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

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
One commenter supports the use of aerial drops of toxic baits for ungulate control wherever they are
safe for native species, as is being done successfully in New Zealand.
Response: The aerial distribution of toxins is being considered Statewide, and we will continue
working with our conservation partners to evaluate its usefulness in Hawai‘i. We support and
implement the concepts and procedures of Integrated Pest Management (as outlined in Appendix G)
to control or eradicate invasive species on national wildlife refuges.
Fencing:
The internal fencing identified in Alternative B was supported as a good way to manage wild pigs.
One commenter recommended removing feral ungulates immediately after fence installation as they
can cause more damage if trapped in one smaller area.
Response: Our goal is to immediately initiate ungulate removal after a management unit is fenced,
but the schedule will be dictated by the availability of funding. We agree the action of complete
enclosure of a unit should not occur until funding is available for immediate ungulate removal upon
fence completion.
Nēnē Management:
One commenter stated that conflicts with nēnē and forest restoration will occur because the original
Hakalau vegetation was not suitable for nēnē. He asked that we clarify how we plan to transition out
of nēnē management in forested areas and whether expansion of nēnē efforts on adjacent lands above
the Refuge might be possible. Another commenter suggested, to avoid conflict with restoration areas,
moving breeding habitat to lower elevations and/or in areas where restoration is more problematic
within the Refuge. Another person suggested no areas be altered for grasslands.
Response: We agree that originally, no grasslands would have existed at the HFU. However, the
existing grasslands created by years of cattle grazing do provide good habitat for this endangered
species. Within the timeframe of this CCP (15 years), we do not expect complete reforestation of the
HFU to occur. Thus we have chosen to continue to manage portions of this Unit for the recovery of
nēnē and will seek a balance between the needs of various listed species on the Refuge. We will
continue to work with our neighbors and partners to benefit native species, but have no control over
the lands beyond our boundaries.
Two commenters suggested combining the nēnē habitat management proposals in Alternatives B and
C in the final CCP, thus protecting both breeding and foraging sites. Another commenter stated
creation of additional nēnē habitat may lead to increased predation as nēnē densities increase.
Another commenter expressed concern that nēnē develop behavioral problems when around humans
and should not be near structures to avoid habitat imprinting that occurs. She suggested that current
as well as future nesting and foraging areas be moved away from human infrastructure and areas
where human/nēnē interactions would be minimal.
Response: We have chosen to maintain the strategies for nēnē under Alternative B (the selected
alternative) until we can evaluate how much foraging habitat is needed, our capacity to manage it
(through mowing), and research into the predator and human/nēnē interaction and habitat
imprinting issues. Once these issues are more fully understood, we will determine an appropriate
acreage and location for additional nēnē habitat. The final CCP calls for adaptive management as
factors change on the Refuge.
Appendix K. Public Involvement K-9