asparagus Asparagus densiflorus Asparagus fern Int

Asparagaceae -

Asparagus Dracaena marginata Money tree Int

Asparagaceae -

Asparagus Sansevieria trifasciata

Mother in law's 

tongue Int

Cannaceae - Canna Canna indica Indian shot, canna ali‘ipoe Nat

Commelinaceae -

Spiderwort Commelina diffusa Honohono grass Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Species Lists J-7 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Cyperaceae - Sedge Cyperus involucratus Umbrella sedge Int

Cyperaceae - Sedge Cyperus javanicus

‘ahu‘awa, 

‘ehu‘awa Ind

Cyperaceae - Sedge Cyperus phleoides Cyperus End

Cyperaceae - Sedge Cyperus polystachyos Ind

Cyperaceae - Sedge Cyperus rotundus Purple nut sedge Int

Cyperaceae - Sedge Fimbristylis cymosa

mau‘u 

‘aki‘aki Ind

Cyperaceae - Sedge Kyllinga brevifolia Green kyllinga Int

Liliaceae - Lily Crinum asiaticum Spider lily Int

Liliaceae - Lily Hippeastrum striatum Barbados lily Int

Pandanaceae - Screw Pine Pandanus tectorius Pandanus

hala, pū 

hala Ind

Poaceae - Grass Andropogon bicornis West Indian foxtail Int

Poaceae - Grass Bothriochloa pertusa Pitted beardgrass Int

Poaceae - Grass Chloris barbata Swollen fingergrass Int

Poaceae - Grass Chrysopogon aciculatus Golden beardgrass

mānienie 

‘ula, 

pi‘ipi‘i Ind?

Poaceae - Grass Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass

mānienie, 

mānienie 

haole Int

Poaceae - Grass Digitaria ciliaris Henry's crab grass kūkaepua‘a Int

Poaceae - Grass Digitaria insularis Sourgrass Int

Poaceae - Grass Eleusine indica Wiregrass

mānienie 

ali‘i Int

Poaceae - Grass Eragrostis pectinacea Carolina lovegrass Int

Poaceae - Grass Melinis minutiflora Molasses grass Int

Poaceae - Grass Panicum torridum

kākonakon

a, 

hākonakon

a End

Poaceae - Grass Paspalum conjugatum Hilo grass mau‘u Int

Poaceae - Grass Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass Int

Poaceae - Grass Paspalum vaginatum Seashore paspalum Int

Poaceae - Grass Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass Int

Poaceae - Grass Setaria parviflora Yellow foxtail Int

Poaceae - Grass Sporobolus africanus

Smutgrass, African 

dropseed Int

Poaceae - Grass Sporobolus pyramidatus Dropseed Int

Poaceae - Grass Stenotaphrum secundatum

St. Augustine grass, 

buffalo grass

‘aki‘aki 

haole, 

mānienie Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-8 Appendix J. Species Lists 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Poaceae - Grass Urochloa maxima Guinea grass Int

Poaceae - Grass Urochloa mutica California grass Int

 Ferns

Nephrolepidaceae - 

Sword fern Nephrolepis brownii Asian sword fern Int

Polypodiaceae Phymatosorus grossus Maile scented fern lauae Int

INVERTEBRATES 

Order Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Gastropoda

Stylomattophora Achatinidae Achatina fulica

Giant African 

snail Int

Insecta

Odonata Aeschnidae Anax junius Green darner pinao Ind

Lepidoptera Cosmopterigidae

Trissodoris 

honorariella

Pandanus hole 

cutter moth Int

Lepidoptera Crambidae Mestolobes sp. End

Lepidoptera Crambidae Omiodes blackburni

Coconut leaf 

roller End

Lepidoptera Crambidae Spolodea recurvalis

Beet webworm 

moth Int

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Hylephila phyleus

Fiery skipper 

butterfly Int

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Lampides boeticus Bean butterfly Int

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Strymon bazochii

Lesser lantana 

butterfly Int

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Zizina otis

Lesser grass blue 

butterfly Int

Lepidoptera Pieridae Pieris rapae Cabbage butterfly Int

Lepidoptera Sphingidae Agrius vanillae

Passion vine 

butterfly Int

Hymenoptera Apidae Ceratina cf. dentipes

Small carpenter 

bee Int

Hymenoptera Apidae Ceratina smaragdula Indian bee Int

Hymenoptera Chalcidae

Megastigmus 

transvaalensis

Christmasberry 

seed feeding 

wasp Int

Hymenoptera Colletidae Hylaeus connectens

Hawaiian yellowfaced bee End

Hymenoptera Colletidae Hylaeus sp. Int

Hymenoptera Formicidae

Anoplolepis 

gracilipes

Long-legged ant 

(crazy ant) Int

Hymenoptera Formicidae

Monomorium 

floricola Int
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Species Lists J-9 

Order Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Hymenoptera Formicidae

Pheidole 

megacephala Big-headed ant Int

Hymenoptera Formicidae Plagiolepis alluaudi Int

REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle honu Ind, T

Bufonidae - True Toads Bufo marinus Cane toad Int

Ranidae - True Frogs Rana catesbeiana American bullfrog Int

BIRDS

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Diomedeidae -

Albatrosses Phoebastria immutabilis Laysan albatross mōlī Mig

Diomedeidae -

Albatrosses Phoebastria nigripes Black-footed albatross ka‘upu Mig, C

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Pterodroma neglecta Kermadec petrel Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Pterodroma sandwichensis Hawaiian petrel ‘ua‘u

End, 

Mig, E

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Pterodroma hypoleuca Bonin Petrel Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Bulweria bulwerii Bulwer's petrel ‘ou Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Puffinus pacificus

Wedge-tailed 

shearwater ʻua‘u Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Puffinus griseus Sooty shearwater Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters Puffinus nativitatis Christmas shearwater Mig

Procellariidae - Petrels 

& Shearwaters

Puffinus auricularis 

newelli

Newell's (Townsend's) 

shearwater ‘a‘o

End, 

Mig, T

Phaethontidae -

Tropicbirds Phaethon lepturus White-tailed tropicbird koa‘e kea Mig

Phaethontidae -

Tropicbirds Phaethon aethereus Red-billed tropicbird Mig

Phaethontidae -

Tropicbirds Phaethon rubricaudai Red-tailed tropicbird koa‘e ula Mig

Sulidae - Boobies Sula dactylatra Masked booby ‘ā Mig

Sulidae - Boobies Sula leucogaster Brown booby ‘ā Mig

Sulidae - Boobies Sula sula Red-footed booby ‘ā Mig
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-10 Appendix J. Species Lists 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Fregatidae - Frigatebirds Fregata minor Great frigatebird ‘iwa Mig

Fregatidae - Frigatebirds Fregata ariel Lesser frigatebird Mig

Ardeidae - Herons Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret Int

Ardeidae - Herons Nycticorax nycticorax

Black-crowned nightheron ‘auku‘u Ind

Anatidae - Geese & 

Ducks Chen carulescens Snow goose Mig

Anatidae - Geese & 

Ducks Branta hutchinsii Cackling goose Mig

Anatidae - Geese & 

Ducks Branta sandvicensis Hawaiian goose nēnē End, E

Accipitridae - Hawks & 

Eagles Pandion haliaetus Osprey Mig

Accipitridae - Hawks & 

Eagles Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Mig

Accipitridae - Hawks & 

Eagles Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle Mig

Accipitridae - Hawks & 

Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed eagle Mig

Falconidae - Falcons Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon Mig

Phasianidae - Pheasants 

& Chukars Gallus gallus Red junglefowl moa Int

Phasianidae - Pheasants 

& Chukars Francolinus francolinus Black Francolin Int

Phasianidae - Pheasants 

& Chukars Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant Int

Charadriidae - Plovers Pluvialis fulva Pacific golden-plover kōlea Mig

Scolopacidae -

Sandpipers & Waders Tringa incanus Wandering tattler ‘ūlilī Mig

Scolopacidae -

Sandpipers & Waders Numenius tahitiensis Bristle-thighed curlew kioea Mig, C

Scolopacidae -

Sandpipers & Waders Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone ‘akekeke Mig

Scolopacidae -

Sandpipers & Waders Calidris alba Sanderling hunakai Mig

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Stercorarius pomarinus Pomarine jaeger Mig

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull Mig

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Larus hyperboreus Glaucous gull Mig

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Sterna lunata Gray-backed tern 'pākalakala Ind, Mig

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Sterna fuscata Sooty tern ‘ewa‘ewa Ind, Mig

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Anous stolidus Brown noddy noio kōhā Ind

Laridae - Gulls & Terns

Anous minutus 

melanogenys

Black (Hawaiian) 

noddy

noio, 

'eki'eki End

Laridae - Gulls & Terns Gygis alba White tern manu-o-kū Ind
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix J. Species Lists J-11

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Columbidae - Pigeons & 

Doves Columba livia Rock dove Int

Columbidae - Pigeons & 

Doves Streptopelia chinensis Spotted dove Int

Columbidae - Pigeons & 

Doves Geopelia striata Zebra dove Int

Tytonidae - Barn Owls Tyto alba Barn owl Int

Strigidae - Typical Owls

Asio flammeus 

sandwichensis

Hawaiian short-eared 

owl pueo End

Sylviidae - Bushwarblers Cettia diphone Japanese bush-warbler Int

Turdidae - Thrushes Copsychus malabaricus White-rumped shama Int

Timaliidae - Babblers Garrulax canorus

Hwamei (Melodious 

laughingthrush) Int

Zosteropidae - Whiteeyes Zosterops japonicus Japanese white-eye Int

Mimidae - Mockingbirds Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Int

Sturnidae - Starlings & 

Mynas Acridotheres tristis Common myna Int

Emberizidae - Sparrows Paroaria coronata Red-crested cardinal Int

Cardinalidae - Cardinals Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal Int

Icteridae - Meadowlarks Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark Int

Fringillidae - Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Int

Passeridae - Old World 

Sparrows Passer domesticus House sparrow Int

Estrildidae - Waxbills & 

Mannikins Lonchura cantans African silverbill Int

Estrildidae - Waxbills & 

Mannikins Lonchura punctulata Nutmeg mannikin Int

Estrildidae - Waxbills & 

Mannikins Lonchura atricapilla Chestnut munia Int

Estrildidae - Waxbills & 

Mannikins Padda oryzivora Java sparrow Int

MAMMALS

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Muridae - Mice, rats, 

voles Mus musculus House mouse ‘iole li‘ili'i Int

Muridae - Mice, rats, 

voles Rattus exulans Polynesian rat ‘iole Pol

Muridae - Mice, rats, 

voles Rattus norvegicus Norway rat ‘iole-po‘o-wai Int

Muridae - Mice, rats, 

voles Rattus rattus Black rat ‘iole-nui Int

Vespertillionidae - Lasiurus cinereus Hawaiian hoary bat ‘ōpe‘ape‘a End, E
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

J-12 Appendix J. Species Lists 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Hawaiian 

Name Status

Vesper bats semotus

Felidae - Cats Felis catus Cat pōpoki Int

Canidae - Dogs, foxes, 

jackals Canis lupus familiaris Dog ‘īlio Int

Phocidae - Earless seals Monachus schauinslandi

Hawaiian monk 

seal

‘īlio-holo-ikauaua End, E

Suidae - Pigs, hogs, 

boars Sus scrofa Common wild boar pua‘a Int

Balaenopteridae -

Rorqual whales Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale koholā Mig

Delphinidae - Dolphins

Stenella longirostris 

longirostris Spinner dolphin nai'a Ind

Delphinidae - Dolphins Tursiops truncatus gillii Pacific bottlenose nai'a Ind
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-1 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

K.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) received comments from over 70 entities 

during the 44-day public comment period held from February 12, 2015, through March 27, 2015, for 

the Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA). All written comments were reviewed, analyzed, and 

addressed. A summary of the comments and our response to each is presented in this appendix. 

Each original piece of correspondence was identified with the commenter’s last name and first initial 

and a number. Note that for simplicity’s sake, we use the word “letter” to refer to any comment or 

reference document we received, whether by letter, phone call, e-mail, or in person. Multiple 

correspondences from a commenter are counted as one comment letter. 

To help us analyze the comments, a number of themes and subthemes were identified within the 

letters, and similar comments were grouped together under a theme. Our responses apply to the 

comments grouped under a theme. Comments that fell outside the scope of the CCP were also 

considered and responded to as appropriate. 

K.2 Changes Made to the Final CCP

The CCP planning team reviewed and evaluated all of the comments we received during the draft 

CCP/EA comment period. In some cases, the management direction was either modified or clarified 

based on the comments. These changes are described in Section K.3. For additional information on 

the management direction under the final CCP, see Chapter 2 and Figures 2-1 and 2-2. 

K.3 Summary of Comments Received and Service Responses

Integrated Pest Management

1. Comment: The CCP should analyze the impacts of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

use of herbicides and pesticides on adjacent waters and coastal habitats. The Service should 

adhere to a precautionary principle and use alternative methods for controlling invasive 

species rather than herbicides or pesticides on the Refuge.

Response: The control of nonnative and invasive species on the Refuge is proactive and 

receives high priority. Incidental damage to native species caused by control efforts must be 

determined before implementing IPM techniques. A cost-benefit analysis of native species’ 

health and population plays a critical role in determining the most effective method to control 

invasive species with the least harm to native species. Decisions and criteria to use particular 

tools and techniques are based on numerous factors and considerations (particular species 

being targeted, associated natural history characteristics, proximity to sensitive resources and 

nontarget species, etc.). See Appendix G, Integrated Pest Management, for more information. 

The goal of IPM is to use the minimal control methods to achieve a desired objective. IPM 

methods on the Refuge will be adaptive, based on information about effectiveness and 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-2 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

impacts. Alternative methods to herbicides or pesticides include mechanical treatments (e.g., 

weed pulling or digging, suffocation, cutting or mowing). The Service seeks to encourage 

expanded volunteer-driven mechanical removal efforts. However, mechanical removal is 

highly labor-intensive and can create site disturbance, which can lead to rapid reinvasion if 

not handled properly. Thus, the Service will need to balance increasing volunteer efforts with 

efficiency and the potential for disturbance. 

2. Comment: In order for this plan to be successful, effective control of invasive predators that 

prey on native wildlife must be a top priority for Refuge management.

Response: We recognize that IPM is critically important and agree this must be a high 

priority over the life of the plan. However, additional staff will be needed to more adequately 

implement the control of introduced predators and other invasive species on the Refuge (see 

Appendix C, Implementation). 

3. Comment: Due to vast differences in survey efforts, the comparison of shearwaters found 

preyed upon by owls in 2009 and 2010 (5 vs. 75 shearwaters) is not appropriate. There was 

no biological staff at the Refuge in 2009, therefore survey effort was minimal.

Response: For a more objective comparison to 2010, other years of owl kill data have been 

evaluated. From 2011 to 2014, native bird carcass recoveries with owl kill signs were 4.2, 

averaged over the 4 years. The rationale for Objective 1.1 has been edited with the additional 

information.

4. Comment: Effective fencing to exclude introduced mammalian predators is paramount in 

achieving the Refuge purpose of protecting, restoring, and managing native ecosystems. 

Current fences are inadequate to protect native wildlife. A predator-proof boundary fence 

should be a high priority.

Response: Strategies for the control of introduced mammalian predators at the Refuge are 

aimed at minimizing predator entry using exclusion (e.g., fences), habitat modification, and 

direct control/eradication. The Service agrees that effective fencing is key to a successfully

integrated control program. Under the CCP, fencing-related strategies include (1) mapping 

the type and status of all fences and gates, (2) maintaining or replacing 2.7 miles of existing 

boundary hogwire fence, (3) maintaining the 0.45-mile Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration 

Project (NERP) predator-proof fence, (4) exploring the possibility of expansion of or separate 

additions to the NERP predator-proof fence, and (5) replacing the existing fence at the base 

of Mōkōlea Point with a predator-resistant fence. 

Immediate priorities include mapping, inspecting, and maintaining existing fencing; 

replacing the fence at the base of Mōkōlea Point; and managing the NERP to be successful. 

At Nihoku, efforts to establish or re-establish breeding populations of threatened or 

endangered species using passive or assisted restoration techniques (e.g., translocation of 

threatened ‘a‘o and endangered ‘ua‘u or outplanting of rare and endangered plants) are 

dependent upon maintaining fence lines, monitoring and eradicating predators within the 

fence line, and restoring native habitat.

Longer-term priorities include replacing the boundary perimeter fence and evaluating 

expansions of or separate additions to the NERP predator-proof fence. Planning for fencing 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-3 

entails analyzing trade-offs between cost, fragmentation, mitigating the risk of catastrophe, 

effects to resources, and other impacts. Since funding is limited and dependent upon 

Congressional allocations, public and private partnerships, and grants, building a single, large 

predator-proof perimeter fence may not be feasible. A multiple-fence system ensures that the 

entire population is never threatened by a single incursion (Helmstedt et al. 2014). However, 

multiple fences increase management costs and may fragment populations and habitats (e.g., 

nēnē nesting and foraging grounds). 

Subsequent planning and design efforts will evaluate these and other site-specific 

considerations (e.g., ground preparation, slope, stream crossings, use of natural barriers, 

avoidance of sensitive biological or cultural features, and minimizing impacts on public 

access). All activities will undergo appropriate review and consultations, and permits and 

clearances will be secured as necessary to comply with legal and policy requirements.

5. Comment: Fences, although an important management tool, can also harm some bird 

species. The fence around the lighthouse is an entrapment hazard. Also, predator-proof 

fencing could divide nēnē nesting and foraging grounds. If nēnē are attracted to the Nihoku 

predator-proof fenced area for nesting, there needs to be enough habitat and forage to sustain 

the growing goslings and adults within the fence until the young are ready to fledge; 

otherwise there is an increased risk for gosling loss caused by abandonment and/or starvation.

Response: Measures to potentially reduce the entrapment hazard of fences include keeping 

the area under the chain-link fence at the Point free from weeds and working with adjacent 

landowners to manage vegetation to minimize negative effects of fencing. An additional 

strategy has been added to Objective 1.1 reflecting these measures. The potential for nēnē 

gosling loss due to abandonment and/or starvation was addressed in the Environmental 

Assessment for the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Projection (Anden Consulting 2014). 

Mitigating options for any loss include monitoring the families with goslings to ensure 

sufficient food supplies, providing native forage plants that are used by nēnē as part of habitat 

restoration within the fenced unit so that overall food sources increase, and allowing nēnē to 

depart through the gate.

6. Comment: Fencing and native ecosystem restoration can harm cultural resources and uses, 

particularly at Mōkōlea-Kāhili area.

Response: Prior to implementation, all ground-disturbing projects, including fencing and 

restoration, will undergo a review (including, but not limited to, archaeological and cultural 

surveys) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). We will also 

coordinate and consult with the State Historic Preservation Division and seek assistance from 

Native Hawaiians on issues related to cultural resources. 

Seabird Management

7. Comment: Consider human and wildlife functional values of nonnative trees when selecting 

areas for vegetation management. Ironwoods, a nonnative invasive tree species, serve as 

historic windbreaks in certain areas and should not be removed. Native wildlife have adapted 

to nonnative invasive tree species, requiring careful consideration in when and where these 

species will, if at all, be controlled.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-4 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

Response: As stated in the rationale for Objective 1.1: “While most seabirds exhibit some 

flexibility in their habitat requirements, features of the plant community (species and 

structural characteristics) favor or limit populations. Thus, control or eradication of pest 

plants will be focused mainly on areas where they have a negative effect on seabird survival 

and reproduction.” 

For example, given the criteria in the rationale, the Refuge will trim or remove ironwood 

trees at the northern end (ocean bluff) of Mōlī Hill where these trees are obstacles within 

primary mōlī flight corridors. However, if nonnative species in a given location are not 

negatively affecting seabird survival and reproduction and are providing value (e.g., nesting 

platforms, shade and nesting substrate, or bank stabilization), then these plants will not be 

controlled. Both ironwoods and christmasberry fall under the category of control, not 

eradication. Ironwoods along the southern boundary of the Refuge serving as windbreaks will

not be removed unless they are hazards to human or wildlife safety. The reduction of pest 

ironwood and other species will be timed to avoid impacts to native wildlife.

8. Comment: In addition to native adult birds, include eggs and chicks when evaluating 

predation rate tolerances.

Response: Predation rate tolerances were included as attributes of Objectives 1.1 and 1.2. In 

conjunction with other monitoring systems (e.g. rodent tracking tunnels, trail cams, rat bait 

take, cat captures), we will use these numbers to indicate if our control efforts are improving 

conditions for breeding birds or trigger a need to adapt our control strategies. 

In predation events, the loss of eggs or chicks may serve as an early detection index for the 

predation of adults. Adults within the colony may be killed upon their return if the predator 

(e.g., pig, cat, dog) is still present. Since mōlī are an intensively monitored species onsite, the 

Refuge will explore the use of an index for albatross eggs and chicks, based on a 5-year 

average. Exploration of this additional attribute has been added as a strategy under Objective 

1.1.

9. Comment: No obstacle or light hazards should occur onsite.

Response: An additional clarification has been made to an attribute of Objective 1.1: “Safe 

flight corridors free of obstacles (e.g., pest trees, signs, and antennas) and light hazards.”

10. Comment: The Refuge should reconsider being a donor site for the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility (PMRF) mōlī egg swap program. 

Response: From 2005 to 2012, 4–21 viable eggs from PMRF were exchanged for inviable 

eggs from the Refuge each year as part of the mōlī egg swap program, resulting in 

approximately 3 additional fledglings per year. In recent years, 300–500 birds have been 

released at the base of Mōlī Hill annually as part of the PMRF’s Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard 

program. From 1988 to 2013, the number of mōlī breeding pairs on-Refuge has increased 

fourfold (32 in 1988, 125 in 2013). Likewise, PMRF’s mōlī population has continued grow at 

similar rates. In 2015, there was a 52 percent increase in the number of breeding pairs (169) 

over the previous 5-year average (111). Although 2015 provided optimal ocean conditions, 

we expect the positive population growth trend to continue on Kaua‘i. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-5 

Mōlī are considered a species of conservation concern by the Refuge and a near-threatened 

species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. However, the Refuge has 

higher priority listed species, including federally endangered nēnē and threatened ‘a‘o, with 

planned translocations of federally endangered ‘ua‘u beginning in 2015. In addition, 

monitoring of programs to control introduced predators that prey on all native birds, 

including successfully breeding adults, continues to demonstrate the need for the Refuge to 

dedicate more resources to address these problems. Nonetheless, the Refuge will continue to 

closely monitor and band its breeding mōlī population annually to detect any new threats or 

changes in their population. 

In summary, the Service will continue to work with partners to re-evaluate PMRF programs 

and seek long-term conservation solutions. 

11. Comment: The range of threatened and endangered species should not be extended (e.g., via 

translocation) to areas of cultural, historic, recreational, or subsistence-gathering areas.

Response: The purposes for which a refuge was established or acquired form the foundation 

for management decisions. One of the several purposes for Kīlauea Point NWR includes the 

following: “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or 

threatened species .... or (B) plants ...” Additionally, under the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health policy (601 FW 3), “Where practical, we support the reintroduction 

of extirpated native species. We consider such reintroduction in the context of surrounding 

landscapes. We do not introduce species on refuges outside their historic range or introduce 

species if we determine that they were naturally extirpated, unless such introduction is 

essential for the survival of a species and prescribed in an endangered species recovery plan, 

or is essential for the control of an invasive species and prescribed in an integrated pest 

management plan.” 

While the Refuge promotes threatened and endangered species recovery, we will also take 

cultural, historic, and other factors into consideration when siting passive and active 

restoration projects. Specific projects related to translocation will undergo additional detailed 

planning, including an effects assessment under NEPA, surveys and consultation under 

Section 106 of NHPA, evaluation and consultation under Section 7 of ESA, and compliance 

with other applicable laws and policies.

12. Comment: Chick translocations are expensive, time-intensive endeavors. Instead, the Refuge 

should cross-foster eggs using ‘ua‘u kani as foster parents, which was successfully 

implemented in 1978–1980 (Byrd et al. 1984). Social attraction is another economical, 

effective method of attracting birds into new or safer habitat and should be considered as the 

primary method when appropriate.

Response: In subsequent planning, the Refuge and partners will evaluate a range of 

alternative management measures, including the use of social attraction and/or translocations, 

in combination with fencing, artificial burrows, habitat restoration, predator control, and 

monitoring, for preventing the extirpation of threatened and endangered seabird species such 

as ‘a‘o. 

We agree that chick translocations are expensive, time-intensive endeavors that require 

species- and site-specific considerations. Currently, there are no suitable foster parents 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-6 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

(existing breeding seabirds with similar life history characteristics) within the Nihoku 

Ecosystem Restoration Project site for egg cross-fostering. However, even if ‘ua‘u kani 

occurred on the project site, the use of this species as foster parents could result in initial 

interspecific competition for nesting space at the new colony, similar to that observed 

between ‘ua‘u kani and ‘a‘o at Kīlauea Point proper. Although the egg cross-fostering project 

resulted in high hatching and fledging rates and a small protected colony, recruitment appears 

to have occurred at a lower rate than is desirable for declining taxa. Only a few pairs bred in 

the area during the first two decades until the advent of a social attraction system in 2007, 

when the number of breeding and prospecting pairs nearly tripled from 4 to 11, indicating 

that once ‘a‘o occur on or near the site, social attraction is a major component of colony 

establishment. 

As referenced in Objective 2.1, “there is evidence that colony establishment can occur faster 

at a considerably cheaper rate using fencing and social attraction versus fencing and chick 

translocations, and that chick translocations may be required at some locations but not others 

(Courtot et al. 2014, Sawyer 2014).” Gummer et al. (2014) recommend using social attraction 

for one or more years, before the more costly translocation operation is undertaken. However, 

when birds are highly unlikely to colonize an area with social attraction alone, translocation 

may be the only way to start a new colony, and social attraction techniques can be used in 

combination with other measures, including chick translocation. We agree that the range of 

alternatives should be fully analyzed to determine the best use of conservation dollars.

13. Comment: Effects on other federally or State-listed species (e.g., nēnē) should be evaluated 

during development of projects to restore and enhance breeding populations of threatened 

and endangered seabirds.

Response: Effects on other federally or State-listed species (e.g., nēnē), best management 

practices, and measures to avoid impacts will be detailed in subsequent compliance (e.g., 

NEPA, ESA Section 7) documents for projects to restore and enhance breeding populations 

of threatened and endangered seabirds. Best management practices to minimize disturbance 

to nēnē may include limiting the numbers of vehicles and people accessing the project area, 

limiting driving access, and using alternative access points.

14. Comment: Support for increased habitat restoration at the Refuge for the benefit of seabirds.

Response: Specific actions related to increased habitat restoration for the benefit of seabirds 

include strategies in Objective 1.1, such as small-scale outplanting of native plants that 

provide suitable habitat structure and function for seabirds. Additionally, in Objective 2.2, we

will ensure that habitat restoration activities are timed and conducted to minimize disturbance 

to breeding birds. 

Nēnē and Grassland Management

15. Comment: Outplanting and maintaining nonnative Kikuyu-Spanish clover grassland is 

contrary to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy and may 

outcompete native plant species. Native grasses such as mahiki should be planted for nēnē 

forage. If nonnative shrubs and trees are removed at Crater Hill, they should be replaced with 

native plants that provide similar functions for nēnē nesting and brooding.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-7 

Response: The biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) policy (601 

FW 3) directs refuges to move toward historic conditions unless (1) this would conflict with 

refuge purposes; (2) no feasible alternative exists for accomplishing refuge purposes other 

than management for nonhistoric conditions; or (3) management for nonhistoric conditions 

would make a greater contribution to BIDEH at a larger landscape scale (Schroeder et al. 

2004). 

Therefore, while it is Service policy to move toward historic conditions, there are no known 

native grasslands that could be restored to provide the same nutrition as Kikuyu-Spanish 

clover grasslands. Mahiki (Sporobolus virginicus) is a wiry, hard grass which may not be as 

palatable to nēnē. See the rationale under Objective 1.2 for more details. 

Under the CCP’s management direction, nonnative shrubs and trees at Crater Hill and 

elsewhere will eventually be replaced by native plants such as naupaka, ‘akoko, and nehe, 

which will provide food and cover for nēnē. 

16. Comment: There has been a decline in the quality and amount of Kikuyu grass within the 

coastal grasslands on Crater Hill and the Mōkōlea plateau due to competition from weed 

species. Better management of the existing 27 acres of grassland should be a priority, rather 

than increasing the habitat acreage. 

Response: Kikuyu grass was introduced to Crater Hill for cattle forage prior to acquisition by 

the Refuge. The Refuge will manage Kikuyu-Spanish clover grasslands in large, contiguous 

patches (>3 acres) interspersed with native shrublands for nēnē foraging, breeding, and 

roosting (Objective 1.2). Strategies to enhance and manage the Kikuyu-Spanish clover 

grasslands include mowing and use of IPM strategies to control pest/undesirable plants. 

Current management includes the use of these strategies within 27 acres. Management of 

these areas will remain a high priority. However, IPM methods will be used to remove pest 

christmasberry, lantana, and other aggressive weeds on an additional approximately 5–7 

acres of degraded (i.e., less functional) grassland adjacent to the currently managed areas. 

This will lead to a total of about 32–34 acres of Kikuyu-Spanish clover grassland that will

support nēnē and other species. 

17. Comment: Given the risk of nēnē crossing into areas that would be dangerous or undesirable 

(e.g., Kīlauea Road or neighboring properties), various options should be considered, 

including construction of a corridor between the Point and Crater Hill, fencing, and capture 

and relocation. Additionally, to specifically reduce the risk of vehicle strikes on Kīlauea 

Road, speed-calming devices and signage should be considered. 

Response: In conjunction with the step-down transportation planning, we will evaluate the 

feasibility of redesigning the Overlook area in order to provide a corridor for nēnē transiting 

between the Point and Crater Hill. The objectives are to provide a better connection for nēnē 

adults and their young to travel for forage and to reduce the risk of vehicle impacts while 

crossing Kīlauea Road. An additional strategy has been added under Objective 1.2. 

We will work with DLNR DOFAW, the county, and others on sign design and placement, as 

well as explore the use of speed-calming or -reducing devices to lessen vehicle strikes on 

Kīlauea Road. Strategies for both actions described have been added under Objective 4.2. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-8 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

18. Comment: The Service should consider a catchment system and cistern for rainwater on 

Crater Hill that could provide water for the plants and, perhaps, for making water available 

for nēnē. A consistent water source at the Point should also be considered. 

Response: An irrigation system at Crater Hill will be rehabilitated and maintained for native 

plant establishment. However, in lieu of artificial water features for nēnē, the Refuge will 

improve mowing regimes to manage short grasslands with high moisture and enhance areas 

with native shrubs such as naupaka, which provide moisture in berries. 

19. Comment: Territorial, aggressive behavior by nēnē is problematic for seabirds such as the 

mōlī; therefore, these species should be prevented from existing in the same geographic area 

on the Refuge.

Response: Available evidence suggests that before and during Polynesian colonization 

(around 1,600 years before present), nēnē and seabirds, including mōlī, likely occupied 

overlapping geographic areas during various parts of their life histories, and thus encountered 

one another. Fossil and subfossil remains of both species been found on Kaua‘i (Olson and 

James 1982, Olson and James 1991, Burney et al. 2001). Details on the current nēnē 

population on the Refuge can be found in Section 4.4.2 and on the mōlī population Section 

4.5.1. 

As the use areas of nēnē and seabirds, including mōlī, likely overlapped historically, the 

BIDEH policy and ESA support the Refuge’s current management of these species. 

Wildlife Disturbance

20. Comment: In addition to reducing human disturbance to wildlife by limiting the location and 

timing of public use activities, the Service should also consider strategies such as reducing 

road noise, minimizing sight lines between nesting birds and visitors wherever possible 

through the use of vegetative or temporary barriers, and educating visitors about behavior 

around nesting birds. 

Response: Minimizing human disturbance to native birds and other biological resources is a 

priority for the Refuge at Kilauea Point NWR. We acknowledge the recommended measures. 

Specific guidelines and practices for minimizing disturbance will be developed either in stepdown planning or during implementation of the CCP. Road conditions, including traffic and 

surface type, will be evaluated as part of implementing the transportation/transit strategies. 

Landscaping and screening will be taken into account during site planning. The Refuge will 

continue to incorporate messages about minimizing or avoiding impacts to wildlife in 

environmental education and interpretation programs. 

Native Plants and Restoration

21. Comment: When revegetating areas on the Refuge, the Service should source appropriate 

native plants from appropriate Kaua‘i regions and not from other islands. 

Response: As referenced under Objectives 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2, we will finalize a Plant 

Restoration Strategy for native plant community restoration within 2 years of CCP 

completion. The guidelines for restoration include the following:
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-9 

The Refuge will restore only those plant species that naturally occur on Kaua‘i or were 

historically known to occur on Kaua‘i. Species are chosen based upon existing records and 

other available information on the composition of intact native plant communities on Refuge 

lands, similar plant communities in the region, and from paleoecological studies.

All propagation material will originate from the nearest geographic area of record, unless the 

taxon has been extirpated from this area or is so reduced in abundance that inadequate 

material is available. The order of priority for propagation material will be (1) coastal areas 

of Kaua‘i for Kīlauea Point, (2) elsewhere on Kaua‘i, and then (3) other islands in the 

Hawaiian archipelago.

22. Comment: There are errors and omissions in the rare and endangered plant species that need 

to be addressed by the Service within the Refuge. The Refuge may host the same assemblage 

of rare and endangered plant species as in the designated Kauapea critical habitat 

immediately west of the Refuge.

Response: A partial list of plant species found on Kīlauea Point NWR is available in 

Appendix J. All threatened and endangered plants known to occur on the Refuge have been 

outplanted. These include pokulakalaka (Munroidendron racemosum), alula (Brighamia 

insignis), dwarf naupaka (Scaevola coriacea), lo‘ulu (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii), and 

lo‘ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis). Under Objective 2.2, the Refuge will restore and/or enhance 

and manage native coastal plant communities, including outplanting additional endangered 

plants. 

Target plant communities for the Plant Restoration Strategy, which will be finalized within 2 

years of CCP completion, are ‘ilima coastal dry mixed shrub and grassland, naupaka coastal 

dry shrubland, kawelu coastal dry grassland, ‘ilima coastal dry shrubland, hala coastal mesic 

forest, and lo‘ulu coastal mesic forest. The community descriptions are based on the 

classification of Hawaiian plant communities by W. Gagné and L. Cuddihy in the Manual of 

the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i (1990). Recovery species identified within each plant 

community are listed in Table K-2. 

Table K-2. Recovery Species for Kīlauea Point NWR. 

Plant Community –‘Ilima (Sida) Coastal Dry Mixed Shrub and Grassland

Species Common 

Name

Federal 

Status*

Habit Life 

span**

#s in Wild

(population, 

individuals)

Scaevola coriacea dwarf naupaka E vine short 4,<300

Sesbania tomentosa ‘ohai E shrub short 10,2500

Solanum nelsonii popolo E vine short 10,<3000

Plant Community - Naupaka (Scaevola) Coastal Dry Shrubland

Species Common 

Name

Federal 

Status*

Habit Life 

span**

#s in Wild

(population, 

individuals)

Centaurium 

sebaeoides

‘awiwi E herb short 8,80–110

Ischaemum byrone Hilo 

ischaemum

E grass very 

short

17,<3000
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-10 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

Scaevola coriacea dwarf naupaka E vine short 4,<300

Sesbania tomentosa ‘ohai E shrub short 10,2500

Solanum nelsonii popolo E vine short 10,<3000

Plant Community – ‘Ilima (Sida) Coastal Dry Shrubland

Species Common 

Name

Federal 

Status*

Habit Life 

span**

#s in Wild

(population, 

individuals)

Centaurium 

sebaeoides

‘awiwi E herb short 8,80–110

Cyperus 

pennatiformis ssp. 

pennatiformis

none E grass short 1,100

Scaevola coriacea dwarf naupaka E vine short 4,<300

Sesbania tomentosa ‘ohai E shrub short 10,2500

Solanum nelsonii popolo E vine short 10,<3000

Plant Community - Hala (Pandanus) Coastal Mesic Forest

Species Common 

Name

Federal 

Status*

Habit Life 

span**

#s in Wild

(population, 

individuals)

Brighamia insignis alulu E shrub short 5,60–70

Munroidendron 

racemosum

none E tree long 15,200

Plant Community - Loulu (Pritchardia) Coastal Mesic Forest

Species Common 

Name

Federal 

Status*

Habit Life 

span**

#s in Wild

(population, 

individuals)

Brighamia insignis alulu E shrub short 5,60–70

Pritchardia remota loulu E palm short 2,680

*Federal Status: 

E = Endangered, imminently likely to become extinct in the foreseeable future if no 

actions are taken to alleviate threats.

T = Threatened, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if no actions 

are taken to alleviate threats. 

**Life Span: 

 Long = Long-lived, an individual likely to survive for at least 10 years. 

 Short = Short-lived, an individual likely to survive 2–10 years.

 Annual = An individual that survives for 1 year.

23. Comment: Maintenance of restoration efforts should be a priority. Otherwise, restoration 

efforts revert back to weedy, nonnatives due to lack of sustained management.

Response: We agree that restoration is a long-term process that requires maintenance. To 

adequately support restoring and maintaining Refuge habitats, we identified operational 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-11

(recurring) costs, staffing needs, and partnering opportunities in Appendix C, 

Implementation. 

Erosion Stabilization

24. Comment: Erosion stabilization should not involve major reconstruction or re-engineering of 

the Point. The amount of disturbance by construction equipment and use of cement/concrete 

should be limited.

Response: A strategy to stabilize areas of accelerated erosion along roads and trails is 

included under Objective 1.3. Sea cliff habitat is characterized by nearly vertical or vertical 

topography (>45 percent slope) and highly erodible soils that are exposed to wind and sea. 

Some Refuge roads and trails, such as the paved walking trail connecting parking areas at the 

Point with visitor facilities and the Daniel K. Inouye Kīlauea Point Lighthouse, are located 

adjacent to unstable substrates and sea cliff faces. Hundreds of visitors come to Kīlauea Point 

NWR each open day; erosion stabilization measures are needed to provide slope stability for 

public safety along road and trail sections that have experienced slope erosion, undermining, 

and settlement. Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

regulations is paramount to maintaining a safe environment for visitors and staff alike. 

Specific projects related to erosion stabilization will undergo additional detailed planning, 

including effects assessment under NEPA, surveys and consultation under Section 106 of 

NHPA, evaluation and consultation under Section 7 of ESA, and compliance with other 

applicable laws and policies. Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control during 

and after construction to reduce negative effects on soils, drainage, and water quality and to 

minimize human and wildlife disturbance will then be identified as appropriate. Examples of 

BMPs include avoiding the use of heavy equipment in steeper and more erosion-prone 

portion areas, phasing construction to reduce exposed ground areas, minimizing the length 

and steepness of disturbed areas, avoiding earthwork in inclement weather, using vegetative 

buffers for erosion control and soil stabilization, incorporating culverts to allow water to 

easily pass through during heavy rain events, and revegetating bare areas with native coastal 

plants. We will also seek to limit the use of hardened surfaces and evaluate methods (e.g., 

porous or semi-permeable surfaces) to reduce the volume and rapidity of surface runoff from 

storms, thereby reducing the rate of soil erosion in adjacent areas.

Habitat Mapping

25. Comment: Land use mapping and the habitat acreages associated with the alternative maps 

are arbitrary and capricious unless substantiated with field surveys.

Response: Land use and habitat mapping for the draft CCP/EA was performed using image 

interpretation of 2004 1-meter resolution Ikonos satellite imagery and on-screen digitization. 

The boundaries between current land use and habitat types were manually delineated based 

on features, such as vegetation type and condition, that can be identified in the image. Field 

accuracy assessment was not performed; however, expert knowledge of the Refuge and local 

habitat types provided informal validation.

Within the CCP, ranges of acreages were provided for some of the wildlife and habitat 

management objectives (e.g., Objectives 1.1 and 1.2). The specific locations and sizes for 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-12 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

habitat enhancement activities as described in these objectives will be further refined during 

more detailed step-down or implementation planning.

Monitoring

26. Comment: Increase monitoring and collaborative research programs. Priority should be 

given to developing monitoring protocols that minimize disturbance.

Response: We are committed to using sound science in decision-making and providing the 

public with information of the highest quality possible. Expanded Refuge inventory, 

monitoring, and research programs, including collaborative research, are addressed under 

Objectives 3.1 and 3.2. Funding, staffing, and the Kauaʻi National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex’s (Refuge Complex) information needs priorities will dictate which surveys will be 

accomplished in any given year. 

As described within the attributes of Objectives 3.1 and 3.2, data collection techniques will 

minimize animal mortality, habitat destruction, or long-term or cumulative impacts on 

resources of concern. 

27. Comment: The interval for monitoring native avian species should be shortened to once 

every 5 years as opposed to once every 10 years, if funding allows.

Response: A step-down Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) will be developed following 

the completion of the CCP. The IMP will describe the inventory and monitoring activities 

needed to fulfill the Refuge's resource objectives as identified in the CCP and other planning 

documents and legal mandates. An important aspect of IMP development is the opportunity 

to receive input from other Service programs and partners. We will take into consideration 

the recommended interval for monitoring native avian species in our IMP process. All birds 

are counted annually during the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count.

Facilities and Transportation

28. Comment: Comments regarding the feasibility, coordination, and information needs related 

to the facilities and transportation strategies follow: 

 Lack of funding and staffing will prohibit the implementation of aspects of either 

Alternatives C or D, such as new or expanded facilities, land acquisition, a transit system, 

and/or an offsite hub. 

 Transportation planning activities should include other nearby partners and multi-modal 

developments (e.g., Kaua‘i bus, the Kaua‘i bike path, and others). 

 The CCP does not adequately address parking and traffic issues within Kīlauea Town, 

including highway access. 

 The CCP does not provide enough detail on site plans for facilities and trails or on the 

shuttle system design.

Response: While the CCP provides tangible descriptions of the affected environments and 

resources and provides guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies, it is 

considered conceptual for facilities and transportation issues. Thus, before any actions related 

to facilities or transportation can be taken, more detailed land acquisition planning, facility 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-13

and transit design, and appropriate evaluations will need to be undertaken. Evaluations 

include additional effects assessments in compliance with NEPA, evaluation and consultation 

under Section 7 of ESA, and surveys and consultation under Section 106 of NHPA. 

The Refuge Complex was awarded a Federal Transit Administration Paul S. Sarbanes Transit 

in Parks (TRIP) grant that will fund a post-CCP transportation study to evaluate the 

feasibility of implementing transportation elements of the selected alternative. This study will 

include a transit service plan for the Refuge Complex The study will also incorporate issues 

and opportunities from an island-wide perspective. The planning process will include public 

involvement, stakeholder engagement, and the consideration of financial and staffing 

constraints. 

If determined to be feasible and after all appropriate compliance is completed, actions will be 

implemented as funding becomes available. We will pursue funding through a variety of 

sources, including public and private partnerships and grants. The transportation study will 

assist in identifying and describing the viability of potential funding sources. 

29. Comment: The Refuge should consider phasing the implementation of the facilities and 

transportation components of the CCP.

Response: Within the CCP, we considered short-, medium-, and long-term strategies for 

addressing conceptual facilities and transportation issues. These strategies will be 

implemented in a phased manner. As referenced in Section 2.3 and Objective 4.1, in the 

short- to medium-term, the Refuge will adopt an incremental approach and experiment with 

small-scale operational and infrastructure improvements based on recommendations from the 

interagency Transportation Assistance Group (TAG). During the public comment period on 

the draft CCP/EA, support was expressed for several of these options, including a reservation 

system and/or shuttle service. These options will be analyzed more thoroughly as part of the 

TRIP-funded post-CCP transportation study. 

Strategies which will require a large capital investment and extensive planning process are 

considered medium- to long-term. These strategies, to relocate welcome and orientation and 

non–site-dependent functions (e.g., bookstore, administrative functions, fee collection, 

parking) off the Point, include options to construct a new visitor welcome and orientation 

center, modify an existing facility, or co-locate the Refuge welcome and orientation center 

with a partnering conservation organization within 1 mile of the Refuge boundary. 

Associated actions may include the development of a transit hub and mandatory shuttle 

system. The success of short- to medium-term strategies may preclude implementation of the 

described medium- to long-term strategies. The rationale for Objective 4.1 has been revised 

to provide additional clarification. 

30. Comment: The Service should determine the carrying capacity of the Refuge and establish a 

limit on the number of visitors per day, taking into account the ecological health of the 

Refuge, the quality of visitor experience, and impacts on the local community. The Service 

should consider implementing a reservation system

Response: Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge is a very popular destination for visitors 

to Kauaʻi. Associated with that popularity are issues related to traffic, conflicts with resource 

management, and the quality of visitor experience. The CCP addresses those issues through 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-14 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

improved wildlife and visitor use management strategies meant to reduce wildlife-visitor 

conflicts and enhance the quality of the visitor experience. Thus, rather than looking at how 

many visitors the Refuge can handle, the CCP focuses on how to achieve desired conditions. 

As management actions are implemented, responses will be monitored and management can 

be revised to achieve desired results.

In the near term, the Refuge will adopt an incremental approach to addressing some of the 

issues related to congestion at the Point, including evaluating the possibility of a reservation 

system. The post-CCP transportation study will also assess a shuttle system as well as other 

infrastructure options meant to alleviate congestion, improve visitor experience, and reduce 

wildlife conflicts.

31. Comment: The Service should consider offsite parking and coordination with partners and 

surrounding landowners when determining offsite parking locations. The Service should 

consider phasing in a shuttle system before instituting a mandatory shuttle. The Service 

should consider using a nonpolluting (electric) and low-noise shuttle and providing 

interpretation on the shuttle.

Response: Options for offsite parking and a shuttle system are among the recommendations 

provided by the TAG and will be examined as part of the post-CCP transportation study. This 

study will also include a long-term transit service implementation plan, which will evaluate 

specific options for the shuttle system including type, cost, services (e.g., frequency and 

timing), and offsite parking. The Service will coordinate with partners, neighbors, and the 

community throughout the transportation planning process. 

Development of a mandatory shuttle system may or may not be associated with the relocation 

of non–site-dependent functions to an offsite location (Objective 4.1). The shuttle system 

may serve various park-and-ride locations instead of one Refuge welcome and orientation 

center.

32. Comment: Improve and add signage at the Overlook and Point, including nēnē awareness 

signs and signs at the entrance gate regarding the prohibition of pedestrian access.

Response: Strategies under Objective 4.2 address signage needs. The Refuge Complex was 

awarded funding from the TRIP program in 2011 for a transportation study. The scope of 

work for this study includes development of a sign plan, which is intended to guide the 

improvement of way-finding and traffic-calming. Upon completion of the study, the Refuge 

will implement recommendations accordingly, as funding allows. 

33. Comment: Comments regarding building use on the Point follow: 

 The building that currently houses the bookstore should be more focused on 

environmental education and interpretation, which would be more aligned with its 

original intent. 

 The bookstore should remain on the Point rather than moved to an offsite location. The 

bookstore is a primary source of funding for the Kilauea Point Natural History 

Association (KPNHA), which supports Refuge programs. Visitors would be more 

inclined to make purchases if the bookstore is located onsite.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-15

 The historic buildings on the Point should be restored and include more interpretation and 

historic education. 

 The existing visitor center at the Point should include greater environmental education 

opportunities as well as space for staff and others to hold meetings and workshops. 

 The existing contact station is not a historic building and does not serve any good 

purpose and should be demolished. 

Response: Under Objective 4.2, the site layout at the Point will be re-examined and 

evaluated for non–site-dependent functions (e.g., bookstore, administrative and maintenance 

functions, equipment storage, fee collection, parking); the long-term intent is to move as 

many of these functions off the Point as feasible. Public use and access to the Point will then 

be focused on wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and 

environmental and cultural resources interpretation. 

If a new offsite visitor welcome and orientation center is developed, bookstore operations 

will be moved to the new location, while the current facilities at the Point will be remodeled 

for either environmental education or new environmental or cultural interpretive exhibits and 

displays. 

As referenced in Section 2.3, the Refuge is committed to preparing a Master Site Plan as a 

step-down plan to the CCP, which will further evaluate and detail proposed building use and 

remodeling/maintenance needs. A strategy has been added under Objective 6.1 to restate the 

commitment for preparing a Master Site Plan. 

34. Comment: Comments specific to transportation issues at the Overlook follow: 

 Do not expand access to the Overlook by adding parking spaces due to environmental 

(e.g., habitat loss and wildlife disturbance) and overcrowding concerns. 

 None of the alternatives adequately address the issues (e.g., traffic volume, pedestrian 

and vehicle safety, inadequate turn radius, sanitation) that exist leading to and at the 

Overlook; these issues are likely to worsen in the future. 

 Reconfiguration of the Overlook, such as a wildlife corridor that could allow for nēnē 

movement, should be considered to reduce wildlife disturbance. 

Response: Objectives 4.1 and 4.2 include strategies to make the Overlook area safer and less 

congested and confusing. The TRIP-funded post-CCP transportation study will evaluate the 

feasibility of and provide recommendations for implementing these strategies. For example, a 

sign plan will be developed to guide the improvement of way-finding and traffic-calming. To 

address traffic volume and safety at the Overlook, the study will evaluate short-, medium-, 

and long-term solutions including redesign, reconfiguration of the traffic flow, and 

integration with shuttle services.

We will also evaluate redesigning the Overlook area in order to provide a corridor for nēnē 

transiting between the Point and Crater Hill. We will work with DLNR DOFAW, the county, 

and others on sign design and placement, as well as exploring the use of speed-calming 

devices to reduce vehicle strikes on Kīlauea Road. Strategies for both actions described have 

been added under Objective 4.2. 

35. Comment: Comments related to the siting of new Refuge facilities follow:
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-16 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

 Moving facilities offsite is the best way to mitigate disturbances to wildlife and 

overcrowding on the Point. There are several location options in the surrounding area that 

may fit the needs of the Refuge, such as Lighthouse Village, Anaina Hou, along the 

proposed bypass road, and the proposed agriculture park. 

 The new visitor welcome and orientation center should not be located on Crater Hill; if it 

has to be, it must minimize disturbance to the landscape and habitat. 

 Some maintenance facilities should be left onsite. For example, the southwest corner of 

Crater Hill could be used for a small maintenance baseyard. 

 Do not move the current visitor center or construct a new visitor center; it is unnecessary. 

The current center should be renovated. 

Response: Based on management direction in the CCP, the construction of a new visitor 

welcome and orientation center and maintenance facilities at Crater Hill has been eliminated 

as an option because of disturbance to wildlife and habitats. As stated in the CCP, the 

conceptual construction of a new offsite visitor welcome and orientation center, modification 

of an existing offsite facility, or co-location with a partnering conservation organization 

located within 1 mile of the current Refuge boundary (e.g., in Kīlauea Town, near the 

proposed Kīlauea Town Bypass) are associated with several actions that would need to occur 

prior to or in conjunction with the actual relocation of functions offsite. Those actions could 

include any or all of the following: (1) completion of a transportation study; (2) expansion of 

the Refuge boundary to encompass the new site; (3) land acquisition, easement, or interim 

lease; (4) complete design of the new building and associated infrastructure; and (5) complete 

development of an associated transportation system. As such, the relocation of specific visitor 

services and non–site-dependent functions to an offsite location is considered a long-term 

strategy, which may be precluded by the success of short- or medium-term strategies.

Regarding maintenance facilities, strategies are in Objective 6.1. We will seek to develop a 

new maintenance baseyard (storage sheds, bays, pole barns, nursery) offsite. Options include 

leasing, purchasing, or co-locating with another entity. The new maintenance facilities will 

need to be proximate to the Refuge but not necessarily coupled with the new welcome and 

orientation center. 

36. Comment: Pedestrian and/or bicycle access should be allowed from the Overlook at the end 

of Kīlauea Road onto Kīlauea Point.

Response: Due to safety concerns surrounding heavy traffic and visibility, as well as habitat 

protection for nēnē, ‘a‘o, and ‘ua‘u kani, pedestrian and/or bicycle access will not be allowed 

from the entrance gate down to the Point in the short term. The road from the entrance gate 

down to the parking areas is narrow with blind, steep curves (approximately a 70-foot drop in 

elevation, 12 percent slope). In addition, endangered nēnē, threatened ‘a‘o, and ‘ua‘u kani 

nest along the roadway in hala-naupaka forest. If pedestrians or cyclists go off-road into the 

hala-naupaka forest, they could easily crush chicks or burrows or flush a nēnē brood or bird 

off its nest. 

Any road-widening or construction of a pathway adjacent to the current road bed to 

accommodate pedestrians or bicyclists will likely adversely affect ESA-listed birds. 

Therefore, in order to potentially allow pedestrian and/or bicycle access, it would have to 

occur along the existing two-way road. In the long term under the CCP, the road will be 

closed to private vehicles and a transit system will provide the primary means for public 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-17

entrance to the Point. Once the Refuge has a better understanding of how the transit system 

will operate, we will re-examine the feasibility of allowing pedestrian and/or bicycle access 

from the Overlook into the Point. A new strategy under Objective 4.1 has been added to 

reflect this. 

Pedestrians will still be able to access the Overlook and bike parking at the Overlook will be 

provided. 

37. Comment: The Service should not acquire and gate a portion of Kīlauea Road since it would 

inconvenience neighboring landowners and restrict access leading to the Overlook, which is 

utilized daily by the local community for wildlife and landscape viewing.

Response: Based on public feedback, the strategy under Objective 6.1 regarding acquiring 

and gating a portion of Kīlauea Road has been removed. Methods to encourage the use of the 

shuttle system will be explored through the transportation study and in any subsequent transit 

options. 

38. Comment: Sections of current parking areas should be restored and replanted.

Response: In the long term, a mandatory shuttle may be implemented that would prohibit 

public parking in the current parking areas. During planning for the shuttle system, the 

Refuge will evaluate the potential for restoration of some portion of the parking areas based 

on the requirements for the transportation components (e.g. space needed for shuttle pickup/drop-off). Restoration would be focused on shrubland revegetation and providing habitat 

primarily for shearwaters since they are less sensitive to disturbance compared to ‘ā and 

nēnē. An additional strategy has been added to Objective 4.1. 

39. Comment: The planning and implementation of strategies related to facilities and 

transportation should take into account public safety (e.g., pedestrian safety and safety of 

bikes locked at the Overlook).

Response: As part of the TRIP-funded transportation study, traffic-calming strategies and 

signage will be examined to address transportation safety. Additionally, using strategies 

listed under Objective 6.2, Service law enforcement officers will continue to promote public 

safety. 

40. Comment: The leach fields for the current septic system at the Point cause sewage backup, 

water quality, and air quality (odor) issues. The siting and implementation of the septic 

system should be re-evaluated.

Response: Redesigning the current Refuge septic system will be taken into consideration at 

the time of replacement or significant upgrade to the current system. The current septic 

system, when properly maintained, operates sufficiently but is prone to periodic electrical 

problems involving the automatic float valve activated pumping system. These problems can 

cause overflow and unpleasant odor. Periodic inspection and maintenance of the system’s 

electrical system has reduced the incidence of malfunction.

The current septic system at the Refuge (EPA-mandated and State Department of Health 

approved) was built to Service design standards that include percolation tests to determine 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-18 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

the appropriateness of both soil type and quantity for use with the constructed leach field. 

Based on approved design and construction, the leach field should be able to facilitate 

adequate bio-filtration such that the fragile surrounding waters of the Pacific Ocean habitat 

are not detrimentally affected by this effluent. 

We have received no indication or evidence that this effluent (which may be absorbed and 

remediated in the soil) has any detrimental effect to marine organisms or their habitat. 

41. Comment: High foliage at the Point should be trimmed or removed in order to improve 

visibility for wildlife observation and photography. Unsightly objects (e.g., rusted propane 

cylinders) should be removed and unsightly areas (e.g. the maintenance area) should be 

screened by native plants. Trimming naupaka and other related landscaping should be 

performed during times which create the least amount of disturbance to wildlife.

Response: Striking the balance between minimizing disturbance to nesting seabirds and 

brood-rearing nēnē along with the necessity of vegetation trimming at the Point is 

challenging. A “maintenance window” has been established through close coordination 

between the maintenance and biological staff to allow vegetation trimming only once per 

year around the Point and parking areas for both public safety and visibility purposes. This 

late-winter time window allows nēnē goslings to mature to the stage where they are less 

likely to be separated from their parents, yet early enough that prospecting wedge-tailed 

shearwaters have yet to return from their migration or are yet to use their burrows. The oneand-a-half month maintenance window (typically February–mid-March) allows for sufficient 

trimming of naupaka and other vegetation in a manner that is sufficient to last the entire year. 

Historically (1991–2011), naupaka trimming at the Point was conducted every 3–4 months in 

a staggered manner and trimming was much less dramatic. Starting in 2012, we changed the 

trimming schedule to once per year, based mainly on the need to minimize disturbance to 

brood-rearing nēnē. This means that currently the naupaka which is left to grow throughout 

the remainder of the year grows to such heights around the northern portion of the Point that 

it significantly impairs visibility to the north, east, and west. Dramatic trimming is required to 

avoid the unacceptable condition (to both the general public and our volunteers) of 

significantly impaired views at any time throughout the year. 

Unsightly propane tanks on Crater Hill are being addressed with the owners of the building. 

42. Comment: In the construction and operation of Refuge facilities, BMPs should be used to 

conserve natural resources, improve water quality, manage stormwater runoff, and reduce 

reliance on nonrenewable energy. The Service should also comply with all applicable 

regulations and requirements regarding water quality.

Response: As referenced in Section 2.3, for any projects that identify either new building or 

enhancements to existing structures or the transportation system, we will use, to the extent 

possible, sustainability measures, for example alternative transportation options, reusing 

materials, utilizing renewable technology such as solar power, and acquiring goods and 

services in the most environmentally friendly way possible in order to minimize our footprint 

and effects to climate change as outlined in Executive Order 13514. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-19

Techniques to reduce effects on water quality, such as porous/semi-permeable paving or 

through the design and installation of stormwater swales, will be evaluated in subsequent 

detailed planning. We intend to facilitate rainwater seeping into the ground, reduce the 

volume and rapidity of surface runoff from storms, and reduce discharge of vehicle-related 

contaminants (e.g., petrochemicals and metals) into surface drainages and potentially the 

near-shore marine environment. For construction projects, BMPs will be incorporated to 

minimize the potential for erosion and encourage normal runoff patterns. 

Prior to implementation, all activities will undergo appropriate reviews and consultations, 

and permits and clearances will be secured, as necessary, to comply with legal and policy 

requirements. 

43. Comment: In conjunction with the CCP, the Refuge should support the development of a 

Kīlauea Town bypass road and examine its feasibility.

Response: As stated in Chapter 1, planning for a Kīlauea Town bypass road is outside the 

scope of the CCP. The lead for such an initiative falls under the authority and jurisdiction of 

the State Department of Transportation and the county. As the Refuge moves toward 

implementing the CCP, any community developments that may affect implementation will be 

considered. 

Public Use at Kāhili Quarry

44. Comment: Comments regarding the Refuge-owned portion of Kāhili Quarry Road included 

the following: 

 No gate should be placed along Kāhili Quarry Road. 

 The road should not be improved. 

 The road should be passable only by 4-wheel drive vehicles. 

 The road should be passable and repaired to a standard approved by the county. 

Response: The comments and suggestions we received regarding the Kāhili Quarry Road, as 

well as public uses occurring in the Quarry area, resulted in a re-evaluation and revision of 

the management direction regarding the road and Quarry access and use (see Response 46). 

Section 2.3 and Objective 4.6 have been revised to reflect that the Refuge will continue to 

work with the Kīlauea community to maintain a passable road to the beach and shoreline. 

The road will be repaired and maintained to a standard approved by both the Refuge and the 

County of Kaua‘i (e.g., using crushed coral). No gate will be placed at the entrance to Kāhili 

Quarry. 

45. Comment: As a traditional community use, 24-hour fishing access to Kāhili Quarry and 

Mōkōlea Point should be allowed. 

Response: As referenced in Section 2.3, Kīlauea Point NWR will remain open for 

recreational fishing per Refuge-specific regulations for hunting and fishing at 50 CFR 32.30. 

Fishing by the general public on the Refuge occurs in the ocean at Kāhili Quarry and in the 

estuary of Kīlauea River. Fishing will be allowed on a 24-hour basis in accordance with State 

regulations and include harvest via hook and line, throw net, spear, and shellfish- gathering. 

Fishing is not limited to any designated location. However, entrance to the most northern 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-20 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

portion of Mōkōlea Point will be via foot access because the most sensitive bird nesting areas 

will be closed to vehicles. Facilities related to fishing are not provided at the Refuge. 

46. Comment: The Service received comments in favor of no longer allowing general access to 

Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River for stream, beach, and ocean uses through 

the Kāhili Quarry area. Comments also favored allowing access by permit only, or continuing 

to allow access as-is. Comments in favor of continuing to allow public access and use at 

Kāhili Quarry follow: 

 Access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River through the Kāhili Quarry 

area should not be limited to 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. Support expressed for either 24-hour, 

7-days-per-week access or sunrise-to-sunset access. The hours restriction proposed in the 

draft CCP/EA would adversely affect the local community while providing negligible 

positive impacts to wildlife.

 There should be no restrictions on uses that have traditionally occurred at the Quarry, 

except for illegal uses. Overall, the restriction of uses would adversely affect 

opportunities for the local community to recreate while providing negligible positive 

impacts to wildlife.

 Via community stewardship partnerships, the community, including groups such as the 

Kīlauea Neighborhood Association, ʻĀina Hoʻokupu o Kīlauea, KPNHA, and the Kauaʻi 

branch of Hawaiian Islands Land Trust, would help the Refuge manage traditional 

community uses of this area through education regarding responsible behaviors and uses, 

monitoring, and discouraging uses that endanger people and wildlife or compromise the 

area. A strong cooperative effort between the Refuge and the community would 

effectively minimize negative impacts to wildlife and habitat.

 Refuge management at the Quarry should be consistent with neighboring Land Trust and 

DLNR lands. 

 Signage regarding regulations and ways to avoid or minimize wildlife disturbance should 

be added. The signage and messaging should be culturally sensitive and positive. 

 Comments regarding camping included no camping on Refuge lands due to lack of 

infrastructure, no camping except for overnight fishing camps, and providing a limited 

number of camping spots. The rationale for limiting or not allowing camping included the 

lack of associated infrastructure (e.g., bathrooms and trash cans) and limited space. The 

rationale for allowing camping included that it was an existing use of the Quarry prior to 

Refuge acquisition and was required to facilitate fishing. 

Response: Kāhili Quarry is an important buffer area for wildlife resources on Mōkōlea Point 

and Crater Hill, including breeding sites for nēnē, mōlī, ʻua‘u kani, koa‘e ‘ula, as well as 

roosting or foraging sites for pueo and ‘iwa. The studies cited in the compatibility 

determinations (Appendix B) show that public use activities can and do disturb wildlife. A 

primary concern in allowing any public access and use at the Quarry is to maintain adverse 

impacts within acceptable limits. Specific concerns about allowing public access and use at 

the Quarry include evening and nighttime disturbance from light, noise, human occupation, 

traffic, and dogs to seabirds nesting on Mōkōlea Point; ground fires spreading to vegetation; 

impacts to environmental quality from trash and pollution; and illegal uses such as squatting 

that may occur during the nighttime. 

Based on the comments and suggestions received on the draft CCP/EA related to Kāhili 

Quarry access and use, the Service determined that the reduction of potential adverse impacts 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-21

would be effectively realized through a combination of increased community participation 

and stewardship and Refuge management actions. The feedback resulted in a re-evaluation 

and subsequent revision of the management direction (Objective 4.6) and several associated 

appropriate use findings and compatibility determinations. A summary of the changes to 

Objective 4.6, as well as rationale, follows; see Chapter 2 for more information. 

The following strategies have been added: 

• Work in partnership with local nonprofit organizations and community leaders of 

Kīlauea on promoting community stewardship of the Quarry through habitat 

protection, monitoring and managing threats to natural and cultural resources, 

outreach, and environmental, cultural, and historical interpretation. 

• Partner with community groups to develop welcome and orientation, educational, and 

interpretive signage and messaging.

• Explore opportunities for an overnight site-host program through a special use permit 

to provide resource protection, outreach and interpretation, and compliance 

monitoring. 

• Work with the community stewardship partnership to explore opportunities for 

providing camping. Stipulations would need to ensure that camping opportunities are 

compatible.

• Install bollards at the northeast end of the Quarry area to protect seabird nesting 

areas.

• Additional strategies for increasing the awareness and appreciation of native wildlife 

and cultural resources through interpretation at Kāhili Quarry have been also added 

under Objective 5.1. 

The following strategies were modified or removed:

• Change from “General public access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea 

River through the Kāhili Quarry area would be allowed from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily” 

to “General public access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River 

through the Kāhili Quarry area will be allowed 24 hours a day.” 

• Change from “Anglers would be allowed to erect temporary shelters (protections 

from the sun and rain) in the quarry area during daylight hours only” to “Visitors will

be allowed to erect temporary shelters (protections from the sun and rain) in the 

quarry area during daylight hours only.” 

We believe the modified strategies in the CCP will limit adverse impacts to wildlife and 

habitats. However, we reserve the right to re-evaluate permission for these non–wildlifedependent uses if individuals violate Refuge rules or regulations, if unacceptable impacts 

occur, or for other legitimate reasons. 

47. Comment: Due to the concerns about negative impacts to wildlife (e.g., disturbance, 

mortality) comments regarding dogs included support for requiring all dogs to be on a short 

leash and support for not allowing dogs at the Quarry. 

Response: The Code of Federal Regulations states that no dog shall be permitted to roam atlarge on refuge lands (50 CFR 26.21(b)). Kaua‘i County ordinance requires dogs to be onleash when off the owner’s property (Kaua‘i County Code Leash Law Section 22, Article 2: 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-22 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

“Dogs must be under control of the owner by a leash (not more than 8 feet long) when off the 

owner’s property”). 

As stated in a compatibility determination (Appendix B), dog walking in the Kāhili Quarry 

area of the Refuge has the potential to cause disturbance to seabirds, seals, and turtles. 

However, replacing the existing fence with a predator-resistant fence down the cliffs defining 

Mōkōlea Point, limiting dog walking to the western portion of the Quarry area, and requiring 

dogs be on-leash and under direct control at all times will limit potential disturbance to 

seabirds roosting or nesting in cliff-side vegetation. Additionally, visitors will not be allowed 

within 50 yards of seals or turtles.

Signage will be placed to advise visitors that dogs must be on-leash using a short (8-foot 

maximum) leash, under control at all times, and that dog feces must be picked up and 

removed from the Refuge. The northeastern end of the main Quarry area will also be signed 

and blocked using bollards to indicate that dogs are not allowed.

Overall, impacts from dog walking at the Quarry can be contained effectively, mitigating the 

overall effect on Refuge wildlife and on visitors engaged in wildlife-dependent uses, by 

ensuring that dogs are always on-leash, under direct control, and remain in designated areas. 

The Refuge will enforce these regulations through warnings and ticketing by the Refuge 

Complex law enforcement officer. Periodic evaluations will be done to ensure that dog 

walking does not interfere with compatible, wildlife-dependent uses or impact wildlife 

resources. Violations or disturbance may further restrict or eliminate dog walking at the 

Quarry. 

48. Comment: Refuge law enforcement officers should be culturally sensitive and use proper 

discretion in the handling of their duties. New officers and Refuge managers should have an 

initial meeting with community leaders to better understand the community they will be 

working in. 

Response: A new strategy has been added to Objective 6.2: “Orient new Refuge staff, 

including law enforcement officers, Refuge managers, and volunteers to the local culture and 

community.” Regular communication between the Refuge law enforcement officer and 

representatives of the community of Kīlauea will be encouraged and scheduled through the 

Kīlauea Neighborhood Association. 

49. Comment: Kāhili Quarry Road, including the portion on the Refuge, is part of the ala loa 

trail system and therefore, per the Highways Act of 1892, should be in the public domain 

with public access allowed. 

Response: As referenced in a previous comment response, the Refuge will not close public 

access to the area, and thus not affect access to the ala loa trail; general public access will be 

allowed 24 hours per day. 

Kāhili Quarry Road and shoreline are not listed as one of the trails currently protected by the 

Nā Ala Hele Trails & Access Program (hawaiitrails.ehawaii.gov/island.php?island=Kauai). 

Resolving the issue of whether the Quarry is part of the ala loa is outside of the scope of the 

CCP. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-23

50. Comment: Restricting uses or parking at the Quarry would increase visitor pressure on the 

Wailapa Road side of Kāhili Beach, which would adversely affect the sensitive dune habitats. 

Response: We recognize that Kāhili Quarry Road provides the Kīlauea community more 

convenient access to Kāhili Beach, Kīlauea Bay, and the Kīlauea River. Visitors from 

Kīlauea Town would not need to travel on the highway and also have safer options for either 

walking or biking. Additionally, the Service acknowledges that Kāhili Quarry could provide 

an additional parking option when the Wailapa Road parking is congested or full. As 

referenced in a previous comment response, the Service would not close public access to the 

area; general public access would be allowed 24 hours per day. 

Public Use at Crater Hill

51. Comment: Access to Crater Hill should not be limited to guided interpretive tours. 

Response: Public access to Crater Hill is available in two ways. Access to the “donut” (i.e., 

area adjacent to the western cul-de-sac of Makana Ano Place) by foot or bicycle is allowed 

during daytime hours per Seacliff Plantation access rules; visitors need to access via the 

Seacliff Plantation entrance gate and roads. The other way to access areas of Crater Hill, 

determined by this planning process and including public comments, is in the form of limited, 

guided, and interpretive hikes. Certain stipulations, including requiring Refuge staff or a 

trained volunteer guide, minimum age, maximum group size, and limited frequency, are 

required in order to provide an appropriate, high quality public use experience while 

preventing or minimizing the impacts of disturbance to nesting birds and their habitats and to 

other sensitive biological resources. 

Public safety concerns are paramount for Refuge staff; therefore, a safe and properly 

managed public hike program must be well-considered. Uneven terrain, loose soils, steep and 

tall cliffs, and hidden seabird burrows combine for a potentially dangerous hiking 

environment. The length of the trail needs to be moderate to accommodate an average level 

of physical ability, as many visitors to the Refuge are ill-prepared for the heat, humidity, and 

physical exertion of a hike to Crater Hill. An adequate number of well-trained park rangers 

and volunteers are needed, trained in both interpretation of the biological resources and in 

basic emergency situation response (including first aid/CPR/AED). 

In addition to reasons of public safety, unlimited access to Crater Hill will not be allowed 

because of human-caused wildlife disturbance or mortality. One example of the large, 

negative impact that could occur from unlimited public access to Crater Hill is the deaths of 

nesting albatross and/or shearwaters (this has happened numerous times on Crater Hill and 

Mōkōlea Point since those portions of the Refuge were established in 1983) due to 

uncontrolled dogs and cats. Owner negligence and uncontrolled pets are too often the root of 

the cause. 

Controlled access (i.e., limited guided interpretive hikes) is being adopted in order to reach a 

suitable balanced approach for both biological resource protection and priority public use, 

given adequate staffing and funding. This approach is designed to protect nesting migratory 

seabirds along with nesting and brood-rearing endangered nēnē and to provide a safe and 

high-quality wildlife-oriented recreational opportunity. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-24 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

52. Comment: A trail for additional access to Crater Hill, originating from the southwest corner 

of Crater Hill, should be built. 

Response: The specific layout of the hiking trail on Crater Hill has yet to be determined. The 

hiking trail layout will consider use of the Refuge gate on the southwest corner of Crater Hill 

for ingress and egress. Factors to consider for the hiking trail layout are length of trail for 

public safety, emergency vehicle access, impacts to nesting migratory and endangered birds 

and their habitats, available parking, and courtesy to surrounding neighbors, including 

Seacliff Plantation landowners.

53. Comment: Access to Crater Hill for sunset viewing should be made available through a 

Refuge entrance. 

Response: As referenced in Section 2.2, sunset viewing is not a priority public use or an 

activity that aligns with the purpose and mission of the Refuge System, nor does it contribute 

to the fulfilment of Refuge purposes. However, the general public is allowed to access Crater 

Hill by foot or bike during daytime hours via the Seacliff Plantation entrance gate. We 

considered but did not develop alternatives for a Refuge entrance for accessing the “donut” at 

the west end of Makana Ano Place due to concerns about adverse impacts to wildlife or their 

habitats. 

54. Comment: Individuals should fulfill specific prerequisites (e.g., training, physical fitness 

evaluation, work/volunteer requirement) before being allowed to participate on guided 

interpretive Crater Hill hikes. Hiking at Crater Hill should be evaluated for accessibility for 

the disabled. 

Response: As guided hikes to Crater Hill get scheduled, an overview of the hike will be 

relayed to participants, including information about steep inclines and unstable terrain. A 

route and safety plan will be established and relayed to staff and volunteers leading, 

accompanying, and on standby during the hike. 

As the specific layout of the hiking trail has not yet been determined, the Refuge is amenable 

to considering ways for the disabled to be able to access Crater Hill. There will be additional 

needs to consider, including the installation of ramps to platforms and possibly vehicular 

access to a certain point.

55. Comment: Comments related to guides for Crater Hill hikes follow: 

 Guides for Crater Hill hikes should be staff, not volunteers. 

 Guides for Crater Hill hikes should be trained volunteers and staff. 

 Locals should not need a guide to access Crater Hill. 

Response: Trained volunteers are capable of leading guided tours of Crater Hill and will also 

be trained to handle a variety of emergency safety situations. Having trained volunteers, in 

addition to Refuge staff, leading hikes will provide more opportunities for guided hikes. 

Everyone leading a tour or visiting Crater Hill (outside of the “donut” area) needs to be 

trained or with someone who has received training. The training requirement is intended to 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-25

ensure that guides and participants understand the issues related to wildlife or resource 

management, safety, sensitivity, and culture of a specific location. 

56. Comment: Hiking at Crater Hill has the potential to cause wildlife disturbance. Stipulations 

including group size limits, timing, frequency, noise limits, biosecurity measures, and siting 

to avoid sensitive areas should be identified. 

Response: Hiking on Crater Hill will have the potential for wildlife disturbance. Properly 

designing hikes, including sensitivity to location, time of year, and number of participants 

will be incorporated to minimize disturbance to wildlife. Stipulations are included in the 

compatibility determinations (Appendix B). 

57. Comment: Access to Crater Hill hikes should be via shuttle and have minimal impact to 

Seacliff Plantation residents. Measures should be taken to reduce mud, dirt, and gravel from 

coming onto the privately maintained roads within the development.

Response: Impacts to Seacliff Plantation residents and their roads will be considered as 

access options for Crater Hill hikes are reviewed. A strategy under Objective 4.5 has been 

edited for clarification. 

Open Days at the Point

58. Comment: The Service received comments in favor of opening Kīlauea Point 7 days a week 

and in favor of remaining closed at least 2 days a week.

Response: Beginning in February 2014, we reduced the days that Kīlauea Point was open 

from 7 to 5 days a week due to budget cuts. While visitation days will be reassessed to see if 

it will be possible to reopen on a 6- or 7-day-a-week schedule, closures will continue to be a 

management option depending upon the availability of staff and resources. 

59. Comment: The focus should be on adequate staffing and support and remaining open to the 

public rather than land acquisition.

Response: Eighty percent of the fees collected at the Refuge are used to pay for visitor 

services-related expenditures, including staff and maintenance. Funding for land acquisition 

would likely come from appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

(primarily from outer continental shelf Federal oil and gas revenue), and the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund (Federal Duck Stamp sales). These are public funds and programs that 

were established to benefit conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitats. These land acquisition 

funds will be dedicated for such purpose and are not a factor in budgets for staffing. 

60. Comment: The decision of days open to the public should be based on wildlife response as 

well as on budget. 

Response: One of the purposes of Kīlauea Point NWR is to provide fish and wildlifeoriented recreation. Wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation are all compatible uses on the Point given adherence to certain stipulations. The 

Refuge will monitor wildlife and habitat disturbance and other potential impacts to determine 

if these stipulations are resulting in expected and desirable outcomes. The Refuge will apply 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-26 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

adaptive management principles to modify stipulations or adjust objectives, as necessary, to 

achieve desirable results. For example, if monitoring the adherence to stipulations 

demonstrates unacceptable levels of violation of Refuge rules or regulations, or unacceptable 

impacts to native fish, wildlife, plants, their habitats, cultural resources, Refuge facilities,

other Refuge visitors, or for other legitimate reasons, the Refuge reserves the right to change 

stipulations (e.g., closing areas or changing timing of use) or terminate permission for these 

uses.

Outreach and Interpretation

61. Comment: Support for expanded interpretation and outreach regarding all Refuge resources 

and increasing limited access to the interior of the Lighthouse. 

Response: Expanded interpretation and outreach regarding all Refuge resources is described 

under Objectives 4.3 and 4.7. Additionally, we will expand opportunities to provide limited 

access to the interior of the lighthouse (Objective 4.3, e). 

62. Comment: The proposed outreach is focused on out-of-state visitors rather than Kīlauea or 

Kaua‘i residents. 

Response: A variety of outreach strategies in Objective 4.7 target the Kīlauea and Kaua‘i 

communities as well as many others. Additional outreach and interpretation efforts focused at 

the Quarry, which will include targeting the local community, have been added Objectives 

4.3, 4.6, and 4.7. 

Environmental Education

63. Comment: Environmental education (EE) should be a high priority with more programs held 

on- and offsite; however, onsite programs should be the focus. Closure days at the Point 

should provide the Refuge the opportunity to focus on providing EE. 

Response: EE is one of the Service’s priority public uses. Through strategies in Objective 

4.4., the Refuge is committed to providing a high-quality EE program, which will include 

both on- and offsite components. A balanced approach in the management of the Refuge, 

taking into account budgets, visitors, wildlife, EE and interpretation, and impacts is key in 

determining the location, number, length, timing, and methods with which the Refuge 

conducts EE. 

64. Comment: Comments regarding EE materials and curricula follow: 

 Additional staff is required to support EE and work regularly with local schools. There 

should not be any age limit for volunteers. 

 Classroom materials should be provided in advance of field trips, which should occur 

outdoors. 

 Topics for EE should include nēnē and migratory bird conservation. 

Response: The number and quality of education programs are, in part, dependent upon 

trained staff and volunteers. Additional staff to support EE is identified in Appendix C, 

Implementation. Additionally, by enhancing current partnerships and exploring new ones, the 

Refuge seeks to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the EE program, thereby 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-27

reaching more students and community groups. We will also conduct trainings and outreach 

(e.g., through the website) for staff, volunteers, teachers, and other educators in order to 

promote the EE program. There currently is no age limit for volunteers. Volunteers who are 

minors need to have an authorized parent or guardian approve of their Volunteer Service 

Agreement with the Refuge. 

Many aspects of Objective 4.4 address a variety of methods and partnerships in developing 

and reviewing materials for classroom and field trip visits. Standards-compliant Refugebased curricula for all ages and abilities will be developed and/or updated to complement the 

Service’s mission and Refuge’s purposes and goals. Several Refuge EE programs currently 

contain information about nēnē and migratory birds. 

65. Comment: What are the impacts of school group visits? 

Response: General impacts of the EE program, including school group visitation, to natural 

and cultural resources as well as other wildlife-dependent uses are described in the 

compatibility determination (Appendix B). When conducted with adherence to the specified 

stipulations contained in the compatibility determination, EE will not materially interfere 

with or detract from maintenance of the Refuge’s biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health; fulfillment of Kīlauea Point NWR’s purposes; or the Refuge System’s 

mission.

Wildlife Observation and Photography

66. Comment: Expand noncommercial opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, 

like workshops. 

Response: Under Objective 4.5, the Refuge will seek to expand program offerings, including 

workshops, activities, and exhibits used to teach and enhance wildlife viewing and 

photography skills and ethics.

Traditional Cultural Practices

67. Comment: Cultural practitioners and traditional users should have access to Refuge lands for 

traditional cultural practices. Traditional cultural practices should not be restricted based on 

ties to specified ahupua‘a. A special use permit (SUP) is not an adequate method for 

managing traditional and cultural uses.

Response: The Refuge supports cultural practitioners and traditional users of Kīlauea Point 

NWR lands. To clarify access to Refuge lands for traditional cultural practices, changes have 

been made to the CCP. Requests for access to closed areas for nonconsumptive traditional 

cultural practices (e.g., oli and hula) have been infrequent in the past and therefore will be 

administered on a case-by-case basis. Access to closed areas are defined as specialized uses 

and typically require an SUP. In this case, unless the cultural practitioner is accompanied by 

official Refuge personnel, an SUP will be required. Stipulations within the SUP will take into 

account impacts to wildlife resources, including timing, place, and limits on construction of 

structures during nesting season. The practice of nonconsumptive traditional cultural 

activities in open areas (e.g., Kāhili Quarry) will not require a permit. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-28 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

Consumptive traditional cultural practices include fishing with hook and line, throw net, 

spear, or shellfish-gathering at Kīlauea (East) Cove; and collection of plant materials, 

feathers, and possibly other natural resources (e.g., stone, shells, bone) from areas of the 

Refuge that are open to public use. Unless accompanied by official Refuge personnel, 

participants of these uses will be issued and need to sign an annual SUP. 

Access to Kīlauea (East) Cove for fishing or shellfish-gathering will be restricted to those 

who have genealogical ties to the local community, that is, the Kīlauea and Kāhili Ahupua‘a 

or surrounding ahupua‘a, including Namahana, Kalihiwai, Kalihikai, Waiakalua, and Pīla‘a 

(Wilson and Jay 2010). This restriction is based on a list of Kīlauea sugar plantation families 

who were previously allowed to fish on Refuge land. No more than five individuals at a time 

will be allowed to use the East Cove, and use will be restricted when ‘īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or 

honu are present. 

In the absence of specific authorization, regulations within 50 CFR 27.51 (“Disturbing, 

injuring, and damaging plants and animals”) prohibit the collection of plant materials and 

other natural resources on refuges. Through permit or accompanied by Refuge personnel, we 

will allow such collections by individuals of Native Hawaiian heritage as an element of 

traditional cultural practices. The collection and use of materials from native plants or canoe 

plants, feathers, and possibly other natural resources for traditional subsistence, ceremonial, 

decorative, medicinal, or other purposes will not be restricted to specific ahupua‘a. 

Participating in traditional cultural practices on the Refuge for commercial purposes is

prohibited. Additional stipulations for these uses are listed in the compatibility determination 

(Appendix B). 

Commercial Activities

68. Comment: Restrict and regulate commercial activities including photography, surf schools, 

and food concessions on the Refuge. 

Response: Regulations at 50 CFR 29.1 require that the Service only authorize an economic 

use of a Refuge when a determination has been made that the use contributes to the 

achievement of Refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission. The regulations define an 

economic use to include “operations that facilitate approved programs on national wildlife 

refuges.” Commercial uses evaluated in the CCP include commercial wildlife and landscape 

filming and photography and commercial tours (ecotourism), which are both determined to 

be compatible given adherence to specific stipulations intended to minimize the possibility of 

damage to cultural or natural resources or interference with other visitors. These stipulations 

include the requirement for an SUP, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and an 

associated fee. Permits may be approved or denied based on the availability of Refuge staff 

and resources to administer the use. Permission to access Refuge-closed areas for commercial 

filming and photography or commercial tours (ecotourism) will be designed to minimize 

effects on biological and cultural resources and visitors (e.g., use of a guide to access Crater 

Hill). 

Surf schools and food concessions are not allowed on the Refuge. These uses do not enhance 

the Refuge visitor’s knowledge and enjoyment of the natural resources or support the mission 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-29

of the Refuge or the Service, and they may affect uses otherwise determined appropriate and 

compatible. 

Volunteers

69. Comment: Support for an expanded volunteer program, community work days, and 

continued coordination with KPNHA. 

Response: Volunteers are key components of the successful management of Refuge lands 

and are vital to the implementation of the Refuge’s biological and public use programs and 

projects (e.g., interpretation, environmental education, invasive species control). The 

strategies under Objective 4.8 are intended to increase, support, and appreciate the Refuge 

volunteer program. 

Refuge Visitation

70. Comment: Refuge visitation numbers are inflated and should only account for those passing 

the fee booth. Statistics on wildlife viewing should include Kāhili Quarry as well. 

Response: A large majority of Refuge visitation occurs at the Point and/or Overlook. 

Refuge visitation numbers include estimates for visitors to the Overlook since the Overlook 

is Refuge-owned and managed. Overlook visitors partake in wildlife-dependent activities 

such as wildlife observation and photography. Refuge volunteers are occasionally stationed at 

the Overlook to provide outreach and interpretation. Estimates for number of visitors to 

Kāhili Quarry are unavailable but are assumed to be orders of magnitude smaller than the 

visitation at the Point and/or Overlook. 

71. Comment: Long-range Refuge planning should not consider an increase in visitation. 

Response: As described in Chapter 5, visitation to Kīlauea Point NWR is related to total 

visitation to the island of Kaua‘i. Tourism on the island is sensitive to global macroeconomic conditions and natural disaster events. Over the analysis period, annual visitation to 

Kaua‘i peaked in 2007 at about 1.3 million visitors. The latest short-term forecasts by the 

State of Hawai’i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) 

projected that visitor arrivals statewide would grow between 2.5 and 1.7 percent annually 

from 2015 to 2018 (DBEDT 2015). Hawai‘i’s visitor arrivals are expected to grow at a 

slower rate in the future (DBEDT 2012). However, given that the overall visitor arrival trend 

in the long term is positive, Refuge planning should assume growth in interest compared to 

the present. 

Cultural and Historic Resources

72. Comment: Support for implementing a proactive cultural resource management program to 

increase appreciation of native wildlife which is important in Hawaiian culture and folklore. 

Response: Additional strategies for increasing the awareness and appreciation of native 

wildlife and cultural resources through interpretation at Kāhili Quarry have been also added 

under Objective 4.6. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-30 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

73. Comment: The Service should consider the recommendations of the 1989 Archaeological 

Inventory Survey of Kīlauea Point NWR and follow through on nomination of both the 

Crater Hill radar station (State Historic Site 50-30-04-1810), and sugar loading complex 

(State Historic Site 50-30-04-1811) to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Response: The Refuge has added the following strategy under Objective 5.1: Re-inventory 

and reevaluate for designation to the National Register of Historic Places the Crater Hill radar 

station (State Historic Site 50-30-04-1810) and Mōkōlea Point sugar loading complex (State 

Historic Site 50-30-04-1811). 

74. Comment: The Refuge should initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the State Historic Preservation Office and relevant 

consulting parties. 

Response: Consistent with how the Service has completed CCPs for all refuges, including 

CCPs for other refuges in the Hawaiian Islands, we will initiate the NHPA Section 106 

process with the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division, Native Hawaiian 

Organizations, and other interested parties when we commit funds, with specific plans, to an 

identified project or activity identified in the CCP and subject to Section 106. 

Planning Process

75. Comment: Public outreach and coordination surrounding the draft CCP/EA was inadequate. 

The comment period for the draft CCP/EA should be extended. 

Response: Under Service policy for Comprehensive Conservation Planning (602 FW 3), the 

Service is required to provide a minimum of 30 days for public review of a draft CCP with an 

EA. For the Kilauea Point draft CCP/EA the public was provided 44 days for public review 

and comment. We held public open houses on February 24, 2015, and February 25, 2015, 

which were announced through direct mailings, newspaper articles, radio interviews, and 

website postings. Over 900 individuals and organizations received a planning update via mail 

or e-mail describing the draft CCP/EA and ways to provide comments. Additionally, we

provided a series of briefings at the request of State, county, and local agencies and 

stakeholders. See Appendix I for more information about public involvement throughout the 

CCP process. 

Based on the extent of public opportunity and involvement throughout the planning process 

and the volume and specificity of the comments received, the Service believes that the 

amount of time for the public and other agencies to review and comment on the draft 

CCP/EA was adequate. 

76. Comment: The Refuge should focus on protecting wildlife, not on providing visitor services. 

Response: Kīlauea Point NWR is managed for wildlife conservation and, when compatible, 

public recreation. The CCP focuses on balancing the needs and impacts of both goals. For 

more information on the Federal laws, Executive orders, international treaties, Service 

policies, and Refuge purposes that guide Kīlauea Point NWR management, see Chapter 1; for 

more information on public uses, such as visitor services, determined to be appropriate and 

compatible on the Refuge, see Appendices A and B. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-31

77. Comment: How is “sound professional judgment” defined when applied to the determination 

of compatible Refuge uses? 

Response: “Sound professional judgment” is defined in Service Compatibility policy 603 

FW 2 as “a finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish 

and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence 

to the requirements of applicable laws.” 

78. Comment: The CCP does not consider impacts of Refuge management to kama‘aina who 

may be disproportionately affected. 

Response: While a large majority of Refuge visitation occurs at the Point, 95 percent of that 

visitation is comprised of visitors who do not live in the local area (almost all are visitors to 

Hawai‘i) (Sexton et al. 2012). Although not scientifically sampled, the profile of visitors to 

the Kāhili Quarry area is likely different. Comments received during the draft CCP/EA 

comment period indicated that the majority of visitors to the Quarry are local. 

As evidenced by Goals 4 and 6, we are committed to providing safe and high-quality 

opportunities for recreation, while limiting impacts to wildlife, habitats, and cultural and 

historic resources, Refuge visitors, and kama‘āina of all ages and abilities. Comments we 

received on the draft CCP/EA related to the importance of the Kāhili Quarry area to 

kama‘āina resulted in a reevaluation and subsequent revision of several appropriate use 

findings, compatibility determinations, and management direction (Objective 4.6). These 

changes are detailed in the comment response 46. 

Realty

79. Comment: The Service should acquire lands identified in the Kīlauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2004 (Expansion Act), such as the lower valley of Kīlauea 

Falls and areas along the coastline east of Mōkōlea Point, in order to protect natural and 

cultural resources as well as to allow public use. 

Response: In 2004, Congress passed the Expansion Act which allowed the Secretary of the 

Interior to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, all 

or a portion of approximately 234 acres of land adjacent to the Kīlauea Point NWR. The land 

is to be managed for the protection and recovery of endangered Hawaiian water birds and 

other endangered birds, including nēnē, and the conservation and management of native 

coastal strand, riparian, and aquatic biological diversity. All acquisitions of land or waters 

under the Expansion Act “shall be made in a voluntary manner and not be the result of forced 

takings.” 

The Service has the authority to acquire land or negotiate agreements on behalf of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System only within an approved refuge boundary. Following the 

Expansion Act, a Land Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment were completed by 

the Service in 2007 which expanded the approved Refuge boundary by 202 acres. The 

expanded boundary included the lower valley of Kīlauea Falls as well as some portions of 

coastline east of Mōkōlea Point. To date, no land in the expanded boundary area has been 

acquired by the Refuge. Based on the availability of funds, the Service will continue to 

negotiate with willing sellers to acquire lands within the approved Refuge boundary. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-32 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

80. Comment: The Service needs to clarify the locations and rights associated with the easement 

areas on Crater Hill. 

Response: Tract 12 and easements 12C, 12R, and 12R-1 were donated by Pali Moana 

Corporation (which is now Seacliff Plantation) through the Trust for Public Lands. Seacliff 

Plantation retains the right to use the easement areas for pedestrian and equestrian access 

within the Refuge boundary. The easements are 20 feet wide, with only 10 feet allowed for 

improvements of an unpaved surface. The easements enter the Refuge from a gate at the 

northeast end of Makana Ano Place and continue to the eastern boundary of Tract 12. The 

pedestrian easement, for practical reasons, physically ends at the upper overlook. The Service 

accepts that the existing road (which passes the World War II bunkers) will serve as the 

pedestrian access route through Tract 12 until a mutually agreed upon change to the 

pedestrian easement is made. There is also an exclusive easement for the Seacliff Plantation 

residents for ingress and egress and for picnicking and passive recreational use over and 

across an area within Tract 13a. See Figure K-1 for the location of existing easements. 

According to the deed, Seacliff Plantation, at its expense, may relocate the pedestrian, 

equestrian, and picnicking easements as long as they are relocated in proximity to existing 

easement, relocation would not interfere with the Refuge, and relocation is approved by the 

Service. Relocation of or development within these easements would need to comply with 

applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including but not limited to the Endangered Species 

Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 195D (HRS §195D1-32). 

81. Comment: The Service should use its easement (12R-1) for access to the Nihoku area. 

Response: The Service has a right of “ingress and egress for emergency and maintenance 

purposes only” over portions of Seacliff Plantation’s property. The Refuge currently uses the 

easement to access the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration Project for maintenance purposes. If 

the Refuge were to use these easements for other purposes, such as visitor access, Seacliff 

Plantation and landowners would need to approve the use. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-33 Figure K-1. Easements on Crater Hill, Kīlauea Point NWR. Makapili Rock Crater Hill

MAKANAANO PL

KILAUEA RD

IWALANI LN

PALI MOANA PL

Tract 12

Tract 13a

Tract 14

Tract 11

Tract 10

Easement 12R

Easement 12R-1

Tract 15

Easement 12C

Map Date: 11/25/2015 File: 16-006-3.mxd Data Source: USFWS, 2015

0 500 1,000

feet

Refuge Ownership BoundaryRefuge EasementEquestrian Access EasementPedestrian Access EasementPedestrian Access Easement(Not Precisely Defined)Picnic Area Access Easement

0 100 200

meters

E

USFWS R1 Refuge Information Branch

The refuge boundary and land ownership information depicted on this map was compiled from 1:24000 source data. It reflects the current refuge land status according to documents and information available in the U.S. FWS Division of Realty. It may be incomplete and/or contain errors. (Land Status Maps 2003)
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-34 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

The back sides of maps are blank to improve readability. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-35

Outside of the Scope of the CCP

82. Comment: It is unclear in the draft CCP/EA whether the Service manages Moku‘ae‘ae, 

Makapili, Kīlauea Falls Ranch, or the 5-acre Kaua‘i/Hawai‘i Islands Land Trust adjacent to 

the Refuge. 

Response: The Service does not manage these lands. The CCP only addresses lands that 

have been acquired in fee title, conservation easement, and management agreement as part of 

Kīlauea Point NWR. Both Moku‘ae‘ae and Makapili are under State jurisdiction and are not 

considered inholdings. Kīlauea Falls Ranch and the 5-acre Kaua‘i/Hawai‘i Islands Land Trust 

land adjacent to the Refuge are in private ownership and considered inholdings. 

83. Comment: Kalo is a key component of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health of the Hanalei Valley.

Response: As this CCP applies only to Kīlauea Point NWR, kalo farming at Hanalei NWR is 

considered outside of the scope of this CCP. A concurrent but separate CCP process is 

underway for Hanalei and Hulē‘ia NWRs. The Kauaʻi NRW Complex will continue to 

engage with interested parties regarding kalo farming both within and outside the context of 

the Hanalei and Hulē‘ia NWRs CCP process. 

84. Comment: What are the Service’s plans for Kilauea Point NWR if seabird breeding colonies 

on the islands and atolls of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument are 

threatened by sea level rise?

Response: As sea levels rise over the next century, protected areas on high islands, including 

the Refuge, will become increasingly important for seabirds that currently nest primarily on 

low islands and atolls of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Arata et al. 2009, Young 2010). 

We plan to maintain, enhance, and restore habitats on the Refuge to provide a high-island 

refugium for seabird populations potentially displaced by climate change or other stressors. 

As habitat components are managed and threats are controlled, the Refuge could take on the 

role of passive or assisted restoration and enhancement of seabird populations. However, it is 

beyond the scope of this CCP to specifically address actions regarding seabird breeding areas 

and populations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

85. Comment: Nēnē are causing crop depredation, health hazards, and are a nuisance to 

neighboring off-Refuge lands. The Service should compensate for crop losses, set up 

management agreements with DLNR and private landowners, and provide technical 

assistance, including advice regarding programs with monetary support for fencing and other 

options, to private landowners who provide habitat to endangered birds. Nēnē recovery 

criteria should be on an island-by-island basis.

Response: The CCP acknowledges that nēnē will likely use both the Refuge and nearby offRefuge lands for breeding, foraging, and roosting. However, it is outside of the scope of the 

CCP to evaluate mechanisms for addressing off-Refuge issues (e.g., via Safe Harbor 

Agreements, Habitat Conservation Plans) or for determining recovery criteria. There is an 

ongoing effort between the Service’s Ecological Services office, DLNR DOFAW, and 

private landowners to facilitate the completion of an island-wide Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) addressing the take of endangered nēnē on Kaua‘i. The HCP process will include the 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-36 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

release of National Environmental Policy Act/Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA/HEPA) compliance documents as well as stakeholder/public meetings.

Corrections and Editorial Comments

Corrections and clarifications for improving readability and accuracy were noted by the 

commenters. These factual and/or editorial changes were made in the final CCP.
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses K-37

K.4 References 

Anden Consulting. 2014. Final environmental assessment for the Nihoku Ecosystem Restoration 

Project, Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge. Kaua‘i, HI. 174 pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_1/NWRS/Zone_1/Kauai_Complex/Kilauea_Point/Docum

ents/March%202014%20FONSI%20FEA%20NERP%20complete.pdf 

Arata, J.A., P.R. Sievert, and M.B. Naughton. 2009. Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed 

albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923–2005: US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2009–5131. 

Burney, D.A., H.F. James, L.P. Burney, S.L. Olson, W. Kikuchi, W.L. Wagner, M. Burney, D. 

McCloskey, D. Kikuchi, F.V. Grady, R. Gage II, and R. Nishek. 2001. Fossil evidence for a diverse 

biota from Kaua‘i and its transformation since human arrival. Ecological Monographs 71:615–641. 

Byrd, G.V. and T.C. Telfer. 1984. A cross-fostering experiment with Newell's race of Manx 

Shearwater. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(1). 

Byrd, G.V. and C.F. Zeillemaker. 1981. Seabirds of Kīlauea Point, Kauaʻi, Island, HI. ‘Elepaio 

41:67–70. 

Courtot, K., J. Hatfield, E. Flint, and M. Reynolds. 2014. Scenarios for black-footed albatross colony 

establishment on the main Hawaiian Islands. Island Biology, July 7–11, 2014, Honolulu, HI. 

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT). 2012. Population and 

Economic Projections for the State of Hawaiʻi to 2040. Available at: 

http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/2040-long-range-forecast/2040-long-rangeforecast.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2015. 

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT). 2015. DBEDT forecasts 

(2Q 2015): visitor arrival. Available at: 

http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/visitor/tourismforecast/Forecast_Arrivals.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2015. 

Gagné, W.C. and L.W. Cuddihy. 1990. Vegetation: in Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. 

Sohmer, Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai‘i. University of Hawaiʻi press and Bishop Museum 

Press, Honolulu. Bishop Mus. Spec. Publ. 83:45–114. 

Gummer, H., G. Taylor, and R. Collen. 2014. Best practice techniques for the translocation of 

Chatham petrels (Pterodroma axillaris), Cook’s petrels (P. cookii) and Pycroft’s petrels (P. pycrofti). 

Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.83 p. 

Helmstedt, K.J., H.P. Possingham, K.E.C. Brennan, J.R. Rhodes, and M. Bode. Cost-efficient fenced 

reserves for conservation: single large or two small? Ecological Applications 24(7): 1780–1792. 

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology No. 365:1–59. Washington, D.C. 
Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

K-38 Appendix K. Public Comments and Service Responses

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from 

the Hawaiian islands: Part I. Non-passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 45:1–88. 

Pyle, R.L., and P. Pyle. 2009. The birds of the Hawaiian Islands: occurrence, history, distribution, 

and status. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Version 1 (31 December 2009) 

http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/birds/rlp-monograph/. 

Sawyer, S. 2014. The establishment of novel surface and burrow nesting pelagic seabird colonies in 

New Zealand and Hawai‘i using acoustic attraction and predator fencing. Oral presentation. Island 

Biology, July 7-11, 2014, Honolulu, HI. 

Schroeder, R.L., J. Holler, and J.P. Taylor. 2004. Managing national wildlife refuges for historic or 

nonhistoric conditions: determining the role of the refuge in the ecosystem in managing biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health in the national wildlife refuges. Natural Resources 

Journal 44(4):1041–1066. 
‘A.  ̄ ©Gene McGuire
Adult Ne ̄ne ̄. ©Gene McGuire

Kı ̄lauea Point National Wildlife Refuge

K ̄ılauea Point Lighthouse

State Hwy 56 and Lighthouse Road

’

ea, Kaua i, HI 96754-1128

Phone: 808/828 1413

Fax: 808/ 828 6634

http://www.fws.gov/kilauea_point

National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

May 2016

Front cover: Aerial photo 

of Kı ̄lauea Point Lighthouse 

and surrounding area. 

©Carl Berg, by permission only