Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan - U.S. Fish and Wildlife ...

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Response: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to
ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are
maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The Service’s policy
(601 FW 3) also provides guidance on consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish,
wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges, and associated ecosystems that represent biological
diversity on each refuge. In response to the public comments, we have expanded our discussion of
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health in Chapter 4 of the final CCP. Though the
Refuge was established for the purposes of listed species protection, the establishment language also
incorporates the ecosystems and habitats which support these species. Consequently, additional
species will benefit from this approach. The Service recognizes that biodiversity in an integral part of
the overall health of a functioning ecosystem.
Ungulate Removal:
Commenters both opposed and supported removal of ungulates from the Refuge. Those opposed to
removal felt the animals deserve to be here as part of what the Hawaiians brought; that removal of
ungulates could lead to more grasses and an increase in fire danger; and that it is impossible to
remove all ungulates. Those in support of removing ungulates indicated it is a critical action if native
habitats are to be restored and endangered forest birds and other species are to survive into the future.
Response: Our goal is to restore and protect the native forests within the Refuge, which is in direct
opposition to maintaining ungulates. The final CCP continues to call for the removal of all ungulates
from both Units of the Refuge.
One commenter asked to review evidence that “removal of the larger more aggressive pigs could
result in population increases through ingress by additional pigs that use smaller territories and
reproductive response in the feral pig population.”
Response: Since pigs are capable of rapid population growth, we have added language to clarify
this statement that very high levels of annual removal are required from managed areas to suppress
and retain the pig population to a near zero level.
One commenter asked for a better description of the differences between alternatives, particularly as
it relates to ungulate control; another asked that the Refuge’s Feral Ungulate Management Plan
(FUMP) be included in an appendix since it is referenced throughout the document in multiple
places.
Response: The fencing scheme for Alternative A depicted on Map 6 was developed as part of the
1995 Feral Ungulate Management Plan. Based on a recent review of this scheme, we determined
that it would be more effective to reduce the number of internal fenced units and align the fences
parallel to certain natural elevation contours. This revised fencing scheme is part of the management
regime in Alternatives B (Map 7) and C (Map 8). We have revised the CCP to explain this new
approach to creating internal fenced units to promote ungulate eradication. The CCP has
superseded the FUMP, and we will produce several stepdown management plans (see Appendix C)
that tier from the CCP, including an Inventory and Monitoring Plan that would include ungulate
management. However, any interested party is welcome to obtain a copy of the original FUMP
document from the Refuge upon request.
K-8 Appendix K. Public Involvement