U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Revised Recovery Plan 

for Hawaiian Forest Birds

Cover photographs (clockwise from upper right): 1. Maui parrotbill, 2. Palila, 3. Captive puaiohi 

with fledglings, 4. O`ahu `elepaio at nest, 5. `Akiapõlã`au, 6. Po`ouli. 1, 4, 5 ©Eric A. VanderWerf, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2, 3 ©Jack Jeffrey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 6 by Paul Baker, 

Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project. All photographs used with permission.

 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds i 

Dedication 

To the naturalists and scientists 

who have contributed to our understanding 

 of the biology and ecology of Hawaiian forest birds. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds ii 

GUIDE TO RECOVERY PLAN ORGANIZATION 

This recovery plan provides individual species accounts and actions 

needed Statewide for the recovery of 21 taxa of forest birds in Hawai`i. The plan 

covers a group of species for which the threats and limiting factors are similar, 

and for which similar actions are needed for recovery. Many of the recovery 

actions apply across the identified recovery areas for each species. In other cases 

the plan identifies specific land parcels where a particular recovery action is 

needed. Section I, the Introduction, provides an overview of the causes for 

decline of the Hawaiian forest birds and the current threats, ongoing conservation 

efforts, and general recovery strategies for the species covered by this plan. The 

Species Accounts in Section II summarize the available information on the 

taxonomy, life history, habitat requirements, current and historical ranges, 

population status, reasons for decline and current threats, and species-specific 

conservation efforts and recovery strategies. Section III, Recovery, presents 

recovery objectives and criteria for each species, maps of the recovery areas 

identified on each of the main Hawaiian Islands where they occur, criteria used to 

delineate the recovery area boundaries, and a description of the steps to be taken 

in the event that an individual of one of the extremely rare species is located. 

Section IV, the Recovery Actions Narrative, lists and briefly describes the actions 

that must be undertaken to recover one or more species, some of which are 

presented in tabular form. Section V, the Implementation Schedule, lists all 

recovery actions in abbreviated form, their priority number and priority tier, the 

action duration, responsible parties, and cost estimate for completion of each 

action. Appendix A is a list of all recovery actions needed for each land parcel 

and is intended to assist landowners and managers in identifying recovery actions 

on their lands. Appendix B describes the captive propagation program 

management and release strategies. Spelling of Hawaiian bird, plant, and place 

names follows The Hawaiian Dictionary by Pukui and Elbert (1986) and Place 

Names of Hawai`i by Pukui et al. (1976). 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds iii 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S MISSION 

IN RECOVERY PLANNING 

Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, directs 

the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to develop and 

implement recovery plans for species of animals and plants listed as endangered 

or threatened, unless such plans will not promote the conservation of the species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries have been delegated the responsibility of 

administering the Endangered Species Act. Recovery is the process by which the 

decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed and threats 

to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be 

ensured. The goal of this process is the maintenance of secure, self-sustaining 

wild populations of species with the minimum necessary investment of resources. 

A recovery plan delineates, justifies, and schedules the research and management 

actions considered necessary to support recovery of a species. Recovery plans do 

not, of themselves, commit personnel or funds, but are used in setting regional 

and national funding priorities and providing direction to local, regional, and 

State planning efforts. Means within the Endangered Species Act to achieve 

recovery goals include the responsibility of all Federal agencies to seek to 

conserve endangered and threatened species, and the Secretary’s ability to 

designate critical habitat, to enter into cooperative agreements with the states, to 

provide financial assistance to the respective State agencies, to acquire land, and 

to develop habitat conservation plans and safe harbor agreements with applicants. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds iv 

DISCLAIMER 

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are determined to be 

necessary for the recovery and/or protection of listed species. Plans are published 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are often prepared with the assistance 

of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be 

attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other 

constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other 

priorities. Costs indicated for action implementation and/or time for achievement 

of recovery are only estimates and are subject to change. Recovery plans do not 

necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any 

individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or 

Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as 

dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and completion of recovery 

actions. 

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL 

Permission to use copyrighted illustrations and images in this recovery 

plan has been granted by the copyright holders in return for payment of a fee or 

commission or other consideration. These illustrations and images are not placed 

in the public domain by their appearance herein. They cannot be copied or 

otherwise reproduced, except in their printed context within this document, 

without the written consent of the copyright holder. 

Literature Citation should read as follows: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian 

Forest Birds. Region 1, Portland, OR. 622 pp. 

Copies of this plan may be obtained from the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service websites: 

 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/index.html 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The primary authors of this plan are the members of the Hawaiian Forest 

Bird Recovery Team, listed below, but the recovery planning process for 

Hawaiian forest birds has benefited from the collaboration, advice, and assistance 

of many additional individuals. We thank Paul Banko for contributing the palila 

species account, Rick Camp and Marcos Gorreson for helping to produce maps of 

recovery areas and species distributions and updated status reports on Hawaiian 

forest birds, Cyndi M. Kuehler for helping to write the captive propagation 

recovery narrative and captive propagation program strategies, and Pauline 

Roberts for updating the puaiohi species account. We also thank the following 

people for their assistance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 

staff italicized), and apologize to anyone who we may have inadvertently omitted 

from this list: Cathleen Bailey, Jamie Bruch, Jeff Burgett, Earl Campbell, Jim 

Groombridge, Paul Henson, Christina Hermann, Paul Jansen, Scott Johnston, 

Carl Jones, David Ledig, Greg Massey, Mark Metevier, Patrick Morris, Michelle 

Reynolds, Bruce Rideout, Karen Rosa, Craig Rowland, Ron Salz, Carol Schuler, 

Tom Snetsinger, Valerie Stein, Kirsty Swinnerton, Carol Terry, and Thierry 

Work. 

We also thank the following agencies and organizations for their 

assistance: the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife and Natural Area Reserve System; Kamehameha Schools; 

the University of Hawai`i; U.S. Army Garrison, Pōhakuloa Training Area; U.S. 

Army Garrison, Schofield Barracks; the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Discipline; the Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (cooperative of the 

University of Hawai`i, National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey); The 

Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i; the Hawai`i Conservation Alliance; the 

Zoological Society of San Diego; and The Peregrine Fund. 

Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team Members: 

Dr. Carter T. Atkinson, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Discipline, Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center, Kīlauea Field 

Station, P.O. Box 44, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

Tonnie L. C. Casey, P.O. Box 35, Hawai`i National Park, HI 96718 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds vi 

Paul J. Conry, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife, P.O. Box 4849, 1151 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, 

HI 96813 

Dr. Fern P. Duvall, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division 

of Forestry and Wildlife, 54 South High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 

Dr. Steven G. Fancy, National Park Service, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200, 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

Dr. J. Scott Fretz, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division 

of Forestry and Wildlife, P.O. Box 4849, 1151 Punchbowl Street, 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Dr. Leonard A. Freed, Department of Zoology, University of Hawai`i, 2538 The 

Mall, Edmondson 152, Honolulu, HI 96822 

Jon G. Giffin (retired), Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, 19 East Kāwili Street, Hilo, HI 96720 

Dr. James D. Jacobi, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, 

Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center, Kīlauea Field Station, P.O. 

Box 44, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

John J. Jeffrey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge, 32 Kino`ole Street, Suite 101, Hilo, HI 96720 

Alan Lieberman, Zoological Society of San Diego, Hawaiian Endangered Bird 

Conservation Program, P.O. Box 39, Volcano, HI 96785 

Jay T. Nelson (Service team liaison), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific 

Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, 

Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850 

Dr. Thane K. Pratt, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, 

Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center, Kīlauea Field Station, P.O. 

Box 44, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

Dr. J. Michael Scott, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, College 

of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Science Research, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID 83843 

Dr. Thomas Smith, Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 

Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 

Thomas Telfer (retired), Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, 3060 Eiwa Street, Room 306, Līhu`e, 

HI 96766 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds vii 

Dr. Eric A. VanderWerf (current team leader), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 

3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850 

Dr. Bethany L. Woodworth, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Discipline, Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center, Kīlauea Field 

Station, P.O. Box 44, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

Marilet A. Zablan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, 

Honolulu, HI 96850

Other Contributors: 

Dr. Paul C. Banko (palila species account), U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Discipline, Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center, Kīlauea 

Field Station, P.O. Box 44, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

Richard J. Camp (monitoring recovery action narrative and species distribution 

maps), U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Pacific 

Islands Ecosystem Research Center, Kīlauea Field Station, P.O. Box 44, 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

Marcos Gorreson (recovery area and species distribution maps), U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Pacific Islands Ecosystem 

Research Center, Kīlauea Field Station, P.O. Box 44, Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park, HI 96718 

Cyndi M. Kuehler (captive propagation recovery action narrative and captive 

propagation program strategies), 4320 Los Vecinos, Fallbrook, CA 92028
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds viii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction: This recovery plan covers 21 taxa of forest birds that occur 

in the main Hawaiian Islands: 19 are listed as endangered, 1 is a candidate for 

listing, and 1 is a species of concern. Ten of the listed taxa have not been 

observed reliably in more than 10 years and may possibly be extinct, but 

additional survey effort is needed to confirm their status, including the Maui 

nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus affinis); Kaua`i nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus 

hanapepe); Kaua`i `akialoa (Hemignathus procerus); `ō`ō `ā`ā or Kaua`i `ō`ō

(Moho braccatus); oloma`o or Moloka`i thrush (Myadestes lanaiensis rutha); 

kāma`o or large Kaua`i thrush (Myadestes myadestinus); kākāwahie or Moloka`i 

creeper (Paroreomyza flammea); O`ahu `alauahio or O`ahu creeper (Paroreomyza 

maculata); Maui `ākepa (Loxops coccineus ochraceus); and `ō`ū (Psittirostra 

psittacea). One species, the po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma), is critically 

endangered, and may have become extinct since the draft of this plan was written, 

at which time three known individuals remained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2003a). One po`ouli was taken into captivity but died of old age in November 

2004, before a mate could be obtained. The last two known individuals have not 

been seen since. Two other listed species, the puaiohi or small Kaua`i thrush 

(Myadestes palmeri) and the Maui parrotbill (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), number 

approximately 300 and 500 individuals, respectively. Other listed species, 

including the `akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi), palila (Loxioides bailleui), 

`ākohekohe or crested honeycreeper (Palmeria dolei), O`ahu `elepaio 

(Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis), Hawai`i `ākepa (Loxops coccineus coccineus), 

and Hawai`i creeper (Oreomystis mana), have populations estimated between 

approximately 1,000 (`akiapōlā`au) and 8,000 to 12,000 individuals (Hawai`i 

`ākepa and Hawai`i creeper). The species of concern included in this plan, the 

Bishop’s `ō`ō (Moho bishopi), has not been observed reliably since 1904 and is 

probably extinct. The candidate species, the `akikiki or Kaua`i creeper 

(Oreomystis bairdi), has an estimated population of 1,500 individuals and is 

declining rapidly. 

Most of the species covered in this plan are now found only in upper 

elevation rain forests above 1,200 meters (4,000 feet) on the islands of Hawai`i, 

Maui, and Kaua`i. Two exceptions are the palila, which is limited to dry upland 

forests on Mauna Kea volcano on Hawai`i, and the O`ahu `elepaio, which occurs 

in native and nonnative forests on O`ahu at elevations as low as 100 meters (330 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds ix 

feet). Subfossil records and observations by early naturalists in the Hawaiian 

Islands indicate that most of the species once had much larger distributions and 

occurred at lower elevations. 

Previous Recovery Plans: Previous recovery efforts for Hawaiian forest 

birds have been guided by earlier recovery plans, including plans for Hawai`i 

forest birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a), Kaua`i forest birds (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1983b), Maui-Moloka`i forest birds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1984a), and a separate plan for the palila (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1986). This is the first recovery plan that covers the O`ahu `elepaio, which was 

listed in 2000, and the O`ahu `alauahio or O`ahu creeper, listed in 1970 (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1970, 2000). The `io or Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) 

and the `alalā or Hawaiian crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) have their own recovery 

plans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984b, 2003b). Many of the recovery 

recommendations in this plan, including forest protection, forest restoration, 

predator control, fencing and removal of feral ungulates, and the control of avian 

disease, will also benefit the `alalā and `io, which utilize many of the same habitat 

areas on the island of Hawai`i as some of the forest birds on Hawai`i described in 

this plan. 

Five Categories of Threats to Species Recovery: As directed by section 

4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, we consider five factors or categories of 

threats to list, delist, or reclassify a taxon. These five factors are: A) The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; B) 

Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

C) Disease or predation; D) Inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of a 

species. The recovery actions recommended in this recovery plan address these 

threats in order to achieve recovery objectives. 

 

The primary threats to Hawaiian forest birds are: habitat loss and 

degradation due to agriculture, urbanization, cattle grazing, browsing by feral 

ungulate species, timber harvesting, and invasion of nonnative plant species into 

native-dominated plant communities; predation by alien mammals; and diseases 

carried by alien mosquitoes. The periodic die-back of native plant species due to 

natural or alien-species-induced processes is a threat in some areas. The majority 

of recovery actions therefore address threats to habitat (factor A) and disease and 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds x 

predation (factor C). The direct overutilization of Hawaiian forest birds for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (factor B) and the 

inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms (factor D) are not considered 

significant current threats. Several Hawaiian forest birds now occur in such low 

numbers and in such restricted ranges that they are threatened by natural 

processes, such as inbreeding depression and demographic stochasticity, and by 

natural and manmade factors such as hurricanes, wildfires, and periodic 

vegetation die-back (factor E). Impacts of alien birds are not well understood 

(factor E), but include aggressive behavior towards native bird species, possible 

competition for food, nest sites, and roosting sites, and possibly supporting 

elevated predator population levels. 

Recovery Objectives: The primary recovery objectives for each species 

(taxon) are to: 

1. Restore populations to levels that allow the taxon to persist despite 

demographic and environmental stochasticity and that are large enough to 

allow natural demographic and evolutionary processes to occur; 

2. Protect enough habitat to support these population levels; and 

3. Identify and remove the threats responsible for its decline. 

Recovery Criteria: Recovery criteria were developed for each taxon to 

guide recovery efforts and ensure that all their recovery needs are addressed. The 

criteria are similar for all species because they face similar threats and many of 

them occur in the same geographic areas, but the first criterion in particular was 

adapted for each species and reflects the unique characteristics of the ecology, 

conservation needs, and current and historical distribution of each species. 

A taxon may be downlisted from endangered to threatened when all four 

of the following criteria have been met, as well as any species-specific criteria 

listed in Table 6 (Section III, Recovery Criteria): 

1. The species occurs in two or more viable populations or a viable 

metapopulation (as described in Table 6; viable as defined in criterion 2) 

that represent the ecological, morphological, behavioral, and genetic 

diversity of the species. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xi 

2. Viability of the populations is demonstrated through either a) quantitative 

surveys show that the number of individuals in each isolated population or 

in the metapopulation has been stable or increasing for 15 consecutive 

years, or b) demographic monitoring shows that each population or the 

metapopulation exhibits an average growth rate (lambda, λ) not less than 

1.0 over a period of at least 15 consecutive years; and total population size 

is not expected to decline by more than 20 percent within the next 15 

consecutive years for any reason. 

3. Sufficient habitat in recovery areas (described in Section III-C) is 

protected and managed to achieve criteria 1 and 2 above. 

4. The threats that were responsible for the decline of the species have been 

identified and controlled. 

A taxon may be delisted when all four of the criteria above have been met 

for a 30-year period, as well as any species-specific criteria listed in Table 6. 

Recovery Areas: To better address the recovery needs of endangered 

Hawaiian forest birds, recovery areas have been identified to emphasize where 

recovery efforts should be focused. Recovery areas in this plan are defined as 

those areas that will allow for the long-term survival and recovery of endangered 

Hawaiian forest birds. The identification of recovery areas is the result of an 

evaluation of habitat that is potentially important for the recovery of Hawaiian 

forest birds from a biological standpoint only. Recovery areas are intended to 

help guide recovery efforts to emphasize those areas with the greatest potential to 

achieve recovery, and convey no legal obligation on the part of any entity to 

manage lands that they own or have management responsibility over for the 

recovery of Hawaiian forest birds. The foremost consideration in identifying 

recovery areas for the majority of endangered Hawaiian forest birds is existing 

habitat and restorable habitat at higher elevations, because the cooler 

temperatures at these elevations are less suitable for the parasite that causes avian 

malaria and the introduced mosquito that is the primary vector of malaria and pox 

virus. Recovery areas in most cases encompass existing endangered forest bird 

populations, as well as habitat areas from which these species have disappeared in 

the recent past, but which still provide or could provide the conditions and 

resources necessary to support populations of endangered forest bird species. The 

elevational boundaries of recovery areas were based on the need to include areas 

that lie above the mosquito zone and within elevations that can be expected to 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xii 

support suitable forest habitat. An effort was made to incorporate naturally 

occurring habitat heterogeneity that can shape local adaptation and that is 

consistent with the conditions under which particular species evolved and that 

likely are needed for recovery and to maintain demographic and population 

stability. 

Recovery Actions: Recovery actions include measures to protect core 

habitat and restore degraded habitat, as well as actions to address threats, such as 

introduced ungulates, predators, and disease. For some species sufficient habitat 

for recovery is still available, but in most cases management is needed to restore 

degraded areas in order to provide sufficient suitable habitat for species recovery. 

Management emphasis differs somewhat among species because they are affected 

differently and to varying degrees by a complex set of limiting factors. Key to 

management for most species will be: control of feral ungulates that degrade 

forest habitat by promoting the spread of introduced plant species and creating 

breeding sites for disease-carrying mosquitoes; control of introduced rodents, 

mongooses, and feral cats that prey on nests and adults; control of invasive plant 

species; and reductions in disease prevalence. Habitat management and 

restoration will encourage the natural expansion of existing bird populations into 

unoccupied habitat; however, the establishment of new populations using various 

translocation and/or captive propagation techniques likely will be needed in some 

cases to accelerate population expansion and to establish new populations in 

disjunct suitable habitat. 

Monitoring and Research Program: Population monitoring and 

research are essential for recovery in order to assess population status and trends, 

determine the nature and importance of threats, evaluate the effectiveness of 

management actions, and to evaluate the potential reclassification of a taxon. 

Systematic surveys of all recovery areas will be required at least once every 5 

years, with more frequent monitoring in core areas, to determine changes in 

distribution and population size. Systematic searches will be required to 

determine with greater confidence the status of the rarest species that have not 

been sighted in recent years. Research on habitat carrying capacity, limiting 

factors, response to management actions, improved management methods, and in 

some cases general species biology are also needed to achieve recovery. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xiii 

Estimated Date of Recovery: Because of the minimum time periods 

prescribed under the recovery criteria, the earliest date by which most species 

covered under this plan could be expected to have recovered is 30 years from the 

date of publication, or 2036. The recovery objectives and recovery criteria are 

defined in terms of maintaining stable or increasing populations that represent the 

ecological, morphological, behavioral, and genetic diversity of the species, and 

the time required to reach these conditions will depend on the effectiveness of 

management strategies designed to control threats and the response of species’ 

populations. It is possible that a few species with larger current populations, 

wider distributions, and less degraded habitat may recover more rapidly. 

Recovery of other species, such as the po`ouli and species that have not been seen 

in recent years, will require substantial habitat restoration and large population 

increases. 

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery: The total estimated cost of recovery 

is $2,477,395,000 over the minimum of 30 years it will take to recover the species 

covered in this plan. Although the total cost for recovery may seem high, it 

should be remembered that this plan covers 21 taxa of birds and costs are for a 

30-year period. This figure could be substantially reduced by the development of 

more cost-effective methods to address threats, particularly control of predators 

and feral ungulates. In addition, as mentioned above, many of the recovery 

actions recommended in this plan will benefit other listed species as well, such as 

the `io and `alal~. Certain costs, such as for some research actions and public 

information sharing, have yet to be determined. A detailed cost breakdown with 

expected annual costs for the first 4 years of recovery implementation is provided 

in the Implementation Schedule (Table 19). 

Recovery actions are ranked according to priority, from 1 (highest) to 3 

(lowest). Highest priority recovery actions should be implemented first, and in 

most cases are the most cost-effective and provide maximum recovery benefit. 

The total cost for recovery is broken down by priority number as follows: 

Priority 1 actions: $1,183,300,000 

Those actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the 

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xiv 

Priority 2 actions: $1,191,645,000 

Those actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species 

population or habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact 

short of extinction. 

Priority 3 actions: $102,450,000 

All other actions necessary to meet recovery objectives. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xv 

 Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................viii

I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1-1 

A. Overview.................................................................................................. 1-1 

B. Recovery Planning for Hawaiian Forest Birds ........................................1-9 

C. Implementation Participants .................................................................. 1-10

II. SPECIES ACCOUNTS ............................................................................... 2-1 

1. O`ahu `Elepaio, Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis....................................2-2 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................... 2-2 

Life History........................................................................................2-3 

Habitat Description............................................................................2-5 

Historical And Current Range And Status.........................................2-6 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-10 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-13 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-14 

2. Kāma`o, Myadestes myadestinus............................................................. 2-19 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-19 

Life History......................................................................................2-19 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-20 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-20 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-22 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-24 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-25 

3. Oloma`o, Myadestes lanaiensis rutha...................................................... 2-26 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-26 

Life History......................................................................................2-26 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-27 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-28

Reasons for Decline and Current Threats........................................2-28 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-30 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-30 

4. Puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri..................................................................... 2-31 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-31 

Life History......................................................................................2-31 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-34 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-35 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-37 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xvi 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-40 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-45

5. Kaua`i `Ō`ō, Moho braccatus.................................................................. 2-47 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-47 

Life History......................................................................................2-47 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-48 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-48 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-49 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-50 

6. `Ō`ū, Psittirostra psittacea........................................................................ 2-51 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-51 

Life History......................................................................................2-51 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-52 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-52 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-54 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-55 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-56 

7. Palila, Loxioides bailleui .......................................................................... 2-57 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-57 

Life History......................................................................................2-57 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-60 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-61 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-64 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-67 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-71 

8. Maui Parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys........................................... 2-77

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-77 

Life History......................................................................................2-77 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-79 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-79

Reasons for Decline and Current Threats........................................2-81

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-82 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-83 

9. Kaua`i `Akialoa, Hemignathus procerus................................................ 2-86 

Description and Taxonomy.............................................................. 2-86 

Life History......................................................................................2-86 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-86 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xvii 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-87 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-87 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-87 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-88 

10. Kaua`i Nukupu`u, Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe.............................2-89 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-89 

Life History......................................................................................2-89 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-90 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-90 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-90 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-90 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-91 

11. Maui Nukupu`u, Hemignathus lucidus affinis..................................... 2-92 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-92 

Life History......................................................................................2-92 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-93 

Historical And Current Range And Status.......................................2-93 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats......................................2-95 

Conservation Efforts ........................................................................2-95 

Recovery Strategy............................................................................2-95 

12. `Akiapōlā`au, Hemignathus munroi ..................................................... 2-96 

Description And Taxonomy............................................................. 2-96 

Life History......................................................................................2-96 

Habitat Description..........................................................................2-99 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-100

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-113 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-103 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-104 

13. Hawai`i Creeper, Oreomystis mana .................................................... 2-108 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-108 

Life History....................................................................................2-108 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-111 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-113 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-113 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-114 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-115 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xviii 

14. O`ahu `Alauahio (O`ahu Creeper), Paroreomyza maculata.............2-116 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-116 

Life History....................................................................................2-117 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-117 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-118 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-120 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-120 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-121 

15. Kākāwahie (Moloka`i Creeper), Paroreomyza flammea...................2-122

Description and Taxonomy............................................................ 2-122 

Life History....................................................................................2-122 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-122 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-123 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-123 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-123 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-123 

16. Hawai`i `Ākepa, Loxops coccineus coccineus.................................... 2-124 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-124 

Life History....................................................................................2-125 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-127 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-128 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-128 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-130 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-132 

17. Maui `Ākepa, Loxops coccineus ochraceus........................................ 2-134 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-134 

Life History....................................................................................2-134 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-135 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-135 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-136 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-137 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-137 

18. `Ākohekohe (Crested Honeycreeper), Palmeria dolei.......................2-138 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-138 

Life History....................................................................................2-138 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-139 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-140
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xix 

Reasons for Decline and Current Threats......................................2-142

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-142 

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-143 

19. Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma ..................................................... 2-144

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-144 

Life History....................................................................................2-144 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-146 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-146

Reasons for Decline and Current Threats .....................................2-148 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-148

Recovery Strategy..........................................................................2-149 

20. `Akikiki (Kaua`i Creeper), Oreomystis bairdi ................................... 2-155 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-155 

Life History....................................................................................2-156 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-157 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-158 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-158 

Species-Specific Conservation Efforts ..........................................2-162 

Habitat-Wide Conservation Efforts ............................................... 2-162 

Conservation Strategy....................................................................2-164 

21. Bishop’s `Ō`ō, Moho bishopi ............................................................... 2-166 

Description And Taxonomy........................................................... 2-166 

Life History....................................................................................2-166 

Habitat Description........................................................................2-166 

Historical And Current Range And Status.....................................2-167 

Reasons For Decline And Current Threats....................................2-167 

Conservation Efforts ......................................................................2-167 

Conservation Strategy....................................................................2-167 

III. RECOVERY............................................................................................... 3-1 

A. Recovery Goal and Objectives...................................................................3-1 

B. Recovery Criteria .......................................................................................3-2 

C. Recovery Areas ..........................................................................................3-7 

1. Guidelines for Establishing Recovery Area Boundaries ..............3-7

2. Hawai`i Recovery Areas...............................................................3-9

3. Maui Nui Recovery Areas ..........................................................3-11

4. L~na`i and Kaho`olawe...............................................................3-14

5. O`ahu Recovery Areas................................................................3-14
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xx 

6. Kaua`i Recovery Areas...............................................................3-15 

D. Rare Bird Discovery Protocol..................................................................3-17 

IV. RECOVERY ACTIONS ............................................................................ 4-1 

A. Step-down Outline of Recovery Actions ...................................................4-2 

B. Recovery Actions Narrative.....................................................................4-10 

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .......................................................... 5-1 

1. Definition of Action Priorities. ...............................................................5-2 

2. Threat Categories....................................................................................5-2 

3. Definitions of Action Durations. ............................................................5-3 

4. Responsible Parties for Action Implementation. .................................... 5-3 

5. Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions. .................................................... 5-4 

6. Key to Acronyms and Responsible Parties............................................. 5-7 

VI. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 6-1 

A. References Cited ........................................................................................6-1 

B. Personal Communications and Personal Observations ............................ 6-34 

VII. APPENDICES........................................................................................... 7-1 

A. Land Parcels in Recovery Areas and Recovery Actions 

by Parcel ..............................................................................................7-1

B. Captive Propagation Program Strategies................................................. 7-19

C. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Priority Guidelines .......7-27

D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Listing Priority System.......................... 7-28

E. Summary of Comments Received on the Draft Revised 

Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds .........................................7-29 

F. O`ahu `Elepaio Five-Year Recovery Work Plan..................................... 7-43

G. Puaiohi Five-Year Recovery Work Plan................................................. 7-47 

H. Palila Five-Year Recovery Work Plan.................................................... 7-52 

I. Maui Parrotbill Five-Year Recovery Work Plan..................................... 7-56 

J. `AkiapÇl~`au Five-Year Recovery Work Plan ......................................... 7-60 

K. Po`ouli Five-Year Recovery Work Plan .................................................. 7-63 

L. `Akohekohe Five-Year Recovery Work Plan........................................... 7-68 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xxi 

TABLES 

Table 1. Federally listed endangered species of Hawaiian forest birds........ 1-2 

Table 2. Candidate species and species of concern included in this 

 recovery plan................................................................................... 1-3 

Table 3. Gazetteer of place names used in this plan and identified in Figures 2 

through 5 ....................................................................................... 1-11 

Table 4. Estimated size and area of O`ahu `elepaio populations.................. 2-9 

Table 5. Recovery area and potential O`ahu `elepaio populations ............. 2-16 

Table 6. Additional species-specific recovery criteria for some 

 Hawaiian forest birds ...................................................................... 3-5 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery area in need of protection.............................. 4-14 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation ............................. 4-29 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery area needing fencing and ungulate 

 control ........................................................................................... 4-36 

Table 10. Alien plant taxa known or suspected to threaten forest 

 bird recovery area on the main Hawaiian Islands......................... 4-50 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery area where predator control is needed........... 4-54 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed ................................... 4-70 

Table 13. Captive propagation program strategies and priorities................. 4-87 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species.................................... 4-113 

Table 15. Recovery area requiring avian monitoring surveys more 

 frequently than every 5 years...................................................... 4-120 

Table 16. Sites where interpretive information is needed........................... 4-122 

Table 17. Sites where increased access and interpretation are needed....... 4-124 

Table 18. Sites where visitor centers, displays, and interpretive 

 programs are needed ................................................................... 4-125 

Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Hawaiian Forest Birds 

 Recovery Plan ................................................................................. 5-9 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds xxii 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. The main Hawaiian Islands and major cities ................................1-14 

Figure 2. Land parcels on the island of Hawai`i that are referred to in this 

recovery plan.................................................................................1-15 

Figure 3. Land parcels on the islands of Maui and Moloka`i that are referred to 

in this recovery plan...................................................................... 1-16 

Figure 4. Land parcels on the island of O`ahu that are referred to in this 

recovery plan.................................................................................1-17 

Figure 5. Land parcels on the island of Kaua`i that are referred to in this 

recovery plan.................................................................................1-18 

Figure 6. O`ahu `elepaio distribution and recovery area................................2-7 

Figure 7. Kaua`i `akialoa, Kaua`i nukupu`u, Kaua`i `ō`ō, and kāma`o 

distribution....................................................................................2-21 

Figure 8. Bishop’s `ō`ō, `oloma`o, and kākāwahie distribution...................2-29 

Figure 9. Puaiohi distribution and recovery area .........................................2-36 

Figure 10. `Ō`ū distribution ...........................................................................2-53 

Figure 11. Palila distribution and recovery area ............................................2-62 

Figure 12. Population trends of palila ............................................................ 2-63 

Figure 13. Maui parrotbill distribution and recovery area .............................2-80 

Figure 14. Po`ouli, Maui nukupu`u, and Maui `ākepa distribution ...............2-94 

Figure 15. `Akiapōlā`au distribution and recovery area ..............................2-101 

Figure 16. Hawai`i creeper distribution and recovery area..........................2-112 

Figure 17. O`ahu `alauahio distribution .......................................................2-119 

Figure 18. Hawai`i `ākepa distribution and recovery area...........................2-129 

Figure 19. `Ākohekohe distribution and recovery area................................2-141 

Figure 20. Location of po`ouli home ranges in Hanawī Natural 

 Area Reserve............................................................................... 2-147 

Figure 21. `Akikiki distribution and recovery area......................................2-159 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Overview 

Recovery of the endangered forest birds of the Hawaiian Islands is a 

massive operation in terms of the number of species and the diversity and extent 

of threats. Over two-thirds of the remaining forest birds in Hawai`i are federally 

listed under the Endangered Species Act, so the recovery is directed at essentially 

an entire avifauna. Each of the main islands, Kaua`i, O`ahu, Maui Nui (Maui, 

Moloka`i, Lāna`i, and Kaho`olawe), and Hawai`i, is involved. No other area of 

the United States has experienced so many avian extinctions or as large an influx 

of introduced species that include competitors, predators, vectors of infectious 

disease, and pathogens (see reviews in Scott et al. 1986, van Riper and Scott 

2001). Some plant species introduced to the Hawaiian Islands have the potential 

to permanently alter the ecosystems in which endangered birds exist. 

This recovery plan includes species from four families of birds (Tables 1 

and 2). The majority (15 species) are Hawaiian honeycreepers (family 

Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae), and include the `ō`ū (Psittirostra 

psittacea), palila (Loxioides bailleui), Maui parrotbill (Pseudonestor 

xanthophrys), Kaua`i `akialoa (Hemignathus procerus), Kaua`i nukupu`u 

(Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe), Maui nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus affinis), 

`akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi), Hawai`i creeper (Oreomystis mana), O`ahu 

`alauahio or O`ahu creeper (Paroreomyza maculata), kākāwahie or Moloka`i 

creeper (Paroreomyza flammea), Hawai`i `ākepa (Loxops coccineus coccineus), 

Maui `ākepa (Loxops coccineus ochraceus), `ākohekohe or crested honeycreeper 

(Palmeria dolei), and po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma). All are federally 

listed as endangered. The `akikiki or Kaua`i creeper (Oreomystis bairdi) is a 

candidate for listing. 

Evolutionary biologists consider the Hawaiian honeycreepers to be a 

premiere avian example of adaptive radiation within an island chain (Freed et al.

1987). The Hawaiian Islands formed in chronological sequence as the Pacific 

plate moved over a volcanic hot spot in the earth’s crust, providing a series of 

new land masses, new habitats, and opportunities for “stepping-stone” 

colonization by birds (Fleischer and MacIntosh 2001). The number of listed 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-2 

Table 1. Federally listed endangered species of Hawaiian forest birds addressed 

in this recovery plan, their estimated population size or date last 

observed, listing date, Federal recovery priority number, and 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature species status 

(IUCN 1994). Federal guidelines for determining recovery priority 

numbers are in Appendix C. 

Table 1 

Species (common name, 

scientific name, 

acronym) 

Estimated 

number or last 

observation 

Federal Listing Date and 

Reference; State Listing 

Date 

Federal Status; 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number 

IUCN Status 

O`ahu `elepaio, 

Chasiempis 

sandwichensis ibidis, 

OAEL 

1,980 18 April 2000 (USFWS 

2000); 18 April 2000 

Endangered; 

3 

Vulnerable 

Kāma`o (large Kaua`i 

thrush), Myadestes 

myadestinus, KAMO 

Last detected 

in 1989 

13 October 1970 

(USFWS 1970, 1980, 

1992); 22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Critically 

Endangered 

Oloma`o (Moloka`i 

thrush), Myadestes 

lanaiensis rutha, OLOM 

Last detected 

in 1988 

13 October 1970 

(USFWS 1970, 1980, 

1992); 22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Critically 

Endangered 

Puaiohi (small Kaua`i 

thrush), Myadestes 

palmeri, PUAI 

300 11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980, 1992); 22 

March 1982 

Endangered; 

2 

Critically 

Endangered 

`Ō`ō `ā`ā (Kaua`i `ō`ō), 

Moho braccatus, OO 

Last detected 

in 1987 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980); 22 March 

1982 

Endangered; 

4 

Extinct 

`Ō`ū, Psittirostra 

psittacea, OU 

Last detected 

in 1989 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980); 22 March 

1982 

Endangered; 

4 

Critically 

Endangered 

Palila, Loxioides 

bailleui, PALI 

3,390 

(16-year 

average) 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980); 22 March 

1982 

Endangered; 

1 

Endangered 

Maui parrotbill, 

Pseudonestor 

xanthophrys, MAPA 

500 11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980); 22 March 

1982 

Endangered; 

1 

Vulnerable 

Kaua`i `akialoa, 

Hemignathus procerus, 

KAAK 

Last detected 

in late 1960s 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980); 22 March 

1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Extinct 

Kaua`i nukupu`u, 

Hemignathus lucidus 

hanapepe, KANU 

Last confirmed 

detection in 

1987 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1970, 1980); 22 

March 1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Critically 

Endangered 

Maui nukupu`u, 

Hemignathus lucidus 

affinis, MANU 

Last detected 

in 1996 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1970, 1980); 22 

March 1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Critically 

Endangered 

`Akiapōlā`au, 

Hemignathus munroi, 

AKIP 

1,163 11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980, 1992); 22 

March 1982 

Endangered; 

2 

Endangered 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-3 

Table 1 

Species (common name, 

scientific name, 

acronym) 

Estimated 

number or last 

observation 

Federal Listing Date and 

Reference; State Listing 

Date 

Federal Status; 

Recovery 

Priority 

Number 

IUCN Status 

Hawai`i creeper, 

Oreomystis mana, 

HCRE 

12,500 25 September 1975 

(USFWS 1975, 1980, 

1992); 22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

8 

Endangered 

O`ahu `alauahio (O`ahu 

creeper), Paroreomyza 

maculata, OAAL 

Last confirmed 

detection in 

1985 

13 October 1970 

(USFWS 1970, 1980, 

1992); 22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Critically 

Endangered 

Kākāwahie (Moloka`i 

creeper), Paroreomyza 

flammea, MOCR 

Last detected 

in 1963 

13 October 1970 

(USFWS 1970, 1992); 

22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

5 

Extinct 

Hawai`i `ākepa, Loxops 

coccineus coccineus, 

AKEP 

14,000 13 October 1970 

(USFWS 1970, 1992); 

22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

8 

Endangered 

Maui `ākepa, Loxops 

coccineus ochraceus, 

MAAK 

Last confirmed 

detection in 

1970 

13 October 1970 

(USFWS 1970, 1992); 

22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

6 

Endangered 

`Ākohekohe (crested 

honeycreeper), Palmeria 

dolei, AKOH 

3,800 11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967); 22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

7 

Vulnerable 

Po`ouli, Melamprosops 

phaeosoma, POOU 

Last 2 known 

birds not seen 

since 2004 

25 September 1975 

(USFWS 1975, 1992); 

22 March 1982 

Endangered; 

4 

Critically 

Endangered 

Table 2. Candidate species and species of concern addressed in this recovery 

plan, their estimated population size or date last observed, Federal 

listing priority number, and International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature species status (IUCN 1994). Guidelines for determining listing 

priority numbers are in Appendix D. 

Table 2 

Species (common name, 

scientific name, 

acronym) 

Estimated 

number or last 

observation 

Federal Conservation 

Status 

USFWS 

Listing Priority 

Number 

IUCN Status 

Kaua`i creeper, 

Oreomystis bairdi, 

KACR 

1,472 Candidate species 

(USFWS 2005) 

2 Endangered 

Bishop’s `ō`ō, Moho 

bishopi, BIOO 

Last detected 

in 1904 Species of concern N/A Endangered 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-4 

Hawaiian forest birds is large because adaptive radiation produced many 

specialized and closely related taxa endemic to different islands. Endangered 

honeycreepers include granivorous, frugivorous, insectivorous, and nectarivorous 

taxa, so no part of the adaptive radiation has escaped endangerment. 

The other forest birds covered in this plan include a monarch flycatcher 

(family Monarchidae), the O`ahu `elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis); two 

honeyeaters (family Meliphagidae), the Kaua`i `Ç`Ç (Moho braccatus) and 

Bishop’s `Ç`Ç (Moho bishopi); and three solitaires or thrushes (family Turdidae), 

the k~ma`o or large Kaua`i thrush (Myadestes myadestinus), the oloma`o or 

Moloka`i thrush (Myadestes lanaiensis rutha), and the puaiohi or small Kaua`i 

thrush (Myadestes palmeri). All are federally listed as endangered, with the 

exception of Bishop’s `Ç`Ç, which was a species of concern, but is now most 

likely extinct. 

The isolation of the Hawaiian Islands has contributed both to the 

endemism of the forest birds and to their potential for endangerment. The main 

islands are 4,000 kilometers (2,500 miles) from the nearest continent. 

Colonization by natural processes therefore has been rare, and the few successful 

cases have resulted in isolation from the continental source population. This 

alone would have resulted in genetic divergence through neutral evolutionary 

processes such as drift. However, natural selection from features of the Hawaiian 

environment has shaped adaptive divergence from the sources. All of the forest 

birds in this recovery plan are endemic to Hawai`i at the level of species, genus, 

or even subfamily in the case of the honeycreepers. Divergence of populations on 

different islands reflects a similar process of colonization, isolation, time, and 

selection. As a result, many of the birds in this recovery plan are endemic to a 

single island. 

The high level of endemism resulting from isolation means that the 

various sources of natural selection that have shaped the morphology, behavior, 

and life history of these birds vary locally: the species have evolved both in 

relation to each other and to the resources available in Hawaiian forests (Freed 

1999). Many Hawaiian forest birds have unique and often spectacular 

morphological and behavioral specializations for obtaining food that have been 

shaped by interspecific competition and resource partitioning. Moreover, the 

specialized nature of many species makes them vulnerable to habitat alteration, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-5 

resulting in lower population density in degraded forests (VanderWerf 2004) and 

limiting their ability to respond adaptively to novel resources available in 

introduced forests. 

Evolution in isolation also resulted in increased susceptibility to 

introduced organisms. Prior to the arrival of humans, no mammalian predators of 

adult birds, eggs, or nestlings ever existed in Hawai`i, and alien mammals such as 

rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis catus), and the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes 

auropunctatus) have severely impacted populations of native forest birds 

(Atkinson 1977, Scott et al. 1986, VanderWerf and Smith 2002). An adaptive 

response by Hawaiian birds to the novel selection pressure of alien predators is 

unlikely given the limited time of exposure and high predation rate. No social 

insects are native to Hawai`i, but western yellow jacket wasps (Vespula spp.), 

introduced accidentally by humans, may compete for food with insectivorous 

birds and perhaps kill and eat the nestlings of native birds. 

Introduced diseases and disease vectors pose an even more serious threat 

to Hawaiian forest birds because Hawaiian birds evolved in isolation from many 

common avian pathogens and most species have no natural defenses or immunity 

to these organisms. The introduction of mosquitoes, avian malaria (Plasmodium 

relictum) and avian pox virus (Poxvirus avium) to the islands has had a 

devastating impact on native forest bird populations. The rapid disappearance of 

native birds from low elevations, even in intact native forest, can be attributed to 

these mosquito-transmitted diseases (Warner 1968, van Riper et al. 1986, Scott et 

al. 1986, Atkinson et al. 1995, van Riper et al. 2002). Most remaining 

populations of endangered birds are found above the “mosquito zone” at higher 

elevations, where the cooler temperatures limit development of both the mosquito 

vector and the avian malarial parasite during its development in the mosquito (van 

Riper et al. 1986, LaPointe 2000). Climate change could enable the transmission 

of pox and malaria at higher elevations, further threatening remaining populations 

of endangered birds (Benning et al. 2002). 

This recovery plan addresses some of our most difficult recovery 

challenges. Several of the species covered have not been sighted for years, and 

their status is uncertain. The po`ouli may have become extinct since the draft of 

this plan was written; one bird taken into captivity died of old age in November 

2004, before a mate could be obtained. The last two known individuals have not 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-6 

been seen since. Another species, the O`ahu `elepaio, exists entirely within the 

range of introduced mosquitoes and pathogens (VanderWerf et al. in press). Most 

of the remaining species are restricted to remote areas of forest at elevations 

above 1,500 meters (5,000 feet; Scott et al. 1986). 

Despite often pessimistic characterizations of the status of Hawai`i’s 

endangered forest birds, much has been accomplished since the writing of the first 

recovery plans for these species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a, 1983b, 

1984a, 1986). Statewide surveys of the distribution, abundance, and habitat 

occurrences of native forest birds have been completed (Scott et al. 1986, 

VanderWerf et al. 2001). These efforts have been followed up with an annual 

survey that rotates among islands, an annual monitoring program across the entire 

range of the palila (van Riper et al. 1978, Jacobi et al. 1996), and regular counts 

at selected study sites for other species. From 1994 to 1996, a Rare Bird Search 

Team conducted surveys for the rarest species (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

Habitat loss from ranching and logging has been addressed in some areas 

through a series of changes in land use activities ranging from fee simple 

acquisition to pending safe harbor agreements. More than 80,000 hectares 

(197,600 acres) of forest bird habitat has been dedicated as National Wildlife 

Refuges (Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, O`ahu Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge), Nature Conservancy Preserves (Waikamoi, Honouliuli), and 

State Natural Area Reserves managed by the Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources (Hanawī, Manukā, Pu`u Maka`ala, and others). Introduced 

ungulates and predators, long recognized as threats to Hawai`i’s avifauna, have 

been the target of a number of management activities. Nonnative goats, sheep, 

and pigs have been successfully eliminated from Hawai`i Volcanoes and 

Haleakalā National Parks, Hanawī Natural Area Reserve, and from much of the 

acreage in other areas important to the recovery of endangered forest birds (Stone 

1985, Katahira et al. 1993). 

 

Earnest efforts to eliminate rats, cats, and other nonnative predators and 

competitors have begun more recently. Predator control efforts thus far generally 

have not been conducted over areas large enough to result in significant 

improvement in the status of a species or subspecies. However, studies of the 

O`ahu `elepaio demonstrate that rat control can result in significant increases in 

reproductive success and survival of adult females (VanderWerf 2001c, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-7 

VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Increases in the number of `akiapōlā`au have been 

documented on Kamehameha Schools land above Hawai`i Volcanoes National 

Park after control efforts for rats and cats were implemented (T. Casey, 

Kamehameha Schools, pers. comm.), although alternative hypotheses for the 

increase were not evaluated. Introduced species of insects and birds have been 

considered competitors for food and other resources. Nonnative wasps and the 

Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus) are two of the most frequently cited 

species (Banko and Banko 1976, Pimm and Pimm 1982, Moulton and Pimm 

1983, Mountainspring and Scott 1985, Banko et al. 2001), but evidence of actual 

competition is scarce. There currently are no efforts to control competing species 

within the recovery areas of endangered forest birds. 

 

Control of feral ungulates has served to reduce the number of breeding 

sites for the mosquito vector of avian diseases in some areas, and there have been 

experimental efforts to reduce pools of water in downed logs and tree ferns (C. 

Atkinson and D. LaPointe, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Molecular 

genetic tools are being employed to document more accurately the prevalence, 

tolerance, and resistance to disease in some forest birds (Feldman et al. 1995, 

Jarvi et al. 2001, Shehata et al. 2001). A continuing research effort to develop 

new tools that will mitigate the effects of introduced diseases and parasites is a 

necessary component of a successful fight to recover Hawai`i’s avian 

evolutionary heritage for the benefit of future generations. 

Several restoration projects point a way to recovery. Kamehameha 

Schools pioneered restoration of native plant species with their koa (Acacia koa) 

reforestation project at Keauhou Ranch on the island of Hawai`i. Plantings of koa 

trees at Keauhou Ranch in 1977 and since have resulted in encouraging increases 

in `akiapōlā`au and native Cerambycid beetles after only 25 years (Pejchar 2004; 

T. Casey, pers. comm.). This bodes well for the value of reforestation efforts at 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, where over 350,000 koa and other trees 

have been planted since 1987. It is also known that koa reforestation facilitates 

regeneration of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha), a dominant canopy tree used 

for foraging by the Hawai`i creeper, Hawai`i `ākepa, and several non-endangered 

forest bird species. Elimination of feral ungulates has resulted in recovery of 

native plants in many areas of forest bird habitat (Stone 1985, Scowcroft and 

Conrad 1992, Cabin et al. 2000), and has been particularly effective in the dry 

māmane (Sophora chrysophylla) forests on Mauna Kea, home to the endangered 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-8 

palila (Scowcroft and Hobdy 1986). The vision of restoring high elevation 

koa/`ōhi`a forest as a hedge against changes in climatic conditions (Scott et al.

1986) and as a refugium from avian pox and avian malaria is still alive, but 

greater incentives to private landowners are needed to make it happen in some 

areas. Safe harbor agreements and habitat conservation plans under section 10 of 

the Endangered Species Act are tools by which this might be accomplished. 

Artificial nesting boxes have been used successfully on a small scale by the 

Hawai`i `ākepa, and may be a promising technique to increase the quality of 

younger forests for Hawai`i `ākepa, as well as to replace natural cavities lost by 

tree-fall in old-growth forest (Freed 2001). 

The captive propagation of Hawaiian forest birds has made significant 

progress over the past 20 years. Beginning with the initial efforts of the Hawaiian 

Forest Bird Consortium of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, 

followed by the success of The Peregrine Fund and the Zoological Society of San 

Diego, 11 native Hawaiian bird species have been artificially hatched and reared 

in captivity. Of these, 10 species have now bred in captivity: Hawai`i `amakihi 

(Hemignathus virens) (Kuehler et al. 1996), `i`iwi (Vestiaria coccinea), `ōma`o 

(Myadestes obscurus), `apapane (Himatione sanguinea) (P. Luscomb, Honolulu 

Zoo, pers. comm.), puaiohi, Hawai`i creeper, Hawai`i `akepa, palila, Maui 

parrotbill, and `alala (Kuehler et al. 2001). In the puaiohi, a founder flock of 15 

birds from wild eggs has produced over 200 chicks in captivity, of which 113 

have been released in the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve since 1999. Several of the 

birds released to the wild have reproduced successfully (Tweed et al. 1999, 

Kuehler et al. 2000). The restoration and management of forest bird habitat will 

continue in concert with captive propagation and release to augment existing 

populations of endangered forest birds, and to re-establish populations in portions 

of their former ranges. Twenty-one palila have been released at Pu`u Mali on the 

northern side of Mauna Kea from 2003 to 2005, and several areas on Maui are 

being considered for releases or translocation of the Maui parrotbill. 

The future of the endangered forest birds of Hawai`i lies in our ability and 

willingness to use the tools currently available to combat the introduced species 

and processes acting to limit their ecological and evolutionary potential. This 

work has begun and shows promise, but must be expanded to scales that are more 

biologically meaningful. In many areas this can be accomplished only through 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-9 

public and private partnerships, which will require creative incentives for private 

landowners and increased public support for endangered species recovery. 

B. Recovery Planning for Hawaiian Forest Birds 

The Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds was written 

by the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team during two periods of intensive 

work from 1994 to 1996 and 1999 to 2002. Revisions to the draft plan, including 

updates of several species accounts, were made in 2005 and 2006. The Team’s 

intent was to simplify the recovery planning process by combining the existing 

single-island recovery plans for forest birds into a single comprehensive multiisland recovery plan encompassing all of the main Hawaiian Islands. In addition, 

the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds includes two listed species, 

the O`ahu `elepaio and O`ahu creeper, for which this recovery plan is not a 

revision, but the first recovery plan. Between 2000 and 2002, the 16 members of 

the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team met on average 4 times a year. Smaller 

working groups within the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team met more 

frequently to work on sections of the recovery plan pertaining to each island and 

certain topics. Team members with expertise on a species or a particular topic, 

such as captive propagation or avian disease, were called upon to draft certain 

sections of the plan. The entire Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team then 

reviewed the species accounts and contributions of individual team members. 

The Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team is composed of biologists from the 

Hawai`i Department of Forestry and Wildlife; biologists from Federal agencies 

including the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological 

Resources Discipline, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; avian captive 

propagation specialists; university professors; and a representative from 

Kamehameha Schools, the largest private landowner in Hawai`i. In addition, the 

Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team requested technical assistance from 

individuals not on the team for drafting the recovery areas (see Section III-C) and 

species distribution maps and answering certain questions regarding individual 

species biology and recovery needs. 

A Gazetteer of Place Names (Table 3) is provided to assist the reader in 

locating the place names and specific parcels of land referred to in this recovery 

plan. Figure 1 provides a map of the main Hawaiian Islands, and Figures 2 

through 5 present maps of the islands of Hawai`i, Moloka`i and Maui, O`ahu, and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-10 

Kaua`i, with numbers cross-referenced to the place names in Table 3. TNCH on 

the maps refers to The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

C. Implementation Participants 

Forest bird habitat in Hawai`i includes Federal, State, and private lands. 

Although we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have the statutory responsibility 

for implementing this recovery plan, and only Federal agencies are mandated to 

take part in the effort, recovery will not occur without the participation of a 

number of public and private groups and partnerships. In Hawai`i, conservation 

partnerships have been formed to address watershed protection and invasive 

species concerns and to protect native biodiversity. Hunters, recreational users, 

and traditional use gatherers often share a keen interest in protecting and 

maintaining native plant and animal communities. We encourage development of 

safe harbor programs and habitat conservation plans as incentives for landowners 

to maintain and create endangered species habitat on their property, and we seek 

to work creatively with stakeholders and all interested parties to form working 

partnerships for recovery implementation. Because many contingencies cannot 

be anticipated, it will be necessary to periodically revisit recovery strategies and 

management techniques. With the completion of this plan, we encourage the 

Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Team and all partnership groups, working groups, 

and interested individuals to continue their involvement in recovery planning and 

implementation. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-11 

Table 3. Gazetteer of place names used in this plan and identified in Figures 2 

through 5. Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = 

Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. 

Table 3 

Place Name Island Number on Map 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge H 1 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park H 2 

Hilo Forest Reserve H 3 

Hōnaunau H 4 

Honomalino H 5 

Hualālai Volcano H 6 

Kahauale`a Natural Area Reserve H 7 

Kanakaleonui H 8 

Kapāpala Forest Reserve H 9 

Ka`ū Forest Reserve H 10 

Keauhou Bird Conservation Center H 11 

Keauhou Ranch H 12 

Kīlauea Forest H 13 

Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve H 14 

Kona unit of Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge H 15 

Kūlani Correctional Facility H 16 

Pu`u Maka`ala Natural Area Reserve H 17 

Manukā Natural Area Reserve H 18 

Mauna Loa Strip of Hawai`i Volcanoes N.P. H 19 

`Ōla`a Tract of Hawai`i Volcanoes N.P. H 20 

Pōhakuloa Training Area H 21 

Pua `Ākala Tract of Hakalau Forest N.W.R. H 22 

Pu`u Lā`au H 23 

Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary H 24 

Upper Waiākea Forest Reserve (kīpukas) H 25 

Haleakalā National Park MA 1 

Hāna Forest Reserve MA 2 

Hanawī Natural Area Reserve MA 3 

Kīpahulu Valley MA 4 

Ko`olau Forest Reserve MA 5 

Ko`olau Gap MA 6 

Kūhiwa Valley MA 7 

Kula MA 8 

Manawainui MA 9 

Pu`u `Alaea MA 10 

Waikamoi Preserve MA 11 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-12 

Table 3 

Place Name Island Number on Map 

West Maui Mountains MA 12 

Hālawa MO 1 

Kalaupapa National Historic Park MO 2 

Kamakou Preserve MO 3 

`Ōhi`alele Plateau MO 4 

Oloku`i MO 5 

Pelekunu MO 6 

Pu`u Ali`i Natural Area Reserve MO 7 

Pu`u Haha on Ka`āpahu ridge MO 8 

Pu`u O Waha`ula MO 9 

Hālawa Valley O 1 

Hau`ula Forest Reserve O 2 

Honolulu Forest Reserve O 3 

Honouliuli Preserve O 4 

Kahana Valley State Park O 5 

Ka`ala Natural Area Reserve O 6 

Kahanahāiki Gulch O 7 

Kaluakauila Gulch O 8 

Kapakahi Gulch O 9 

Kuli`ou`ou Forest Reserve O 10 

Lualualei Naval Magazine O 10 

Mākaha Valley O 12 

Makaleha Gulch O 13 

Mākua Military Reservation O 14 

Mānana Trail O 15 

Mānoa Valley O 16 

Moanalua Valley O 17 

O`ahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge O 18 

Pāhole Natural Area Reserve O 19 

Pālolo Valley O 20 

Pia Valley O 21 

Poamoho Trail O 22 

Schofield Barracks West Range O 23 

Wai`alae Nui Gulch O 24 

Wai`anae Kai Valley O 25 

Waianu Valley O 26 

Waikāne Valley O 27 

Wailupe Valley O 28 

Waimano Valley O 29 

Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve K 1 

Halehaha Stream K 2 

Halekua Stream K 3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-13 

Table 3 

Place Name Island Number on Map 

Halemanu Steam K 4 

Halepā`ākai Stream K 5 

Kawaikōī Stream K 6 

Koai`e Stream K 7 

Kōke`e State Park K 8 

Lā`au Ridge K 9 

Pihea-Alaka`i Swamp Trail K 10 

Sincock’s Bog K 11 

Upper Waiakoali Stream K 12 

Wai`alae Trail K 13 

Waiau Stream K 14 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-14 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-15 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-16 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-17 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 1-18 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-1 

II. SPECIES ACCOUNTS 

Section II contains accounts of all species covered in this recovery plan, 

presented in taxonomic order following the American Ornithologists’ Union 

checklist (1998). These accounts are not meant to be a complete reference, but 

rather to summarize sufficient relevant information about each species in order to 

understand the prescribed recovery strategy and the prioritization of recovery 

actions. All of the Hawaiian forest birds face the same set of threats, but the 

relative importance of those threats varies among species depending on their life 

history, current distribution and status, and habitat requirements. The priority 

placed on each component of the recovery strategy therefore varies among 

species. The species accounts build on and refine the overall recovery strategy 

discussed in the Introduction (Section I), and justify the recovery criteria 

presented in Section III as well as the recovery actions and priorities presented in 

the Recovery Actions Narrative (Section IV). Each account also includes a 

summary of previous and ongoing conservation efforts, including Federal and 

State regulations, land acquisition, research, and management directed at or 

relevant to the recovery of the species. All of the accounts follow the same 

format and contain the following section headings: description and taxonomy; 

life history; habitat description; historical and current range and status; reasons 

for decline and current threats; conservation efforts; and recovery strategy. 

Longer accounts for better-studied species contain additional subheadings to help 

locate information. When available, maps showing the historical and current 

distribution of the species and recovery areas appear in the accounts (Figures 6 

through 21). 

Recovery plans are prepared following a determination that a species 

merits listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act 

(Act). The Act is not meant to serve as a primary mechanism for species 

conservation, but the protections afforded by the Act are intended to arrest the 

immediate decline of the listed species and provide opportunities for partnerships 

and funding that will enable its recovery. The Federal listing of a species as 

endangered or threatened is included in this plan as a conservation effort, but it 

should be recognized that the ultimate goal of our recovery program is to 

effectively address the threats to listed species and restore their populations to the 

point that their long-term viability in their natural ecosystems is assured and the 

protections of the Act are no longer needed. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-2 

1. O`ahu `Elepaio, Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

Description. The O`ahu 

`elepaio is a small (12.5 grams [0.4 

ounce] average weight, 15 centimeters 

[5.9 inches] total body length) monarch 

flycatcher endemic to the island of 

O`ahu (VanderWerf 1998a). It is dark 

brown above and white below, with 

light brown streaks on the breast. The 

tail is long (6.5 centimeters [2.6 inches]) and often held cocked up at an angle. 

Adults have conspicuous white wingbars, a white rump, and white tips on the tail 

feathers that are often displayed. The throat is white with black markings in both 

sexes, but males tend to have more black than females, especially on the chin. 

The lores (area between the eye and bill) are white and the auricular (ear patch) is 

often blackish. Juveniles and subadults are rufous above and on the breast, with a 

white belly and rusty wingbars. `Elepaio have a 2-year delay in plumage 

maturation, acquiring the distinctive white markings of adults when they are 3 

years old (VanderWerf 2001b). The bill is medium-length, straight, and black, 

with the base of the lower mandible bluish-gray in adults and yellow in juveniles. 

The legs and feet are dark gray. The iris is dark brown. Males average 

approximately 10 percent larger than females in wing length, tarsus length, and 

weight, but bill length does not differ between the sexes (VanderWerf 1998a). 

Geographic plumage variation has been described in the Hawai`i subspecies (Pratt 

1980), and coloration of the O`ahu subspecies also varies among different parts of 

the island; birds in drier, leeward areas are paler and grayer on the back, while 

birds from wet, windward forests are darker and more reddish-brown (E. 

VanderWerf, unpubl. data). 

The primary song, given almost exclusively by males, is a shrill, whistled 

“el-e-pai-o,” with an accent on the third syllable, from which the Hawaiian name 

is derived. The female often answers the male song with a loud two-note call. 

Both sexes also give a variety of scolding calls and chatter, and a soft "chup" 

contact call given by pairs while foraging. The song varies among different parts 

Adult male O`ahu `elepaio. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-3 

of the island, and response varies to playbacks of different local dialects (E. 

VanderWerf, unpubl. data). 

Identification. Identification of adult `elepaio is relatively easy. Whiterumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus) and red-vented and red-whiskered 

bulbuls (Pycnonotus cafer and P. jocosus) have white rumps and white-tipped 

tails like adult `elepaio, but are much larger and lack white wingbars. Juvenile 

`elepaio can be confused with juvenile `apapane (Himatione sanguinea), which 

are similar in size and overall color and may also cock the tail up, but `apapane 

have a curved black bill and lack the contrasting wingbars and tail tips of the 

`elepaio. 

Taxonomy. The `elepaio comprises a monotypic genus of the monarch 

flycatcher family (Monarchidae) that is endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago 

(American Ornithologists’ Union 1998). The closest relatives of `elepaio are 

other monarch flycatchers from eastern and central Polynesia (Filardi and Moyle 

2005). Three subspecies of `elepaio are recognized, each endemic to a single 

island: the Hawai`i `elepaio (C. s. sandwichensis); the O`ahu `elepaio (C. s. 

ibidis); and the Kaua`i `elepaio (C. s. sclateri). The taxonomy used here follows 

Pratt et al. (1987) and Pyle (2002), in which all forms are regarded as subspecies, 

but the form on each island originally was described as a separate species. The 

O`ahu form was known as C. s. gayi (Wilson 1891b) until Olson (1989) pointed 

out that the epithet ibidis (Stejneger 1887) has priority. Only the O`ahu 

subspecies is listed as endangered; the Kaua`i and Hawai`i subspecies are still 

relatively common. Throughout the remainder of this account, `elepaio refers to 

the listed O`ahu subspecies unless otherwise noted. 

LIFE HISTORY 

Demography and Reproduction. `Elepaio are non-migratory and defend 

all-purpose territories year-round (Conant 1977, VanderWerf 1998a). The 

average territory size was 2.0 hectares (4.9 acres) in forest composed of alien 

plant species in Mānoa Valley (Conant 1977) and ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 hectares 

(3.1 to 4.5 acres) in three valleys in southeastern O`ahu, depending on forest 

structure (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Annual survival is high, 81 percent in 

the absence of predation by alien mammals, but survival of females is heavily 

impacted by predation from alien rats (VanderWerf and Smith 2002; see Current 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-4 

Threats below). `Elepaio are socially monogamous and have high mate and site 

fidelity; in the absence of predation by alien mammals, 97 percent of males and 

95 percent of females remain on the same territory between years, and almost all 

pairs remain together between years (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Young birds 

are subordinate and act as floaters while they attempt to acquire a territory and a 

mate. 

The nesting season usually extends 

from February to May, but active nests have 

been found from January to July (VanderWerf 

1998a). The nest is a finely-woven, free 

standing cup made of rootlets, bark strips, leaf 

skeletons, lichens, and spider silk, and is 

placed in a fork or on top of a branch (Conant 

1977, VanderWerf 1998a). Nests have been 

found in a variety of plants, including 7 native 

species and 15 introduced species (E. 

VanderWerf, unpubl. data). Both sexes 

participate in all aspects of reproduction, but 

the female plays a slightly larger role in nest 

building and the male provides more food for 

the nestlings (VanderWerf 1998a). Although 

both sexes incubate and brood, only the female develops a brood patch and only 

the female incubates at night. Clutch size is usually two, sometimes one or three, 

and eggs hatch after 18 days (Conant 1977, VanderWerf 1998a). The nestling 

period averages 16 days, and fledglings are fed by their parents for more than a 

month after leaving the nest, remaining on the natal territory for up to 9 months at 

the start of the next breeding season (VanderWerf 1998a). Fecundity is low; even 

if nest predators are controlled the mean number of fledglings per pair is 0.70 per 

year (VanderWerf and Smith 2002; see Current Threats below). O`ahu `elepaio 

will re-nest once or twice after failure, but they rarely attempt to re-nest if the first 

nest is successful. Other than introduced predators, the most common cause of 

nest failure is storms with heavy rain and strong winds (VanderWerf 1998a). 

Annual Variation and Population Fluctuation. Survival and 

reproduction of O`ahu `elepaio vary considerably among years (VanderWerf and 

Smith 2002; E. VanderWerf, unpubl. data), probably in association with climatic 

O`ahu `elepaio nest. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-5 

factors that affect populations of nest predators and disease-carrying mosquitoes. 

These annual variations are unpredictable in nature and are not cyclic, but the 

average interval of occurrence of both rodent irruptions and disease episodes is 

approximately 5 years. Demographic monitoring from 1995 to 2006 revealed that 

there were two years (1996 and 2004) with high disease prevalence and two years 

(1999 and 2004) with high rodent abundance (VanderWerf et al. in press; E. 

VanderWerf, unpubl data). Conditions that increase the severity of these two 

threats do not necessarily coincide, and `elepaio populations therefore can be 

expected to fluctuate over time in a complex pattern. 

Diet and Foraging. The foraging behavior and diet of `elepaio are 

extremely varied. In a study on Hawai`i Island, VanderWerf (1993, 1994) found 

that `elepaio foraged at all heights on all available plant species, and that they 

caught insects from a variety of substrates, including the ground and fallen logs (2 

percent), trunks (5 percent), branches (24 percent), twigs (38 percent), foliage (20 

percent), and in the air (11 percent). `Elepaio are versatile and agile in pursuit of 

prey, using a diversity of foraging behaviors that is among the highest recorded 

for any bird, including perch-gleaning (48 percent), several forms of flightgleaning (30 percent), hanging (11 percent), aerial flycatching (7 percent), and 

active pursuit (4 percent) (VanderWerf 1994). The diet consists of a wide range 

of arthropods, particularly insects and spiders, and includes nonnative taxa such 

as fruit flies (Tephritidae; VanderWerf 1998a). Large prey such as moths and 

caterpillars are beaten against a branch before being eaten. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

O`ahu `elepaio are adaptable and occur in a variety of forest types 

composed of both native and introduced species (Conant 1977; VanderWerf 1993, 

1994, 1998a). Plant species composition in `elepaio habitat varies considerably 

depending on location and elevation, but some of the most common native plants 

in areas where `elepaio occur are alahe`e (Psydrax odorata), pāpala kēpau 

(Pisonia umbellifera), lama (Diospyros sandwicensis), hame (Antidesma 

platyphyllum), māmaki (Pipturus albidus), kaulu (Sapindus oahuensis), and `āla`a 

(Pouteria sandwicensis), and some of the most common introduced plants are 

strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), common guava (Psidium guajava), 

kukui (Aleurites moluccana), mango (Mangifera indica), and Christmas berry 

(Schinus terebinthifolius) (VanderWerf et al. 1997, VanderWerf 1998a). Nest site 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-6 

selection by O`ahu `elepaio is non-specialized; nests have been found in 7 native 

and 15 introduced plant species (E. VanderWerf, unpubl. data). Shallenberger 

and Vaughn (1978) found the highest relative abundance of `elepaio in forest 

dominated by introduced guava (Psidium spp.) and kukui (Aleurites moluccana) 

trees, but they were also found in the following forest types (in order of 

decreasing abundance): mixed native-exotic; tall exotic; koa (Acacia koa) 

dominant; mixed koa-`ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha); low exotic; `Çhi`a 

dominant; and `Çhi`a scrub. They currently are not found in very wet, stunted 

forest on windswept summits or in very dry scrubland. 

Unlike many Hawaiian forest birds, `elepaio have adapted well to 

disturbed forest composed of introduced plants (Conant 1977, VanderWerf 

1998a). VanderWerf et al. (1997) found that: 1) forest structure was more 

important to `elepaio than plant species composition, 2) most `elepaio occurred in 

areas with a continuous forest canopy and a dense understory, and 3) population 

density was roughly twice as high in tall riparian vegetation in valleys than in 

scrubby vegetation on ridges. Fifty-five percent of the `elepaio’s current range is 

dominated by introduced plants, and 45 percent is dominated by native plants 

(VanderWerf et al. 2001). This does not imply that `elepaio prefer introduced 

plant species, but simply reflects a preference by `elepaio for riparian vegetation 

in valleys and the high degree of habitat disturbance and abundance of alien 

plants in these riparian areas (VanderWerf et al. 1997). Of the 45 percent 

dominated by native plants, 23 percent is categorized as wet forest, 17 percent as 

mesic forest, and 5 percent as dry forest, shrubland, and cliffs (Hawai`i Heritage 

Program 1991). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Historical Range and Status. Before humans arrived, forest covered 

about 127,000 hectares (313,690 acres) on O`ahu (Hawai`i Heritage Program 

1991), and it is likely that `elepaio formerly inhabited much of that area (Figure 

6). Reports by early naturalists indicate that `elepaio were once widespread and 

abundant on O`ahu. Bryan (1905) called the O`ahu `elepaio “the most abundant 

Hawaiian species on the mountainside all the way from the sea to well up into the 

higher elevations.” Perkins (1903) remarked on its “universal distribution..., from 

the lowest bounds to the uppermost edge of continuous forest.” Seale (1900) 

stated the `elepaio was “the commonest native land bird to be found on the 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-7 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-8 

island,” while MacCaughey (1919) described it as “the most abundant 

representative of the native woodland avifauna” and “abundant in all parts of its 

range.” The historical range of the O`ahu `elepaio thus apparently included most 

forested parts of the island, and it was formerly abundant. 

Despite its adaptability, the O`ahu `elepaio has declined seriously since 

humans arrived, and it has disappeared from many areas where it was formerly 

common (Shallenberger 1977, Shallenberger and Vaughn 1978, Williams 1987, 

VanderWerf et al. 1997). Based on the dates when `elepaio were last observed in 

various locations (Figure 6), the decline of `elepaio began in three areas, the 

northern Ko`olau Mountains, the northern slope of Mt. Ka`ala in the northern 

Wai`anae Range, and near Konahuanui in the south-central Ko`olau Mountains. 

Perhaps not coincidentally, these are also the three areas with the highest rainfall 

on O`ahu, suggesting mosquito-borne diseases may have played an important role 

in the decline. 

 

Current Range and Status. The total geographic area of all current 

populations is approximately 5,451 hectares (13,464 acres) (Table 4; VanderWerf 

et al. 2001). The O`ahu `elepaio thus currently occupies only about 4 percent of 

its presumed prehistoric range, and has declined by roughly 96 percent since 

humans arrived in Hawai`i 1,600 years ago (Kirch 1982). In 1975, `elepaio 

inhabited approximately 20,900 hectares (51,623 acres) on O`ahu, almost four 

times the area of the current range (VanderWerf et al. 2001). The range of the 

`elepaio has thus declined by roughly 75 percent in the last 25 years (Figure 6). 

The total current population of O`ahu `elepaio is approximately 1,980 

birds that are distributed in 6 relatively large populations and several small 

population remnants (Table 4 and Figure 6; VanderWerf et al. 2001). The only 

previous population estimate (200 to 500 birds; Ellis et al. 1992) was not accurate 

because little information was available when the estimate was made. The 

number of birds is divided almost evenly between the Wai`anae Mountains in the 

west and the Ko`olau Mountains in the east, with three relatively large 

populations in each mountain range. Although the central Ko`olau population 

covers the largest area (Table 4), `elepaio are sparsely distributed in much of this 

region and the number of birds is smaller than in more dense populations. Several 

tiny population remnants consisting entirely of males remain in both the Wai`anae 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-9 

and Ko`olau mountains, but since there is no chance of reproduction without 

females and population rescue by immigration is unlikely, these relicts likely will 

disappear in a few years as the last adult birds die. 

Table 4. Estimated size and area of O`ahu `elepaio populations. Data from VanderWerf et 

al. (2001). 

Population Total population 

size 

Breeding 

population size 

Area 

(hectares) 

Wai`anae Mountains

A. Southern Wai`anae (Honouliuli Preserve, 

Lualualei Naval Magazine) 458 418 1,170 

B. Schofield Barracks West Range 340 310 538 

C. Mākaha, Wai`anae Kai Valleys 123 112 459 

D. Pahole, Kahanahāiki 18 4 256 

E. Schofield Barracks South Range 6 0 20 

F. Mākua Valley 7 2 49 

G. Ka`ala Natural Area Reserve 3 0 21 

H. Makaleha Gulch 2 0 7 

I. Kuaokalā 3 2 14 

J. Kaluakauila Gulch 1 0 6 

Ko`olau Mountains

K. Southern Ko`olau (Pia, Wailupe, Kapakahi, 

Kuli`ou`ou, Wai`alae Nui) 

475 434 1,063 

L. Waikāne, Kahana Valleys 265 242 523 

M. Central Ko`olau (Moanalua, north and south 

Hālawa, `Aiea, Kalauao) 

226 206 1,396 

N. Pālolo Valley 46 42 78 

O. Waihe`e Valley 5 4 32 

P. Mānoa Valley 2 0 19 

Q. Hau`ula 1 0 4 

R. Waianu Valley 1 0 8 

TOTAL 1,982 1,774 5,663 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-10 

The breeding population is about 1,770 birds, lower than the total 

population, due to a male-biased sex-ratio; only 84 percent of territorial males 

have mates in large populations (n = 147; E. VanderWerf, unpubl. data), and 

many small, declining populations contain mostly males (breeding population = 0 

in Table 4). The genetically effective population size probably is further reduced 

by the geographic isolation of populations (Grant and Grant 1992). Adults have 

high site fidelity and natal dispersal distances usually are less than a kilometer 

(0.62 mile) (VanderWerf 1998a), but most `elepaio populations on O`ahu are 

separated by many kilometers of unsuitable urban or agricultural habitat. There 

may be infrequent dispersal among populations within each mountain range, but it 

is unlikely that `elepaio cross the extensive pineapple fields that separate the 

Wai`anae and Ko`olau Mountains. The current distribution superficially appears 

to constitute a metapopulation (Hanski and Gilpin 1997), but this would be true 

only if dispersal occurred among populations. There have been no observations 

of banded `elepaio moving among populations (E. VanderWerf, unpubl. data), 

though this would be difficult to detect. Investigation of the genetic population 

structure has begun (Burgess 2005), but requires additional analysis. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Habitat Loss and Degradation. Much of the historical decline of the 

O`ahu `elepaio can be attributed to habitat loss, especially at low elevations. 

Fifty-six percent of the original prehistoric range has been developed for urban or 

agricultural use, and no `elepaio remain in these developed areas (VanderWerf et 

al. 2001). Habitat loss thus has been a major cause of decline, but `elepaio are 

adaptable, and moderate habitat alteration in the form of gradual replacement of 

native forest with alien forest has not limited their distribution (VanderWerf et al.

1997). Moreover, several areas of O`ahu that recently supported large `elepaio 

populations and still contain suitable native forest habitat are unoccupied, 

demonstrating that habitat loss is not the only threat. `Elepaio were observed 

regularly into the 1970s or early 1980s at Poamoho, Schofield-Waikāne, Mānana, 

and other areas (Figure 6; Shallenberger 1977, Shallenberger and Vaughn 1978), 

but they have since disappeared from all of these areas even though the forest is 

still largely intact (VanderWerf et al. 2001). 

Predation and Disease. Recent declines in O`ahu `elepaio populations 

are due to a combination of low adult survival and low reproductive success. The 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-11 

two main causes of reduced survival and reproduction on O`ahu are nest 

predation by alien black rats (Rattus rattus) and diseases, particularly avian pox 

(Poxvirus avium), which is carried by the introduced southern house mosquito 

(Culex quinquefasciatus). 

In a 10-year study of mosquitoborne diseases from 1995 to 2005, 

VanderWerf et al. (in press) found that 

each year 20 ± 4 percent of O`ahu `elepaio 

had active lesions likely caused by pox, and 

an additional 16 ± 4 percent had 

deformities and missing toes indicative of healed pox lesions. The prevalence∗ of 

avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) was 87 percent over all years combined. 

Pox prevalence varied among years, and was associated with annual rainfall, 

presumably due to greater abundance of mosquito breeding sites in wet years. 

Rainfall amounts at least as high as those associated with pox epizootics in 1996 

and 2004 have occurred in 13 years since 1947, or once every 4.5 years 

(VanderWerf et al. in press). The severity of infection varied considerably among 

birds, and infections involving three or more toes, the feet, or the head were less 

common in birds with healed lesions than in those with active lesions, suggesting 

that such infections resulted in mortality more often. Annual survival of `elepaio 

with active avian pox lesions (65 percent) was lower than annual survival of 

`elepaio with no pox symptoms (80 percent; E. VanderWerf, unpubl. data). Pairs 

in which at least one bird had active pox produced fewer fledglings than healthy 

pairs or those in which at least one bird had healed pox (E. VanderWerf, unpubl. 

data). Many birds with active pox lesions did not even attempt to nest, and 

infected birds were sometimes deserted by their mate. Avian malaria is known to 

be a serious threat to many Hawaiian forest birds (Warner 1968, van Riper et al.

1986, Atkinson et al. 1995), but its effect on `elepaio has not been quantified. 

Black rats are the main predator on O`ahu `elepaio nests, though feral cats 

(Felis catus) may also occasionally prey on adults and nests. An experiment in 

which automatic cameras were wired to artificial nests containing quail eggs 

showed that a black rat was the predator in all 10 predation events documented 

(VanderWerf 2001c). All predation events occurred at night, and most occurred 

 

∗ “Prevalence” refers to the percent of a population that is affected at a given time

O`ahu `elepaio foot with active pox 

lesion. Photo © Eric VanderWerf. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-12 

on the first night nests were placed in the field, indicating predation pressure was 

very high. Control of rats with snap traps and diphacinone bait stations from 

1996 to 2000 resulted in an increase in reproduction from 0.33 to 0.70 fledglings 

per pair (112 percent) and an increase in annual survival of adult female `elepaio 

from 0.50 to 0.83 (66 percent; VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Both sexes of 

`elepaio incubate the eggs and brood the nestlings, but only the female incubates 

at night, making them more vulnerable to predation by nocturnal predators such 

as rats (VanderWerf 1998a). 

 

The relative threat posed by disease and nest predation can be determined 

by calculating the rate of population growth, or lambda (λ), under different 

conditions (calculated as λ = PA + PJB, where PA is annual adult survival, PJ is 

juvenile survival, and B is mean number of fledglings per pair per year; Pulliam 

1988, VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Without any management lambda was 0.76 

± 0.12, indicating a rapid 24 percent decline per year. At this rate of decline, less 

than 10 percent of the population would remain in 9 years. With rat removal 

lambda was 1.00 ± 0.05, indicating a stable population. If disease could be 

eliminated somehow and all birds survived at the rate of healthy individuals, but 

rats were not removed, lambda would be approximately 0.83 (E. VanderWerf, 

unpubl. data), indicating that the population would still be declining at a rate of 17 

percent a year. If disease could be eliminated and rats were removed, lambda 

might be as high as 1.04, which would allow the population to double in 19 years. 

These calculations suggest that the removal of rats alone may prevent further 

decline of O`ahu `elepaio, but may not be enough to allow rapid recovery of 

`elepaio populations. 

Other Natural and Manmade Factors. The remaining `elepaio 

populations are small and isolated, comprising 6 core populations that contain 

between 100 and 500 birds each, and several small remnant populations, most of 

which contain fewer than 10 birds and few or no breeding pairs (Table 4). Even if 

the threats responsible for their decline were controlled, the existing populations 

would still be threatened with extinction because their small sizes and restricted 

distributions make them vulnerable to a variety of natural processes, including 

reduced reproductive vigor caused by inbreeding depression, loss of genetic 

variability and evolutionary potential over time due to random genetic drift, 

stochastic fluctuations in population size and sex ratio, and natural disasters such 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-13 

as hurricanes and fires (Lande 1988, International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature 2000). 

 

O`ahu `elepaio also are threatened by human actions, such as the potential 

introduction of the brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) from the Mariana Islands, 

which has devastated the avifauna on Guam (Savidge 1987). A study of the 

effects of noise from military training showed that O`ahu `elepaio at U.S. Army 

Schofield Barracks are not affected by noise from military training (VanderWerf 

et al. 2000). However, fires ignited by military training activities are a serious 

long-term threat to `elepaio and have reduced the amount of suitable habitat for 

the species, including areas designated as critical habitat for the O`ahu `elepaio at 

Schofield Barracks and Mākua Military Reservation (USFWS 2003c). Firebreak 

roads exist to help prevent the spread of fires into mesic forest occupied by 

`elepaio, but fires regularly start beyond the firebreaks, and each fire removes 

additional habitat, which is replaced by nonnative fire-adapted plants that are not 

used by `elepaio, such as swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) and bottlebrush 

(Melaleuca quinquenervia). If this pattern is allowed to continue, there 

eventually will be no mesic forest left at Schofield Barracks and Makua Valley, 

and those populations will be lost. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The O`ahu `elepaio was federally listed as endangered on April 18, 2000 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b), and thus receives regulatory protection 

under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Species listed under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act are automatically added to the State of Hawai`i list of 

endangered species, and are thus also protected by State regulations. Critical 

habitat for the O`ahu `elepaio was designated on December 10, 2001 (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2001). The recently established O`ahu Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge protects a large area of suitable forest habitat in the north-central 

Ko`olau Mountains (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). This area currently 

supports few or no `elepaio, but it is suitable for management of threats and 

reintroduction. 

Conservation efforts for the O`ahu `elepaio thus far have included surveys 

to determine current distribution and abundance (VanderWerf et al. 1997, 2001), 

demographic monitoring to assess population status and identify threats 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-14 

(VanderWerf 1999), removal of introduced predators (VanderWerf and Smith 

2002), and investigation of disease (VanderWerf et al. in press). Surveys have 

been conducted over most of O`ahu, and have shown the distribution to be highly 

fragmented and the total population to be fewer than 2,000 birds (see Current 

Range and Status, above). Long-term demographic studies have shown that the 

two most important current threats are nest predation by black rats and introduced 

mosquito-borne diseases (see Predation and Disease, above). Rat control is a 

promising conservation technique for increasing both reproductive success and 

survival of adult females. Ground-based rat control using snap traps and 

diphacinone bait stations has been conducted in the Honolulu Watershed Forest 

Reserve by the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife since 1997, at 

Schofield Barracks West Range and Mākua Military Reservation by the U.S. 

Army Environmental Division since 1998, at Honouliuli Preserve by The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i since 2000, in Lualualei Naval Magazine by the U.S. 

Navy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services from 2002 to 2004, 

in Mākaha Valley by the City and County of Honolulu Board of Water Supply 

and the U.S. Army since 2004, and in and Moanalua Valley by the U.S. Army 

since 2005. Blood samples have been collected from over 150 `elepaio for use in 

disease screening, determination of genetic population structure, and to assist in 

identification of potentially disease-resistant populations or individuals. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

 

There are several important components to the recovery strategy for the 

O`ahu `elepaio, including the identification of recovery areas and protection of 

remaining forest from development and fire; control of alien nest predators, 

especially rats; research on disease resistance and transmission; public 

information and outreach; and possibly captive propagation. 

The O`ahu `elepaio currently has a highly fragmented distribution, with 6 

relatively large populations of at least 100 birds, a few smaller populations of 10 

to 50 birds, and several very small population remnants containing only a few 

single males (Table 4). Recovery efforts should focus on protecting and 

managing the six large "core" populations first. These core populations are 

distributed throughout most of the original historical range, have the greatest 

chance of long-term persistence because their larger sizes make them less 

susceptible to stochastic events, probably have lost less genetic diversity than 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-15 

smaller populations, and are most likely to be recovered in situ through habitat 

management. All core populations should be conserved to preserve as much 

genetic, morphological, and behavioral (vocal) variation as possible. Smaller 

populations should be addressed next if there are sufficient resources or interested 

parties, followed by very small populations. If management actions are effective, 

the core populations eventually may serve as sources of dispersing individuals 

that can help support smaller populations or even recolonize areas where `elepaio 

have disappeared. 

 

Habitat Protection. Protection of remaining forest habitat on O`ahu is 

fundamental to the survival and recovery of the `elepaio. Although `elepaio are 

adaptable, they are forest birds and require some form of forest in which to forage 

and nest. Suitable habitat for recovery of O`ahu `elepaio includes wet, mesic, and 

dry forest consisting of native and/or introduced plant species, but higher 

population density can be expected in closed canopy riparian forest with a 

continuous canopy and dense understory (VanderWerf et al. 1997, 2001). 

The remaining O`ahu `elepaio populations are small and fragmented; even 

if the threats responsible for their decline were controlled, the existing 

populations would still be threatened with extinction because their small sizes and 

restricted distributions make them vulnerable to stochastic fluctuations and 

catastrophes such as hurricanes and fires. `Elepaio are highly territorial; each pair 

defends an area of a certain size, depending on the forest type and structure, 

resulting in a maximum population density or carrying capacity (VanderWerf 

2003). Consequently, the currently occupied areas are too small to support 

`elepaio populations large enough to be considered safe from extinction. 

Complete recovery will require restoration of `elepaio in areas where they do not 

occur at present, through translocation, captive propagation and release, or natural 

dispersal. Identified recovery areas therefore include areas that are currently not 

occupied by `elepaio, but that still contain suitable forest. 

 

The O`ahu `elepaio evolved in an environment with large areas of 

continuous forest habitat covering much of the island, and their dispersal behavior 

is not adapted to a fragmented landscape. `Elepaio are sedentary; adults have 

high fidelity to their territory and juveniles rarely disperse more than 1 kilometer 

(0.62 mile) in search of a territory (VanderWerf 1998a). Because the areas 

currently occupied by `elepaio are separated by many kilometers and `elepaio are 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-16 

unlikely to disperse long distances, the existing populations are probably isolated 

from one another (VanderWerf et al. 2001). Maintaining or restoring links 

among populations by providing habitat for dispersal would increase the overall 

effective population size, thereby helping to alleviate the threats associated with 

small population size. In particular, the enlargement of small subpopulations by 

expansion onto adjacent lands not only would increase the chances of their longterm survival, but also would improve connectivity among populations by 

enhancing their value as “stepping stones” within the entire distribution. 

Recovery areas therefore include areas that may not be used by `elepaio for 

nesting, but that provide dispersal corridors among populations and suitable forest 

areas. 

Based on the estimated density of `elepaio in currently occupied areas, the 

recovery areas identified in Table 5 can be expected to support approximately 

10,000 `elepaio (see also Figure 6; VanderWerf et al. 2001). 

Table 5. Recovery areas and potential O`ahu `elepaio populations. 

 

Predator Control. Control of alien predators, especially rats, has been 

shown to be an effective method of increasing reproductive success and survival 

of female `elepaio (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Rodent control programs 

should be continued and expanded by whatever methods are available. Groundbased methods of rodent control using snap traps and diphacinone bait stations 

have been effective on a small scale, but are labor intensive. Recovery of the 

O`ahu `elepaio likely will require large-scale rat control, which can be achieved 

Recovery area Area in 

hectares (acres) 

Current `elepaio density in 

area (birds/hectare) 

Potential `elepaio 

population 

Northern Wai`anae 4,454 

(11,005) 0.45 2,004 

Southern Wai`anae 2,422 

(5,985) 0.39 945 

Central Ko`olau 14,801 

(36,573) 0.33 4,884 

Kalihi-Kapālama 804 

(1,987) 0.39 314 

Southern Ko`olau 4,180 

(10,329) 0.45 1,881 

All Areas 26,661 

(65,879) 0.37 10,028 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-17 

more efficiently through aerial broadcast methods. Registration of aerial 

broadcast of diphacinone or other rodenticides with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and Hawai`i Department of Agriculture Pesticides Branch 

should be actively pursued and supported. Aerial broadcast of rodenticides may 

be feasible only in areas where secondary poisoning to non-target species such as 

feral pigs and indirect exposure to the human food chain can be avoided. Public 

education about predator control and coordination of toxicant use among agencies 

will therefore be important parts of the recovery strategy. 

Disease Research. No areas of O`ahu are of sufficient elevation to be 

free from disease-carrying mosquitoes, and all populations of O`ahu `elepaio 

appear to be affected by disease (VanderWerf et al. in press). Reducing mosquito 

numbers by removing breeding sites or treating them with larvicides would be 

extremely difficult due to the abundance of breeding sites (C. Atkinson and D. 

LaPointe, pers. comm.). The best long-term method of reducing the threat from 

disease may be to investigate disease resistance or tolerance and its genetic basis. 

If disease-resistant or tolerant birds can be identified, translocation or captive 

propagation and release of these birds might help populations recover more 

quickly and perhaps obviate the need to control mosquitoes. Controlling rodents 

also may lessen the threat from disease by providing birds that have greater 

natural immunity a greater chance of reproducing, thereby increasing the 

proportion of resistant birds more quickly (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). The 

potential evolutionary acceleration of disease resistance through rodent control 

was demonstrated quantitatively by Kilpatrick (2006), and appears promising. 

Population Surveys and Monitoring. To determine whether the overall 

recovery strategy is effective and whether the recovery criteria have been met, it 

will be necessary to conduct rangewide population surveys and monitor 

demography of populations. Standard survey routes should be established to 

determine distribution and measure population density. Surveys should be 

conducted at least once every 5 years to address whether the recovery criteria 

have been met, and annually if possible to more closely examine population 

trends and assess efficacy of management actions. Demographic monitoring will 

require mist-netting, banding, and resighting of birds to measure survival rate, 

nest searching to measure reproductive success, and data analysis. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-18 

Setting a goal of demographic persistence highlights the need for 

monitoring and helps ensure that threats have been adequately managed and 

population increases are not transient. Research to date indicates that survival 

and reproduction of `elepaio populations on O`ahu fluctuate from year to year, in 

association with epizootics of disease and variation in predator (rodent) 

populations (VanderWerf and Smith 2002, VanderWerf et al. in press). 

Epizootics of disease and irruptions in rodent populations appear to occur 

approximately once every 5 years (see Life History: Annual Variation), so the 

third recovery criterion for the O`ahu `elepaio, stable or increasing populations 

over a period of 15 years for downlisting and 30 years for delisting, likely would 

encompass either three (downlisting) or six (delisting) population cycles. If 

populations are stable in the long-term despite periodic episodes of increased 

disease and predation, then the species can be considered recovered. 

Captive Propagation. Captive propagation and release of O`ahu `elepaio 

are not necessary for recovery at this time because the number of O`ahu `elepaio 

remaining in the wild is relatively large and recovery can be achieved more costeffectively through habitat management. Moreover, the threats that caused the 

decline of `elepaio have not been corrected in most areas, and no suitable release 

sites are currently available. Captive propagation and/or rear and release of 

O`ahu `elepaio may become necessary in the future if habitat management alone 

proves insufficient to allow recovery, and would be especially valuable if 

genetically disease-resistant birds can be identified for use as breeding stock. 

Attempts at captive propagation of `elepaio should consider using birds known to 

have recovered from pox or identified as genetically resistant. In anticipation of 

the possible need to implement a captive propagation program for the recovery of 

this species in the future, surrogate efforts have begun at the Keauhou Bird 

Conservation Center with the Hawai`i subspecies of the `elepaio. Techniques 

have been developed for the collection and transfer of eggs, artificial incubation 

and hand-rearing of chicks, as well as long-term maintenance of birds in captivity 

(The Peregrine Fund 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999; Zoological Society of San 

Diego 2004). Captive management has yet to produce a successful captive 

breeding or a release of `elepaio from captive-bred animals. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-19 

2. Kāma`o, Myadestes myadestinus 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The kāma`o, also known as the large Kaua`i thrush, is endemic to the 

island of Kaua`i and is a member of the thrush family (Turdidae). Early 

descriptions of the kāma`o were made by Stejneger in 1887 from specimens 

provided to the Smithsonian Institution by Valdemar Knudsen in the 1880s 

(Munro 1944). Originally described as Phaeornis obscura myadestina, Pratt 

(1982) offered convincing evidence that Phaeornis should be merged with the 

American solitaire genus Myadestes, and that some Hawaiian taxa formerly 

treated as subspecies are sufficiently distinct to merit full species status. 

The kāma`o is a medium-sized (20 centimeters [7.9 inches] in length) 

solitaire, gray-brown above, tinged with olive especially on the back, and light 

gray below with a whitish belly and undertail coverts. The legs are dark graybrown and relatively short, but the ventral surface of the toes is pale yellow. The 

eyes are dark and the bill is black. The kāma`o lacks the white eye-ring and 

pinkish legs of the smaller puaiohi (small Kaua`i thrush). Immature birds have a 

spotted appearance. The song is sweet and melodic, sometimes lavish and flutelike, and is often given just before dawn and after dusk. A scolding or hissing 

"police whistle" alarm note has also been described. 

LIFE HISTORY 

Little is known of the life history of the kāma`o, but presumably it is 

similar in many respects to the more common and closely related `ōma`o or 

Hawai`i thrush (Myadestes obscurus). The periods of greatest singing occur in 

the winter (January to March). Nesting likely occurs in the spring (April to July). 

The nest has not been described, but may be a cavity or low platform as with the 

`ōma`o. The eggs are grayish-white with irregular reddish-brown splotches, and 

the clutch size is one or two. The diet of the kāma`o is reported to consist of 

fruits and berries, particularly the bracts of the `ie`ie vine (Freycinetia arborea), 

as well as insects and snails (Munro 1944). The kāma`o was often described for 

its habit of rising on the wing into the air, singing a few vigorous notes and then 

suddenly dropping down into the underbrush. Early in the morning it sings an 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-20 

elaborate song from treetops. The kāma`o seems to spend less time on the ground 

than does the smaller puaiohi. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

In the past half century, the kāma`o has not been seen below 1,100 meters 

(3,500 feet) elevation. In recent years, kāma`o have been seen most frequently 

where a healthy open forest canopy existed, primarily of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros 

polymorpha) and `ōlapa (Cheirodendron spp.). A diverse understory, lush with 

epiphytes, tree ferns, mosses, and a variety of native fruit-producing plants, such 

as `ie`ie, `ōhā wai (Clermontia spp.), and `ōhelo (Vaccinium spp.), are probably 

associated with good kāma`o habitat. The `ie`ie vines favored by kāma`o still 

exist in some areas of the island, but not in the higher elevations to which the 

birds may be currently restricted. `Ie`ie does not thrive above 1,500 meters 

(5,000 feet) elevation (Wagner et al. 1999). The fact that the kāma`o once existed 

near sea level, but is now restricted to high elevation native forest without its 

most preferred food plant, suggests that it may be surviving in marginal habitat. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

In 1881, the kāma`o was considered extremely common in the moist 

forests near sea level on northern Kaua`i as well as in the upland interior 

mountain forests. It was still considered common on the outer forest edges in 

1899, but by 1928 it became difficult to find in the lower forests. In 1941, it was 

still considered common in the upland interior forested plateau of the Alaka`i 

Wilderness Preserve (Munro 1944). The kāma`o became noticeably rare by the 

mid 1960s. At this time it remained only in the uppermost regions of the Alaka`i 

in very sparse numbers. From 1968 to 1973, Sincock (1982) found the kāma`o 

near the southern edge of the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, although one isolated 

occurrence was reported in the upper elevations of Kōke`e State Park (Figure 7). 

In the summer of 1985, two kāma`o were seen during an intensive 2-week survey 

of the Alaka`i (Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. 

data). This followed the moderately severe Hurricane Iwa that occurred in 

November 1982. The last confirmed observation of the kāma`o was made during 

the February 1989 Kaua`i forest bird survey (Hawai`i Department of Land and 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-21 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-22 

Natural Resources, unpubl. data). In September 1992 hurricane Iniki severely 

damaged Kaua`i’s forests. No sightings of kāma`o were made during a brief posthurricane survey made in February 1993 (Telfer 1993; Hawai`i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data), nor in more intensive surveys 

conducted in February and March 1994, March 2000, and March 2005 (Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data; Foster et al. 2004). 

The fact that the kāma`o has not been seen since 1989 indicates this 

species is on the brink of extinction. It should be noted, however, that its 

congener, the puaiohi or small Kaua`i thrush, went many years without being 

seen, but is now known to number 300 to 400 individuals. Periodic unconfirmed 

sightings of the kāma`o have been reported since 1989, the most recent in 1995, 

suggesting the species could still survive. In view of the kāma`o’s original 

widespread distribution to near sea level and the apparent negative impact of 

avian diseases and the destruction of its lowland habitat, it is unlikely that it will 

ever be restored to its historical range, but recovery of a population in the upper 

Alaka`i plateau is remotely possible, should any individuals persist. Additional 

targeted searches are needed to confirm the status of the species. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Avian disease is by far the most significant factor suspected to limit the 

kāma`o. Early ornithologists noted the difficulties these birds had with "lumps on 

their feet and sometimes at the corners of the mouth,” which likely were avian 

pox lesions, transmitted by mosquitoes or other vectors. The fact that some good 

quality native forest with abundant fruit-bearing plants exists below their current 

range demonstrates that habitat destruction cannot account for the extirpation of 

the species in the lowlands and that factors other than habitat quality are limiting 

the population. The proliferation of introduced fruits, such as blackberry (Rubus 

argutus), banana passionflower (Passiflora mollissima), guava (Psidium 

cattleianum), and thimbleberry (Rubus rosaefolius) into the mid-elevations, may 

have been an attractive food source that enticed kāma`o into lower elevations 

where they were exposed to avian diseases such as pox and avian malaria. 

If kāma`o are cavity or low platform nesters, as Hawaiian solitaires 

generally are, predators such as rats (Rattus spp.) may severely limit their nesting 

success and would explain why some of the smaller arboreally nesting species 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-23 

that nest higher off the ground have had a greater degree of nesting success. Feral 

cats (Felis catus) are occasionally found in high elevation rain forest habitat, and 

young solitaires foraging on the ground are probably one of the easier prey 

species for these predators. 

Several introduced birds, including the Japanese white-eye (Zosterops 

japonicus), melodious laughing-thrush (Garrulax canorus), white-rumped shama 

(Copsychus malabaricus), and the recently established Japanese bush-warbler 

(Cettia diphone) share the same habitat with the kāma`o and may compete with 

the kāma`o for food and nest sites to some degree. The establishment of other 

potentially detrimental birds on Kaua`i, such as the red-vented bulbul 

(Pycnonotus cafer) found on some of the other Hawaiian Islands, remains a 

persistent threat. 

Habitat degradation resulting from the invasion of pernicious alien weeds 

has drastically changed the forest structure and integrity. Two hurricanes in 1982 

and 1992 severely disrupted portions of high quality native forest, and have made 

space for the germination and expansion of noxious weeds such as yellow ginger 

(Hedychium flavescens), daisy fleabane (Erigeron karvinskianus), glorybush 

(Tibouchina urvilleana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and others 

(see Table 10, page 4-50). 

Feral pigs, and goats to a lesser degree, have had a long-term damaging 

effect upon native forests in the remaining kāma`o range by consuming and 

damaging understory vegetation, creating openings on the forest floor for weeds, 

and transporting weed seeds into the forest. Soil erosion and disruption of 

seedling regeneration of native plants is one of many forest management 

problems in kāma`o range. 

Perhaps less obvious, but potentially detrimental to the health of the 

remaining kāma`o habitat, are introductions of new alien invertebrates to the 

forest ecosystem. Although kāma`o are primarily frugivorous, insects and spiders 

are likely to be an important component of the diet, especially for nestlings. 

Introductions of predatory and parasitic invertebrates that compete with native 

species for food pose a continuing threat throughout the islands. Introduced 

predatory insects also may reduce or eliminate specialized native insects that are 

necessary for pollination of certain food plants. Many of the food plants used by 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-24 

kāma`o could be negatively affected by herbivorous alien insects, such as the 

two-spotted leafhopper (Sophonia rufofascia), which may reduce their range, fruit 

set, and eventual survival. Introduced snails that prey on indigenous snails could 

also reduce food resources of the kāma`o. On the other hand, the detrimental 

effects of some of these new insects and molluscs could be somewhat offset if 

they are utilized as direct prey items by the kāma`o. 

Finally, the remaining kāma`o population, if indeed it exists, is likely to be 

extremely small and genetically impoverished, increasing the risks of 

demographic instability and inbreeding depression. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

So little is known about the kāma`o and its limiting factors that few 

species-specific conservation actions have been attempted. Efforts have centered 

on protecting the integrity of the remaining native forest habitat in the Alaka`i 

Wilderness Preserve where these and other endangered forest birds have survived 

during the past half century. The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important 

action that protected watersheds in Hawai`i. It was later strengthened and retitled “Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, 

Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves,” which protects native forest 

habitats from certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectare (9,938 

acre) Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve in 1964 (Administrative Rule No. 1, Chapter 

3), recognizing the value of the pristine forest of that area and the need to control 

potential degrading factors. 

 

The kāma`o was federally listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1970), and it became protected under the State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982. 

 

Surveys and Monitoring. Regular surveys of Kaua`i forest bird 

populations and habitat conditions in the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve have been 

conducted on established transects since the late 1960s. John L. Sincock, 

Research Biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kaua`i Field Station, 

conducted intensive status and distribution surveys of Kaua`i’s forest birds from 

1968 to 1973 (Sincock 1982). Large-scale, multi-agency surveys were conducted 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-25 

on established transects in 1981, 1985, 1989, 1994, 2000, and 2005 (Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data). 

Control of Feral Ungulates. The Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources has maintained liberal public hunting seasons to minimize 

forest damage caused by feral pigs and goats within the Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve for several decades. Unfortunately, public hunting succeeds only in the 

more accessible areas of the preserve, and ungulate populations in more remote 

areas remain quite high. Very limited aerial reconnaissance and shooting of feral 

goats and pigs has been attempted in the most remote regions, but has not been 

economically effective. 

 

Public Information and Awareness. Materials featuring Kaua`i’s 

endangered forest birds, as well as those found on other islands, have been 

published and provided to schools to assist in the effort to inform the public and 

gain support for conservation of endangered species. Privately funded 

filmmakers including the British Broadcasting Company and National 

Geographic Society have produced documentaries that inform the public of the 

plight of endangered forest birds. Several articles have appeared in popular 

nature magazines and local newspapers to increase public awareness of issues 

related to the conservation of Hawaiian forest birds, including those on Kaua`i. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-26 

3. Oloma`o, Myadestes lanaiensis rutha

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY

The oloma`o or Moloka`i thrush is a medium-sized (21 centimeters [8.3 

inches] in length) solitaire with olive-brown upper parts, grayish white under 

parts, and a buffy patch at the base of the primaries. The bill and legs are dark. 

Juveniles exhibit the same scalloped plumage as other young native thrushes. 

Differences between the sexes and between adults and young have not been 

studied in detail, nor has molt, but may be similar to those of the closely related 

`ōma`o (M. obscurus) on Hawai`i Island. In that species, males are larger than 

females on average, and birds in first basic plumage usually retain juvenile 

scalloping in the wing coverts (Fancy et al. 1994). `Ōma`o molt from June 

through November (Ralph and Fancy 1994b). 

The oloma`o is a member of the thrush family (Turdidae) and was 

historically found on the islands of Lāna`i and Moloka`i, although its former 

range may have included O`ahu and Maui as well. Recent changes in the 

taxonomy of the Hawaiian thrushes have done away with the endemic genus 

Phaeornis and instead placed them with the New World solitaires, Myadestes, to 

which they are similar in appearance and song (Pratt 1982, American 

Ornithologists’ Union 1985). The two subspecies, M. l. lanaiensis of Lāna`i (now 

extinct) and M. l. rutha of Moloka`i (more grayish below), cannot be safely 

distinguished by coloration or measurements (Pratt 1982). With the wing 

measuring 95 millimeters (3.7 inches) and the tail 80 millimeters (3.1 inches), the 

oloma`o is slightly smaller and has a proportionately longer tail than the `ōma`o. 

Whether the `amaui (M. woahensis) of O`ahu and subfossil remains of solitaires 

from Maui may actually be oloma`o is one of the remaining questions regarding 

the systematics of the Hawaiian solitaires (Pratt 1982, James and Olson 1991). 

 

LIFE HISTORY 

The breeding biology of the oloma`o is largely unknown but may be 

similar to that of the closely-related `ōma`o. Three nests attributed to oloma`o 

were 8 to 9 meters (26 to 30 feet) up in `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha; two 

nests) and kōlea (Myrsine spp.; one nest) trees; one of the nests was found in 

May, and the dates of the other two were not recorded (Perkins 1903, Bryan 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-27 

1908). In the `ōma`o, modal clutch size is two, both young usually fledge, and 

parents tend their fledglings for about 6 weeks (van Riper and Scott 1979, 

Wakelee et al. 1999). Successful `ōma`o parents can raise two broods per season. 

Immature birds are not known to provide care at subsequent nestings by their 

parents. 

Oloma`o consume a variety of small fruits that they swallow whole and 

insects are taken at all levels in the forest (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903, 

Bryan 1908). The diet of the `ōma`o is essentially the same, and these foods are 

also fed to nestlings (Perkins 1903, van Riper and Scott 1979, Wakelee et al.

1999). 

Much like the related `ōma`o, oloma`o live solitarily or in pairs and 

seldom leave their small home range (Bryan 1908, Ralph and Fancy 1994b). 

They do not make long flights over the canopy, but rise above the trees during 

song flights (Bryan 1908). Like other Hawaiian solitaires, they often tremble 

their wings when perched (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903, Bryan 1908). 

Oloma`o are easily detected by song or calls. Oloma`o usually sing from 

treetops, but because of the song’s ventriloquial quality, the singer is often 

difficult to locate (Bryan 1908). The song is beautiful, thrush-like, “of a jerky 

nature” (Rothschild 1893 to 1900), and similar to that of the `ōma`o (Bryan 

1908). Described as voluble singers during the day, oloma`o also sing at night in 

good weather (Perkins 1903, Bryan 1908). Munro (1960) claimed that the Lāna`i 

bird was “no singer at all.” Calls were reported as “a clear call-note” (Rothschild 

1893 to 1900), and a questioning cat-like call (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Bryan 

1908), both notes similar to those of `ōma`o. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Oloma`o prefer closed forest; if in open forest, they stay close to cover 

(Bryan 1908). Originally they were ubiquitous throughout wet and dry forests on 

Moloka`i and Lāna`i, in the lowlands as well as at the highest elevations 

(Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903). The most recent records have all been 

from dense rainforest above 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) elevation adjacent to the 

steep pali (cliff) of Pelekunu (Scott et al. 1986). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-28 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The historical range of the oloma`o encompassed the mountains of East 

Moloka`i and Lāna`i (Figure 8). Bryan reported that oloma`o were most abundant 

at Hālawa, Moloka`i, where closed forest provided prime habitat (Rothschild 

1893 to 1900, Bryan 1908). Past distribution may have included O`ahu (if the 

`amaui is considered the same species; James and Olson 1991) and Maui, where 

ample fossils of Hawaiian solitaires have been found (James and Olson 1991) and 

where, at `Īao Valley, a native informant claimed solitaires to be abundant in the 

1860s (Perkins 1903). 

The only detections of oloma`o since Bryan’s trip in 1907 have been on 

Moloka`i, including: (1) two birds vividly described in 1963 at Pu`u Haha on 

Ka`āpahu ridge at 1,100 meters (3,600 feet; Pekelo 1963); (2) two sightings in 

1975 one-half mile east (sic; west?) of Pu`u O Waha`ulu at 1,360 meters (4,460 

feet; Scott et al. 1977); (3) five to six detections at various locations near the rim 

of Pelekunu and on Oloku`i during the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey in 1979 and 

1980 (Figure 8); and (4) a fleeting glimpse in 1988 on Kapapamoa ridge 

somewhat above 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) (A. Engilis, Ducks Unlimited, pers. 

comm.). At least three of the detections by the Hawai`i Forest Bird Surveys were 

questionable and were perhaps Japanese bush-warblers (Cettia diphone), a species 

that had just recently colonized Moloka`i. Scott et al. (1986) estimated a 

population of 19 ± 38 birds. Surveys in 1988, 1995, and 2004 turned up no 

oloma`o (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001; Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, unpubl. data). Currently, there are no known oloma`o 

populations, and whether the species remains extant is unknown. Survey efforts 

for this species have been relatively low, due in part to the difficulty of accessing 

some of its best remaining habitat. An unconfirmed sighting in 2005 provided 

some hope that the species may still survive (G. Hughes, in litt. 2005). Additional 

searches are needed to ascertain the current status of the oloma`o with greater 

confidence, particularly of the Oloku`i Plateau. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Reasons for decline and current threats presumably are the same as for 

other forest birds in Hawai`i. The Lāna`i population of oloma`o died out from 

1923 to 1931 when Lāna`i City was built, and “the people brought bird disease 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-29 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-30 

with their poultry and these, evidently carried by mosquitoes, were fatal to the 

native bird population” (Munro 1960). Extensive habitat exists on O`ahu, 

Moloka`i, and Maui, but only on Maui could a solitaire population be established 

at elevations mostly above the reach of mosquitoes. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The oloma`o was federally listed as an endangered species on October 13, 

1970 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970), and was included in the MauiMoloka`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984a). Past 

conservation efforts have included the above-mentioned surveys, plus periodic 

surveys by the State of Hawai`i, and habitat protection. Habitat protection on 

Moloka`i includes ungulate and weed control on the Pu`u Ali`i Natural Area 

Reserve by the State of Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, and 

on the Kamakou Preserve by The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. Forest on the 

privately owned Lāna`i Hale, the highest point on Lāna`i, suffers from browsing 

by axis deer (Axis axis), for which hunting regulations change from year to year. 

For habitat protection on Maui, refer to the po`ouli species account. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-31 

4. Puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The puaiohi or small Kaua`i 

thrush is a medium-sized (16.5 to 17.8 

centimeters [6.5 to 7.0 inches] long; 37.0 

to 43.0 gram [1.3 to 1.5 ounce]) solitaire, 

drab olive brown above, and medium 

gray below on the throat, belly and 

undertail coverts. The legs are pink and 

relatively long and the tail is relatively 

short. The eyes are dark with a 

prominent white eye-ring. The bill is dark gray and narrower than that of the 

kāma`o. Immatures have an off-white breast with prominent brown scalloping, 

and light-buffy spotting on the brown back. The simple reedy song usually 

consists of a preparatory whistle and a prolonged trill, followed by several sharp 

descending notes. It also commonly uses a scolding or hissing "sherrr" alarm 

note. Other calls are described in detail in Snetsinger et al. (1999). 

Early descriptions of the puaiohi were made by Rothschild based on skins 

obtained by Henry Palmer in 1891, in the mountains of Kaua`i at Halemanu 

(Berger 1972). Originally described as Phaeornis palmeri, Pratt (1982) offered 

convincing evidence that Phaeornis should be merged with the New World 

solitaire genus Myadestes, and that some Hawaiian thrushes formerly treated as 

subspecies are sufficiently distinct to merit full species status (Scott et al. 1986). 

The puaiohi is in the thrush family, Turdidae. 

LIFE HISTORY 

Puaiohi nest in cavities or on ledges, usually on vegetated overhanging 

rock faces, where the nest may be concealed by mosses and ferns (Kepler and 

Kepler 1983, Ashman et al. 1984, Snetsinger et al. 1999), or more rarely, in 

secondary cavities formed in trees (Snetsinger et al. 1999). Captive-bred and 

released birds nested more often in trees than did wild birds, although whether 

this is an effect of nest-site availability, inexperience, or sampling bias is 

Adult puaiohi. Photo pending permission
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-32 

unknown (Tweed et al. 2006). The great majority of available ecological 

information on wild breeding puaiohi comes from a 3-year study in the Upper 

Mōhihi drainage of the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve (Snetsinger et al. 2005) 

During this study, 96 active nests were found, compared to only 4 reported 

previously for this species. The remainder of this section is drawn from that 

report unless otherwise indicated. 

Puaiohi sing occasionally throughout the year, but with increased 

frequency immediately before and during the breeding season, with a peak from 

April to May. The frequency of song of an individual bird is dependent on its 

stage in the nesting cycle. A socially monogamous mating system is believed to 

predominate, but verifying this is impeded by the fact that few color-banded 

adults have been observed nesting. One instance of polygyny was recorded in 

1999, when a captive-bred male paired and nested with two captive-bred females 

simultaneously (Tweed et al. 2006). Nesting begins as early as March, peaks 

from April to June, and continues with decreasing frequency through midSeptember. Nest building requires 1 to 7 days, followed by a latent period of 8 to 

10 days before the first egg is laid. The female alone builds the nest, and 

incubates and broods the young. Clutch size is almost always two, although 

Tweed et al. (2006) observed one- and three-egg clutches (one of each type) in 

captive-bred released females. Eggs are grayish-green to pale greenish-blue with 

irregular reddish-brown splotches (Berger 1972). Eggs hatch after 13 to 15 days. 

The male and female both provision the chicks, with the female acting as the 

primary provider while chicks are still in the nest. After fledging, the male 

assumes primary responsibility for feeding chicks while the female frequently 

initiates a subsequent nesting attempt. Occasionally (8 percent of nests), secondyear and hatch-year birds assist in nest defense and feeding of nestlings and 

fledglings, although the relationship of helpers to the breeding adults is unknown. 

Recently fledged young are highly sedentary for 2 to 4 days after fledging, 

remaining within 2 meters (6 feet) of the ground, where they may be particularly 

vulnerable to predation by introduced mammalian predators. 

Females readily and quickly re-nest after success or failure of a nesting 

attempt. This propensity to re-nest, combined with long breeding seasons (3 to 

4.5 months) and high rates of nest success, led to remarkably high productivity in 

1996 and 1997: an average of 2.8 and 4.9 fledglings per pair, respectively. In 

1998, when El Niño Southern Oscillation drought struck the islands, the breeding 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-33 

season lasted only 1.7 months and nest success decreased, leading to production 

of only 0.4 fledglings per pair per year. The decrease in nesting success appeared 

to be due to elevated rat predation on nests and nesting females, although 

additional data are needed to confirm this trend. Whether the observed increase 

was due to a change in behavior of the rats or the birds, or to a population 

increase of rats after two favorable years, is unknown. Regardless, based on this 

limited evidence, it appears that puaiohi are vulnerable to severe drought and to 

rat predation. 

Adult and juvenile survival and dispersal are poorly known because of the 

difficulty of marking and following sufficient numbers of birds over successive 

years. At least 73 percent of marked adults, and 25 percent of juveniles (first-year 

birds) survived until the April of the next breeding season. Dispersal distances of 

young may generally be short, a fact that has important implications for the rate of 

natural recolonization of recovering habitat. Of 31 nestlings banded in 1997, 5 

established breeding territories 140 to 540 meters (460 to 1,772 feet) from their 

natal territory, 2 others were seen within 50 meters (164 feet) of the nest they 

hatched from, and 2 more were observed as floaters. If these short dispersal 

distances are representative, and keeping in mind the observations of helper 

behavior by second-year birds on their natal territories, one interpretation is that it 

is difficult for young puaiohi to establish breeding territories in high-quality sites, 

hence they may enhance their fitness either by helping their parents rear siblings, 

or by inheriting their parents’ high-quality territories or nest sites. 

The diet of the puaiohi includes fleshy native fruits, insects, snails, and 

other invertebrates (Wilson and Evans 1890 to 1899, Rothschild 1893 to 1900, 

Perkins 1903, Richardson and Bowles 1964, Snetsinger et al. 1999). During the 

non-breeding season, foraging attempts were 82 percent fruits and 18 percent 

insects or other invertebrates. While rearing nestlings, the proportion of foraging 

maneuvers directed at insects increased to 57 percent. A total of 75 percent of 

foraging attempts occurred in terminal fruit or leaf clusters in lower to 

midcanopy, 16 percent in upper canopy, 8 percent on main branches or trunks in 

midcanopy, and 1 percent on the ground. `Ōlapa (Cheirodendron trigynum) fruit 

is known to be an important food of this bird (Richardson and Bowles 1964, Scott 

et al. 1986). Other important fruits include lapalapa (C. platyphyllum), `ōhi`a ha 

(Syzygium sandwicensis), kanawao (Broussaisia arguta), `ōhelo (Vaccinium

spp.), pa`iniu (Astelia spp.), thimbleberry (Rubus rosifolius), pūkiawe (Styphelia 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-34 

tameiameiae), kāwa`u (Ilex anomala), and pilo (Coprosma spp.). In its earlier 

history, the puaiohi was reported by Perkins (1903) to be a bird of the underbrush 

and to be largely insectivorous, feeding on beetles, spiders and caterpillars, 

especially a beetle found on koa (Acacia koa) trees, which currently do not occur 

within the existing puaiohi range. Caterpillars and seeds were identified in the 

stomachs of type specimens (Perkins 1903). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Puaiohi are permanent residents of 

stream valleys and associated ridges of the 

Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve and adjacent 

forest. Historically occupied habitat was 

mesic (1,000 to 2,000 millimeters [39 to 79 

inches] rainfall a year) to extremely wet 

(2,500 to 13,000 millimeters [98 to 512 

inches] rainfall a year,) montane forest, with 

deeply dissected terrain containing steepwalled ravines above 1,000 meters (3,300 

feet) (Perkins 1903, Scott et al. 1986). Its 

mesic forest habitat is dominated by koa and 

`ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha), while the 

wet forest is dominated by `ōhi`a, with subdominant `ōhi`a ha and several species 

of `ōlapa (Cheirodendron). Formerly occupied mesic forest is now dominated 

largely by introduced plant species, including fire tree (Myrica faya), glory-bush 

(Tibouchina urvilleana), kahili ginger (Hedychium gardnerianum), silk oak 

(Grevillea robusta), strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), and black wattle 

(Acacia mearnsii). Puaiohi are now confined to wet montane forest, with greater 

than 6,000 millimeters (236 inches) rainfall a year, at 1,050 to 1,300 meters 

(3,450 to 4,250 feet) (Scott et al. 1986, Snetsinger et al. 1999), and are associated 

with `ōlapa fruit (Scott et al. 1986) and `ōhi`a ha (Snetsinger et al. 1999). 

Although a strong flier, the puaiohi seems to have specific habitat 

requirements that keep it within areas that provide a year-round food supply and 

nesting habitat (Wilson and Evans 1890 to 1899, Perkins 1903, Snetsinger et al.

1999). Prime nesting sites are found on rock faces along small streams that drain 

the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve to the south and west. Species density is 

Photo pending permission.

pending permission
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-35 

currently low in some apparently suitable habitat, but the cause of this pattern is 

unknown. In recent years this included tracts directly east of Kōke`e State Park 

that were chosen for experimental release of captive bred birds in 1999, 2000, and 

2001, and that now harbor an experimental population of fewer than 10 captive 

and wild birds. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Even in the late 1800s, the puaiohi was considered exceedingly rare 

(Perkins 1903). It has been found in extremely limited numbers during the past 

half century. Sincock et al. (1984) estimated the population at 176 ± 192 for the 

period 1968 to 1973, and Scott et al. (1986) estimated that there were only about 

97 ± 129 puaiohi within their 25 square kilometer (9.7 square mile) study area in 

the heart of the Alaka`i. 

Based on more recent field surveys, the total current population of puaiohi 

is estimated to consist of 300 to 500 individuals (T. Savre, Kaua`i Forest Bird 

Recovery Project, pers. comm.), in stream valleys and on associated ridges above 

1,050 meters (3,450 feet) elevation on the southern and central plateau of the 

Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve (Figure 9). Although this most recent estimate is 

slightly higher than previous estimates, it is unlikely that the population has 

actually increased since previous population estimates were made. The recent 

surveys have focused on puaiohi and have employed methods designed 

specifically for puaiohi, so the apparently higher population estimate is likely due 

to improved survey methods and greater effort. The breeding population is 

restricted to an area less than 25 square kilometers (9.7 square miles) in size, and 

more than half of the breeding population occurs within only 10 square kilometers 

(3.9 square miles). The highest densities of puaiohi occur in three adjacent 

drainages: the Upper Mōhihi, Upper Waiakoali and the northeastern upper 

Kawaikōī (the "core" or "Mōhihi/Waiakoali" population). In the Mōhihi, where 

the intensive study of breeding biology took place, adult puaiohi can be found at a 

density of approximately 6.3 pairs per kilometer (0.62 mile) of primary stream 

bottom, plus an undetermined number of floaters (Snetsinger et al. 2005). 

Helpers at the nest, in some cases known to be previously fledged young of the 

resident pair, were observed at 8 percent of 87 nests by Snetsinger et al. (2005). 

In the Mōhihi area, puaiohi density declines with elevation to about 1,050 meters 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-36 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-37 

(3,450 feet), a pattern that may be applicable to other areas. The Mōhihi is 

contiguous with a relatively large area of habitat that probably supports medium 

to low densities along the Wai`alae Trail to the south and the forest reserve 

boundary to the north (T. Snetsinger, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

The upper reaches of the Halehaha and Halepā`ākai drainages contain a 

medium-density population that probably continues in lower densities 

downstream, although the distributional limits of this population are unknown 

(the “Halehaha/ Halepā`ākai” population). Two small, low-density populations 

were detected during State forest bird surveys in 1994, on private lands along the 

Halekua and Waiau streams at the southern edge of the species’ range. Neither 

population was detected during surveys in March 2000 (T. Telfer, Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, pers. comm.). As of 2006, several 

additional streams have been surveyed for puaiohi, bringing the total surveyed 

area to more than 70 percent of the species’ current range, but these data have not 

yet been completely analyzed. These surveys include seven tributaries of the 

Koaie stream (low to medium puaiohi density), two upper branches of Waialae 

stream (low puaiohi density), and areas along the cliff edge above Wainiha valley 

(low to medium puaiohi density) (Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife and 

U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished data). Lā`au Ridge, where an incidental 

observation of puaiohi was made in 1969 (Sincock 1982), has rarely been visited 

in recent decades; crews did not detect any puaiohi there in March 2000, but a 

more thorough search is warranted. 

The northwestern upper Kawaikōī drainage, near the intersection of the 

Alaka`i Swamp and Pihea Trails, harbored only two birds prior to the first release 

of captive-bred birds in connection with a captive propagation and reintroduction 

program in January 1999 (Kuehler et al. 2000). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Disease. Early ornithologists did not note difficulties with lumps on the 

feet and bills of puaiohi as they did with the kāma`o (evidence of avian pox, 

Poxvirus avium). However, avian diseases, including both pox and malaria 

(Plasmodium relictum), almost certainly limit puaiohi from the lower reaches of 

stream drainages with suitable nesting cliffs. Mist-netting of forest birds from 

1994 to 1997 at three locations, Pihea/Alaka`i Swamp Trail, Koaie Stream, and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-38 

Sincock’s Bog, documented 2 to 5 percent of individuals of all bird species with 

active malaria infections and up to 12 percent with malarial antibodies (C. 

Atkinson, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Malarial infection rates were 

highest in the west, at Pihea, and lowest in Sincock’s Bog. Mosquitoes are 

present to the highest elevations on Kaua`i (D. LaPointe, pers. comm.). Two 

fatalities of native birds near puaiohi habitat are attributed to malaria, indicating 

that active malaria transmission occurs in the area. The first, a Kaua`i `amakihi, 

occurred in the fall of 1999 in Kōke`e State Park, and the second, an `apapane, 

was found in late spring of 2006, just east of Koke`e State Park along the Pihea 

trail (C. Atkinson, pers. comm.). 

 

As of 2006, only six wild puaiohi have been tested for disease. Of these, 

none had active infections, but one had antibodies to malaria, suggesting that at 

least some puaiohi may be able to survive malarial infection (Atkinson et al. 

2001). However, it is impossible to tell from these data whether survival rates of 

infected puaiohi are high or low; low infection rates could reflect either low 

transmission rates or high mortality of infected birds. Because puaiohi are 

endangered, challenge experiments have not been used to determine survivorship 

of infected birds. 

Predation from introduced mammals. Predators such as rats (Rattus

spp.) may be a serious limiting factor on puaiohi nesting success and survival of 

breeding females (females are more vulnerable than males since they attend the 

nest at night when rats are active). Although their habit of nesting on steep cliff 

faces may provide some protection from nest predation, 48 percent of wild nest 

failures and 1 adult female’s death were attributed to rats (Snetsinger et al. 2005), 

at least 4 of 9 failed nests built by captive-bred puaiohi were depredated by rats, 

and 2 nesting captive-bred females were killed by rats (Tweed et al. 2006). The 

tendency of young puaiohi to remain close to the ground for several days after 

fledging probably makes them particularly vulnerable to predation by feral cats. 

Competition from introduced birds. Several introduced birds, including 

the Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus), melodious laughing-thrush 

(Garrulax canorus), and white-rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus) share the 

same habitat with the puaiohi to some degree and may compete with the puaiohi 

for food. These and other alien bird species, including the recently established 

Japanese bush-warbler (Cettia diphone), also may serve as reservoirs of disease. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-39 

The establishment of other potentially detrimental birds on Kaua`i, such as the 

red-vented bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer) found on some of the other Hawaiian 

Islands, remains a persistent threat. 

Habitat degradation. Feral pigs, and goats to a lesser degree, have had a 

long-term damaging effect upon native forests in the remaining puaiohi range, 

opening space for weeds and transporting weed seeds into the forest. As the 

range of introduced black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) expands, it is 

expected that they too will degrade native forest. The negative impacts of feral 

ungulates on forested ecosystems in Hawai`i have been reviewed elsewhere 

(Cabin et al. 2000). Soil erosion and disruption of seedling regeneration of 

beneficial plants is one of many forest management problems within puaiohi 

range. Habitat degradation resulting from the invasion of many nonnative weeds 

has drastically changed the forest structure and integrity. Two hurricanes in 1982 

and 1992 severely disturbed areas of native forest and made space for the 

germination and expansion of alien plants. 

Perhaps less obvious, but potentially detrimental to the health of 

remaining puaiohi habitat, are additions of new exotic invertebrates to the forest 

ecosystem. Introduced species may affect the birds’ food supply directly, as for 

example by the parasitoid wasps introduced as biocontrol agents, which are 

known to prey heavily on caterpillars in the Alaka`i (Henneman and Memmott 

2001). Introduced snails that prey on indigenous snails could also reduce food 

resources of the puaiohi. Puaiohi may also be negatively affected indirectly by 

introduced insects that reduce fruit supplies. Newly introduced insects, such as 

the two-spotted leaf hopper (Sophonia rufofascia), are causing serious damage to 

many native and nonnative plants. Other introduced predatory insects may reduce 

or eliminate specialized native insects that are necessary for pollination of certain 

food plants. On the other hand, the detrimental effects of some introduced insects 

could be offset if they are eaten by puaiohi. 

All of Kaua`i’s endangered forest birds are so few in number that lack of 

genetic diversity poses potential problems. Some of these birds are highly 

specialized and are ill-adapted for rapid changes in their environment. The 

puaiohi, with a population size of 300 to 500 birds in a number of widely 

separated subpopulations, falls below the minimum effective population size of 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-40 

500 individuals recommended for long-term maintenance of genetic diversity 

(Soulé 1987). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The puaiohi is the only one of the six endangered forest birds on Kaua`i 

that exists in sufficient numbers to allow research and species-specific 

management actions to take place. Beginning in 1995, the conservation 

community initiated a program to study and develop management techniques for 

this species. Actions taken towards conservation of the puaiohi include legal 

protection, ecological studies, reintroduction of captive-bred individuals, periodic 

surveys and inventories, control of feral ungulates, small mammal control, and 

information and education. 

 

Legal Protection. The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important 

action that protected watersheds in Hawai`i. It was later strengthened and retitled “Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, 

Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves,” which protects native forest 

habitats from certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectare (9,938 

acre) Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve in 1964 (Administrative Rule No. 1, Chapter 

3), recognizing the value of the pristine forest of that area and the need to control 

potential degrading factors. 

The puaiohi was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1967), and it was included in the Kaua`i Forest Birds 

Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983b). By virtue of being on the 

Federal endangered species list, it also became protected under the State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982. 

 

Ecological Studies. An intensive field study of the ecology and behavior 

of the puaiohi was initiated in 1995, with the cooperation of the Biological 

Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey (then the National Biological 

Service), the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, The Peregrine Fund, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Kamehameha Schools. A team of biologists 

was tasked with locating and learning more about the life history of the puaiohi. 

Over 200 active nests and old nests were located, and the breeding biology, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-41 

Captive adult puaiohi with two fledglings. 

Photo © Jack Jeffrey. 

nesting success, survival, dispersal, and behavior of the species were studied. The 

results of that research have been presented in quarterly and annual reports to 

cooperators, in a Birds of North America account (Snetsinger et al. 1999), and in 

several publications recently published, planned, or in preparation (e.g., 

Snetsinger et al. 2005). The biological and ecological data collected during that 

study forms the foundation on which to make decisions regarding future 

management of the species (Woodworth 2000). 

 

Dr. Carter Atkinson of the Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. 

Geological Survey, initiated forest bird disease studies on several of the main 

Hawaiian islands, including Kaua`i, focusing primarily on blood-borne diseases 

within the range of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. This research is aimed at 

understanding the significance of disease and confirming the long-held theory that 

diseases brought to Hawai`i by introduced exotic birds, and the establishment of 

alien vectors of disease such as mosquitoes, have had a major role in the decline 

and extinction of native birds in Hawai`i. As a consequence of this research, one 

peer-reviewed article relating directly to the puaiohi has been published as of 

2006 (Atkinson et al. 2001). Although it is a formidable task, hope exists for 

finding ways of mitigating the disease problem of rare native forest birds. 

 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction. Beginning in 1995, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, The Peregrine Fund, U.S. Geological Survey, and the 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife began developing and testing rear-andrelease and translocation techniques with the closely-related `ōma`o (Myadestes 

obscurus) as a surrogate for the 

endangered puaiohi. The research 

showed that rearing Hawaiian 

solitaires in captivity and releasing 

them to the wild using soft-release 

techniques was highly successful 

(Kuehler et al. 2000). Furthermore, 

captive-reared yearling birds had 

greater site fidelity than translocated 

adult birds (Fancy et al. 2001). 

A captive breeding program for puaiohi was established at The Keauhou 

Bird Conservation Center on Hawai`i and at the Maui Bird Conservation Center. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-42 

The program began in 1996, when five eggs were hatched in captivity from eggs 

collected from the wild. An additional 10 birds from wild eggs were added to the 

captive breeding program in 1997 (The Peregrine Fund 1996, 1997). 

Maintaining a large captive-breeding program encompassing 90 percent of 

the original genetic variation of the wild population, although ideal, may not be 

necessary for puaiohi. A small captive flock may be sufficient for several 

reasons: (1) a wild reproducing population still exists (~200 females), (2) the 

newly-established population of puaiohi is not genetically isolated, dispersal 

distances of captive-reared released birds are long enough to link subpopulations, 

and pairings between captive-bred and wild birds have been observed, and (3) 

additional founder stock can be collected from the wild in the future, if necessary, 

to augment the genetic diversity in captivity. If genetic diversity of the captive 

flock drops below 90 percent, and funding, prioritization of facility use, and 

concurrence is reached by the Captive Propagation Partnership, the captive 

population may be augmented with wild-collected eggs. 

The release of captive-bred birds into the wild was begun in 1999, when 

The Peregrine Fund released 8 females and 6 males into the Kawaikōī drainage, 

western Alaka`i, and monitored them using radio telemetry for 30 days. Onehundred percent of the birds survived the first 30 days post-release, and appeared 

to be adept at foraging in the wild (Kuehler et al. 2000). Follow-up monitoring 

by the U.S. Geological Survey demonstrated that all 14 birds survived at least 9.5 

weeks after release, and 7 established breeding territories in the Kawaikōī, while 

the rest dispersed to other drainages (Tweed et al. 2003). Both captive-captive 

and captive-wild pairings were documented (Tweed et al. 2006). 

On February 1, 2000, an additional 5 birds (4 females, 1 male) were 

released by The Peregrine Fund/Zoological Society of San Diego and an 

additional cohort of 15 birds was released in spring 2001 by the Zoological 

Society of San Diego. The overall release strategy for the first 3 consecutive 

years of releases (1999 to 2001) is considered highly successful, with 31 of 34 

released birds surviving to 30 days after release and released animals breeding in 

the wild with nesting success comparable to that of wild birds (Zoological Society 

of San Diego 2001, Tweed et al. 2006). However, the Kawaikōī population 

appears not to have grown appreciably since the last release in 2001, based on 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-43 

limited surveys in 2003 of at least 5 birds in the general release area (T. Savre, 

pers. comm.). 

A second release site for puaiohi was established in the 

Halehaha/Halepā`ākai stream drainage in good quality puaiohi habitat, and 

releases have been conducted there for 5 years. As of 2006, a total of 79 puaiohi 

(43 females, 36 males) have been released at this site by the Zoological Society of 

San Diego, including 8 birds in 2002, 18 birds in 2003, 17 birds in 2004, 17 birds 

in 2005, and 19 birds in 2006. This site differs from the Kawaikōī drainage in 

that the forest is considerably less degraded, and also that wild puaiohi exist there 

at medium densities. 

 

For releases conducted from 1999 to 2002, 36 of 42 (85.7 percent) 

released birds survived to 30 days post-release, and survival during the 

subsequent 40 to 50 days ranged from 67 percent in 1999 to 71 percent in 2001 

and 83 percent in 2002. However, only 20 to 43 percent of released birds 

established breeding territories in the target drainage each year, and the majority 

of released birds dispersed several kilometers away, often in the direction of highdensity populations (Tweed et al. 1999, Monahan et al. 2001, Pratt et al. 2002). 

Of puaiohi released between 2003 and 2005, most released birds did not breed in 

the release drainage: no more than four puaiohi (in 2003) established breeding 

territories in the Halehaha/Halepā`ākai drainages. The maximum known 

dispersal distances of birds released between 2003 and 2006 averaged 3.0 to 3.8 

kilometers (1.8 to 2.3 miles) (P. Roberts, Kaua`i Forest Bird Recovery Project, 

pers. comm.). 

 

Periodic Surveys and Inventories. Regular surveys and inventories of 

Kaua`i forest bird populations and habitat conditions within the Alaka`i 

Wilderness Preserve have been conducted on established transects since the late 

1960s. John L. Sincock, research biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Kaua`i Field Station, conducted intensive status and distribution surveys 

of Kaua`i forest birds between 1968 and 1973 (Sincock 1982). Large-scale multiagency surveys were conducted on established transects in 1981, 1985, 1989, 

1994, 2000, and 2005 (Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

unpubl. data). 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-44 

The Hawai`i Rare Bird Search Team made an intensive systematic effort 

to locate any surviving endangered Kaua`i forest bird populations in the mid1990s (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). They were successful in locating puaiohi 

(55 to 70 individuals), providing the impetus for subsequent field studies, but no 

other endangered birds were recorded during the search (Reynolds and Snetsinger 

2001). From 2002 to 2005, the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, has conducted systematic surveys 

for puaiohi in all suitable habitat to better understand species distribution and 

total population, and this formed the basis for an improved population estimate, 

presented here. 

 

Control of Feral Ungulates. The Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources has maintained liberal public hunting seasons to minimize 

forest damage caused by feral pigs and goats within the Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve for several decades. Unfortunately, public hunting occurs only in the 

more accessible areas of the preserve, and ungulate populations in some remote 

areas remain quite high. Limited aerial reconnaissance and aerial shooting of 

feral goats and pigs has been attempted in the most remote regions, but has not 

been economically effective. Long-term protection of the Alaka`i from feral 

ungulates will require creativity, commitment, political savvy, improved public 

relations, and significant financial support. 

Small Mammal Control. Rat control using registered rodenticides and 

snap traps might increase nesting success in some areas. Reduced rat predation of 

nests in the Mōhihi drainage where rats were actively trapped supports this idea, 

although overall nest success was high (Snetsinger et al. 2005). Logistical 

obstacles to rodent control may be especially great in the Alaka`i, given the 

difficulty of maintaining bait stations without disturbing native plants in the steep 

terrain, and the challenges of placing bait near the vertical rock faces on which 

puaiohi nest. 

Information and Education. Materials featuring Kaua`i’s endangered 

forest birds, as well as those found on other islands, have been published and 

provided to schools to assist in the effort to inform the public and gain support for 

funding to conserve endangered species. Privately funded filmmakers, including 

The British Broadcasting Company and National Geographic Society, have 

filmed and publicized the plight of endangered forest birds. Several articles have 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-45 

appeared in popular nature magazines and local newspapers to tell the story of the 

endangered Hawaiian forest birds, including those on Kaua`i. Audubon magazine 

featured the puaiohi recovery effort in its February 1999 issue. Staff directly 

involved with the puaiohi recovery project have made presentations at public fairs 

on Kaua`i as well as at scientific conferences. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Habitat Protection. Prospects for recovery of the puaiohi lie in 

maintaining and restoring forest habitat by developing, testing, and applying 

broad-scale habitat restoration measures, including: control of feral ungulates 

through a combination of hunting, fencing, snaring, and possibly development of 

lethal non-toxicant devices for use in areas inaccessible to hunters, or in areas 

closed to hunters; controlling the encroachment of noxious weed plants and 

insects through tested bio-control, and where feasible, mechanical and chemical 

measures; and continuing enforcement of State and Federal laws that protect 

against destructive human activities and development. 

Predator Control. A need exists to develop, test, register, and apply 

toxicants for control of introduced rodents and feral cats in remote forested 

habitat. The prevention of additional introductions of exotic plants, insects, 

mammals (especially the small Indian mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus, 

currently a resident on other Hawaiian islands), and alien birds that may act as 

predators on, or competitors with, native birds is necessary. 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Programs. Augmentation of 

natural dispersal and recolonization of recovering habitat through reintroduction 

of captive-bred puaiohi in selected areas is desirable. Such reintroductions 

increase the range of the species and increase the probability that the species will 

survive future catastrophes such as hurricanes or disease outbreaks. 

Population Surveys and Monitoring. Continued monitoring of the 

status of forest bird populations and their habitats to measure the effectiveness of 

management actions is necessary. 

Research and Identification of Limiting Factors. Demographic 

research to obtain better information on survival, reproduction, and recruitment 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-46 

rates is needed to better understand how to best manage the species, and to help 

determine whether the release of captive-bred birds provides a significant longterm benefit. Evaluating the relative importance of disease, predators, food, and 

habitat change in restricting the puaiohi’s range and population growth would 

benefit the development of long-term strategies for conserving the species. The 

current limited range size renders the species extremely vulnerable to hurricanes, 

new diseases, and other catastrophic habitat changes. Increasing the range and/or 

total population size would mitigate these risks. 

Other. Continued public information sharing is needed to help generate 

support for the Kaua`i Forest Bird Project and for habitat management. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-47 

One of few photographs of the Kaua`i `ō`ō. 

Photo © Rob Shallenberger. 

5. Kaua`i `Ō`ō, Moho braccatus

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Kaua`i `ō`ō or `ō`ō `ā`ā is 

one of four known Hawaiian species of 

the genus Moho and one of five known 

Hawaiian bird species within the 

honeyeater family, Meliphagidae (Sykes 

et al. 2000). It is 19.5 centimeters (7.7 

inches) long, shorter-tailed, and 

somewhat smaller than the `ō`ō species 

on the other islands, hence the “`ā`ā,” meaning dwarf `ō`ō. It is glossy black on 

the head, wings, and tail; smoky brown on the lower back, rump and abdomen; 

and rufous-brown on the upper tail coverts. It has a prominent white patch at the 

bend of the wing. The throat feathers are black with a subterminal bar of white, 

giving a barred or scaled effect. The thigh feathers are golden yellow in adults, 

but black in immatures. The iris is dull yellow. The bill and feet are black, and 

the soles of the feet pale yellow (Berger 1972). 

The song consists of loud whistles that have been described as flute-like, 

hollow, echoing, and haunting. A call note was described as a distinct “tooktook” (Munro 1944). Nesting birds are reported to use a “beep beep” call (Scott 

et al. 1986). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Much of what is known about the life history of the Kaua`i `ō`ō was 

learned by John L. Sincock who spent many months between 1967 and 1978 

searching for and studying Kaua`i’s rare birds (Sincock 1982). Its last known 

habitat was dense native `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) forest in the deep 

stream valleys of the central Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve. The only known nests 

were located in cavities of large dead `ōhi`a snags. One nest was described as 

being 12 meters (40 feet) above the ground in a dead `ōhi`a tree (Berger 1972). 

There is little information on the extent of the nesting season, but two nestlings 

were reported in a single nest in June 1971, and two other nests were monitored in 

late May and early June (Sincock 1982). 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-48 

The diet is reported to be insects, spiders, millipedes, moths, crickets, 

snails, `ōlapa (Cheirodendron) fruits, and nectar from `ōhi`a, lobelia, and other 

flowering plants (Richardson and Bowles 1964; Sincock 1982). Early 

ornithologists reported that `ō`ō fed heavily on the flower bracts of `ie`ie 

(Freycinetia arborea), which was abundant in formerly occupied low elevation 

forest habitat, but is not found in the upper elevation forests that were last 

occupied. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The Kaua`i `ō`ō was reportedly very common from near sea level to the 

high interior forests of Kaua`i up to the end of the 19th century, but after only 3 

decades it was thought to be close to extinction (Figure 7, page 2-21; Munro 

1944). Except for inconclusive reports of possible vocalizations, it went without 

observation until rediscovered by Donagho (1941) and again by Richardson and 

Bowles (1961). Sincock located and described the first nest in a tree cavity in 

1971, and followed subsequent nests in 1972 and 1973. Upon rediscovery during 

the late 1960s, the Kaua`i `ō`ō population was estimated at only 36 birds (Sincock 

1982). Only a single pair was found during an intensive survey made in 1981 

(Scott et al. 1986). Two hurricanes that struck Kaua`i in 1982 and 1992 caused 

much forest damage and possibly eliminated the remnant population. The last 

plausible record of a Kaua`i `ō`ō was a vocal response to a recorded vocalization 

played by a field biologist on April 28, 1987, in the locality of 

Halehaha/Halepā`ākai Stream (J. Krakowski, Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, pers. comm.). It is likely that the Kaua`i `ō`ō is now extinct; 

no subsequent sightings or vocalizations have been documented despite extensive 

forest bird surveys in 1989, 1994, 2000, and 2005, and a rare bird search 

conducted in 1996 (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). The vocalizations of this 

species are loud and distinctive, and are unlikely to be overlooked. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

As with several other endangered Kaua`i forest birds, the Kaua`i `ō`ō was 

once considered a very common species in the lowlands as well as in upland 

forests. The rather sudden decline in numbers noted during the first two decades 

of the 20th century (Munro 1944) points to a limiting factor that had an acute 

impact on the species. Unfortunately, the Kaua`i `ō`ō is now so rare, or possibly 

extinct, that identification of threats and reasons for its decline is difficult, if not 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-49 

impossible. Habitat destruction by agricultural development obviously reduced 

their lowland range, but does not explain the sudden decline noted in the interior 

uplands as well. After the turn of the century, a large number of alien birds were 

introduced as many of the native lowland birds disappeared. Some of these alien 

species may have harbored foreign diseases or parasites for which the `ō`ō had 

little or no immunity. The mosquito vector of blood-borne diseases was already 

well established, and could have brought about a rapid decimation of a highly 

susceptible endemic bird. The fact that Moho on other islands suffered a similar 

fate during approximately the same period suggests disease as a major limiting 

factor, coupled with the fact that the last `ō`ō were found only at higher mosquitofree elevations. It is possible that the remote high elevation forests of Kaua`i 

where the `ō`ō persisted was marginal habitat that may have lacked suitable 

cavities for nest sites. 

The use of large old-growth snags for nesting and the paucity of any largetimbered forests after the turn of the century may have limited the `ō`ō’s ability to 

find suitable nest sites, particularly after two hurricanes struck Kaua`i in 1982 and 

1992. Cavity nests may also be more susceptible to foraging rats known to be 

numerous in Hawai`i’s forests. Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans) are presumed to 

have become established in the islands with the arrival of the first Polynesian 

settlers (Tomich 1969). The black rat (Rattus rattus) evidently established itself 

in Hawai`i after the advent of the European explorers in the late 1700s. The 

demise of many of Hawai`i’s forest birds seemed coincident with the arrivals of 

various new alien fauna, yet the Kaua`i `ō`ō decline was apparently quite sudden, 

suggesting a particular susceptibility to a single potent limiting factor. Other 

impacts on their habitat, such as forest damage by feral pigs, goats, and the spread 

of invasive plants, likely had a supplemental negative impact on the species. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Kaua`i `ō`ō was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), became protected under the State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

Kaua`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983b). The 

Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important action that protected watersheds in 

Hawai`i. Later strengthened and re-titled, “Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, Rules Regulating Activities Within 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-50 

Forest Reserves,” it protects native forest habitats from certain degrading factors 

caused by human activities. The Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources established the 4,022 hectare (9,938 acre) Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve 

in 1964 (Administrative Rule No. 1, Chapter 3), recognizing the value of the 

pristine forest of that area and the need to control potential degrading factors. 

A multi-agency research project aimed at the recovery of the critically 

endangered puaiohi was initiated in 1995 (see puaiohi account). Information 

about other endangered Kaua`i forest birds has been gained incidentally, but 

unfortunately no Kaua`i `ō`ō have been observed during this project. Other 

research by U.S. Geological Survey personnel is examining the threat from alien 

diseases and alien vectors of disease, such as mosquitoes, on native forest birds 

on Kaua`i (C. Atkinson, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). The Hawai`i 

Rare Bird Search Team made an intensive systematic effort to locate any 

surviving endangered forest birds on Kaua`i, but no `ō`ō were recorded during the 

search (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-51 

One of few photographs of the `ō`ū. 

Photo © Rob Shallenberger. 

6. `Ō`ū, Psittirostra psittacea 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The `ō`ū is a heavy-bodied 

Hawaiian honeycreeper (family Fringillidae, 

subfamily Drepanidinae) approximately 

15.5 to 17.5 centimeters (7 inches) in total 

length. The upper parts are dark olivegreen, and the under parts are a lighter 

olive-green grading to whitish on the 

undertail coverts. The wings and tail are a darker brownish olive. `Ō`ū are 

sexually dichromatic, males having a bright yellow head that contrasts sharply 

with the back and breast, and females having an olive-green head similar in color 

to the back. Juveniles are similar to the female in color but somewhat darker. In 

both sexes the bill is pale pink to straw-colored, with a hooked, parrot-like upper 

mandible. The legs are pinkish (Munro 1960, Berger 1981, Pratt et al. 1987). 

Males are slightly larger than females. 

The `ō`ū is a member of the thick-billed Hawaiian honeycreeper tribe 

(Psittirostrini) and was described by J. G. Gmelin in 1789 from a specimen 

collected in 1779 (Bryan and Greenway 1944). `Ō`ū were found historically on 

the islands of Hawai`i, Maui, Moloka`i, Lāna`i, O`ahu, and Kaua`i, with no 

known geographic variation (Amadon 1950). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Although common early in the 20th century throughout most of its range, 

little has been reported on the life history of the `ō`ū (see Snetsinger et al. 1998 

for a summary of available life history information). Nesting of the `ō`ū has 

never been described and little is known of its breeding habits. Females collected 

from late March to mid-May had enlarged ovaries, and large numbers of 

fledglings were noted in June by Perkins, suggesting a peak in nesting during 

April and May (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903, Banko 1986). 

Collectors in the late 1800s noted that `ō`ū fed mainly on the large 

inflorescences of Freycinetia arborea or `ie`ie, were fond of the yellow fruits of 

arboreal Clermontia species, and took fruits from many other native trees 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-52 

(Henshaw 1902, Perkins 1903). Perkins (1903) noted them feeding exclusively 

on caterpillars (Geometridae), feeding them to young during the summer months 

in the Ka`ū/Kīlauea area of the Big Island. `Ō`ū are also known to feed on young 

koa (Acacia koa) leaves, nectar, and on alien fruits such as guava, mountain 

apple, banana, peach, and mulberry (Henshaw 1902, Perkins 1903, Munro 1960, 

Scott et al. 1986). 

Perkins (1903) reported that `ō`ū followed fruit ripening along elevational 

gradients in the Kona area. He observed them moving from the "wet belt" to the 

high, dry forests when `ie`ie fruits were scarce and occasionally moving down 

slope to feed on alien fruits. The `ō`ū is a strong flier and at times was observed 

flying in small flocks high over the forest canopy to feeding sites (Perkins 1893, 

Berger 1981). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Historically `ō`ū were known from a wide range of forests extending from 

sea level to alpine areas, but dense `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) forest with 

`ie`ie was considered to be preferred habitat (Perkins 1903, Bryan 1908). 

Although wide elevational movements from the upland māmane (Sophora 

chrysophylla) forests to lowland forests to feed on guava and kukui were 

observed seasonally in the past (Perkins 1903), recent sightings on Kaua`i 

(Engilis and Pratt 1989) and Hawai`i (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. 

data) show `ō`ū to be confined to mid-elevation (900 to 1,500 meters [3,000 to 

5,000 feet]) mesic and wet `ōhi`a forests with 1,200 to more than 2,500 

millimeters (47 to 98 inches) annual rainfall. In this area the canopy is dominated 

by `ōhi`a 10 to 25 meters (33 to 82 feet) high, with a subcanopy of `ie`ie, hāpu`u 

tree fern (Cibotium spp.), `ōlapa (Cheirodendron spp.), kāwa`u (Ilex anomala), 

kōlea (Myrsine spp.), and pilo (Coprosma spp.). These elevations are well within 

the "mosquito zone" where most native forest birds have been extirpated by 

mosquito-borne avian malaria and avian pox (Scott et al. 1986). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Historically, `ō`ū habitat extended from lowland dry and mesic forests to 

montane mesic and wet forests on all of the major Hawaiian Islands (Figure 10; 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-53 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-54 

Perkins 1903, Scott et al. 1986). The `ō`ū is currently one of the rarest birds in 

Hawai`i, and may possibly be extinct, although past survey efforts have been 

insufficient to determine its status (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). The most 

recent observations indicate any remaining populations are extremely localized in 

occurrence, and are restricted to only a fraction of their former range in the midelevation `ōhi`a forest on the islands of Kaua`i and Hawai`i only (Figure 10). 

During the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey from 1976 to 1981 (Scott et al. 1986), 

fewer than 40 `ō`ū were detected during 13,500 count periods on Hawai`i Island. 

`Ō`ū were detected during the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey on the eastern slopes 

of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa on Hawai`i and in the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve 

on Kaua`i. Population estimates during the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey in the late 

1970s indicated 400 ± 300 (95 percent confidence interval) birds on Hawai`i 

Island and 3 ± 6 (95 percent confidence interval) birds on Kaua`i (Scott et al.

1986). More recent surveys have failed to detect any `ō`ū on either island, 

although occasional unconfirmed sightings are reported (Reynolds and Snetsinger 

2001; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). Reexamination of past 

survey data indicates the level of survey effort has to date been insufficient to 

confirm the status of the species (Scott in litt. 2006), and Reynolds and Snetsinger 

(2001) concluded that important habitat areas for `ō`ū were not searched 

adequately or under appropriate weather conditions during the Hawai`i Rare Bird 

Search in the mid-1990s. Additional targeted searches are needed to confirm the 

status of the `ō`ū, especially in the Ka`ã, Upper Wai~kea, and Pu`u Maka`ala 

Districts of Hawai`i (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001, Scott in litt. 2006). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Modification and loss of habitat have played a significant role in the 

decline of the `ō`ū. Forest degradation by introduced ungulates has reduced or 

eliminated forest habitat and food resources by converting vast areas of koa and 

`ōhi`a forest to pasturelands. Feral pigs have caused degradation of the 

understory in wet forests, destroyed food plants such as `ie`ie and Clermontia

species, and have created mosquito breeding sites (Stone 1985). 

`Ō`ū primarily inhabited the lower to mid-elevation forests (Perkins 

1903), where the impact on native forest birds from introduced diseases 

transmitted by mosquitoes was most severe (Warner 1968, van Riper et al. 1986). 

`Ō`ū also moved seasonally to lower elevations to take advantage of abundant 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-55 

food resources (Perkins 1903), which may have increased their exposure to 

mosquitoes and hastened their decline. 

Predation by cats and rats on eggs, young, and adults has contributed to 

the decline of many forest birds, probably including the `ō`ū. Herbivory by 

introduced black rats on the fruits and flowers of `ie`ie and other native fruiting 

plants also may have reduced food resources for native birds in forests throughout 

Hawai`i (Banko and Banko 1976). 

Recent natural disasters may have affected some of the last remaining `ō`ū

populations. On the Island of Hawai`i, a large portion of the Upper Waiākea 

Forest Reserve, location of some of the last observations of `ō`ū and considered 

prime habitat for the species, was inundated by the 1984 Mauna Loa lava flow, 

destroying thousands of acres of forest and creating a treeless corridor over a 

kilometer (0.62 mile) wide. On Kaua`i, two strong hurricanes, Iwa in 1982 and 

Iniki in 1992, had devastating effects on native forest habitat and native bird 

species. Three native bird species, `ō`ū, `ō`ō, and kāma`o, have not been seen 

since Hurricane Iniki. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The `ō`ū (Psittirostra psittacea) was federally listed as an endangered 

species on March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), and it became 

protected under the State of Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982. 

No conservation efforts have been initiated specifically targeting `ō`ū, but 

several research projects and Federal and State land management programs aimed 

at removing limiting factors for endangered birds and plants have been 

undertaken since 1985, and these provide some benefits to `ō`ū. On Hawai`i 

Island, large tracts of State and federally owned land are being intensively 

managed for habitat restoration. Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Pu`u Maka`ala Natural Area Reserve, and the 

`Ōla`a/Kīlauea Forest Partnership area have been known to harbor `ō`ū in the past 

25 years, and each area currently has management programs aimed at removing 

feral ungulates to restore native forest habitat and ongoing research into 

eliminating other threats. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-56 

On Kaua`i, liberal public hunting has been in place for many years, which 

has assisted in the control of feral pigs and goats in the more accessible western 

Alaka`i. Unfortunately, public hunting succeeds only in the more accessible areas 

of the preserve, and ungulate populations in more remote areas remain quite high. 

Alternatives are of limited effectiveness, expensive, and logistically difficult. 

Very limited aerial reconnaissance and aerial shooting of feral goats and pigs has 

been attempted in the most remote regions, but has not been economically 

effective. The Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve was established by the State of 

Hawai`i in 1964. It recognizes the fragile pristine ecosystem there and has 

provided some legal protection from potentially damaging developments as well 

as regulating unnecessary human activity. On Kaua`i, no large scale management 

actions have taken place in the Alaka`i Wilderness Area, primary habitat for the 

`ō`ū. The Hawai`i Rare Bird Search Team made an intensive systematic effort to 

locate any surviving endangered forest bird populations, but no `ō`ū were found 

during this search project (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-57 

Male palila. Photo pending permission.

7. Palila, Loxioides bailleui 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The palila was first collected in the 

Kona region of Hawai`i by T. Ballieu in 

1876, and was scientifically described in 

1877 by Oustalet (Wilson and Evans 1890 

to 1899). Amadon (1950) included the 

genus in Psittirostra, but Loxioides was 

restored later (American Ornithologists’ 

Union 1983). Similarities in bill structure 

between Loxioides and Telespiza may warrant merging the two genera (James and 

Olson 1991). The palila is in the family Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae. 

The palila is one of the larger Hawaiian honeycreepers with an overall 

length of 15.0 to 16.5 centimeters (6.0 to 6.5 inches) and an adult weight of 38 to 

40 grams (1.3 to 1.4 ounces). Adult palila have a yellow head and breast, 

greenish wings and tail, and are gray dorsally and white ventrally (Jeffrey et al. 

1993). Adult females have less yellow on the nape and the lores are gray rather 

than black as in males. The head and upper breast of both sexes of juvenile birds 

are dull yellow-green, and juveniles have double wingbars formed by pale green 

tips on the greater and middle coverts until the first prebasic molt (Jeffrey et al.

1993). 

LIFE HISTORY 

The palila is an extreme food specialist, preferring unhardened māmane 

(Sophora chrysophylla) seeds in green pods or in pods that are just beginning to 

turn brown (Banko et al. 2002). Seeds in small developing pods and in hardened 

brown pods are rarely eaten, but very small pods with unexpanded seeds are 

sometimes eaten whole. Palila also eat māmane flowers, buds, and leaves, and 

naio (Myoporum sandwicense) berries, especially when other foods are in short 

supply. Seeds, fruits, flowers, and leaves of other species are rarely eaten (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Caterpillars and other insects are important in 

the diet of nestlings and are eaten frequently by adults (Perkins 1903; U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Preliminary studies suggest that māmane seeds 

are nutritious, but they contain high levels of alkaloids that are generally toxic to 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-58 

vertebrates (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Observations indicate that 

birds are selective about which trees they exploit for seeds, suggesting that levels 

of alkaloids may vary significantly among individual trees (U.S. Geological 

Survey, unpubl. data). 

 

Palila move in response to the 

availability of māmane seeds, and 

fledglings and hatch-year birds sometimes 

disperse widely in search of food (Hess et 

al. 2001; U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. 

data). Nevertheless, there is no evidence 

that birds move more than about a third of 

the way around Mauna Kea during their 

entire lives, and those hatched on the 

western slope may travel even less (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Home 

range sizes and movement distances, therefore, are small relative to the potential 

mobility of the species, and palila have poor recolonization potential (Fancy et al.

1993). 

Nesting may begin in January or February, but palila usually start nesting 

from March to early May; egg-laying continues through August or midSeptember (van Riper 1980a; Pletschet and Kelly 1990; Pratt et al. 1997a; U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). From 1996 to 2000, mean length of the egglaying season was 113 ± 25.1 days (range 53 to 205 days) (U.S. Geological 

Survey, unpubl. data). Peak nesting usually occurs in May or June (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). The number of nesting attempts each year is 

strongly influenced by the availability of green māmane pods. In years of poor 

māmane pod production, initiation of nesting may be delayed, fewer palila 

attempt to nest, and fewer re-nesting events occur (Pratt et al. 1997a; U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Forest composition also affects nesting 

behavior: from 1996 to 2000, nesting density averaged 6 ± 2 nests per 100 

hectares (247 acres) in māmane-dominated forest, whereas 4 ± 1 nests per 100 

hectares (247 acres) were found in mixed naio/māmane forest (U.S. Geological 

Survey, unpubl. data). 

Palila are monogamous, but other adult males often help the pair by 

feeding the female and chicks (Pratt et al. 1997a; Miller 1998; U.S. Geological 

Male palila feeding on māmane seed 

pod. Photo permission pending.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-59 

Survey, unpubl. data). It is not yet known whether male helpers copulate with the 

female and sire some of the nestlings they help raise, but some male helpers are 

chased by the nominal male. Although the nominal male defends a small territory 

around the nest tree, the pair forages over a larger area. Male home range size 

during nesting averaged 9.5 ± 1.96 hectares (23.4 ± 4.8 acres), and the mean 

distance between the center of daytime locations and the nest was 73 ± 12.1 

meters (241 ± 40 feet; n = 6 males in māmane-dominated forest, n = 2 in naiodominated forest) (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). The female selects the 

nest site and constructs the nest, which takes from 1 to 3 weeks to complete. 

Preferred nest sites are in forks near the ends of higher branches in medium to 

large māmane trees; however, nests have been found in a variety of sites within 

relatively small māmane trees, in other tree and shrub species, and even in a 

clump of grass on the ground (van Riper 1980a; Pletschet and Kelly 1990; U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Materials used for the body of the nest are 

usually grass and large dead twigs; lichens and rootlets form the lining (van Riper 

1980a). The use of sheep’s wool in some palila nests (van Riper 1977) has been 

used by some to justify maintaining feral animals in palila habitat; however, the 

notion that birds require this material is false, and there is no evidence to suggest 

or reason to believe that productivity is higher at nests containing wool. Lichen 

may be important in helping to maintain humidity in the arid conditions often 

encountered on Mauna Kea, but temperature and humidity are unlikely to 

contribute to nest failure except during heavy storms (Pratt et al. 1997a). 

 

Modal clutch size is two eggs (usual range one to three; four reported in 

one nest). Eggs require 16 to 17 days to hatch, and nestlings fledge at 25 days 

(Pletschet and Kelly 1990). Palila may re-nest after failure, and some palila are 

able to raise two broods during the same year. Palila show high nesting site 

fidelity, particularly among females. Subsequent nests of individual females 

within nesting seasons range on average from 120 to 141 meters (394 to 463 feet) 

of each other, but distances between years tends to be greater (Pratt et al. 1997a; 

U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

Male palila have a 1-year delay in plumage maturation (Jeffrey et al.

1993). Males do not begin breeding until at least their third year (0 percent of 

second years breed; n = 99), but about 10 percent of females breed in their second 

year (n = 111; Pratt et al. 1997a). Both sexes are productive until at least 11 years 

of age, and a male > 13 years of age helped at a nest. Annual survival averages 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-60 

0.63 ± 0.05 (standard error), which is similar to other Hawaiian honeycreepers 

(Lindsey et al. 1995). Survival of juveniles is significantly lower than that of 

adults. Using plumage characteristics to determine sex, the sex ratio of adults 

was thought to be male-biased (Lindsey et al. 1995); however, recent genetic 

studies suggest that the sex ratio is probably even in all age classes ranging from 

embryos to adults (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

 

Palila have relatively low productivity due to their small population size, 

great annual variation in the number of pairs attempting to nest, small clutch size, 

and long nesting cycle. In his study area, van Riper (1980a) found 14.8 pairs per 

100 hectares (247 acres) and 1.8 young per pair a year, resulting in a productivity 

of 26.1 young per 100 hectares (247 acres) a year. By comparison, the 

productivity of the Hawai`i `amakihi (Hemignathus virens virens) was 203.5 

young per 100 hectares (247 acres) a year in the same study area. Although the 

number of pairs nesting varies greatly from year to year, at least half of all eggs 

successfully hatched in nests that were active when discovered: 54 to 66 percent 

from 1989 to 1993 (Pratt et al. 1997a), and 64 to 83 percent from 1996 to 2000 

(U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Infertility of eggs was 4 to 11 percent 

from 1996 to 2000, suggesting that infertility is not a major problem for this 

species (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). At least one third of active nests 

produce a fledgling each year: 39 to 55 percent from 1989 to 1993 (Pratt et al.

1997a), and 33 to 67 percent from 1996 to 2000 (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. 

data). The year of lowest fledgling production was 1997, when cool wet weather 

contributed significantly to nestling mortality. On average, 1.5 ± 0.05 chicks 

(range 1.3 to 1.6) fledged from productive nests from 1996 to 2000 (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Palila are dependent on the māmane and māmane/naio forests for all their 

needs. The highest densities of palila occur in areas of greater crown cover, taller 

trees, and higher proportion of native shrubs near 2,300 meters (7,550 feet) 

elevation in māmane-dominated or mixed māmane-naio forest (Scott et al. 1984, 

1986), and annual and seasonal density of birds is strongly related to māmane pod 

availability (Scott et al. 1984, 1986; Hess et al. 2001). Most nesting occurs in 

māmane trees (Pletschet and Kelly 1990), but naio is more frequently selected for 

roosting (U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. data). Up to 96 percent of the current 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-61 

palila population and nearly all of the successful breeding occurs on the 

southwestern slope of Mauna Kea, where the elevation range of the forest and 

habitat quality is greatest (Scott et al. 1984, 1986; Jacobi et al. 1996; Banko et al.

1998; Gray et al. 1999). The elevation range of forest was the most important 

variable in the analysis by Scott et al. (1984) of palila response to available 

habitat. This results from the phenological variation of māmane trees along a 

gradient of elevation. At different elevations, māmane trees produce flowers and 

fruits at different times during the year (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). A 

wide belt of māmane forest results in more consistent availability of seeds within 

the range of daily movements typically made by palila, especially during the 

breeding season. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Fossil remains of palila have been found at sea level on O`ahu (Olson and 

James 1982a,b), suggesting that the species once occurred over a much larger 

range than was known historically. Before the first Polynesians arrived around 

400 A.D., the lowlands of the main islands supported extensive dryland forests 

suitable for palila (Scott et al. 1984). Historically, the palila was known only 

from the Island of Hawai`i, were it occurred in māmane/naio forests on the upper 

slopes of Mauna Kea, the northwestern slope of Mauna Loa, and probably the 

southern and eastern slopes of Hualālai (Figure 11). In the 1890s, Perkins (1903) 

found the palila to be "extremely numerous" in the māmane belt of the Kona 

region between 1,210 and 1,830 meters (4,000 to 6,000 feet) elevation. Palila 

were still locally common in the 1940s between 2,360 and 2,530 meters (7,800 to 

8,350 feet) on the western and northeastern slopes of Mauna Kea (Richards and 

Baldwin 1953). The range of palila apparently contracted relatively quickly in 

the early 1900s to a small area on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea, because Munro 

(1944) determined that the species was in danger of extinction. 

In recent decades the distribution of palila has remained fairly constant 

(Figure 11). The upper elevation limit appears to coincide with tree line at about 

2,850 meters (9,400 feet) and the lower elevation limit is approximately 2,000 

meters (6,600 feet) at the transition from māmane or māmane/naio forest to scrub 

forest or grassland (Scott et al. 1984). In the early 1980s palila occupied about 

139 square kilometers (53.7 square miles) or 25.6 percent of the 545 square 

kilometers (212 square miles) of māmane woodlands remaining on Mauna Kea 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-62 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-63 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Year

Population Estimate (+SE)

Figure 12. Population trend of palila. 

(Scott et al. 1984). The range as of 2001 was essentially the same, although 

declining populations on the eastern and southern slopes would suggest some 

further range contraction. 

Because the small populations on the eastern and southern slopes of 

Mauna Kea have been declining since 1980, estimates of the palila population 

depend heavily on counts centered near Pu`u Lā`au on the western slope. Annual 

surveys from 1980 to 1995 yielded a mean population estimate of 3,390 ± 333 

(standard error) (Figure 12). From 1998 to 2005, the mean population estimate 

was 3,172 ± 194.6 (standard error), with a range of 2,206 to 3,901 (Banko et al.

2005). Much of the apparent variation in numbers of palila may be due to 

differences in vocal activity. Most palila detected on annual counts are heard 

rather than seen; therefore, population estimates are potentially sensitive to rates 

of singing and calling, which in turn may be affected by courtship and nesting. 

Annual counts are conducted prior to the nesting season, usually in January or 

February (Jacobi et al. 1996), but the timing of nest initiation and proportion of 

birds breeding varies greatly each year, as discussed above. Although reported 

declines in population size are possible due to starvation and other factors, the 

more dramatic increases reported could not have occurred. The reproductive 

potential of palila is insufficient to have produced the apparent population 

increases by factors of 2.9 (1986 to 1987), 2.4 (1992 to 1993), or 2.0 (1995 to 

1996) (Jacobi et al. 1996). To understand why this is so, consider the improbable 

conditions that must occur for the population to double in a single year: 1) all 

adult birds must nest and produce two fledglings per pair, and 2) all adults and 

fledglings must survive 

until the next survey. 

There is some indication 

that annual variation in the 

population since 1996 may 

be dampening (Banko et 

al. 1998, Gray et al.

1999), but analyses of 

1999 to 2001 data are 

needed to confirm this 

(Figure 12). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-64 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Habitat loss and modification, avian disease, and predation by introduced 

mammals are thought to have caused the palila population to become endangered, 

and these factors continue to limit the palila population today (Scott et al. 1984, 

1986; Jacobi et al. 1996; Pratt et al. 1997a). Feral ungulates first became 

established in the māmane forest in the early 1800s and have since caused 

widespread loss and modification of palila habitat. Cattle, feral sheep, mouflon 

(Ovis musimon), and feral goats all have contributed to the destruction and 

modification of the māmane/naio forest. Feral sheep became established on 

Mauna Kea in the 1820s and the sheep population had reached about 40,000 

animals by the early 1930s (Bryan 1937). Heavy browsing effectively lowered 

the tree line and reduced tree density in other areas (Scowcroft and Giffin 1983; 

Scott et al. 1984). In addition, browsing removed lower branches of māmane 

trees, thus lowering the productivity of individual trees and reducing the 

availability of palila food resources. 

Following legal rulings under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act 

(see Conservation Efforts), threats from feral ungulates have been reduced in 

palila critical habitat. As a result, recruitment of māmane and other native plants 

has increased and the forest is beginning to recover (U.S. Geological Survey 

unpubl. data). Nevertheless, palila habitat continues to be threatened by alien 

weeds and fire (Hess et al. 1999). The abundance, distribution, and impact of 

weeds are under investigation by the U.S. Geological Survey, but management is 

needed soon on species that are spreading rapidly or whose impacts are already 

known. Especially worrisome is the spread of alien species of annual grasses and 

the accumulation of fine fuels that may carry large, destructive fires. Many weeds 

are now established in areas where soils were highly disturbed by large 

populations of ungulates. Some alien species may decline in abundance as native 

species increase and soil disturbance by ungulates has been reduced. Other 

species, however, must be controlled before they spread further. For example, 

fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), a fire-promoting grass, is one of the most 

aggressive and potentially damaging introduced plants in Hawai`i. It has already 

become the dominant ground cover in large areas of Kona and the area between 

Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualālai; colonies have also become established on 

the southern and western slopes of Mauna Kea (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. 

data). Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) is another pernicious weed that threatens 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-65 

palila habitat by climbing on and smothering native trees and shrubs. It was 

discovered as a sporadic infestation over about 500 hectares (1,235 acres) near 

Pu`u Lā`au (Scott et al. 1984) and has since spread widely on the western slope of 

Mauna Kea. Gorse (Ulex europaeus) is a highly invasive shrub that threatens 

māmane forest on the eastern slope. Efforts to control gorse have not been 

encouraging, and it will spread into palila habitat from pastures below Mauna Kea 

Forest Reserve unless concerted measures are taken. The threats posed by many 

other weed species are less known, but some likely help support invertebrate pests 

that threaten the insect prey of palila. 

 

Fire is an ever-present threat to the dry forest habitat of palila, and the risk 

of large destructive fires is increased by the accumulation of fine leaves and stems 

of alien annual grasses and other weeds. The chief concern about fire is that 

palila could be deprived of critical food resources over large areas for several 

years before recovery and regeneration of māmane and other native plants 

occurred. Although māmane can recover quickly after fire (T. Tunison, National 

Park Service, pers. comm.; U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data), alien grasses 

and other weeds are likely to increase in abundance and distribution, thus 

increasing the potential frequency and intensity of fires. Fire-adapted fountain 

grass and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) are especially apt to spread; 

however, native grasses and shrubs may also increase after fire. For example, the 

native lovegrass Eragrostis atropioides almost completely dominated the 

vegetation following fires that started along Saddle Road on the western slope of 

Mauna Kea during the 1990s (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Although 

Eragrostis burns readily and hotly (T. Tunison, pers. comm.), it may be less fireprone than fountain grass. 

Now that ungulate damage has been reduced, the forest must be monitored 

for signs of diseases that may debilitate or kill māmane. There are many dead and 

dying māmane trees of all age classes around the mountain, but especially on the 

western and southern slopes. Demographic patterns of māmane mortality are 

being investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey, but additional research may be 

warranted to identify pathogens. 

 

Avian malaria and avian pox have had devastating effects on the numbers 

and distribution of Hawai`i’s native birds (Warner 1968, van Riper et al. 1986). 

These diseases are spread by mosquitoes, which are uncommon at the high 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-66 

elevations where palila are now found. Palila are highly susceptible to malaria 

(van Riper et al. 1986), and although it is not thought to be an important mortality 

factor for palila because of the elevation of their current range, avian disease may 

prevent palila from recolonizing their former range at lower elevations, including 

Pōhakuloa Flats. 

 

Predation by black rats (Rattus rattus), feral cats (Felis catus), and the 

Hawaiian short-eared owl or pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) is another 

important factor limiting the palila population, particularly through its effects on 

the distribution of nesting by palila. Pletschet and Kelly (1990) attributed 5 

percent of palila nest mortality to egg depredation and 35 percent to nestling 

depredation by black rats and feral cats, and thought that predation might have 

contributed to the high rate of nest abandonment they observed. Snetsinger et al.

(1994) found that 68 percent of cat scats collected near Pu`u Lā`au contained bird 

remains, and thought that feral cats were an important predator on native birds. 

Studies by van Riper (1980a) and Pratt et al. (1997) have also shown that feral 

cats prey on palila nests and adults. Amarasekare (1993) concluded that 

predation had little effect on the palila, but her study focused on rat predation 

either in the core palila nesting area, where few rats occur, or in naio-dominated 

forests, where few palila attempt to nest. Rats are associated primarily with naio 

trees, presumably because these trees provide greater food and cover for rats, and 

occur only in low densities in the core palila nesting area where māmane 

predominates (Amarasekare 1993). Successful nesting by palila is rare where 

naio is the dominant tree species, and mammalian predation is thought to be the 

major reason. 

 

The absence of palila in the Pōhakuloa Flats (downslope, southeast from 

existing populations) remains unexplained. Scott et al. (1984) suggested site 

tenacity, thermal stress, or avian disease as plausible hypotheses. However, 

recent studies indicate that alien ants and predatory wasps are established in the 

area, and other alien wasps heavily parasitize native caterpillars that are eaten by 

palila (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Disturbance from military 

activities in the Pōhakuloa Training Area may also affect palila distribution. 

 

Severe weather may be an important mortality factor in certain years. 

Populations are restricted to the higher elevations where freezing temperatures 

occur frequently during part of the nesting season. Rains are infrequent but can 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-67 

be heavy and cause eggs or chicks to die of exposure. In other years, droughts 

lead to low levels of māmane pod production that result in fewer nesting attempts 

and delayed breeding by palila. High winds can blow young out of nests, 

especially those placed in the terminal forks of trees (van Riper 1980a), or cause 

nests to disintegrate (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The palila received Federal recognition as an endangered species in 1966, 

and was formally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1967). The primary reasons for this classification status were: (1) a 

significant portion of its historical range was no longer occupied; (2) its present 

habitat was being adversely modified by feral ungulate browsing; and (3) the total 

palila population at that time was estimated to be in the low hundreds. 

The vulnerability of palila to extinction has been recognized since the 

mid-1900s (Munro 1944). Although relatively little conservation or research 

effort was directed specifically at the palila until recently, feral ungulate control 

was initiated in the early 1900s to protect the māmane woodland and watershed of 

the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve (Bryan 1947). The removal of over 46,000 feral 

sheep and smaller numbers of feral cattle, goats, and pigs retarded the severe 

deterioration of the forest and allowed the recruitment of a cohort of māmane 

seedlings that has sustained palila to the present. Populations of sheep were 

allowed to rebuild and mouflon sheep were introduced to promote sport hunting 

(Tomich 1969), again causing widespread damage to the māmane forest (Warner 

1960). 

 

Critical habitat for the palila was designated on August 8, 1977 (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1977). In 1978, a ruling by the Hawai`i District Court under 

section 9 of the Endangered Species Act required that all feral sheep and goats be 

removed from palila critical habitat (Palila et al. v. Hawai`i Department of Land 

and Natural Resources et al., CIV No. 78-0030; Nelson 1982). A similar ruling 

by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1987 ordered the 

eradication of mouflon sheep (Palila et al. v. Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources and Hawaii Rifle Association, No. 87-2188; Pratt et al. 1997a). 

Subsequently, goats have been eliminated and sheep and mouflon have been 

reduced to low numbers. However, immigration and recruitment of lambs make it 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-68 

unlikely that sheep and mouflon will be eradicated in the near future unless more 

effective control measures are taken. Fencing along the southern boundary of 

Mauna Kea to prevent entry by feral ungulates has been improved, but animals 

can readily gain access to the forest reserve in many places (J. Giffin, Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, pers. comm.). In addition, animals 

may become increasingly difficult to control from helicopters as they learn 

avoidance tactics, and public hunting has been ineffective at removing significant 

numbers of these popular game animals from remote areas or when populations 

occur in low numbers (J. Giffin, pers. comm.). Therefore, new strategies and 

tactics are needed to comply with court-ordered eradication of sheep and 

mouflon. 

A popular but erroneous rationale for maintaining cattle, sheep, and other 

ungulates in palila habitat is that they limit fire threats by reducing fine fuels. The 

problem with using ungulates to suppress fire fuels in native forest is that grasses 

and other fine fuels are reduced appreciably only when ungulates exist in such 

high densities that māmane and other native plants are heavily damaged and 

recruitment is essentially eliminated. Many fires on Mauna Kea start in pastures 

where grazing has reduced or extirpated native plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, unpubl. data). The principal benefit of grazing, therefore, would seem 

limited only to reducing fire intensity. The principal liabilities of using grazing to 

reduce fuels are that native plants are destroyed and soil is disturbed, increasing 

opportunities for undesirable grasses and other weeds to spread. Indeed, most 

problematic weeds proliferated on Mauna Kea when feral ungulates were 

abundant and widespread (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992). 

Since being listed as endangered, considerable research has been 

conducted on the palila, including its physical characteristics (Jeffrey et al. 1993), 

population size and distribution (van Riper et al. 1978, Scott et al. 1984, Banko 

1986, Jacobi et al. 1996, Banko et al. 1998, Gray et al. 1999), home range and 

movements (Fancy et al. 1993, Hess et al. 2001), breeding biology (Berger 1970, 

van Riper 1980a, Pletschet and Kelly 1990, Miller 1998), limiting factors and 

demography (Amarasekare 1993; Fleischer et al. 1994; Lindsey et al. 1995, 

1997), conservation (Berger 1981, Scott et al. 1986, Fancy et al. 1997, Pratt et al.

1997a), and habitat characteristics (van Riper 1980b, Scowcroft 1983, Scowcroft 

and Giffin 1983, Scowcroft and Sakai 1983, Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, Juvik et 

al. 1993, Hess et al. 1999). Population size and distribution were first estimated 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-69 

systematically in 1975 (van Riper et al. 1978), and annual censuses have been 

conducted since 1980, allowing biologists to monitor population trends longer 

than for any other Hawaiian forest bird (Scott et al. 1984, Jacobi et al. 1996, 

Banko et al. 1998, Gray et al. 1999). 

The original recovery plan for the palila was completed in 1978 and 

revised in 1986 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). These recovery plans 

identified a series of actions aimed at both the direct conservation of the palila 

and at gathering information for that purpose. Many of these actions have since 

been implemented, at least in part. Notable among these are increased efforts to 

control feral ungulates, specifically feral sheep and goats, resulting in significant 

habitat improvement (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, Hess et al. 1999). 

Building on research results of the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. 

Geological Survey Pacific Island Ecosystem Research Center began studies in 

1986 that are expected to continue through 2010. This research continues 

investigating the basic ecology and factors limiting the palila population, 

including predation, disease, food availability and threats to food resources, small 

population genetics and demography, and habitat quality and threats. The U.S. 

Geological Survey will also develop restoration techniques and facilitate their 

implementation. Most of the updated information in this recovery plan has been 

collected during these studies, and much more information about palila and their 

habitat will be forthcoming. 

In 1993, an experimental translocation of adult palila to Kanakaleonui on 

the eastern slope of Mauna Kea was conducted to determine whether birds would 

remain and breed in a new area. Although at least half of the birds returned to the 

western slope near Pu`u Lā`au within 1 year, two pairs successfully nested at 

Kanakaleonui and the density of palila there was higher after the translocation 

(Fancy et al. 1997). Additional translocations of birds from the western slope 

were undertaken from 1997 to 2006 with the goal of testing techniques for 

reestablishing a population on the northern slope of Mauna Kea, near Pu`u Mali. 

While 53 birds were translocated in 3 early trials, there was little to suggest that 

birds remained in the new area (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Although 

some birds stayed in the target area for over a year, most returned to their original 

home ranges within a few months. Another trial was completed in 2004, when 32 

birds of different age groups were translocated to test the hypothesis that a more 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-70 

natural social environment and a large pool of potential mates would encourage 

more birds to stay longer and breed. In fact, one pair formed and nested 

successfully, fledging two chicks. In conjunction with the 2004 translocation, 10 

captive-reared palila were released near Pu`u Mali in late 2003 to compare the 

survival, breeding, and other behavior between the two groups. Captive-bred 

palila were supplied by the Zoological Society of San Diego from the Keauhou 

Bird Conservation Center from stock originating from wild eggs collected in 1996 

and 2000 (The Peregrine Fund 1996, The Peregrine Fund and the Zoological 

Society of San Diego 2000). Six of the 10 captive-released birds survived 

through the breeding season at or near the release site and one pair formed, laying 

a single infertile egg. Translocations and releases of captive-raised birds were 

also conducted in late 2004 and 2005. Prior to translocating and releasing 

captive-reared birds near Pu`u Mali, predators were removed and food and habitat 

conditions were assessed to increase chances of success. Ten of the 21 captiveraised palila released on Pu`u Mali from 2003 through 2005 have been seen in 

2006, and there have been multiple breeding events in each of the last 3 years 

(2004 to 2006) of both translocated and captive-bred palila, with at least 4 

fledglings surviving to independence. These results suggest a combination of 

translocation and captive-releases has been successful at forming a second 

breeding population, though the number of birds in this incipient population is 

still very small and its long-term viability remains to be seen. 

In 1996, a captive propagation program was initiated as a collaborative 

effort between the National Biological Survey (now the Biological Resources 

Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey) and The Peregrine Fund (and later by 

the Zoological Society of San Diego), with the collection of wild-laid eggs, 

artificial incubation, and hand-rearing. A total of 11 palila and 3 palila were 

reared in 1996 and 2000, respectively, at the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center. 

In 1999, one pair of these captive-reared birds began to breed, with one chick 

hatched that did not survive. In 2000, 11 captive-bred palila were hatched from 2 

pairs with 100 percent survival. In 2001, three chicks were reared in captivity 

from one pair of palila. Some progeny of the captive-propagation program were 

released in 2003 and there are plans for future releases of palila produced by the 

near Pu`u Mali and other recovery areas. 

Although māmane and other native trees and shrubs have regenerated 

prolifically following the removal of feral ungulates, alien grasses and other 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-71 

factors may be suppressing regeneration in some areas (Hess et al. 1999). 

Experimentation to regenerate māmane forest by planting saplings has 

demonstrated that māmane grows readily near tree line and where competing 

ground cover is sparse. Māmane has not yet been planted where grass cover is 

thick. 

Despite a growing list of technical and semi-technical publications about 

palila, a relatively limited amount of effort has gone into information and 

education since 5,000 copies of a small poster about palila with a description of 

their habitat were distributed in the 1980s (J. M. Scott, University of Idaho, pers. 

comm.). Presentations have been given by U.S. Geological Survey researchers 

and others at scientific, professional, and public venues at an increasing rate. 

Increasing numbers of students, from grade school to university levels and 

including law students, have asked for information about palila and the court 

orders relating to feral ungulate removal for classroom projects. Increasingly, 

information about palila is available on the worldwide web, and U.S. Geological 

Survey biologists are in the process of greatly expanding the amount and quality 

of information available through the internet. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

The primary problem confronting palila conservation is that the 

population is highly concentrated: as much as 96 percent of the population occurs 

within about 30 square kilometers (11.6 square miles) of forest on the western 

slope of Mauna Kea (Gray et al. 1999). Although recent estimates indicate that 

the western population may be stabilizing, the very small, scattered southern and 

eastern populations seem to be declining and heading towards extinction (U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). The geographic expansion of the high-density 

population cell, if it is occurring at all, is imperceptibly slow, and few if any birds 

seem to move between the different slopes. Whether because of site tenacity or 

preference for more favorable habitat conditions on the western slope, immigrants 

from the western slope are unlikely to bolster the declining populations or 

recolonize vacant habitats in the near future. The most urgent goal for recovery, 

therefore, is to bolster or reestablish one or more self-sustaining populations while 

managing the primary population on the western slope for stability or increase. 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-72 

The intent of both downlisting and delisting recovery criteria is that 

relatively large and viable (self-sustaining) populations exist in at least three areas 

(on the western and either the northern, eastern, or southern slopes of Mauna Kea 

and at least one other location on Mauna Loa or Hualālai) over sufficiently long 

periods to account for perturbations in weather and other environmental variables. 

Determining when to downlist or delist the species depends on the 

reliability of population monitoring. Annual estimates (variable circular plot 

method) of the population since 1980 vary considerably (Jacobi et al. 1996), but it 

is difficult to know how estimates are affected by sampling error, variation in 

detection probability, or population change. For example, procedures for training 

and calibrating observers have varied over the years, although since 1997, 

methods have been standardized to a much greater degree. In addition, observers 

now count all species detected, whereas observers focused only on palila and a 

few other species prior to 1997. A potentially large source of variation in annual 

estimates is the amount of vocal activity, which may be affected by the timing of 

breeding and number of birds attempting to breed, as discussed above. Therefore, 

it cannot always be assumed that dramatic changes in annual population estimates 

reflect actual numbers of birds. Evaluating population status and trends by 

estimating the number of breeding pairs in the population is difficult because the 

number of pairs nesting each year varies greatly depending on the availability of 

māmane pods; in very dry years few birds nest because pods are scarce (Pratt et 

al. 1997a; U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Problems in determining 

whether populations are stable (recovery criterion 2a) can be more easily 

overcome if lambda (population growth rate) is known (criterion 2b). 

Recovery criteria for palila are based partly on the perception that the 

main population on the western slope of Mauna Kea may be starting to benefit 

from increased māmane tree recruitment and growth, which has resulted from 

reductions of populations of feral sheep and goats and mouflon sheep since 1980. 

Ungulate eradication, removal of cattle from critical habitat (Ka`ohe Lease), and 

protection from fire, weeds, predators, food competitors, and disturbance likely 

will result in population growth and expansion over the next 10 years. However, 

populations in other areas on Mauna Kea will become self-maintaining only if 

habitat is actively restored and relict populations are vigorously protected. 

Populations must be reestablished in suitable areas of former range, such as the 

northern slope of Mauna Kea, by releasing captive-reared or translocated birds. It 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-73 

may also be necessary to bolster relict populations on the southern and eastern 

slopes. Managing these small or incipient populations should involve nearly 

complete eradication of major predators, particularly feral cats. Some threats to 

food resources (e.g., ants and predatory wasps) should be controlled to the extent 

possible, but there are no methods available for controlling parasitoids that reduce 

the availability of caterpillars. In addition, factors that destroy or alter habitat, 

especially feral ungulates, fire, and highly invasive weeds, must be suppressed. 

Māmane and other native species should be planted where regeneration is sparse. 

In the long-term, restoring palila populations will be possible only if 

sufficient habitat is available and it is distributed along gradients of elevation or 

rainfall such that food resources are available throughout the year. An 

opportunity to expand the size and extend the elevation gradient of habitat near 

Pu`u Mali has arisen as part of the mitigation settlement for realigning Saddle 

Road through palila critical habitat in the Pōhakuloa Training Area on the 

southern slope of Mauna Kea. Land below the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve will be 

fenced and cattle will be withdrawn, beginning in late 2004 and early 2005. 

Natural reforestation is likely to occur in upper pastures where some māmane and 

other native species persist. However, lower pastures may require planting, and 

alien grasses and other weeds may pose a variety of management challenges. 

Funds for reforestation, weed control, and fire management near Pu`u Mali are 

limited under the terms of the Saddle Road realignment mitigation settlement; 

thus, supplementary funding is necessary. Cattle will also be withdrawn from 

critical habitat (Ka`ohe Lease) on the western slope as part of the mitigation for 

realigning Saddle Road. Again, extra funds will be needed to manage this area 

for maximum benefit of palila and other native species. In addition to funding for 

habitat restoration, commitments are needed to manage lands for forest and palila 

recovery beyond the 10-year period covered by mitigation. 

Opportunities to reforest pastures on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea are 

limited because the lands are held privately and a large area is heavily infested 

with gorse. Nevertheless, it may be possible to acquire conservation easements 

that would extend the availability of habitat to areas below the existing forest 

reserve. Acquiring this habitat will only be worthwhile, however, if resources 

and methods are available for controlling the spread of gorse. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-74 

Privately owned pastures and gorse also are important challenges to 

restoring forest habitat on the southern slope. In addition, efforts to recover palila 

on the southern slope are hindered by military training and the realignment of 

Saddle Road through critical habitat. Predator populations on the southern slope 

are uncontrolled and insect food resources used by palila and other native birds 

are heavily threatened by alien parasitoids and predators, including, for example, 

Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) and yellow jackets (Vespula pensylvanica). 

The forest should be protected from ungulates, fire, weeds, and unnecessary 

disturbance, even though Pōhakuloa Flats cannot be managed primarily for palila 

recovery. It may be possible to maintain a limited population of palila on the 

southern slope if the forest at Pōhakuloa Flats is managed carefully and the forest 

above continues to recover from ungulate browsing damage. 

 

Prospects for restoring palila to areas of its former range on Hualālai and 

Mauna Loa are less certain. Although māmane forest remains over relatively 

large areas, particularly to the south of Hualālai on the western flank of Moana 

Loa, habitat conditions are just now being evaluated more carefully to determine 

their recovery potential. Except for areas controlled by the military, lands once 

occupied by palila in Kona are privately owned, and conservation easements or 

other arrangements will be needed to carry out ungulate control and other 

management activities. The habitat at Kīpuka `Alalā within the Pōhakuloa 

Training Area may be rehabilitated sufficiently to warrant reintroducing palila. 

Although military training creates some disturbance in this remote, isolated area, 

greater impediments to recovery are posed by large herds of feral ungulates that 

have essentially eliminated māmane regeneration for decades, and fires. As part 

of the Saddle Road mitigation, however, the diverse dry forest found at Kīpuka 

`Alalā is being managed with the idea that palila might be reintroduced in a few 

decades. Palila occupied the area into the 1950s (Banko 1986); thus, the serious 

challenges of forest restoration should not completely discourage the notion of 

reestablishing a population. If areas such as Kīpuka `Alalā are not considered for 

long-term recovery, conservation efforts may become too focused on short-term 

goals. 

 

The Saddle Road mitigation provides a valuable bridge between shortterm and long-term recovery goals. It provides funding to develop and implement 

techniques for reintroducing palila to former habitat and for managing the primary 

population and habitat. It also continues research into limiting factors and habitat 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-75 

requirements, and it initiates research into fire ecology and behavior so that a fire 

management plan can be formulated. In addition, strategies and techniques for 

controlling predators are being developed for the western and northern slopes of 

Mauna Kea. Without the Saddle Road mitigation, large areas of former habitat 

would continue to be grazed. However, this mitigation stops well short of 

recovering palila. 

 

To fully recover palila, long-term funding and effort are needed to manage 

ungulates, fire, weeds, predators, and food competitors over large areas of 

suitable habitat. Recovery can be accelerated by planting māmane and other 

appropriate native species in areas where alien grasses suppress regeneration 

(Hess et al. 1999), or where native forest is unlikely to regenerate quickly. Palila 

recovery will be enhanced if the public is constructively engaged in the process. 

If, for example, citizens think of palila habitat on Mauna Kea only in terms of its 

value for public hunting and livestock grazing, there will be little impetus for 

changing land-use policy, and protecting endangered species and native 

ecosystems will continue to be an afterthought, at best. Many areas of habitat are 

accessible by 4-wheel-drive vehicle and the environment is not especially difficult 

or harsh. In fact, commercial ecotours are regularly conducted on Mauna Kea 

(with observing palila as a major goal) and substantial numbers of hunters roam 

the slopes during game bird season. A large cross-section of the public could 

potentially be involved in habitat protection, restoration, and monitoring in a 

variety of ways and over large areas. With supervision and logistical support, 

citizens could contribute significantly towards palila recovery by controlling and 

monitoring weeds, pests, and predators; planting trees and other native species, 

and assisting with fuels management and fire education. There are significant 

opportunities to incorporate environmental education and recreation into habitat 

restoration activities, such as creating one or more sites on Mauna Kea as centers 

for education, recreation, management, and research. However, involving the 

public effectively in restoration will require planning, coordination, organization, 

and fundraising. There are few models in Hawai`i on which to base a citizen 

program, but among the programs that should be reviewed for insights into this 

approach are: the Auwahi dry forest restoration project on Maui, the koa 

reforestation program at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, the 

silversword planting program on Mauna Kea (Silversword Alliance), the Kona 

TREE (Tree Restoration, Ecology, and Education) project, and the weed control 

program at Pu`u Huluhulu Natural Area Reserve. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-76 

Studies on fire ecology and behavior in subalpine dry forests on Mauna 

Kea were initiated in 2005, to provide fire management recommendations. In the 

meantime, there are a number of actions that should be taken to reduce the threat 

of fire in palila habitat. Foremost among these is controlling human activity in 

areas of high fire risk, in particular: 1) preventing vehicles from parking where 

grass can be ignited by the catalytic converter, 2) restricting access when fire 

conditions are extreme, and 3) educating the public about ways of preventing fire 

(e.g., not smoking). A forest ranger program is needed to provide a basic level of 

fire prevention, detection, reporting, and suppression. Maintenance of roads, fuel 

breaks, and water dip tanks also is important in permitting rapid access of fire 

fighting equipment and personnel and in limiting fires to relatively small units. 

As part of the mitigation for realigning Saddle Road through the Pōhakuloa 

Training Area, the opportunity for ignition of roadside fires will be minimized 

and emergency phones will be installed to enhance fire reporting. In addition, 

military fire suppression capabilities are being increased. Until fire and other 

threats become manageable on the western slope, a high priority should be placed 

on establishing at least one other viable population of palila on Mauna Kea. 

Recovery of palila requires not only that management actions be carried 

out, but also that monitoring and research are used to support and assess 

management decisions. Although palila ecology is relatively well-known, 

subalpine dry forests on Mauna Kea are rebounding from severe browsing 

damage, and the relationship between bird populations and their habitat will likely 

be dynamic. Systematic monitoring to detect new threats that will inevitably 

emerge in this changing environment will be critically important to recovery. 

Reporting the results of research and monitoring will also be important in 

maintaining the public’s interest and concern for palila and their habitat. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-77 

8. Maui Parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Maui parrotbill is one of the 

larger (20 to 25 grams [0.68 to 0.85 

ounce]) and more unique of the extant 

Hawaiian honeycreepers (family 

Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae). It 

has a large head, thick, muscular neck, a 

massive curved, parrot-like bill, stout 

legs, and short wings and tail. Adult 

Maui parrotbills of both sexes are olive-green on the crown, back, wings, and tail, 

yellow on the cheeks, breast, and belly, grading into paler yellowish and white 

towards the vent, with a contrasting bright yellow supercilium (line above the 

eye). The hooked upper mandible is dark gray, and the chisel-like lower 

mandible is a pale ivory color. The sexes are clearly dimorphic in size; males are 

heavier, larger-billed, and longer-winged than females. Males also tend to be 

more brightly colored than females, but not all individuals of each sex can be 

accurately distinguished by color (Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. 1997, 

Berlin et al. 2001). Juvenile plumage can be confused with some female 

plumages, but usually young are duller grayish-green above and light gray 

ventrally instead of yellow like adults. 

The Maui parrotbill is a monotypic species with no known geographic 

variation in plumage or morphology. Based on morphology and molecular 

genetics (Simon et al. 1997, Fleischer et al. 1998), it is most closely related to the 

`akiapōlā`au and the life histories of these two species are similar in many 

respects (Simon et al. in press). 

LIFE HISTORY 

The Maui parrotbill is insectivorous and often feeds in a deliberate 

manner, using its massive hooked bill to dig, tear, crack, crush, and chisel the 

bark and softer woods on a variety of native shrubs and small- to medium-sized 

trees, especially `ākala (Rubus hawaiensis), kanawao (Broussaisia arguta), and 

`ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha). Parrotbills also pluck and bite open fruits, 

Male Maui parrotbill. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-78 

especially those of kanawao, in search of insects, but do not eat the fruit itself. 

Especially preferred are larvae and pupae of various beetles and moths (Perkins 

1903, Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. 1997). The specialized foraging 

behavior of the parrotbill requires each pair of birds to defend a relatively large 

territory year-round, averaging 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres) in size (Pratt et al. 2001a), 

thus the population density of this species is relatively low. This low density 

translates into a small population size, since at present there is only limited 

habitat available for the species that is not too small and/or degraded to support 

parrotbills. 

The ecology of the Maui parrotbill has been little studied, but recently 

Lockwood et al. (1994) and Simon et al. (1997) investigated aspects of its 

reproductive biology, reported below. Maui parrotbills are socially monogamous, 

and both sexes play a role in the selection of the nest site between November and 

June. The open cup nest composed mainly of lichens (Usnea sp.) and pukiawe 

(Styphelia tameiameiae) twigs is built by the female an average of 12 meters (40 

feet) above the ground in a forked branch just under the outer canopy foliage. 

Only single egg clutches have been documented (Simon et al. 1997). Re-nesting 

occurs only after nest failures, and pairs will not raise more than one brood in a 

season. Only females incubate and brood. The incubation period is 16 days, and 

the nestling period is approximately another 20 days. Breeding males feed 

incubating and brooding females. Females feed nestlings with the food provided 

by males. Once fledged, the young are frequently fed directly by the male. 

Development of the large bill and specialized feeding techniques proceed slowly, 

and fledglings depend on their parents for 5 to 8 months (Simon et al. 1997). 

Parrotbills frequently occur in family groups due to this prolonged dependency. 

Vocalizations of the Maui parrotbill include a loud song of repeated, 

descending "chewy" notes, and three calls given by both sexes: sharply defined 

chip notes, a soft "wit" contact call, and an upslurred two-part whistle (Simon et 

al. 1997). Singing occurs throughout the year, but most often in winter and 

spring when the birds breed. The chip notes are very similar to the chip notes of 

the Maui `alauahio (Paroreomyza montana), which occur with parrotbills in 

mixed-species flocks, although call delivery rates for the species can differ. The 

possibly extinct po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) also produces chip notes 

very similar to those of the parrotbill. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-79 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

At present, Maui parrotbills survive in mid- to upper-elevation montane 

wet forest dominated by `ōhi`a, and in a few mesic areas dominated by `ōhi`a and 

koa (Acacia koa), with an intact, dense, diverse native understory and subcanopy 

of ferns, sedges, epiphytes, shrubs and small to medium trees. The topography in 

these areas is generally steep and highly dissected by deep gulches and narrow 

ridges. The climate is cool year-round, with frequent clouds, mist, and rain. 

Annual precipitation may reach as much as 8,500 millimeters (335 inches) a year. 

Maui parrotbills are sympatric with several other honeycreeper species, and their 

distribution is now limited to high elevation areas with relatively little alteration 

by feral ungulates (Mountainspring 1987) or encroachment of nonnative 

vegetation, and the absence of disease-carrying mosquitoes (Scott et al. 1986). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Currently the Maui parrotbill is found only on Haleakalā Volcano in East 

Maui, in 50 square kilometers (19 square miles) of wet montane forests from 

1,200 to 2,350 meters (4,000 to 7,700 feet) elevation (Scott et al. 1986, 

Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. 1997). The current range includes the 

Waikamoi Drainage west of Ko`olau gap to Haleakalā National Park lands in 

Kīpahulu Valley and the Manawainui Drainage (Figure 13). Based on collections 

of subfossil bones, the current geographic range is much restricted compared to 

the known prehistoric range, which included dry leeward forests and low 

elevations (200 to 300 meters [660 to 1,000 feet]) on East Maui as well as 

Moloka`i (James and Olson 1991). 

 

In 1980, the number of Maui parrotbills was estimated by the Hawai`i 

Forest Bird Survey at 500 ± 230 (95 percent confidence interval) birds with an 

average density of 10 birds per square kilometer (0.39 square mile) (Scott et al.

1986). Repeat surveys of the same transects conducted in 1992 (Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data) and limited surveys 

conducted from 1995 to 1997 by U.S. Geological Survey biologists indicated 

approximately the same densities of birds, but with perhaps some range 

constriction at lower elevations. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-80 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-81 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

The Maui parrotbill is subject to the same threats that negatively affect 

other forest birds on Maui, including habitat loss and degradation, predation, and 

introduced diseases. The parrotbill has a very low reproductive rate (see Life 

History), which makes it particularly vulnerable and slow to recover. Other 

factors, such as competition from introduced avian and arthropod insectivores, 

have not been documented, but purposeful and accidental introduction of alien 

species remains a persistent threat. 

Habitat Loss and Degradation. Historically, Maui parrotbills were 

reported to favor koa for foraging (Perkins 1903). Widespread habitat destruction 

of koa forests due to logging and ranching has significantly reduced the species’ 

range, and has been particularly severe in more mesic areas that formerly 

supported high densities of koa. The species’ current range is restricted to wet 

forest areas where koa densities are relatively low. Thus, occupied habitat may 

be suboptimal compared to portions of the former range. Within its current range, 

habitat damage to the understory vegetation by feral pigs may be a significant 

factor contributing to reduced food availability, large territories, and low 

reproduction. Unoccupied but potential habitat that is currently degraded because 

of pigs may be suitable for reestablishment of parrotbills once pigs are 

removed and the areas have recovered. Low quality or damaged habitat may 

exacerbate the negative effects of severe weather events such as rainstorms, 

which are common in East Maui and have been linked to failure of parrotbill nests 

(Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. in press). 

Predation. The importance of predation in limiting parrotbill populations 

is not clear. However, predation of nests and adults by rats, cats, mongooses, and 

owls is suspected to have a significant impact on many native Hawaiian bird 

species (Atkinson 1977, VanderWerf and Smith 2002). Recent surveys indicate 

rat densities are very high in the Hanawī area where much of the parrotbill 

population currently occurs (Sugihara 1997; T. Malcolm, Maui Forest Bird 

Recovery Project, pers. comm.). 

Introduced Diseases. Most Hawaiian forest birds are susceptible to 

introduced mosquito-borne diseases, and the Maui parrotbill may be limited to its 

current high-elevation distribution by these diseases (Scott et al. 1986, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-82 

Mountainspring 1987). Despite the availability of apparently suitable habitat, 

parrotbills are absent from most areas below 1,350 meters (4,500 feet), where 

mosquitoes are common. This pattern contrasts with that of some unlisted 

species, suggesting that parrotbills and other endangered species are especially 

susceptible to disease. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Maui parrotbill was federally listed as an endangered species on 

March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967). It became protected under 

the State of Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was 

included in the Maui-Moloka`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1984a). 

Declines of the Maui parrotbill, Maui `ākepa, Maui nukupu`u, 

`ākohekohe, and especially the po`ouli prompted conservation agencies to protect 

the habitat in which these birds persisted. Reserves were created at Hanawī by 

the State of Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources and at Waikamoi 

on private lands by The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. In 1991, the State of 

Hawai`i, The Nature Conservancy, Haleakalā National Park, Hāna Ranch, 

Haleakalā Ranch, Alexander and Baldwin (East Maui Irrigation Company) and 

the Maui County Department of Water Supply joined together to protect 40,486 

hectares (100,000 acres) of wet forest in East Maui under the East Maui 

Watershed Partnership. This large watershed area encompasses the entire current 

range of the Maui parrotbill. 

Through ongoing fencing and feral ungulate control, the State, Haleakalā

National Park, and The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i have reduced or removed 

feral pigs on much of their lands ranging from Waikamoi to Kīpahulu. Recent 

East Maui Watershed Partnership fencing, research, and ungulate management in 

the State forest reserves continue to protect and restore native forest. These 

actions and improvements should benefit the Maui parrotbill and other forest 

birds. The Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service jointly fund the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project, which 

conducts research and habitat management in Hanawī Natural Area Reserve and 

other areas that will benefit Maui parrotbill and other endangered species in the 

Hanawī Natural Area Reserve and adjacent habitat. Activities undertaken by this 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-83 

project include predator and ungulate control, surveying, mist-netting, banding, 

and monitoring of forest birds, optimization of predator control methods, and 

assessment of management actions on native forest bird populations. 

In 1997, a captive breeding program for the Maui parrotbill was initiated 

when an egg was taken to the Maui Bird Conservation Center, following the 

recommendations of Ellis et al. (1992). In 1999, two additional wild eggs were 

collected, hatched, and reared (The Peregrine Fund 1999). One pair formed from 

these eggs and this pair produced two chicks in 2000 (The Peregrine Fund and 

Zoological Society of San Diego 2000). In 2001, three additional chicks were 

produced and one wild adult male, injured in the field, was added to the captive 

breeding program (Zoological Society of San Diego 2001). The number of 

captive birds now numbers 10 (3 males and 7 females). Additional eggs may be 

collected in future years to enhance the captive breeding program, with the intent 

of producing more birds for reintroduction into managed recovery areas. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY

The recovery strategy for the Maui parrotbill centers on the protection, 

restoration, and management of native high elevation forests on East Maui 

(Haleakalā), research to understand threats from disease and predation, and 

captive propagation to produce birds for reestablishment of wild populations. 

Reestablishment of parrotbills on West Maui or East Moloka`i is needed to 

provide a minimum of two viable populations, or to allow for a single viable 

metapopulation, in order to reduce the risk of extinction due to catastrophes such 

as hurricanes and epizootics of disease. Reestablishment in southern or western 

areas of Haleakalā is needed to promote natural demographic and evolutionary 

processes. 

 

Recovery Areas. Parrotbills are currently restricted to the windward 

forests of East Maui from Waikamoi to Kaupō (Figure 13). State and Federal 

agencies and the East Maui Watershed Partnership have been successful in 

protecting much of the remaining parrotbill habitat. However, extensive work is 

still needed to fence and protect the lower elevation areas from Hanawī Natural 

Area Reserve to Waikamoi; this area is with the species’ range, and also contains 

potential habitat. Additional fencing and ungulate eradication in this area will 

facilitate the recovery of an intact and diverse native subcanopy vegetation which 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-84 

may in turn increase food availability. This work may also help to reduce levels 

of mosquito vectors. 

On southern and western exposures of East Maui (Haleakalā), a 

continuous "lei" or ring of suitable forest should be reconnected around the 

mountain, especially at upper elevations where mosquitoes are rare. Although the 

current parrotbill population is restricted to the wet `ōhi`a forests of windward 

East Maui, this may represent a contraction of range into marginal habitat 

following widespread habitat loss and degradation (Simon et al. 1997). 

Parrotbills were once found throughout leeward areas and are thought to prefer 

koa for foraging (Perkins 1903). Habitat restoration and reestablishment of a 

population on the leeward or western exposures of East Maui is needed to help 

reduce extinction risk, and to increase the ecological breadth of the species to help 

buffer against climatic fluctuations. The restoration of koa to these montane 

regions is a key element of habitat restoration in these areas. 

A small amount of unprotected, remnant mesic koa forest currently exists 

on State Forest Reserve and Department of Hawaiian Homelands properties in the 

Kahikinui region of southern Haleakalā. This area holds great potential to 

provide suitable habitat for the parrotbill. The completion of fencing projects and 

initiation of programs to eradicate ungulates are needed to restore the native 

canopy and understory. Fencing of over 2,000 acres (800 hectares) has already 

begun, and long-term plans involve protection of over 20,000 acres (8,000 

hectares). The subsequent removal of feral ungulates would allow the natural 

regeneration of koa and other plant species, and ground scarification and 

outplanting may be used to speed habitat restoration. This work could proceed to 

the east and west, eventually relinking the remnant Kahikinui Forest to other 

forests on East Maui, possibly including Manawainui, Kaupō, and remnant koa 

forests near Kula. 

Most of the remaining leeward montane forests on southern slopes, while 

believed to be largely mosquito-free, currently are degraded by ungulates. These 

areas, in addition to fencing and ungulate control, will require more intensive, 

long-term restoration to be suitable for endangered forest birds. 

Although much of the potential parrotbill habitat on West Maui and East 

Moloka`i is mostly free of ungulates, the suitability of these areas with respect to 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-85 

the presence of introduced mosquito-borne diseases is not clear. Much of this 

habitat lies at elevations below 1,350 meters (4,500 feet), and thus likely holds 

mosquitoes. Ongoing habitat management and removal of ungulates may reduce 

mosquito densities, but surveys of mosquitoes and disease prevalence are needed 

prior to the reintroduction of endangered forest birds in these areas. This work 

should be integrated into an evaluation of the amount of suitable habitat available, 

estimates of the size of the population that could be supported, and a population 

viability analysis of the hypothetical population that would aid plans to 

reestablish populations in those areas. In addition, control of mammalian 

predators is needed at a large enough geographic scale to protect new populations. 

Predator Control. An important component of parrotbill recovery should 

be an evaluation of the effect of rodent control on parrotbill reproduction and 

survival, and an expansion of the scale of work if warranted. Control of small 

mammalian predators may be needed throughout recovery areas and may be 

especially important for parrotbill populations, because this species has a low 

reproductive rate and thus is particularly sensitive to high rates of nest loss and 

adult mortality (Simon et al. 2000). 

Disease. Protecting and restoring habitat in upper elevation disease-free 

areas is crucial to parrotbill recovery. The identification of disease-resistant 

individuals and incorporation of these individuals into captive breeding and 

translocation programs could greatly enhance recovery efforts. Resistance or 

tolerance to disease appears to be evolving in populations of some birds (Cann 

and Douglas 1999, Woodworth et al. 2005), and resistant parrotbills may exist 

too. Parrotbills may occur at lower elevations in Kīpahulu Valley than elsewhere, 

but the reasons are not clear, and this pattern may be related to habitat rather than 

disease resistance. Further research into the causes of this pattern is needed. 

 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Programs. Captive 

propagation may play a significant role in the recovery of the Maui parrotbill, and 

there are plans to increase the captive population. Initial efforts at captive 

propagation of the Maui parrotbill have been successful, with the hatching of 

three wild eggs (one male, two females) that have bred in captivity, producing 

four eggs with the subsequent rearing of three chicks. Research and development 

of reintroduction techniques and evaluation of sites for experimental releases are 

needed for this species. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-86 

9. Kaua`i `Akialoa, Hemignathus procerus

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY

The Kaua`i `akialoa is a large 

(17 to 19 centimeters [6.7 to 7.5 

inches] total length), short-tailed 

Hawaiian honeycreeper with a very 

long, thin decurved bill, the longest 

bill of any historically known 

Hawaiian passerine. Both sexes are 

olive-green; males are more brightly 

colored, slightly larger, and have a 

somewhat longer bill. The species 

was originally described by Gray in 

1859, and its taxonomy and 

nomenclature have changed 

repeatedly (Olson and James 1995, Pratt 2005). It is in the Hawaiian 

honeycreeper family, subfamily Drepanidinae of the family Fringillidae. 

LIFE HISTORY 

The life history of the Kaua`i `akialoa is poorly known, based mainly on 

observations from the end of the 19th century (Wilson and Evans 1890 to 1899, 

Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903). The species used its long bill to probe 

for arthropods in bark crevices, decaying wood, epiphytes, and debris 

accumulated in the treetops. It also took nectar from `ōhi`a and lobelia flowers. 

Nothing was ever discovered about its nesting biology. The song was described 

as either a thin trill or canary-like, and the call as being louder and deeper than 

that of the Kaua`i `amakihi (Hemignathus kauaiensis). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

The species was widespread on Kaua`i and occupied all forest types above 

200 meters (660 feet) elevation (Perkins 1903). 

Kaua`i `akialoa. © from Rothschild (1893-

1900). Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution 

Libraries.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-87 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The historical range included nearly all forests on Kaua`i visited by 

naturalists at the end of the 19th century (see Figure 7 on page 2-21). After a 

hiatus of many decades, the species was seen again in the late 1960s, and one 

specimen was collected (Richardson and Bowles 1964). It has not been seen 

since, despite efforts by ornithologists (Conant et al. 1998), birders, and intensive 

survey efforts by wildlife biologists in 1968 to 1973, 1981, 1989, 1994, 2000, and 

2005 (Sincock 1982; Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

unpubl. data; Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). The Kaua`i `akialoa may be 

extinct, but recent reexamination of the survey data for this species indicates that 

additional survey effort is required to confirm its status. If the remaining 

population is very small, fewer than 50 individuals, the likelihood that an 

individual bird would be detected given the level of survey effort thus far is 

relatively low (Scott in litt. 2006). There is some possibility that the species still 

survives in some small, remote area, particularly given the difficulty of the terrain 

and the inaccessibility of many of the sites where the species would be most 

likely to persist. The location of one of the last reports of the species, on private 

land, has not been revisited. Additional targeted surveys are needed to determine 

the status of the species with confidence. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

The Kaua`i `akialoa vanished before anything could be learned of its 

plight. Presumably it succumbed to the same causes responsible for the decline 

and extinction of other forest birds on Kaua`i: introduced avian diseases 

transmitted by mosquitoes, depredation of adults and nests by rats, and habitat 

destruction by feral ungulates. Perkins (1903) noted that it was "grievously 

affected by... swellings on the legs and feet, as well as on the head at the base of 

bill, and on the skin around the eyes," which probably were caused by pox. Avian 

pox lesions are also present on many old specimens (J. Lepson and E. 

VanderWerf, unpubl. data). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Kaua`i `akialoa was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), became protected under the State of 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-88 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

Kaua`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983b). 

No conservation efforts have been initiated specifically for the Kaua`i 

`akialoa, but if the species still exists it could benefit from habit protection (see 

puaiohi species account). The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important 

action that protected watersheds in Hawai`i. It was later strengthened and retitled “Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, 

Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves,” which protects native forest 

habitats from certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectare (9,938 

acre) Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve in 1964 (Administrative Rule No. 1, Chapter 

3), recognizing the value of the pristine forest of that area and the need to control 

potential degrading factors. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-89 

10. Kaua`i Nukupu`u, Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe 

 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Kaua`i nukupu`u is a longbilled Hawaiian honeycreeper (family 

Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae), 

larger than the similar Kaua`i `amakihi 

(Hemignathus kauaiensis), and with an 

extraordinarily thin, curved bill, slightly 

longer than the bird’s head. The lower 

mandible is half the length of the upper 

mandible and follows its curvature 

rather than being straight as in the 

related `akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus 

munroi) of Hawai`i Island. Adult males 

are olive green with a yellow head, 

throat, and breast, whereas adult 

females and immatures have grayish 

green upper parts and whitish under 

parts. First- and second-year males 

resemble females. Kaua`i nukupu`u (H .l. affinis) differ from Maui nukupu`u by 

their larger size and subtle differences in plumage (see Maui nukupu`u species 

account). 

The Kaua`i nukupu`u is one of two subspecies of nukupu`u that may still 

survive (the other is the Maui nukupu`u). The Kaua`i nukupu`u was described by 

Wilson (1889). Evidence is mounting that the Kaua`i, O`ahu, and Maui forms of 

nukupu`u are distinct species (Pratt 2005; R. Fleischer, unpubl. data). 

LIFE HISTORY 

The historical record provides little information on the life history of the 

Kaua`i nukupu`u (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903). Nothing is known of 

its breeding biology, which is likely similar to its closest relative, the `akiapōlā`au 

(see `akiapōlā`au species account). Kaua`i nukupu`u extract or excavate 

invertebrates from epiphytes, bark, and wood using their unusual bill in a manner 

Kaua`i nukupu`u pair. © from Rothschild 

(1893-1900). Courtesy of Smithsonian 

Institution Libraries. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-90 

similar to that of the `akiapōlā`au. Nukupu`u often join mixed species foraging 

flocks, especially with the Kaua`i creeper (Oreomystis bairdi). The song of the 

Kaua`i nukupu`u resembles the warble of a house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), 

and both the song and the “kee-wit” call resemble those of `akiapōlā`au (Perkins 

1903). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Historical records from the turn of the last century indicate that the Kaua`i 

nukupu`u was found in a small area of diverse montane mesic and wet forest at 

elevations of 610 to 1,220 meters (2,000 to 4,000 feet) on the southwestern slope 

of Kaua`i Island (Banko 1984b). All subsequent sightings, many of them 

doubtful, have been from the same habitat (Pratt and Pyle 2000). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

No subfossils of Kaua`i nukupu`u have been reported, so our 

understanding of the original distribution of this subspecies is limited to the 

historical record. Since 1960, the nukupu`u has been reported infrequently from 

Kōke`e and the Alaka`i (see Figure 7 on page 2-21; Scott et al. 1986, Pratt and 

Pyle 2000). However, some of these descriptions better match the similar Kaua`i 

`amakihi. Several recent intensive surveys (1981 to 2000) have failed to find the 

Kaua`i nukupu`u (Pratt and Pyle 2000). However, skilled observers reported 

three (unconfirmed) sightings of Kaua`i nukupu`u in 1995. Search results for 

nukupu`u on Kaua`i are currently considered inconclusive (Reynolds and 

Snetsinger 2001), and additional survey efforts are needed to confirm the status of 

the species. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

In the absence of information pertaining to this species, reasons for 

decline and current threats are presumed to be the same as for other endangered 

birds on Kaua`i (see puaiohi species account). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Kaua`i nukupu`u was federally listed as an endangered species on 

March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), became protected under 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-91 

the State of Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was 

included in the Kaua`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1983b). 

No conservation efforts have been initiated specifically for the Kaua`i 

nukupu`u, but if the species still exists it could benefit from habit protection (see 

puaiohi species account). The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important 

action that protected watersheds in Hawai`i. It was later strengthened and retitled “Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, 

Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves,” which protects native forest 

habitats from certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectare (9,938 

acre) Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve in 1964 (Administrative Rule No. 1, Chapter 

3), recognizing the value of the pristine forest of that area and the need to control 

potential degrading factors. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-92 

11. Maui Nukupu`u, Hemignathus lucidus affinis

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY

The Maui nukupu`u is a 

medium-sized, approximately 23 gram 

(0.78 ounce), Hawaiian honeycreeper 

(family Fringillidae, subfamily 

Drepanidinae) with an extraordinarily 

thin, curved bill, slightly longer than the 

bird’s head. The lower mandible is half 

the length of the upper mandible and 

follows its curvature rather than being 

straight as in the related `akiapōlā`au 

(Hemignathus munroi) of Hawai`i 

Island. Adult males are olive green with 

a yellow head, throat, and breast, 

whereas adult females and immatures 

have an olive-green head and yellow or 

yellowish gray under-parts. Females and first- and second-year males are nearly 

identical and have a noticeably pale superciliary line. Maui nukupu`u differ from 

Kaua`i nukupu`u (H. l. hanapepe) by their smaller size, yellowish rather than 

whitish vent, and grayish-green rather than yellowish-green back. 

The Maui nukupu`u is one of three subspecies. The Maui and Kaua`i 

subspecies may still survive, but H. l. lucidus of O`ahu is extinct. Evidence is 

mounting that the Kaua`i, O`ahu, and Maui forms of nukupu`u are distinct species 

(Pratt 2005; R. Fleischer, unpubl. data). The Maui nukupu`u was described by 

Rothschild (1893 to 1900). 

LIFE HISTORY 

The historical record provides little information on the life history of the 

Maui nukupu`u (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903). Nothing is known of its 

breeding biology, which likely was similar to its closest relative, the `akiapōlā`au 

(see `akiapōlā`au species account). Maui nukupu`u tap and probe bark, lichen, 

and branches to extract insects, and thus their foraging behaviors resemble those 

Maui nukupu`u. © from Rothschild (1893-

1900). Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution 

Libraries.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-93 

of `akiapōlā`au. Diet of the Maui nukupu`u was reported by Perkins (1903) to be 

small weevils and larvae of coleoptera (beetles) and Lepidoptera (butterflies and 

moths). Apparently they seldom forage for larvae and adults of longhorn beetles 

(Cerambycidae) and thereby compete little with Maui parrotbills. There is scant 

evidence that Maui nukupu`u take nectar from flowers. Maui nukupu`u often join 

mixed species foraging flocks (Perkins 1903). Their song resembles the warble of 

a house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), but is lower in pitch. Both the song and 

the “kee-wit” call resemble those of `akiapōlā`au and Maui parrotbill (Perkins 

1903). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

The first historical records, at the turn of the last century, indicate that the 

Maui nukupu`u inhabited mixed koa/`ōhi`a (Acacia koa/Metrosideros 

polymorpha) forest from 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) to timberline (Perkins 1903, 

Banko 1984b, Hawai`i Natural Heritage Program Database) on the northwestern 

slope of Haleakalā. Sightings since the 1967 rediscovery of the Maui nukupu`u 

have been in mixed shrub montane wet forest (Jacobi 1985) in Kīpahulu Valley 

and the northeast slope of Haleakalā at 1,100 to 2,100 meters (3,600 to 6,720 

feet), though most have been above 1,700 meters (5,500 feet; Banko 1984b). 

Discovery of subfossil nukupu`u on Moloka`i and Maui show that the species 

once inhabited dry forests (James and Olson 1991). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Historically, the Maui nukupu`u is known only from Maui, but subfossil 

bones of a probable Maui nukupu`u from Moloka`i show that the species formerly 

inhabited that island (James and Olson 1991). A nukupu`u specimen from 

Hawai`i Island does not represent the Maui form and was shown genetically to be 

a mislabeled O`ahu bird (Olson and James 1994; Pratt 2005). All records prior to 

1967 were from locations most accessible to naturalists, above Olinda on the 

northwest rift of Haleakalā (Figure 14; Banko 1984b). Observers at the time 

noted the restricted distribution and low population density of Maui nukupu`u. 

As on Kaua`i, introduced mosquitoes (Hardy 1960) and avian diseases may have 

already limited these birds to forests at higher elevations. We can presume that 

the Maui nukupu`u once had a much wider geographic range. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-94 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-95 

In 1967, W. Banko rediscovered Maui nukupu`u in the upper reaches of 

Kīpahulu Valley on the eastern slope of Haleakalā (Banko 1968). Since then, 

isolated sightings have been reported on the northern and eastern slopes of 

Haleakalā from below Pu`u `Alaea east to Kīpahulu Valley (Pratt and Pyle 2000). 

Because most of these sightings were uncorroborated by behavioral information 

or follow-up sightings, the recent status of the Maui nukupu`u is difficult to 

evaluate. Scott et al. (1986) estimated a population of 28 ± 56 birds based on a 

single sighting. One bird was detected in 1994, and was resighted in 1995 and a 

second time in 1996, on the northeast slope of Haleakalā (Reynolds and 

Snetsinger 2001). However, most recent intensive surveys (1995 to 1999) did not 

detect nukupu`u at locations of previous sightings (Baker 2001; Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data). Although it is possible 

the Maui subspecies may be extinct (Pratt and Pyle 2000), the relatively recent 

sightings of nukupu`u on Haleakalā and extensive habitat area that still exists for 

nukupu`u led Reynolds and Snetsinger (2001) to conclude that the nukupu`u is 

still extant on Maui. Further targeted surveys will be required to confirm the 

status of this species. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Reasons for decline and current threats are presumed to be the same as for 

other endangered Maui birds. See po`ouli species account. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Maui nukupu`u was federally listed as an endangered species on 

March 11, 1967 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), became protected under 

the State of Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was 

included in the Maui-Moloka`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1984a). Until 1995, no efforts had been initiated in the field 

specifically for Maui nukupu`u. The species has since benefited, or could benefit, 

from thorough surveys of the best habitat, predator control, and habitat restoration 

at locations where the last sightings were reported (see po`ouli species account). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-96 

 12. `Akiapōlā`au, Hemignathus munroi

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The `akiapōlā`au is a mediumsized (14 centimeter [5.5 inch], 28 gram 

[0.9 ounce]), stocky, short-tailed 

Hawaiian honeycreeper (family 

Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae) 

endemic to the Island of Hawai`i. Its 

most remarkable feature is the 

extraordinary bill, which has a long, 

sickle-shaped upper mandible and a short, straight lower mandible that is only 

half as long as the upper. Males are larger and heavier than females and have a 

slightly longer bill. Adult males have a bright yellow head and underparts, a 

greenish back and wings, and black lores. Adult females differ in color, with a 

yellowish-white chin, throat, and upper breast that contrasts with a pale 

yellowish-gray lower breast and belly (Pratt et al. 1994). Fledglings have a 

mottled yellowish-gray or green juvenile plumage with pale under parts. Within a 

few months of fledging juveniles molt into a similar but unmottled first basic 

plumage. Most birds molt into definitive basic (adult) plumage in their second 

year (Pratt et al. 1994). 

The species was described by Rothschild (1893 to 1900), who named it 

Heterorhynchus wilsoni. The `akiapōlā`au was later grouped with the `amakihi 

and renamed Hemignathus munroi (Pratt 1979, American Ornithologists’ Union 

1983). The `akiapōlā`au is closely related to the nukupu`u (H. lucidus; Olson and 

James 1994). There is no notable morphological variation with elevation or 

locality. 

LIFE HISTORY 

Ralph and Fancy (1994c, 1996) and Pratt et al. (2001) described most of 

what is known about the life history of the `akiapōlā`au, and important new 

information on habitat use and demography was reported recently by Pejchar 

(2004). 

Male (right) and female `akiapōlā`au. 

Photo © Eric VanderWerf 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-97 

The aspect of `akiapōlā`au life history most important to conservation is 

the low intrinsic rate of reproduction, which puts a premium on success of nesting 

events and on adult survival. Usually only one young is fledged, followed by an 

extended period (more than 4 to 5 months) of juvenile dependency, so that only a 

single brood is typically produced per year. Annual productivity was found to be 

0.86 young per pair in a declining population (Ralph and Fancy 1996), and 0.96 ± 

0.79 in closed, open, and koa plantation habitats combined (Pejchar 2004). 

Breeding and molting occur mainly from February to July, but 

`akiapōlā`au can be found breeding or molting during any month of the year. 

Such broad overlap of these activities is unusual among birds, and research is 

needed to clarify the annual cycle of the `akiapōlā`au. The majority of nests have 

been found in the leafy, terminal branches of tall `ōhi`a (Metrosideros 

polymorpha) trees. The nest is cup-shaped and characterized by strips of `ōhi`a 

bark incorporated into the exterior surface. Clutch size is either one or, rarely, 

two eggs (Banko and Williams 1993). The female performs all incubation and 

brooding, while the male provides most of her food and that of the nestlings. 

The `akiapōlā`au is mainly 

insectivorous. Moth larvae are the most 

common food item in `akiapōlā`au fecal 

samples, followed by spiders and longhorned beetle larvae (Ralph and Fancy 

1996). The bird uses its unusual "Swissarmy knife beak" as two tools deployed 

separately or together. With the jaws 

gaped open, the short, robust lower 

mandible is used to rapidly tap branches 

to locate prey beneath the bark or in the wood. Once prey is located, the lower 

mandible is used as a chisel in a manner reminiscent of woodpeckers. The long, 

curved upper mandible is used as a probe to extract insect larvae and spiders from 

crevices or insect borings. Despite their different lengths, a remarkable degree of 

cranial kinesis allows the two mandibles to work in concert as pliers or tweezers 

for ripping away bark and epiphytes or for handling prey. 

Lichen-covered and dead branches are preferred as foraging substrates. 

Males tend to select taller trees and to forage more often on the trunk and larger 

Male `akiapōlā`au exhibiting cranial 

kinesis that allows bill manipulation. 

Photo © Eric VanderWerf. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-98 

branches, whereas females and young are more often observed foraging on small 

branches and twigs (Ralph and Fancy 1996). The cause of sexual foraging 

differences is unknown. Tree species preferred for foraging include koa (Acacia 

koa), kōlea (Myrsine spp.), māmane (Sophora chrysophylla), and naio 

(Myoporum sandwicense), while `ōhi`a is not favored. The foraging behavior of 

`akiapōlā`au is very specialized compared with that of other forest birds, and 

foraging sites and food may be limiting. 

This species rarely takes nectar from flowers, but it recently has been 

discovered to drink sap from small wells it drills in the bark of `ōhi`a trees. Only 

a few trees in a bird’s territory are used for this purpose, and they are defended 

against other `akiapōlā`au. On average sap trees are larger, have thinner bark, 

greater sap flow, and tend to occur on convex slopes with more light (Pejchar and 

Jeffrey 2004). 

`Akiapōlā`au often join mixed species foraging flocks, perhaps to enhance 

detection of predators. In montane mesic forests, they most frequently associate 

with Hawai`i creeper (Oreomystis mana) and `ākepa (Loxops coccineus), whereas 

in subalpine dry forest they are found with Hawai`i `amakihi (Hemignathus 

virens) and palila (Loxioides bailleui). The importance of these flocks to 

`akiapōlā`au has not been studied, but may prove relevant to the conservation of 

this species. 

The primary song is a loud, rapid warble. Calls include a loud "pit-ereoo" and an ascending "chu-wee," louder and deeper than similar calls of other 

species. While `akiapōlā`au sing year round, the seasonal frequency of singing 

appears to vary greatly. Current survey methodology, which relies on point 

counts of vocalizing birds, may be accurate when birds are vocal, but may 

considerably underestimate population density at times when birds are quiet. It 

would be useful to investigate seasonality of singing so that surveys and censuses 

can be planned to coincide with periods of peak singing. 

 

Home range size varies from approximately 5 to 40 hectares (12 to 100 

acres), with no difference between males and females, which remain together in 

pairs most of the time (Pratt et al. 2001a). Home ranges are defended as 

territories, and there is little evidence of daily or seasonal movements. Some 

birds appear temporarily in areas where they are usually not seen, suggesting 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-99 

some seasonal movement; others remain on territory year-round. The factors that 

influence the huge range in territory size, and therefore population size, are poorly 

known, but recent work by Pejchar (2004) showed that home range size varied 

from 23.0 ± 7.2 hectares (56.8 ± 17.8 acres) in open forest to 12.3 ± 7.2 hectares 

(30.4 ± 17.8 acres) in closed forests, and 11.7 ± 4.3 hectares (28.9 ± 10.6 acres) in 

young koa plantations. Furthermore, home ranges overlapped more in koa 

plantations (41.2 percent), than in closed forest (22.6 percent) or open forest (9.2 

percent), resulting in even higher population densities in koa plantations (13 pairs 

per 100 hectares), than in closed forest (10 pairs per 100 hectares) or open forest 

(5 pairs per 100 hectares; Pejchar 2004). With so little disease-free habitat 

available to this species, this information is promising because it suggests it may 

be possible to increase the population size of the species by increasing population 

density. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Essentially all recent observations of `akiapōlā`au have been in montane 

mesic and wet forest dominated by koa and `ōhi`a or in subalpine dry forest 

dominated by māmane and naio. Although koa/`ōhi`a forest occurs below 1,300 

meters (4,000 feet) elevation, few `akiapōlā`au are found there, presumably 

because of the presence of mosquitoes that transmit avian malaria and avian pox. 

Until recently, `akiapōlā`au extensively inhabited wet montane forest dominated 

by `ōhi`a, with no koa. Some birds are still found in that habitat at middle 

elevations in Hāmākua. The recent documentation of `akiapōlā`au inhabiting 

young koa plantations demonstrates that this species is not restricted to old 

growth (Pejchar 2004). These results indicate the need for a better understanding 

of the ways that silviculture practices and plantation forest structure affect food 

availability for `akiapōlā`au, and the need for follow-up studies that document the 

demography of `akiapōlā`au populations inhabiting these habitats. 

Habitat preference of `akiapōlā`au in primary forest is well documented, 

but the use and persistence of successional habitats and habitat mosaics needs 

further study. This is evermore important in a landscape subject to lava flows and 

to changing patterns of agricultural and conservation use. These environments, 

mainly in Upper Waiākea, Kapāpala, and Kona, could be managed to expand and 

connect the existing core populations of `akiapōlā`au. `Akiapōlā`au will cross 

gaps of 100 meters (330 feet) or more, but the frequency with which they do so 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-100 

and the maximum width of gaps that they regularly cross is unknown. Study of 

habitat use is needed at the individual and metapopulation level. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The `akiapōlā`au is endemic to Hawai`i Island and is presently unknown 

from the fossil record (James and Olson 1991). Historically, the `akiapōlā`au was 

much more common and widespread than it is today, being found virtually islandwide in native forest (Figure 15; Pratt et al. 2001a). Perkins (1903) reported that 

they were abundant and occurred as low as 500 meters (1,650 feet) in forests near 

Hilo. In the 1940s, they were still present above 1,700 meters (5,500 feet) in 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park (Baldwin 1953), but by 1970 they had 

disappeared from Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park and were less common 

elsewhere (Conant 1975, Banko and Banko 1980). 

 

In the 1970s, `akiapōlā`au were found in 5 disjunct populations with a 

total estimated population size of 1,500 ± 400 birds (95 percent confidence 

interval; Scott et al. 1986). Four of these populations inhabited koa-dominated 

montane forests in Hāmākua south to the upper Waiākea kīpuka, Kūlani, and 

Keauhou, in Ka`ū and Kapāpala, in southern Kona, and in central Kona (Figure 

15). A fifth population occupied subalpine dry forest on Mauna Kea. Originally 

these populations were all connected, but they have since been isolated by 

clearing of forest, mainly due to grazing. 

Although the most recent population estimate, based on surveys from 

1990 to 1995, is 1,163 birds with a 90 percent confidence interval of 1,109 to 

1,217 birds (Fancy et al. 1995), new survey data indicate the population may be 

somewhat larger than this. The largest population has long been thought to occur 

in the Hāmākua region, which supports an estimated 793 birds in koa-dominated 

forests. This population appears to be relatively stable. In the Ka`ū/Kapāpala 

area, the population reportedly decreased from an estimated 533 to 44 individuals 

since the 1970s (Fancy et al. 1995), but a more recent and intensive survey 

revealed a population in this region of more than 1,000 birds (U.S. Geological 

Survey, unpubl. data). The population in the Kūlani and Keauhou Ranch area 

was estimated at 312 birds. Thus the island-wide population for the species may 

actually be about 2,100 birds. Three `akiapōlā`au remained in the m~mane forest 

on Mauna Kea in 2000, but all three of these birds are now gone. Another few 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-101 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-102 

birds until recently inhabited koa/`Çhi`a forests of central Kona, but the current 

status of the birds in southern Kona is unknown. 

The above-mentioned estimates serve to give an overall picture of the 

species’ distribution and numbers. However, their precision and accuracy are 

poor because of the potential for inadequate sampling when birds are not singing 

and because of analytical problems associated with low population densities. 

Furthermore, the small Kona populations have never been adequately surveyed. 

Planning for this species’ recovery would benefit from improved, up-to-date 

surveys and censuses. This can be achieved by determining when `akiapōlā`au 

vocalize most, by exploring additional survey or census methods to supplement 

standard point-counts, and by investigation of any metapopulation dynamics. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

The `akiapōlā`au is subject to the same threats that negatively impact 

other forest birds on Hawai`i, including habitat loss and degradation, predation, 

and introduced diseases, but due to its low reproductive rate (see Life History), 

this species may be particularly vulnerable to these threats and slow to recover. 

Other factors, such as competition from introduced avian and arthropod 

insectivores, have not been documented, but purposeful and accidental 

introduction of alien species remains a constant threat. 

Habitat Loss and Degradation. Destruction and degradation of forest 

habitat from development, logging, and ranching has greatly reduced the range of 

the `akiapōlā`au, and has been particularly severe in mesic and dry forest areas. 

Dry high elevation māmane-naio forest habitat on the slopes of Mauna Kea has 

been severely degraded by decades of browsing by feral goats and sheep. 

Designation of critical habitat for the palila (see account for that species) and 

subsequent court orders to remove ungulates has resulted in regeneration of this 

habitat, but `akiapōlā`au have already been extirpated from this area. Widespread 

loss and alteration of forest habitats has also led to fragmentation of the remaining 

suitable forest. The dispersal behavior of `akiapōlā`au is poorly known, but 

habitat fragmentation may isolate the remaining populations, decrease the 

effective population size, and hinder recolonization of areas that were formerly 

inhabited. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-103 

 Predation. Predation of nests and adults by rats, cats, mongooses, and 

owls is suspected to have a significant impact on many native Hawaiian bird 

species (Atkinson 1977, VanderWerf and Smith 2002), but the significance of 

predation in limiting `akiapōlā`au populations is not clear. Recent surveys 

indicate rat densities are high at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, which 

contains a significant portion of the largest remaining `akiapōlā`au population 

(U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). The low population density of this 

species has made it difficult to locate sufficient nests for evaluating the effects of 

predator control. Mostello (1996) found the upper mandible of a juvenile 

`akiapōlā`au in a pellet from an introduced barn owl (Tyto alba). Juvenile 

`akiapōlā`au may be especially vulnerable to predators during the post-fledging 

period because their loud, persistent begging call makes them easy to locate. 

Predation, especially on adults, may impact `akiapōlā`au more than other native 

birds because the low reproductive rate of this species makes adults 

demographically more valuable (Ralph and Fancy 1996). 

Introduced Diseases. Most Hawaiian forest birds are susceptible to 

introduced mosquito-borne diseases, and the `akiapōlā`au may be limited to its 

current high-elevation distribution by these diseases (Scott et al. 1986, van Riper 

et al. 1986, Atkinson et al. 1995). Despite the availability of apparently suitable 

habitat, `akiapōlā`au are absent from most areas below 1,350 meters (4,500 feet), 

where mosquitoes are common. This pattern contrasts with that of unlisted 

species, such as `apapane (Himatione sanguinea) and Hawai`i `amakihi 

(Hemignathus virens), suggesting that `akiapōlā`au and other endangered species 

are especially susceptible to disease. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The `akiapōlā`au was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), became protected under the State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a). 

Surveys to document status and trends in the `akiapōlā`au population at 

Hakalau, `Ōla`a/Kīlauea, the Kona Unit of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge, and in subalpine dry forest on Mauna Kea are conducted annually, but 

surveys elsewhere have been infrequent and less complete. Studies of factors 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-104 

limiting populations of endangered Hawaiian forest birds have been conducted 

sporadically since the late 1980s, and a research project dedicated specifically to 

`akiapōlā`au was conducted from 2000 to 2003 (Pejchar 2004). 

 

Conservation efforts for the species have focused primarily on protection 

and management of high-elevation native forests. The Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge was established in 1985, primarily to protect and manage habitat 

for native birds, including the `akiapōlā`au. Almost 45 percent of the refuge has 

been fenced, and feral pigs and cattle have been removed or reduced greatly 

within fenced areas at the refuge. Planting of koa and other native plants began in 

early 1989, and over 350,000 koa seedlings and 30,000 other native species have 

been planted (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data). The `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership and Kona Unit of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge provide 

protection and management of forest for habitat. Removal of sheep and mouflon 

from Mauna Kea, following lawsuits and court orders regarding critical habitat 

for the palila, has permitted regeneration of māmane forest habitat. Two other 

relevant conservation actions were the removal of cattle and fencing of the 

Kapāpala Forest Reserve and the Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary; although 

the latter does not hold `akiapōlā`au, it could serve as a site for reintroduction. 

Plans to remove ungulates from the Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve and from 

lands at Honomalino, owned by The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, would 

protect this recovery area and could serve as sites for reintroducing `akiapōlā`au. 

The recent purchase of the Kahuku Ranch area of the Big Island also holds 

promise for long-term restoration of mesic and subalpine habitat that is expected 

to support `akiapōlā`au. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Recovery of the `akiapōlā`au will require protection, management, and 

restoration of native forests above 1,350 meters (4,500 feet), research to gain key 

information that is presently lacking for this species, management of threats such 

as predation and disease, and possibly captive breeding and release of birds to 

augment or reestablish wild populations. 

Research. Studies are needed in four main areas: (1) testing of survey 

methodology, followed by surveying and mapping of all populations and longterm monitoring in representative areas in Hāmākua, upper Waiākea kīpukas, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-105 

Kūlani/Keauhou, Ka`ū/Kapāpala, and southern and central Kona; (2) 

demographic studies to measure life history parameters such as population 

structure, dispersion, dispersal, adult survivorship, clutch size, nesting success, 

social system, and phenology of nesting and molting; (3) habitat selection and 

foraging ecology, including diet and food availability, particularly in regenerating 

forest, as well as the role that koa silviculture practices play in the creation of 

suitable habitat; and (4) response of `akiapōlā`au populations to control of 

mammalian predators, particularly in low-stature dry forests where the species 

has difficulty maintaining itself. This information is needed to understand the 

dynamics of `akiapōlā`au populations, predict the densities of birds achievable 

across the species’ geographic range, and enhance efforts to restore and reconnect 

declining populations and re-establish new populations in portions of the former 

range. 

Recovery Areas. The most important component of the recovery strategy 

for the `akiapōlā`au is protection, management, and restoration of koa/`ōhi`a 

forests above 1,350 meters (4,500 feet) elevation. High elevation forest is of 

primary importance because it provides the greatest refuge from mosquito-borne 

diseases, but forests at lower elevation also could be valuable if a means of 

controlling mosquitoes can be found. 

Fencing and/or removal of feral ungulates from the remaining high 

elevation forests will protect these areas and allow natural regeneration. In 

previously grazed or logged areas it may be necessary to replant with koa while 

allowing `ōhi`a and other native species to regenerate as well, as has been done in 

the upper portions of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. It is 

important that this action include all recovery areas (Figure 15). Several numbers 

reinforce this point: the current average density of `akiapōlā`au is one pair per 20 

hectares (49 acres). By comparison, the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

currently offers about 8,500 hectares (21,000 acres) of suitable habitat above 

4,500 feet (1,350 meters), although additional areas are being reforested, which 

could support approximately 425 pairs. The identified recovery areas encompass 

238,000 hectares (588,000 acres; Figure 15), much of which requires extensive 

restoration. 

Old-growth koa/`ōhi`a forest on many parcels in the recovery areas is 

deteriorating due to browsing and rooting by feral pigs, sheep, or mouflon, singly 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-106 

or in combination. Control of these animals would improve forest conditions and 

possibly increase density of `akiapōlā`au populations. 

To maintain or reestablish connectivity of habitat and bird populations 

among the currently fragmented patches of `akiapōlā`au habitat, cattle should be 

removed from key parcels and stock ponds should be drained to reduce mosquito 

breeding. Priority should be given to reforesting upper drainages of the Wailuku 

River, upper Keauhou Ranch, Kapāpala Forest Reserve, and numerous parcels in 

Kona between Hōnaunau and Manukā Natural Area Reserve. A corridor between 

the koa/`ōhi`a forest of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge and the dry 

māmane forest at Kanakaleonui upslope from the refuge could be created by 

removing cattle from pastures above the refuge and replanting the area with koa 

and māmane, and would reestablish a valuable connection between native bird 

populations in these two areas and habitat types. 

Predator control. Control of alien predators, especially rats, has been 

shown to be an effective method of increasing reproduction and survival in other 

Hawaiian forest birds (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). However, the degree of 

threat from alien rodents may vary among species and locations, and rodent 

control programs initially should be conducted in an experimental way to 

document their effect on `akiapōlā`au populations. Ground-based methods of 

rodent control using snap traps and diphacinone bait stations have been effective 

on a small scale, but are labor intensive. Effective large-scale rodent control 

likely will require aerial broadcast methods. Registration of aerial broadcast of 

diphacinone for rodent control with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

should be actively pursued and supported. 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction. Natural recovery of 

`akiapōlā`au and reestablishment of wild populations in portions of the former 

range may be slow due to the low reproductive capacity of this species. Captive 

propagation techniques such as collection of eggs from the wild, artificial 

incubation and hand-rearing, captive-breeding, and reintroduction may be 

required to speed recovery. Translocation of wild birds also may be valuable, but 

captive propagation may be a more cost-effective means of reestablishing or 

augmenting wild populations. Previous translocations with Hawaiian forest birds 

have shown that young birds are more likely to remain in an area after release 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-107 

(Fancy et al. 2001), and `akiapōlā`au nests are difficult to locate and reach, so it 

may be difficult to obtain a sufficient number of young wild birds. 

Feasibility should be determined for reintroducing `akiapōlā`au into nowprotected areas of its former range, particularly at the Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird 

Sanctuary, the Kona Unit of the Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, Mauna Loa 

Strip of Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, and, if it is managed as planned, the 

upper forests of Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-108 

13. Hawai`i Creeper, Oreomystis mana

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Hawai`i creeper is a small 

Hawaiian honeycreeper (family 

Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae) 

10.8 to 13.0 centimeters (4.3 to 5.1 

inches) in length and 13.7 grams (0.48 

ounces) average weight (Lepson and 

Woodworth 2001). It is predominantly 

olive green on the back and dull 

greenish-buff below, with a white chin 

and throat. The brownish-white bill is 

almost straight, the iris is dark hazel, and the legs and feet are dark brown. 

Immatures are paler below, with less contrast between the throat and breast, and 

they usually have a prominent yellowish-white superciliary line. Field 

identification is complicated by its similarities in appearance and behavior with 

the Hawai`i `amakihi (Hemignathus virens), Hawai`i `ākepa (Loxops coccineus 

coccineus), and Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus) (Scott et al. 1979). 

At the time of European discovery, each of the six main Hawaiian Islands 

harbored a small, straight-billed, simple-tongued, insectivorous bird. The 

Hawai`i creeper was first described as Himatione mana by Wilson (1891a). 

Subsequent nomenclature has been problematic (reviewed in Pratt 1992b, 2001), 

and the species has variously been considered a full species (Perkins 1903), a 

subspecies of Paroreomyza bairdi (Bryan and Greenway 1944) and a subspecies 

of Loxops maculata (Amadon 1950). It is currently classified as Oreomystis 

mana (American Ornithologists’ Union 1998) following Pratt (1979, 1992b), but 

recent evidence (Olson and James 1995, Fleischer et al. 2001) supports its 

inclusion as a full species in the genus Loxops.

LIFE HISTORY 

Hawai`i creepers defend a small, 10 to 20 meter (33 to 66 feet) radius area 

immediately surrounding the nest, and forage over a 4 to 7 hectare (9.9 to 17.3 

acre) home range during the breeding season (Ralph and Fancy 1994a, 

Adult Hawai`i creeper foraging on `ōhi`a 

trunk. Photo pending permission.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-109 

VanderWerf 1998b). Females do all or most of the nest building and incubate, 

brood, and feed the chicks; males assist by feeding the female both on and off the 

nest and by feeding the young (Sakai and Johanos 1983; VanderWerf 1998b; J. 

Nelson, U. S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). During the nonbreeding season, 

pairs range over a wider area of about 11 hectares (27.2 acres) and join other 

forest birds in mixed-species flocks (VanderWerf 1998b). 

The Hawai`i creeper generally feeds on insects, spiders, and invertebrates 

that are gleaned from the trunks and branches of mature trees (Scott et al. 1986). 

During the breeding season in Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hawai`i 

creepers foraged at a mean height of 13 meters (43 feet). Most foraging 

maneuvers were gleans (59 percent) or hangs (24 percent); they also probed, 

pecked, flaked, pried, and pulled substrates to obtain prey (n = 579 maneuvers, 35 

individuals; U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Foraging took place 

primarily on the branches (63.7 percent of maneuvers), trunks (13.3 percent) and 

foliage (12.4 percent) of live `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) and koa (Acacia 

koa) trees; the remainder of maneuvers were in subcanopy trees (specifically, 

`ōlapa [Cheirodendron trigynum]), dead trees, or epiphytes (n = 579 maneuvers; 

U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Beetle larvae make up a large part of its 

diet (Amadon 1950, Conant 1981a), but no detailed information on prey taken is 

available. 

Nests of Hawai`i creepers have been found from January to August (Sakai 

and Ralph 1980, Scott et al. 1980, Sakai and Johanos 1983, VanderWerf 1998b, 

Woodworth et al. 2001), but peak breeding occurs from February to May, and 

molt occurs from May to August (Ralph and Fancy 1994a, Woodworth et al.

2001). A small proportion (less than 5 percent) of individuals may overlap 

breeding and molting activities (Ralph and Fancy 1994a, Woodworth et al. 2001). 

A total of 78 nests of this species have been documented (Sakai and Ralph 

1980, Scott et al. 1980, Sakai and Johanos 1983, VanderWerf 1998b, Woodworth 

et al. 2001). Based on 61 nests found at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

from 1994 to 1999, Hawai`i creepers generally build cup nests at mid-canopy at 

about 13 meters (43 feet) in height (range 2.8 to 24 meters [9 to 79 feet]) and 

about 1.5 meters (5 feet) from the main bole of the tree (range 0 to 4.8 meters [0 

to 16 feet]). Most (86 percent) are open cup nests but a few (14 percent) are 

cavity or pseudo-cavity nests. Clutch size is usually two eggs, nest building 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-110 

requires 11 to 19 days, incubation 13 to 17 days, and the nestling period is 18 

days (Sakai and Johanos 1983, VanderWerf 1998b, Woodworth et al. 2001). 

Approximately one-third of recorded nesting attempts have been abandoned 

before egg-laying commenced (33 percent, n = 6, VanderWerf 1998b; 27.9 

percent, n = 61, Woodworth et al. 2001). At Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge from 1994 to 1999, daily survival rates of active creeper nests were 0.950 

± 0.011 (standard error), and an average of 1.7 chicks fledged from successful 

nests (Woodworth et al. 2001). Only a fraction of known-fate nesting attempts 

are successful (11 percent, n = 9, Sakai and Johanos 1983; 50 percent, n = 6, 

VanderWerf 1998b; 20.4 percent, n = 49, Woodworth et al. 2001). The relatively 

high rate of nest failure across studies is alarming, especially given the relatively 

inaccessible locations where these birds nest. Further study is needed to elucidate 

the causes of these failures. 

Data from marked pairs suggest that Hawai`i creepers readily re-nest after 

failure, and two pairs have been recorded re-nesting after fledging young earlier 

in the season (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Parent Hawai`i creepers 

feed fledglings for at least 3 weeks post-fledging, but within 1 month of leaving 

the nest young are foraging independently for food (although still following 

parents; VanderWerf 1998b, Woodworth et al. 2001). 

Hawai`i creepers have relatively high annual adult survival of about 73 to 

88 percent (Ralph and Fancy 1994a, Woodworth et al. 2001), and juvenile 

survival of about 33 percent (Woodworth et al. 2001). The high survival rate of 

Hawai`i creepers in Hakalau in part may reflect the rarity of disease in this highelevation refugium, above the level of mosquito populations. 

In general, the reproductive potential of the Hawai`i creeper appears to be 

low due to its small clutch size, relatively long developmental period, and limited 

breeding season. This low reproductive potential is exacerbated by the high rate 

of nesting failures, possibly due to the introduction of mammalian nest predators. 

High adult and juvenile survival rates may compensate to some extent for low 

annual productivity, but if disease were to reach the upper elevation rain forests, it 

could have devastating effects. More detailed demographic data are needed to 

assess the implications for population persistence of the Hawai`i creeper. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-111 

Hawai`i creepers are non-migratory, but during the nonbreeding season 

they range more widely; the average nonbreeding home range size of 10 Hawai`i 

creepers was 11.9 ± 7.7 hectares (29.4 ± 19.0 acres) (range 4.3 to 27.1 hectares 

[10.6 to 66.9 acres]), and individual banded birds have been observed in different 

locations 1 to 4 kilometers (0.62 to 2.48 miles) apart (VanderWerf 1998b). 

Snetsinger (1995) observed a Hawai`i creeper in māmane (Sophora chrysophylla) 

forest 7 kilometers (4.35 miles) from the nearest known population. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION

Hawai`i creepers are most common in mesic and wet forests above 1,500 

meters (5,000 feet) elevation (Scott et al. 1986). The species prefers relatively 

undisturbed koa/`ōhi`a forests (Sakai and Johanos 1983), and the highest densities 

occur in areas least modified by logging and grazing (Scott et al. 1986). The 

largest population (see Range and Status below) exists on the windward slope of 

Mauna Kea in the vicinity of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Annual 

rainfall at Hakalau averages 2,500 millimeters (98 inches), and the forest canopy 

is dominated by `ōhi`a and koa. The subcanopy is composed of `ōlapa, pūkiawe 

(Styphelia tameiameiae), `ōhelo (Vaccinium calycinum), `ākala (Rubus 

hawaiiensis), kolea (Myrsine sandwicensis), kāwa`u (Ilex anomala), and 

Cibotium tree ferns (U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Hawai`i creepers 

also have been observed occasionally in māmane forest at higher elevations, and 

may have been more widespread in this habitat historically (Figure 16; Snetsinger 

1995).

Hawai`i creeper, along with `akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi) and 

Hawai`i `ākepa, show a decreasing population density gradient from south to 

north across three sites in Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (2.18 ± 0.50 

birds per hectare in the south at Pua `Ākala, compared with 0.57 ± 0.23 birds per 

hectare in the north at Maulua). The causes for the density gradient are not 

completely understood, but cavity availability was lower in the Pedro area than at 

Pua `Ākala (Hart 2001), food availability was one-third lower at Maulua than at 

Pua `Ākala (Fretz 2002), and prevalence of pox virus was higher at Maulua than 

at Pua `Ākala (VanderWerf 2001a), all of which may partially explain the lower 

population density to the north. Feral pig sign was negatively correlated with 

Hawai`i creeper density across the three sites. The frequency of disease 

epizootics in different sections of the refuge should be investigated. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-112 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-113 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

In the 1890s, Hawai`i creepers were found in `ōhi`a and `ōhi`a/koa forests 

throughout the island of Hawai`i, usually above 1,070 meters (3,600 feet) 

elevation (Perkins 1903). Creepers were recorded in the Kona and Ka`ū districts 

as well as the forests above Hilo (Figure 16). Perkins noted that they were very 

abundant and generally distributed but had some puzzling gaps in their 

distribution, especially at lower elevations. In general, the creeper’s decline was 

not well documented, perhaps in part due to difficulties of field identification 

(Scott et al. 1979). However, a drastic decline in numbers in Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park during the 1930s and 1940s was noted, and the species had 

virtually disappeared from the park by about 1960 (Conant 1975, Banko and 

Banko 1980). 

As of 1979, the Hawai`i creeper was confined to four disjunct populations 

in wet and mesic forests, primarily above 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) (Figure 16; 

Scott et al. 1986). Two populations near Kona totaled only about 300 birds, and a 

third, near Ka`ū, consisted of about 2,100 birds. The Hāmākua coast on the 

windward side of Mauna Kea, where 10,000 ± 1,200 birds reside, supports the 

largest remaining population of Hawai`i creepers (Scott et al. 1986). A 

population recorded on Kohala Mountain in 1972 by Van Riper (1982) could not 

be relocated during the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey in the early 1980s (Scott et al.

1986). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Modification and loss of habitat, avian disease, predation by introduced 

mammals, and competition with introduced birds all probably played a part in the 

decline of the Hawai`i creeper. Many areas of `ōhi`a/koa forest have been logged 

or grazed, severely degrading the quality of remaining habitat. Hawai`i creepers 

are rarely found below about 1,500 meters (5,000 feet), probably because of the 

distribution of mosquitoes that transmit avian malaria and avian pox (Warner 

1968, van Riper et al. 1986). Nest success rates for Hawai`i creepers are 

alarmingly low (11 to 50 percent), which may reflect the invasion of alien nest 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-114 

predators, particularly black rats (Rattus rattus), into their habitat. Hawai`i 

creeper nests may be especially vulnerable to rat predation because of their 

proximity to the main trunk of nest trees (Woodworth et al. 2001), where rats may 

be more likely to encounter them. It has also been suggested that the Hawai`i 

creeper may be negatively impacted by competition from the insectivorous 

Japanese white-eye (Dunmire 1961, Mountainspring and Scott 1985). The 

Japanese White-eye is the most common introduced species on the island of 

Hawai`i. Based on mist-netting studies, 17 percent of the avian biomass at 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge is made up of exotic species (primarily 

Japanese white-eyes and red-billed leiothrix [Leiothrix lutea]; U.S. Geological 

Survey, unpubl. data). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

 

The Hawai`i creeper was federally listed as endangered on September 25, 

1975 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1975), became protected under the State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a). 

Surveys to document the status and trends of Hawaiian forest birds are undertaken 

by the State of Hawai`i approximately every 5 years, and annual surveys are 

conducted at Hakalau. 

Conservation efforts for the Hawai`i creeper have focused predominantly 

on the protection and management of high-elevation native forests. The Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1985 primarily to protect and 

manage habitat for native birds, including the Hawai`i creeper. Much of the 

refuge has been fenced and efforts are underway to remove feral pigs from the 

refuge. Planting of koa and other native plants began in early 1989, and over 

350,000 koa seedlings and 30,000 other native species have been planted thus far. 

The `Ōla`a/Kīlauea Partnership and Kona Unit of Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge also provide protection and management of forest for habitat. 

Two other relevant conservation actions were the removal of cattle and fencing of 

the Kapāpala Forest Reserve and the Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary. 

Plans to remove ungulates from the State Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve and 

from lands at Honomalino, owned by The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, would 

protect recovery areas that could serve as sites for reintroducing Hawai`i creeper. 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-115 

Research on factors that limit populations of endangered Hawaiian forest 

birds has been ongoing since the late 1980s. The productivity, recruitment, and 

survival of the Hawai`i creeper was investigated as part of a larger study by the 

U.S. Geological Survey from 1994 to 1999 (Woodworth et al. 2001). In case 

captive propagation becomes necessary for the Hawai`i creeper (see Recovery 

Strategy), technology has been developed for the collection of wild eggs, artificial 

incubation of eggs, hand-rearing of chicks, maintenance of adult Hawai`i creepers 

in captivity, and captive-breeding of the species. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

The primary strategy for the recovery of the Hawai`i creeper is the 

protection and management of remaining `ōhi`a/koa forests above 1,500 meters 

(5,000 feet) elevation, and the restoration of degraded forests (Figure 16). To 

maintain connectivity and allow dispersal among fragmented patches of habitat, 

cattle should be removed from several key parcels and habitat restoration pursued, 

such as at the Kapāpala Forest Reserve and adjoining lands leased by the State for 

ranching. Management for avian disease should focus on reduction of breeding 

habitat for mosquitoes through drainage of stock ponds; public education and 

container removal in residential areas; and reduction in feral pig populations. 

Rodent control can be pursued through snap-trapping and diphacinone bait in bait 

stations in key parcels, but these methods are infeasible over large areas (Nelson 

et al. 2002). Therefore, registration for aerial broadcast of rodenticides should be 

aggressively pursued, and studies should be undertaken to determine its efficacy 

and public health implications (e.g., non-target effects, including accumulation in 

ungulate tissue and residue in water supplies). Reintroduction of captively 

propagated Hawai`i creepers into former habitat (e.g., the Mauna Loa Strip Road 

in Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park) could be undertaken after appropriate 

habitat management steps have been taken, and could be expected to speed the 

process of recolonization and recovery. 

Because the population is relatively large and the threat of extinction is 

not imminent, recovery may be achieved more cost effectively through habitat 

management, therefore captive propagation currently is of lower priority for this 

species. Progeny from captive-propagation efforts would provide birds for 

reintroduction in order to establish and enhance populations of Hawai`i creeper in 

managed recovery areas.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-116 

14. O`ahu `Alauahio (O`ahu Creeper), Paroreomyza maculata

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

Description. The O`ahu 

creeper, or O`ahu `alauahio, is a small, 

sexually dichromatic Hawaiian 

honeycreeper (family Fringillidae, 

subfamily Drepanidinae) 

approximately 11 centimeters (4.3 

inches) in total body length. Males are 

olive-green above and bright yellow 

below, with a yellow forehead and 

superciliary line, and a dark eye line. 

Females and immatures are grayishgreen above and yellowish-white 

below, with two prominent white 

wingbars. The bill is straight, 

relatively short, dark above, and pale 

below (Shallenberger and Pratt 1978). 

Identification. The O`ahu creeper is very similar in appearance to the 

O`ahu `amakihi (Hemignathus flavus), and separating these two species in the 

field can be difficult (Shallenberger and Pratt 1978). O`ahu creepers have a 

shorter, straight bill, a more distinct pale superciliary, and a pale forehead. 

Female and immature creepers generally have larger and more prominent white 

wingbars than female and immature `amakihi, but this character is variable in 

both species (Shallenberger and Pratt 1978). 

Taxonomy. The O`ahu creeper is a Hawaiian honeycreeper (family 

Fringillidae; subfamily Drepanidinae) endemic to the island of O`ahu. It is 

currently placed in the genus Paroreomyza (Olson and James 1982b, Pratt 1992b, 

American Ornithologists’ Union 1998), but its generic designation has changed 

repeatedly and it has at various times been placed in the genera Oreomyza

(Perkins 1903), Oreomystis (Stejneger 1903), and Loxops (Amadon 1950, 

Shallenberger and Pratt 1978). The closest relatives and only congeners of the 

O`ahu creeper are the Maui (P. montana) and Moloka`i (P. flammea) creepers, 

O`ahu creeper. © from Rothschild (1893-

1900). Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution 

Libraries.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-117 

and all three taxa have been considered conspecific by some authors (e.g., Munro 

1960). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Little is known about the life history of the O`ahu creeper, but it is thought 

to be similar in most respects to its close relative, the Maui creeper. Almost 

nothing is known of its breeding biology or nesting season. Only two nests and 

one set of eggs have ever been found, both in January 1901 (Bryan 1905). O`ahu 

creepers apparently formed foraging flocks during parts of the year. Perkins 

(1903) reported that as many as a dozen creepers often were seen together, and 

Swedberg (in Shallenberger and Pratt 1978) reported a flock of 30 to 50 birds at 

Poamoho Trail in September 1968, some of which were collected and proved to 

be O`ahu creepers. 

The O`ahu creeper is insectivorous and forages by creeping methodically 

up and down the trunks and branches of large trees, probing the bark for insects. 

It rarely forages in foliage and does not visit flowers like the `amakihi (Perkins 

1903, Shallenberger and Pratt 1978). Perkins (1903) reported that it fed largely 

on caterpillars and spiders, and that the stomach contents of specimens included 

large numbers of Carabid beetles. 

The short, sharp call has been described as “chip,” “chick,” and “chirk.” 

(Perkins 1903, Shallenberger and Pratt 1978, Pratt et al. 1987). The song has 

never been described, but might be similar to that of the Maui creeper. Despite 

hundreds of observations of O`ahu creeper, Perkins (1903) never reported hearing 

its song, and it may sing very infrequently. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

The preferred habitat of the O`ahu creeper may be mid-elevation 

koa/`ōhi`a (Acacia koa/Metrosideros polymorpha) forests in valleys or on sideridges. Perkins reported that the species was partial to large koa trees, but that 

they also occurred in areas without koa. All three observations reported by 

Shallenberger and Pratt (1978) were in mixed koa/`ōhi`a forest at elevations from 

300 to 600 meters (1,000 to 2,000 feet), not on summits. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-118 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The historical range and abundance of the O`ahu creeper are poorly 

known, partly because it may already have been uncommon and in decline when 

it was first observed by early naturalists (Figure 17). Perkins (1903) “found all 

species of Oreomyza (now Paroreomyza on O`ahu and Maui and Oreomystis on 

Kaua`i and Hawai`i) to be abundant” on their respective islands, but called the 

O`ahu form “less numerous than any.” Perkins (1903) also described the O`ahu 

creeper as “a common enough species” and “found on both mountain ranges,” but 

said, “it seems to have entirely disappeared from the mountains in the immediate 

neighborhood of Honolulu, where it formerly occurred.” Similarly, Munro (1960) 

stated that O`ahu creepers were “fairly common in the 1890s,” but that he had 

“tramped many miles of newly made C.C.C. [Civilian Conservation Corps] trails 

on O`ahu in 1935 and did not see a single individual.” Palmer (in Rothschild 

1893 to 1900) reported that he found O`ahu creepers “only in the upland region of 

Wailua” above 350 meters (1,500 feet) elevation. 

The O`ahu creeper has undoubtedly declined very seriously since it was 

first observed, and at present no individuals have been seen in over 20 years. The 

current range, the rate and extent of decline, and even whether the species still 

exists are difficult to determine, however, due to the difficulty in distinguishing 

this species from the O`ahu `amakihi. Many reports may have been based on 

misidentifications, and the true historical and current status of this species is 

clouded. Shallenberger and Pratt (1978) compiled 41 supposed observations of 

O`ahu creeper reported in the journal `Elepaio, and judged that the identification 

was certain in only 3 cases, probable in 6, possible in 26, and unlikely in 6. In 

over 200 person-days of field work in the central Ko`olau Mountains, 

Shallenberger and Vaughn (1978) observed this species only three times, in north 

Hālawa Valley, Moanalua Valley, and in a valley south of Mānana Trail. The last 

well-documented observation was of two birds on December 12, 1985, on 

Poamoho Trail during the Waipi`o Christmas Bird Count (Bremer 1986). There 

have been several reports from different areas since, but details of the 

observations have been inconclusive and the birds were never relocated. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-119 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-120 

Small populations of `i`iwi have been rediscovered recently on O`ahu in 

both the Wai`anae and Ko`olau Mountains (VanderWerf and Rohrer 1996), and it 

is possible that isolated populations of the O`ahu creeper also still exist in remote 

areas of the island. O`ahu was not included in the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey 

(Scott et al. 1986) or the Hawai`i Rare Bird Search (Reynolds and Snetsinger 

2001), and relatively few qualified observers spend much time in the midelevation koa/`ōhi`a forests where O`ahu creepers are most likely to occur 

(Shallenberger and Pratt 1978). Given the lack of systematic surveys for the 

species, the status of the O`ahu creeper is presently unknown. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Much of the decline in distribution of forest birds on O`ahu can be 

attributed to habitat loss, especially at low elevations. O`ahu has the largest 

human population and is among the most disturbed of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Fifty-nine percent of the island has been developed for urban or agricultural use 

(Hawai`i Heritage Program 1991). Other than habitat loss, the specific reasons 

for the decline of the O`ahu creeper are poorly known, but it likely faces the same 

threats as many Hawaiian forest birds. Diseases carried by the introduced 

southern house mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus), particularly avian malaria 

(Plasmodium relictum) and avian pox (Poxvirus avium), are known to be serious 

threats to many native Hawaiian forest birds (van Riper et al. 1986, Atkinson et 

al. 1995), and they likely have been a major factor in the disappearance of the 

O`ahu creeper. The threat of disease may be especially serious on O`ahu, because 

no parts of the island are high enough to provide refuge from the primary disease 

vector, mosquitoes, which cannot tolerate the cold temperatures at high elevations 

(Warner 1968). Predation by introduced mammals, particularly the black rat 

(Rattus rattus), has been a major factor in the decline of the O`ahu `elepaio 

(Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis) (VanderWerf and Smith 2002), and also may 

have affected the O`ahu creeper. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The O`ahu creeper was federally listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970), and thus receives protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species 

Act were automatically added to the State of Hawai`i list of endangered species 

on March 22, 1982, and are thus also protected by State law. The recently created 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-121 

O`ahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge protects a large area of native forest in the 

north-central Ko`olau Mountains near several of the most recent O`ahu creeper 

observations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a), but whether the species still 

occurs in the area is unknown. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-122 

Moloka`i creeper. © from Rothschild 

(1893-1900). Courtesy of Smithsonian 

Institution Libraries.

15. Kākāwahie (Moloka`i Creeper), Paroreomyza flammea 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The kākāwahie, or Moloka`i 

creeper, was known only from Moloka`i, 

but is now thought by some to be extinct 

(Baker and Baker 2000). The last 

sighting of this sexually dimorphic 

honeycreeper occurred in April 1963 

(Pekelo 1963). A detailed description of 

the species was made only by the early 

specimen collectors and observers; 

Munro (1944) described the adult males 

as mostly scarlet in various shades, adult 

females as brown with scarlet washes 

and markings, and juvenile males 

ranging from female-like brown to the 

adult males’ scarlet with many 

gradations. The bill is short and 

straight. Its calls were described as chip or chirping notes similar to other creeper 

calls (Munro 1944, Pekelo 1963). Its closest relatives are the Maui creeper (P. 

montana) and the O`ahu creeper (P. maculata). The kākāwahie is in the 

Hawaiian honeycreeper family (family Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae). 

 

LIFE HISTORY 

Only fragmentary information is available about the life history of the 

kākāwahie from the writings of early naturalists and the few notes reported in the 

1960s (Perkins 1903, Munro 1944, Pekelo 1963). This species is an insectivore 

that gleans vegetation and bark in wet `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) forests. 

Only minimal information exists about the nest and young (Munro 1944). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

This species was known only from high elevation, boggy areas of 

Moloka`i (Munro 1944, Pekelo 1963). There is no detailed description of its 

habitat. The last detections, in the 1960s, were on the west rim of Pelekunu 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-123 

Valley on the `Ōhi`alele Plateau in moss-shrouded `ōhi`a and `ōlapa 

(Cheirodendron trigynum) trees. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Historically, the species was recorded only from Moloka`i (see Figure 8 

on page 2-29). There have been no sightings since 1963. The 1980 Hawaiian 

Forest Bird Survey failed to detect the species on Moloka`i, and reported similar 

failures of earlier searches (Scott et al. 1986). All surveys and special searches 

since 1988 have failed to detect this species (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001; 

Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data). This species 

may possibly be extinct, but there was a significant gap in the area covered by the 

Hawai`i Rare Bird Search in the 1990s due to restrictions on access, and one of 

the largest areas of remaining pristine native forest, the Oloku`i Plateau, was not 

surveyed for kākāwahie. Additional surveys are needed to confirm the status of 

this species. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Reasons for the decline and loss of the species are unknown, but 

presumably are the same as for other endangered forest birds on Moloka`i and 

Maui. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Moloka`i creeper was federally listed as an endangered species on 

October 13, 1970 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970), became protected under 

the State of Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was 

included in the Maui-Moloka`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1984a). No other specific conservation efforts for this species 

have been initiated. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-124 

16. Hawai`i `Ākepa, Loxops coccineus coccineus 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Hawai`i `ākepa is a small 

sexually dichromatic Hawaiian 

honeycreeper (family Fringillidae, 

subfamily Drepanidinae) endemic to 

the island of Hawai`i. Its total length is 

approximately 10 centimeters (3.9 

inches) and its weight varies from 10 to 

12 grams (0.34 to 0.41 ounces). Adult 

males are bright orange, while females 

are grayish green with a yellow breast-band. The male adult plumage is not 

obtained until the molt preceding the fourth year. Males have a female-like 

subadult plumage (without breast-band) during their second year and a male-like 

subadult plumage during their third year (Lepson and Freed 1995). The male-like 

subadult plumage varies from bright orange on the head and breast to dull 

brownish orange over the entire body. Females are entirely gray during their 

second year. Thereafter they acquire a variable amount of yellow and orange on 

the breast, throat, and head (Freed and Lepson, unpubl. data). Plumage brightness 

is loosely related to age, but most females never acquire extensive orange-yellow 

on the head. Juvenal plumage, similar in both sexes, is grayish green above, pale 

gray below, often with a whitish superciliary line (Lepson and Freed 1997). 

 

The Hawai`i `ākepa has a long notched tail. The bill is conical and 

generally pale yellow in color. The laterally-skewed tips of the asymmetrical bill 

are caused by the tip of the lower mandible curving to the right or left (Richards 

and Bock 1973). There also is an asymmetry 

in the legs, with a slightly longer tarsus on the 

side opposite to which the mandible crosses 

(Knox 1983). These are considered 

“handedness” adaptations for opening up leaf 

and flower buds for arthropod prey. The 

tongue shows adaptations for nectarivory with 

the brushy tip and the sides rolled up to form a 

tube (Gadow 1891). 

Adult male Hawai`i `ākepa foraging in 

`ōhi`a foliage. Photo permission pending.

Close-up showing asymmetrical 

bill of `ākepa. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-125 

The bird was originally described as Fringilla coccinea from specimens 

collected by the James Cook expedition of 1779 (Medway 1981). It was 

occasionally placed in the genus Hypoloxias (Wilson and Evans 1890 to 1899). 

Its current nomenclature is based on Rothschild (1893 to 1900). The Hawai`i 

`ākepa shares subspecific status with the Maui `ākepa (Loxops c. ochraceus) and 

the O`ahu `ākepa (Loxops c. rufus). The O`ahu subspecies is extinct and the Maui 

subspecies is probably extinct, meaning the Hawai`i `ākepa now likely comprises 

the entire species. 

LIFE HISTORY 

The Hawai`i `ākepa is an obligate cavity nester, with most nests found in 

large old-growth `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) and koa (Acacia koa) trees 

(Lepson and Freed 1997, Freed 2001). It has a clearly defined breeding season, 

with nest-building from early March to late May, egg-laying from mid-March to 

late May, hatching in late March to early June, and fledging from April 2 to June 

30 (Lepson and Freed 1997). Fledglings stay with their parents until September 

or October, and both adults and juveniles frequently join interspecific foraging 

flocks with other Hawaiian honeycreepers, particularly Hawai`i creepers 

(Oreomystis mana), and also `akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi), Hawai`i 

`amakihi (Hemignathus virens), `i`iwi (Vestiaria coccinea), and `apapane 

(Himatione sanguinea). Only one brood can be raised per year. Studies of prey 

abundance indicate that breeding is initiated during a time of declining prey 

availability and that termination of parental care in September occurs during the 

annual peak in prey availability (Fretz 2000). 

 

Females do all or most of the nest building and incubate, brood, and feed 

the chicks; males assist by feeding the female both on and off the nest and by 

feeding the young (Lepson and Freed 1997). Clutch size ranges from one to three 

eggs, with two as the modal number (Lepson and Freed 1997). Based on recent 

observations of accessible Hawai`i `ākepa nests, some eggs failed to hatch in four 

of six nests (L. Freed, University of Hawai`i, pers. comm.). No nestling mortality 

was detected. Nestlings 6 days old weighed as much as their parents, and those 

12 days old weighed up to 1.5 times that of their parents. The productivity of 

nests, usually one fledgling, appears to be limited more by hatching success than 

by provisioning of nestlings. Despite the potential vulnerability of cavity nesting 

species to predators such as rats (Lack 1968, Nilsson 1986), nesting success is 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-126 

high at the Pua `Ākala tract of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, in that 

79 percent of nests of known fate over a 7-year period fledged young (Lepson and 

Freed 1995). However, based on captures of females without brood patches 

during June, not all females attempt to nest in a given year. In addition, predation 

on fledglings by `io (Buteo solitarius) has been documented (Lepson and Freed 

1997). Adults have high annual survivorship ranging from 0.70 for 

Kīlauea/Keauhou (Ralph and Fancy 1994a) to 0.82 at Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge (Lepson and Freed 1995). 

 

The molting season is clearly defined. Molting in adults begins primarily 

in June (Lepson and Freed 1995). Molt is a post-nesting phenomenon that 

coincides with the fledgling period, and extends until October. The only 

exception is that second year males that do not attempt to breed begin their molt 

in March. 

 

Intense competition occurs among males from October to March (Lepson 

and Freed 1995). The Hawai`i `ākepa is non-territorial, so dominance is the 

major form of aggression. Physical fights, chases, and group displays are part of 

the competition. Group displays may include up to six males perched in the same 

tree who take turns flying out, singing, and returning, all in the presence of a 

female. Aerial displays of up to eight males sometimes result in spectacular 

“dogfights” with birds rising as high as 100 meters (330 feet) in the air before 

breaking up. 

 

It appears that variation in female plumage and fitness drives this 

competition. More colorful females have both higher survival and higher nesting 

success than duller females of the same age (Freed and Lepson, unpubl. data). 

Extensively orange-yellow females comprise only 11 percent of the population, 

and orange-yellow females comprise 25 percent. Thus, despite an even sex ratio 

(Lepson and Freed 1995), males are competing for only a fraction of females with 

above-average fitness. 

 

The Hawai`i `ākepa feeds primarily on small insects, spiders, and 

caterpillars throughout the year. It rarely feeds on nectar. Foraging occurs 

mainly on the terminal leaf clusters of `ōhi`a, and to a lesser extent among koa 

leaves and seedpods (Perkins 1903, Conant 1981a, Fretz 2000). Food availability 

for `ākepa is closely associated with the structure and density of the terminal 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-127 

portions of the `ōhi`a canopy (Fretz 2002). During the dry summer of 1999, 

several birds were captured with `ākala (Rubus hawaiiensis) berry pulp dried on 

their bills. They may have been using the berries as a source of water. Birds also 

have been seen foraging occasionally in the leaves of naio (Myoporum 

sandwicense), `a`ali`i (Dodonaea viscosa), pūkiawe (Styphelia tameiameiae), pilo 

(Coprosma spp.), `ōhelo (Vaccinium calycinum), and `ākala (Perkins 1903). 

 

Adults and juveniles are strongly philopatric to the breeding area (Lepson 

and Freed 1995). Maximum distance traveled was 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) for an 

adult female and the same distance for a juvenile (Lepson and Freed 1997). Both 

males and females, banded as juveniles, tend to breed within 250 meters (820 

feet) of their natal nest. Hart (2000) reported home range sizes of 5.9 and 4.8 

hectares (14.6 and 11.9 acres) for males and females, respectively, during the 

non-breeding season, and substantially smaller ranges during the breeding season. 

Ralph and Fancy (1994a) reported that the average home range of the Hawai`i 

`ākepa was 3.9 hectares (9.6 acres). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Hawai`i `ākepa are birds of old-growth `ōhi`a or `ōhi`a/koa forest (Freed 

2001). Their density depends in part on the density of large trees because only 

large trees provide the cavities required for nesting (Hart 2000, 2001; Freed 

2001). The average size of trees used for nesting is 1 meter (3.3 feet) in diameter 

at breast height (Freed 2001). `Ōhi`a appear to be more important to `ākepa than 

koa, because the highest density of Hawai`i `ākepa on Mauna Loa, in the Ka`ū

Forest Reserve, is in an area without koa (Jacobi 1978, Scott et al. 1986). Large 

`ōhi`a trees provide both cavities for nest-sites and the preferred foraging 

substrate, whereas large koa trees provide mainly cavities (Freed 2001). The 

highest `ākepa density at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge on Mauna Kea 

exists in an area with large trees but heavily disturbed understory. Breeding 

densities of this population appear to be limited by the availability of nest sites 

(Hart 2000), and the population may be at or near carrying capacity with respect 

to food availability (Fretz 2000). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-128 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The historical range of the Hawai`i `ākepa once included much of the 

island of Hawai`i, presumably wherever there were large trees that provided nest 

cavities (shown in Freed 1999). The major change in distribution has been the 

complete loss of birds from lower elevations, below 1,300 meters (4,300 feet). 

However, the range has also contracted somewhat at upper elevations as well 

(Freed 1999, Scott et al. 1986). 

Hawai`i `ākepa are currently found in 5 disjunct populations in `ōhi`a/koa 

forests in Hāmākua, Kūlani/Keauhou, Ka`ū, southern Kona, and Hualālai, totaling 

approximately 14,000 ± 2,500 birds in 1980 (Figure 18; Scott et al. 1986). The 

highest densities occurred in the southwestern portion of the Ka`ū Forest Reserve 

and in the Pua `Ākala Tract of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (Scott et 

al. 1986), and these supported by far the largest populations, comprising 5,300 ± 

1,500 birds and 7,900 ± 1,800 birds, respectively. The populations in southern 

Kona and Hualālai were much smaller; approximately 660 ± 250 birds combined 

(Scott et al. 1986), and apparently have declined since those surveys. Hawai`i 

`ākepa occur in a gradient of population density, with a small core area of highest 

density in the Pua `Ākala area and rapid decreases in density away from the core 

(Scott et al. 1986, Hart 2001). This pattern is more pronounced for `ākepa than 

for other endangered forest birds (Scott et al. 1986). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Modification and loss of habitat and avian disease are the main factors that 

have contributed to the decline of Hawai`i `ākepa. Predation by introduced 

mammals also may have played a role. Clearing of forest by logging and 

ranching has been extensive, greatly reducing the amount of suitable habitat for 

Hawai`i `ākepa and other forest birds, and resulting in fragmentation of the 

remaining forest habitat. Hawai`i `ākepa are especially sensitive to the loss of old 

growth forest due to their dependence on large trees with cavities for nesting 

(Freed 2001). Much old-growth forest has been cleared for pasture at upper 

elevations (Tomonari-Tuggle 1996). 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-129 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-130 

The slow growth rate of `ōhi`a trees suggest that large trees are extremely 

old, and when a large tree with a cavity falls, it may require a long time before it 

is replaced (Freed 2001). This problem is magnified because large trees in 

disturbed areas are more susceptible to windfall than smaller trees. The areas of 

highest `ākepa density are in disturbed areas and trees large enough to provide 

nest sites are falling at a rate of 5 trees per square kilometer (13 per square mile) 

per year at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Reduction of nest sites in 

high-density areas is a major threat that is already decreasing the number of 

breeding pairs in the upper Pua `Ākala tract. In addition, the increased light under 

which `ōhi`a seedlings are germinating is producing trees with an almost 

exclusively sympodial (multi-trunked) growth form, which typically do not 

produce cavities suitable for `ākepa nests. The `ōhi`a trees used as nest sites by 

the birds are almost exclusively monopodial (straight and single-trunked) in form 

(Freed 2001). 

 

`Ākepa are not found below 1,300 meters (4,300 feet), presumably 

because of the distribution of the introduced mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus) 

that transmits avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) and avian pox (Poxvirus 

avium) (van Riper et al. 1986, 2002). Both the mosquito and malarial parasite are 

limited in elevation by temperature (LaPointe 2000). Greater exposure of 

remaining `ākepa populations to vectors and pathogens is likely to occur with 

global climate change (Benning et al. 2002). The birds at upper elevations have 

not been under natural selection by disease and must be considered naive with 

respect to disease. While individual birds at the lower end of the range might 

have evolved tolerance or resistance to malaria or pox virus, the strong philopatry 

(low dispersal) makes it unlikely that the genotypes of tolerant individuals would 

extend into the range of naive birds. There is significant risk that there will not be 

enough time for relevant genotypes to evolve that could respond to natural 

selection from increased exposure to disease. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Hawai`i `ākepa was federally listed as endangered on October 13, 

1970 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970), became protected under the State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a). 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-131 

Conservation efforts for the species have focused primarily on protection 

and management of high-elevation native forests. The Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge was established in 1985, primarily to provide protection and 

management of habitat for native birds, including the Hawai`i `ākepa. Much of 

the refuge has been fenced and efforts are underway to remove feral pigs from the 

refuge. Planting of koa and other native plants began in early 1989, and over 

350,000 koa seedlings and 30,000 other native species have been planted thus far. 

The `Ōla`a/Kīlauea Partnership and Kona Unit of Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge also protect and manage forest habitat. Two other relevant 

conservation actions were the removal of cattle and fencing of the Kapāpala 

Forest Reserve and the Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary. Plans to remove 

ungulates from the State Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve and from lands at 

Honomalino, owned by The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, would protect 

recovery areas that could serve as sites for reintroducing Hawai`i `ākepa. The 

recent purchase of the former Kahuku Ranch by the National Park Service will 

help protect and restore forest habitat adjacent to the area of highest `ākepa 

density in Ka`u. 

Research using comparison of forest structure and `ākepa demography in 

areas of low and high population density has highlighted the significance of large 

trees with cavities to this bird (Hart 2000, 2001). Additional research with 

artificial cavities has shown that the birds will use artificial cavities attached to 

the outside of trees and successfully nest in them (Freed 2001). Artificial cavities 

are a promising conservation tool that can be used to increase nest site availability 

until a time when growth and recruitment of large `ōhi`a trees provide sufficient 

natural nest sites. 

 

Hawai`i `ākepa are one of the few species of Hawaiian forest birds for 

which the significance of food availability has been quantitatively investigated. 

This work confirmed the strong reliance of `ākepa on terminal `ōhi`a foliage for 

food (Fretz 2000), showed that reproductive success is associated with food 

availability among years in the Pua `Ākala tract of the Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge (Fretz et al., in prep.), and suggests `ākepa populations may be at 

or near carrying capacity with respect to food even where nest sites are apparently 

limited (Fretz et al., in prep.). Food availability is also closely associated with 

habitat structure, including subtle aspects of canopy foliage density. This type of 

variation in canopy structure may be common at regional scales and therefore has 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-132 

the potential to influence `ākepa densities (Fretz 2002). In addition, food 

availability is seasonal and the well-defined timing of breeding seen in `ākepa 

may be an adaptation to exploit this seasonality so that food is maximally 

available at the time of independence of the young (Fretz 2000; Fretz et al., in 

prep.). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Habitat Protection and Nest Site Management. The most important 

component of the recovery strategy for the Hawai`i `ākepa is habitat protection 

and nest site management. Protection of old-growth forest ecosystems is essential 

to the long-term recovery of this species, but is not sufficient to conserve 

populations in the short-term due to the rapid loss of large trees containing 

cavities suitable for nesting. Large trees cannot be protected against windfall or 

hillier terrain, which cannot support large trees (Hart 2000, Freed 2001). The use 

of artificial cavities as a management tool is needed to enable existing populations 

to hold their own despite loss of nest-site trees. Artificial cavities also have 

potential to increase the density of nesting pairs within an area or to establish new 

populations in forests that have suitable foraging substrate but lack large trees 

with cavities. To complement these efforts, research needs to address factors that 

affect the growth form of regenerating `ōhi`a. Management of growth form, 

including removal of ungulates that destroy the apical meristem (growing tip) of 

seedlings, and possibly providing wind shields or shading, may be essential for 

long-term regeneration of monopodial `ōhi`a trees that are most likely to develop 

natural cavities and provide suitable nest sites for `ākepa (Freed 2001). 

Disease. Eradication of mosquitoes is not practical with methods 

currently available, and the birds themselves may be the best way of addressing 

the threat from disease. Some of the more common native birds have evolved 

tolerance or resistance to disease (Cann and Douglas 1999, Woodworth et al. 

2005) and this is associated with larger clutch size and multiple broods per year, 

which provides greater opportunity to respond to natural selection (Freed 1999). 

It is crucial to know what is happening at the lower limits of elevation of Hawai`i 

`ākepa. If individuals are discovered that tolerate disease, then genetic techniques 

can determine if those genotypes are present outside the range of disease. If those 

genotypes are not present outside the range, then an appropriate management 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-133 

strategy would be to move birds with pertinent genotypes into populations of 

birds that are not tolerant. 

Predator control. Control of alien predators, especially rats, has been 

shown to be an effective method of increasing reproduction and survival in other 

Hawaiian forest birds (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). However, the degree of 

threat from alien rodents may vary among species and locations, and rodent 

control programs initially should be conducted in an experimental way to 

document their effect on `ākepa populations. Ground-based methods of rodent 

control using snap traps and diphacinone bait stations have been effective on a 

small scale, but are labor intensive. Effective large-scale rodent control likely 

will require aerial broadcast methods. Registration of aerial broadcast of 

diphacinone for rodent control with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

should be actively pursued and supported. 

 

Captive Propagation. Recovery of the Hawai`i `ākepa may be achieved 

most effectively through in situ management techniques such as habitat 

management because the current population is relatively large, and captive 

propagation is not considered essential for recovery at this time. However, 

captive propagation technology is being developed for the Hawai`i `ākepa in case 

it is needed to help reestablish wild populations (Zoological Society of San Diego 

2004). Techniques developed for Hawai`i `ākepa include protocols for collection 

of wild eggs, artificial incubation of eggs, hand-rearing of chicks, and 

maintenance of adults in captivity. Similar techniques developed for other 

species of honeycreepers have resulted in successful captive breeding, and it is 

anticipated that the Hawai`i `ākepa will breed in captivity when they reach 

reproductive age. Progeny from such captive propagation efforts would provide 

birds for reintroduction in order to establish and enhance wild populations. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-134 

17. Maui `Ākepa, Loxops coccineus ochraceus 

 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Maui `ākepa closely 

resembles the better known Hawai`i 

`ākepa (L. c. coccineus) in coloration 

and biometrics (Lepson and Freed 

1997; also see Hawai`i `ākepa 

account). The Maui subspecies differs 

as follows: (1) adult males vary from 

dull brownish orange to ochraceus 

rather than bright orange and (2) 

females are duller and less yellowish 

(Amadon 1950). However, no 

quantitative comparison of the 

subspecies has been attempted, and 

females may fall within the range of 

variability in the Hawai`i subspecies. 

Plumage sequence and differences between females and young males have not 

been determined from study skins for Maui `ākepa. Plumage sequence and sexual 

differences may be the same as for the Hawai`i race. Seasonality and pattern of 

molt has yet to be described from study skins, and again may be the same as for 

the Hawai`i race. The Maui `ākepa was described by Finsch (1880), but has been 

regarded as a subspecies of `ākepa in all modern accounts. The phylogenetic 

relationship between the Maui and Hawai`i `ākepa has not been investigated by 

molecular genetics, which in the future may influence their taxonomic placement. 

The Maui `ākepa is a member of the Hawaiian honeycreeper family (family 

Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Almost nothing about the life history of the Maui `ākepa appears in the 

historical record (Perkins 1903, Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Henshaw 1902, Banko 

1984a). Henshaw (1902) found Maui `ākepa in small groups with young in June 

when the birds were molting. Rothschild (1893 to 1990) claimed they fed on 

small beetles and other insects, whereas Henshaw (1902) and Perkins (1903) 

Maui `akepa. © from Rothschild (1893-

1900). Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution 

Libraries. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-135 

agreed that they fed chiefly on caterpillars and small spiders. Perkins also noted 

that they drank `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) nectar. 

Perkins (1903) reported watching a pair of Maui `ākepa building a nest in 

the terminal foliage of a tall `ōhi`a tree. This nest site differs strikingly from the 

sites in tree cavities chosen by Hawai`i `ākepa. The frequency with which Maui 

`ākepa nest in tree foliage versus hollows in branches would be important to 

discover. Refer to the account of Hawai`i `ākepa for comparable information 

about that subspecies. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

All specimens of Maui `ākepa were collected in `ōhi`a/koa (Acacia koa) 

rainforest at 1,200 to 1,800 meters (4,000 to 6,000 feet) elevation on the 

northwest rift of Haleakalā. Rothschild (1893 to 1990) found Maui `ākepa 

foraging in `ōhi`a. Perkins (1903) noted that the birds were “often seen in koa 

trees but more often in `ōhi`a.” Henshaw (1902) commented that they much 

preferred koa to `ōhi`a for foraging. Palmer also found `ākepa in mid-elevation 

`ōhi`a forest, and all likely sightings this century have been in `ōhi`a forest at 

1,700 to 2,100 meters (5,500 to 7,000 feet; as described in Rothschild 1893 to 

1900). The past distribution of the Hawai`i `ākepa once encompassed a wide 

range of habitats from 600 meters (2,000 feet) to timberline, and the Maui 

subspecies may also have once occupied all forests within its range. The current 

habitat of the Maui `ākepa is mixed shrub montane wet forest (Jacobi 1985) above 

1,500 meters (5,000 feet), the same as for other endangered birds on Maui. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

In the absence of early historical surveys, the extent of the geographical 

range of the Maui `ākepa cannot be reconstructed. This bird occupied at least 

Maui Island, and one might expect that it also inhabited Moloka`i and Lāna`i 

Islands like other forest birds in the Maui Nui group, but there are no fossil 

records of `ākepa from any of these islands (James and Olson 1991). All 

historical records of the Maui `ākepa were from high elevation forests most 

accessible to naturalists, near Olinda and Ukulele Camp on the northwest rift of 

Haleakalā, and from mid-elevation forests in Kīpahulu Valley (see Figure 14 on 

page 2-94). This range suggests that the birds were missing from forests at lower 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-136 

elevations, perhaps due to the introduction of disease-transmitting mosquitoes to 

Lahaina in 1826 (Hardy 1960). However, it may be that the Maui `ākepa 

originally occupied all forests on Maui. Complete destruction of habitat was not 

extensive during the 20th century, but ecological changes in the forests probably 

have caused the species to decline to its restricted geographic range. Reports by 

naturalists at the turn of the century varied in their estimates of abundance of the 

Maui `ākepa, ranging from rare to locally abundant (Banko 1984a). 

From 1970 to 1995, there have been few credible sightings of Maui `ākepa 

(Banko 1984a, Engilis 1990). Scott et al. (1986) estimated a total population of 

230 ± 290 birds, in 2 populations on northwestern and eastern Haleakalā. 

However, this estimate was based on potentially confusing auditory detections, 

not on visual observations. Songs of the Maui `ākepa were reportedly heard in 

1994 and 1995 during the Hawai`i Rare Bird Search, but visual confirmation of 

the species was not obtained, and it is possible there was some confusion with 

similar songs or mimicry of the Maui parrotbill (Pseudonestor xanthophrys) 

(Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). The current population, if any, therefore 

remains undetected and most likely survives in the vicinity of the northeastern rift 

of Haleakalā, the location of the last reports. Thorough surveys from 1995 

through 1999 turned up no `ākepa in this area (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001; 

Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data), but the 

conclusion of the Hawai`i Rare Bird Search was that based on the available 

evidence, it is not possible to either confirm or disprove that the Maui `ākepa is 

extant (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Reasons for decline and current threats presumably are the same as for 

other endangered forest birds on Maui. In addition, we can speculate that rats 

may have played an especially important role as nest predators of `ākepa. While 

the only nest of Maui `ākepa ever reported was built in tree foliage, the birds may 

also have selected tree cavities like the very similar Hawai`i `ākepa. In Maui 

forests, nest trees are of shorter stature than where `ākepa survive on Hawai`i 

Island. Suitable cavity sites on Maui are low in the vegetation, some near or at 

ground level, and thus more accessible to rats. High densities of both black and 

Polynesian rats (Rattus rattus and R. exulans) infest `ākepa habitat on Maui 

(Sugihara 1997). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-137 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Maui `ākepa was federally listed as an endangered species on October 

13, 1970 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970), became protected under the State 

of Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

Maui-Moloka`i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1984a). No effort has been initiated in the field specifically for Maui `ākepa. 

However, this species has, or could have, benefited in the long-term from habitat 

restoration to assist other endangered birds on Maui (see Maui parrotbill and 

po`ouli accounts). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-138 

Adult `~kohekohe. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf. 

18. `Ākohekohe (Crested Honeycreeper), Palmeria dolei

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The `ākohekohe, or crested 

honeycreeper, is the largest (24 to 29 gram 

[0.8 to 1.0 ounce]) honeycreeper 

remaining on Maui Nui (Maui, Moloka`i, 

L~na`i, and Kaho`olawe). Primarily a 

black-plumaged bird, the `ākohekohe’s 

lanceolate body feathers are strikingly 

tipped with orange-red, its throat and 

breast feathers are tipped with gray, silver, or white, and its wing and tail feathers 

are distinctly white-tipped. A distinctive brush of white feathers curling forward 

over the bill comprises the crest, giving the species its English name. Brilliant 

orange feathers surround the eyes and extend to and cover the nape, feathers on 

the thighs can be orange or yellowish-white, and the feathers of the epaulettes are 

white with orange tips. The somewhat curved bill, the feet, and the legs are 

black. Sexes are identical in plumage pattern and coloration, but males are larger 

and heavier and can be determined with accuracy by measurements (Simon et al.

1998). Juvenile plumage is drab and cryptic yellow-brown or brown-gray, the 

body plumage lacks all orange-scarlet or orange and silver colors on the feathers 

or tips, and both the gray tail and wing feathers lack white tips. The crest of the 

juveniles is short and not as pronounced; its color is yellowish-white. The feet, 

legs, and bill of juveniles are gray to black. 

`Ākohekohe show no geographic variation in plumage, and have no 

subspecies, although they once were found on the two islands of Maui and 

Moloka`i. Fleischer et al. (2001) showed that, based on DNA analyses, 

`ākohekohe are most closely related to `apapane (Himatione sanguinea) and `i`iwi 

(Vestiaria coccinea). The `ākohekohe is a member of the Hawaiian honeycreeper 

family (family Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae). 

LIFE HISTORY 

 

The `ākohekohe is primarily nectarivorous, but also feeds on caterpillars, 

spiders, and dipterans (flies) (Perkins 1903, Carothers 1986, VanGelder and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-139 

Smith 2001). Nectar is primarily sought from flowers of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros 

polymorpha), but also from several subcanopy tree and shrub species (Berlin et 

al. 2000, VanGelder and Smith 2001). Insects are taken mostly by gleaning 

`ōhi`a foliage, buds, and flower clusters (VanGelder 1996). VanGelder (1996) 

observed the species to spend almost 70 percent of the day in foraging activities. 

 

`Ākohekohe defend relatively discrete feeding and nesting territories 

throughout the year by chasing and calling (Pratt et al. 2001b, VanGelder and 

Smith 2001). The species appears to be monogamous for more than one breeding 

season, with pair formation starting in October, nesting occurring mainly between 

November and May, and some pairs raising two to three successful broods in a 

season (VanGelder and Smith 2001). `Ākohekohe nests were an average of 14 

meters (46 feet) above ground in the terminal ends of branches below the canopy 

foliage of `ōhi`a trees (Berlin and VanGelder 1999, VanGelder and Smith 2001). 

The open cup nest is built by the female, who lays one to two eggs. Incubation by 

the female lasts 17 days, and the chicks fledge after 3 to 4 weeks. Chicks can 

forage independently after 10 to 14 days, or longer when the chicks are from the 

last brood of the season (Berlin and VanGelder 1999). Independent juveniles 

flock in small groups and disperse to the edge of the species’ range (Scott et al.

1986). 

 

Vocalizations of the `ākohekohe include various guttural clucking gurgles, 

raspy croaks, buzzing sounds, and clear upslurred whistles; no distinctly ordered 

sound repertoire or song strophe is produced (Perkins 1903, Berlin and 

VanGelder 1999, VanGelder and Smith 2001). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

At present `ākohekohe survive in montane wet and mesic forests 

dominated by `ōhi`a. The habitat is generally as described for the Maui parrotbill 

(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), except that the lower limit of the `ākohekohe’s 

elevational range is higher, at roughly 1,700 meters (5,576 feet) although some 

nonbreeding birds may wander further down slope. Fossil bones found in caves 

at low elevation on the southwestern slopes of Haleakalā suggest that the species 

once inhabited very different dry forest habitat (James and Olson 1991). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-140 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

`Ākohekohe currently are found only in 58 square kilometers (22 square 

miles) of wet and mesic montane forest dominated by `ōhi`a on the northeastern 

slope of Haleakalā Volcano in east Maui. Their elevational range has been 

reported to be from 1,100 to 2,300 meters (3,600 to 7,550 feet), but nearly all 

birds occur from 1,500 to 2,100 meters (5,000 to 6,600 feet), with some 

nonbreeding birds found further down slope (Conant 1981b; Scott et al. 1986; 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, unpubl. data). `Ākohekohe occur 

from just west of the Waikamoi Drainage in the Ko`olau Forest Reserve east 

through the Ko`olau and Hāna Forest Reserves and around to Haleakalā National 

Park lands in Kīpahulu Valley and southeast of Kuiki to Manawainui Valley. The 

current geographic range is much restricted compared to the known historical 

range that included native wet forests of the island of Moloka`i (Figure 19; 

Perkins 1903, Banko 1987). On Moloka`i, the bird was found at 1,200 meters 

(4,000 feet) on the high forested plateau between Wailau and Pelekunu valleys 

where the species was not known to have survived later than 1907 (Bryan 1908). 

On Maui, the species was first collected in the 1890s on the western slopes of 

Kula in mesic koa (Acacia koa)/`ōhi`a forest, but by 1920 it was already absent 

due to deforestation caused by logging and cattle-ranching (Berger 1981). 

`Ākohekohe now inhabit only 5 percent of the estimated historical range of 1,015 

square kilometers (385 square miles) on Maui and none of the 262 square 

kilometers (100 square miles) on Moloka`i Island (Scott et al. 1986). 

James and Olson (1991) have reported subfossil evidence of the species 

from low, dry forest areas of southeastern and southwestern Maui, indicating the 

current and historical range of the species is much altered from its original prehuman distribution. No fossils are known from Moloka`i. 

 The total number of `ākohekohe was estimated to be 3,800 ± 700 (95 

percent confidence interval) birds in 1980 by the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey 

(Scott et al. 1986). Surveys of the same transects in 1992 (Hawai`i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, unpubl. data), and limited surveys from 1995 to 

1997 by U.S. Geological Survey biologists, indicated approximately the same 

densities of birds within the same range. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-141 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-142 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

`Ākohekohe are restricted to higher elevation forests due to the presence 

of mosquito-borne diseases at lower elevations, and are restricted at upper 

elevations in some areas by destruction of forest habitat. `Ākohekohe may be 

particularly vulnerable to mosquito-borne diseases because they migrate 

altitudinally in response to varying `ōhi`a flowering phenology (Conant 1981a), 

potentially increasing their exposure to mosquitoes at lower elevations. Avian 

malaria was recently isolated from an `ākohekohe in Hanawī Natural Area 

Reserve (Feldman et al. 1995). Laboratory challenge experiments have shown 

that the `i`iwi, which is closely related to the `ākohekohe but more common and 

has a wider distribution, is extremely vulnerable to avian malaria, with 90 percent 

of experimental birds dying after being bitten by infected mosquitoes (Atkinson et 

al. 1995). Black and Polynesian rats (Rattus rattus and R. exulans) are serious 

predators on adults and nests of Hawaiian forest birds and are abundant in 

`ākohekohe habitat (Sugihara 1997, Malcolm et al. 2002), and Simon et al. (2001) 

found rat predation on an `ākohekohe adult and egg, as evidenced by rat 

droppings and bird remains in the nest. The remains of an `ākohekohe were 

found in a barn owl pellet from Hanawī, and feral cat scats also contained remains 

of other native forest birds (Kowalsky et al. 2002). Damage by feral pigs to 

understory vegetation may deplete nectar resources needed during times of year 

when `ōhi`a is less available. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The `ākohekohe was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), protected under State of Hawai`i 

endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the MauiMoloka`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984a). 

Conservation efforts for the `ākohekohe have included creation of the 

3,035 hectare (7,500 acre) Hanawī Natural Area Reserve to provide additional 

habitat protection. The upper 800 hectares (2,000 acres) of Hanawī was fenced 

by 1996, and all ungulates were removed by 1997 (B. Evanson, Maui Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm.). Adjacent forest lands have been protected 

through acquisition by the National Park Service and formation of the East Maui 

Watershed Partnership. Ecological and life history research has been conducted 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-143 

since 1992 (Simon et al. 1998, 2001; Berlin et al. 2001; Pratt et al. 2001b; 

VanGelder and Smith 2001). Research on captive breeding for the `ākohekohe 

was initiated in 1997, when eggs were removed to the Maui Forest Bird 

Conservation Center and the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center following the 

recommendations of Ellis et al. (1992). Six individuals hatched in captivity from 

late-stage wild eggs. Three individuals died before 1 year of age; three are 

currently surviving. No success at captive production of `ākohekohe has been 

attained to date due to the aggressive nature of this species and incompatibility of 

the paired birds. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

The long-term recovery strategy for the `ākohekohe is generally similar to 

that for the Maui parrotbill because they currently inhabit roughly similar 

geographic areas and face common threats. Habitat management, such as fencing 

and control of feral pigs that damage flowering plants, may allow `ākohekohe 

populations to increase in density. Forest restoration through fencing and 

removal of feral ungulates in currently degraded areas, particularly on the leeward 

slopes of Haleakalā, would increase the amount of available habitat and allow 

range expansion. Control of mosquitoes or their breeding sites may be needed to 

render existing forest on West Maui and Moloka`i suitable for endangered birds 

like `ākohekohe. Research to better understand threats and optimize management 

methods, particularly rat predation and disease, is also important. 

The establishment of a second `ākohekohe population in historically 

occupied habitat on leeward East Maui, West Maui, or Moloka`i is an important 

component of the recovery strategy in order to reduce the threat from catastrophes 

such as hurricanes and epizootics of disease that could eliminate a single 

population. In contrast to the Maui parrotbill, translocation of wild-caught adult 

birds may be the preferred method of establishing a second `ākohekohe 

population, because the aggressive nature of this species (Carothers 1986) makes 

it difficult and expensive to propagate in captivity. However, establishment and 

maintenance of an effective captive-breeding program for future releases into 

disease-free recovery areas should remain an option if translocations of wild birds 

do not succeed in establishing a second population. The suitability of West Maui 

and Moloka`i as release sites for translocated birds is currently questionable due 

to the presumed presence of avian diseases in these lower elevation areas. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-144 

Adult po`ouli. Photo by Paul Baker. 

19. Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The po`ouli is a medium-sized, 26 

gram (0.9 ounce), stocky Hawaiian 

honeycreeper (family Fringillidae, 

subfamily Drepanidinae) easily recognized 

by its brown plumage and characteristic 

black mask framed by a gray crown and 

white cheek patch. Robust birds, they have 

short wings and tail, stout legs and feet, 

and a conical finch-like bill. Plumages of the po`ouli are not well known (Engilis 

et al. 1996, Baker 1998), but observations at two nests revealed that adults of both 

sexes and young differ subtly in coloration. Males have whitish underparts, 

whereas females (and perhaps young males) have a grayish throat and breast. 

Fledglings have whitish underparts, a mask smaller than that of the adults, and a 

pale tip to the mandible. The original species description (Casey and Jacobi 

1974) was based on two specimens now believed to be in immature (first basic) 

plumage, because they look like females but retain a pale tip to the mandible. 

There is no information on molt. 

The po`ouli comprises a monotypic genus and species that, remarkably, 

was not discovered until 1973 (Casey and Jacobi 1974). Morphological and 

genetic studies agree that the po`ouli forms a unique lineage within the Hawaiian 

honeycreepers (Casey and Jacobi 1974, James and Olson 1991, Fleischer et al.

2001). Pratt (1992a) suggested that the po`ouli may not be a Hawaiian 

honeycreeper, but also noted the similarity in tongue morphology with another 

honeycreeper, the Maui creeper or `alauahio (Paroreomyza montana). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Po`ouli have been observed singly, in pairs, and in family groups with a 

single young (Pratt et al. 1997b). It is unknown whether po`ouli pairs defend 

territories, but during studies of a nesting pair, territorial behavior, such as singing 

in vicinity of the nest after eggs were laid or consistent chasing of birds of other 

species that approached the nest, were not observed (Kepler et al. 1996). 

However, no other po`ouli occurred in the vicinity of the nest. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-145 

Our knowledge of po`ouli breeding biology is based on two sequential 

nestings by the same pair in 1986 (Kepler et al. 1996). Egg-laying took place on 

about March 10 and April 26 and 27 for the first and second nests, respectively. 

Clutch size was probably two eggs. The second, successful nest fledged only one 

of the two young, which spent 21 days in the nest. The female alone incubated 

the eggs and brooded the chicks, but both parents fed the chicks. The male fed 

the female at or away from the nest throughout the nesting cycle. This 

provisioning became important in poor weather -- either wind or rain -- when the 

female spent more time on the nest. Both po`ouli nests were typical of the nests 

of other honeycreepers: an open cup composed of twigs and mosses and lined 

with thin fern rootlets (Engilis et al. 1996). The nests were 8 meters (26 feet) 

high in tall `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) trees and were hidden among leafbearing twigs (Kepler et al. 1996). Both nests are stored at the Bishop Museum 

in Honolulu. 

Po`ouli forage primarily on tree branches, making extensive use of the 

subcanopy and understory. They seem to prefer the native hydrangea, kanawao 

(Broussaisia arguta), the native holly, kāwa`u (Ilex anomala), and `ōhi`a 

(Mountainspring et al. 1990, Pratt et al. 1997b). Po`ouli glean, probe, and 

excavate moss mats, lichen, and bark for small invertebrate prey. Detailed 

examination of stomach contents from the two type specimens revealed a diet of 

tiny native snails, beetles, and proportionately few other arthropods (Baldwin and 

Casey 1983). Based on foraging observations, Mountainspring et al. (1990) 

believed that po`ouli took proportionately more Lepidoptera and Coleoptera 

larvae. The most common food items seen delivered to po`ouli chicks were these 

larvae and Succineid snails (Hawaiian land snails in the family Succineidae) 

(Kepler et al. 1996). 

Po`ouli often associate with mixed species foraging flocks of other 

insectivorous honeycreepers, especially Maui `alauahio and Maui parrotbill 

(Pseudonestor xanthophrys), gleaning insects from branches and foliage. 

Observers searching such flocks increase their chances of locating po`ouli. 

Po`ouli are unusually quiet, and surveys or variable circular plot counts 

that depend on vocal detections are not appropriate for this species. Males rarely 

sing and do so mostly as part of courtship prior to egg-laying. The song is a 

series of chip notes alternating in pitch. The infrequent chip notes are similar to 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-146 

those of Maui `alauahio, but often characteristically paired or given in rapid 

succession. Interestingly, most of the recently observed po`ouli calls have been 

very similar to those of the Maui parrotbill, with which po`ouli often associate, 

including an up-slurred "chu-wee" and a soft "whit" contact call (J. Bruch, 

Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, pers. comm.). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Po`ouli occur in montane wet forests from timberline at 2,100 meters 

(7,000 feet) elevation down to a lower limit of 1,440 meters (4,750 feet). The 

terrain is steep and dissected by numerous stream gulches. This area is 

characterized by high rainfall, delivered mostly by the trade wind weather system, 

exceeding 5 meters (200 inches) annually in some areas. The vegetation is mixed 

montane wet forest (Jacobi 1985) with an average canopy height of 13 meters (43 

feet) and 60 percent crown cover, dominated by `ōhi`a. Areas of similar habitat 

remain unoccupied to the southeast and west. The range of the po`ouli coincides 

with high population densities of other honeycreeper species, a distribution 

believed to be delimited by disease-bearing mosquitoes prevalent at elevations 

below 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) (Scott et al. 1986). Po`ouli are associated with 

low levels of disturbance to soil and vegetation by feral pigs (Mountainspring et 

al. 1990). Po`ouli are believed to require an intact subcanopy and understory for 

foraging and cover and therefore are intolerant of habitat alteration by feral pigs. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The po`ouli apparently was unknown to the Hawaiians, and it eluded 

western naturalists during the discovery period of Hawaiian ornithology at the 

end of the 19th century. It was discovered in 1973 by a team of university 

students (Casey and Jacobi 1974). Since then, po`ouli have been confined to a 

1,300-hectare (3,200-acre) section of forest on the northern and eastern slopes of 

Haleakalā Volcano, Maui (Figure 20; Mountainspring et al. 1990). The type 

locality was between the eastern and western forks of Hanawī Stream. Fossil 

evidence shows that the po`ouli once inhabited drier forests at lower elevation on 

the leeward slope of Haleakalā, indicating it once had a much broader geographic 

and habitat range (James and Olson 1991). 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-147 

The po`ouli population was estimated at 140 ± 280 birds in the early 

1980s (Scott et al. 1986), but estimates of population size and density are not 

accurate and are considered imprecise due to the species’ low density and cryptic 

behavior. Po`ouli numbers and range have since declined to a tiny population 

over at most a few hundred hectares. Attempts to estimate population size and 

density have met with frustration because of the bird’s poor detectability. 

Mountainspring et al. (1990) reported densities at the type locality of 76 ± 8 

(standard error) birds per square kilometer in 1976, 15 ± 7 birds per square 

kilometer in 1981, and 8 ± 4 birds per square kilometer in 1985 (30.8 ± 3.2 birds 

per 100 acres in 1976, 6.1 ± 2.8 birds per 100 acres 1981, and 3.2 ± 1.6 birds per 

100 acres in 1985). No birds were found in the type locality from 1993 to 1995 

(J. Simon, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data). Surveys in 1994 to 1995 found 

perhaps as many as six po`ouli at four locations, from the west rim of Kūhiwa 

Valley at 1,880 meters (6,200 feet) east to the upper reaches of Helele`ike`ōhā

Stream at 1,570 meters (5,200 feet) (Baker 2001, Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

Thorough surveys of the historical range in 1997 to 2000 located only three birds, 

Figure 20. Location of po`ouli home ranges in Hanaw§ Natural Area Reserve. 

Map by Bill Sparklin, Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-148 

all in Hanawī Natural Area Reserve, and no others have been located since these 

birds were color-banded in 1996 and 1997 (Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, unpubl. data). The last three known birds occurred in nonoverlapping home ranges separated by 0.75 to 1.7 kilometers (0.5 to 1 mile) 

(Groombridge et al. 2004b). They had never been observed together since they 

were banded, so there were no known breeding pairs, and the last documented 

reproduction occurred in 1995 (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). Genetic sexing 

of the three birds produced conflicting results, but the best available information 

indicated they consisted of one male and two females. Following an attempted 

translocation in 2002 to form a breeding pair and efforts to capture the remaining 

po`ouli for captive breeding (details provided in the Recovery Strategy section), 

one of the three known remaining birds died of natural causes in captivity in 

2004, and the other two have not been seen since 2003 and 2004. Currently it is 

not known whether any po`ouli remain in the wild. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Habitat damage by feral pigs is thought to be an important cause of the 

decline in po`ouli numbers (Mountainspring et al. 1990). Other threats have not 

been directly linked to the po`ouli, but the species can be assumed vulnerable to 

the same threats that impact other honeycreepers, particularly mosquito-borne 

diseases and nest predation by alien rats. Po`ouli and other endangered 

honeycreepers likely are restricted to cold, high elevation areas by the prevalence 

of mosquito-borne diseases in the lowlands. Both black and Polynesian rats 

(Rattus rattus and R. exulans) are abundant in po`ouli habitat (Sugihara 1997, 

Malcolm et al. 2002). These animals feed largely on invertebrates (Sugihara 

1997) and have been blamed for the decline of native land snails, which are an 

important food for the po`ouli (Hadfield et al. 1993). Another predator of the 

native land snails in po`ouli habitat is the abundant, nonnative garlic snail 

(Oxychilus alliarius). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The po`ouli was federally listed as an endangered species on September 

25, 1975 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1975), and was included in the MauiMoloka`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984a). 

Decline of the po`ouli prompted conservation agencies to protect its entire 

historical range, as it was known at the time, by creation of the 3,035-hectare 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-149 

(7,500-acre) State Hanawī Natural Area Reserve. The upper 800 hectares (2,000 

acres) of Hanawī was fenced by 1996, and all ungulates were removed by 1997 

(B. Evanson, Maui Division of Forestry and Wildlife, pers. comm.). These 

actions have stabilized soil erosion and stimulated vegetation recovery. The 

National Park Service has fenced and removed feral ungulates from areas adjacent 

to Hanawī. Formation of the East Maui Watershed Partnership, a consortium of 

government agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and private landowners, has 

helped to further protect the forests of east Maui, and this group has fenced large 

areas of rainforest downhill from Hanawī Natural Area Reserve. Ecological and 

life-history research was carried out under the direction of the USGS Biological 

Resources Discipline during 1994 to 1996 (Baker 2001). Ground-based predator 

control was conducted in the home ranges of the last three known birds (Malcolm 

et al. 2002). The Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jointly fund the Maui Forest Bird Recovery 

Project. Activities of this project include control of small mammals in an attempt 

to reduce the threat of predation on adults and nests and competition for 

invertebrate prey, research on optimizing rodent control methods, and mistnetting, banding, and collecting blood samples to monitor demography and 

disease prevalence in native bird populations, particularly the po`ouli. The same 

program attempted to translocate one po`ouli into the home range of another to 

encourage breeding, and brought one bird into captivity in an attempt to form of a 

breeding pair (see below). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Fundamental to the long-term strategy for recovery of the po`ouli is the 

protection and management of high elevation rainforests on East Maui. While the 

canopy of this forest remains relatively intact, the understory has been severely 

degraded by feral pigs in places, and subcanopy trees have died as a result of soil 

loss and disturbance to roots. The recovery of vegetation should proceed rapidly 

at first as ferns and native shrubs move into disturbed areas. The regeneration of 

subcanopy trees will be slower, but within a few decades should return the forest 

to a restored condition. 

Alternative strategies for recovery of the po`ouli were outlined in The 

Environmental Assessment for Proposed Management Actions to Save the 

Po`ouli (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i Department of Land and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-150 

Natural Resources 1999). This document included solicitation for public input on 

recovery strategies, including continued habitat management only, field 

translocation with "hard" release to create a breeding pair, field translocation with 

"soft" release by temporarily holding birds in a field aviary, and bringing all three 

remaining birds into captivity for propagation. Based on the Environmental 

Assessment and subsequent public comments, it was decided that the best strategy 

for recovering the po`ouli was continued habitat management, including predator 

control, in conjunction with translocation of a female po`ouli into the home range 

of the last male, in hopes that they would form a breeding pair and nest (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

1999). 

Translocation methods were developed by the Maui Forest Bird Recovery 

Project, using the non-endangered Maui `alauahio or Maui creeper as a surrogate 

species. Sixteen Maui creepers were translocated between the po`ouli home 

ranges using different methods of confinement during transport and over varying 

distances. All trials resulted in zero mortality, and white blood cell counts 

indicated that stress levels were lower in birds transported with a minimum of 

restriction on their movement within the transport container (Groombridge et al. 

2004a). These trials demonstrated that Hawaiian honeycreepers could be safely 

transported on foot over the steep and rugged terrain separating the po`ouli home 

ranges, and helped to identify the best methods and protocols for translocating the 

po`ouli. 

Following the surrogate translocation work, a holding-cage was designed 

to allow brief observation of a captive po`ouli immediately after its translocation 

and prior to its release. The 30 H 30H 60 centimeter (12 H 12 H 24 inch) holding 

cage was constructed from soft white cloth walls stretched within a lightweight 

rigid frame, and was designed to house two birds separately side-by-side. If it 

became necessary to hold a single po`ouli in field captivity for several days, either 

as a result of injury or due to weather conditions that precluded helicopter 

transport, then the holding-cage could separately house a ‘tutor’ individual of an 

ecologically-compatible species (e.g., Maui parrotbill) to encourage acclimation 

and feeding behavior. An externally mounted video camera provided continual 

remote monitoring of the bird’s behavior via a television monitor 20 meters (66 

feet) away. Both natural food, such as native Succineid snails (Baldwin and 

Casey 1983), and supplemental foods routinely used for captive propagation of 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-151 

other insectivores, including waxworms and mealworms, were provided inside the 

holding cage. 

Veterinary facilities were set up in Hanawī to deal with possible injuries to 

a po`ouli. Requirements focused on delivering a veterinary capacity that could 

handle critical medical requirements for a period of up to 3 consecutive days, a 

time frame considered to be a likely delay to any helicopter evacuation of an 

injured po`ouli due to bad weather. Veterinary equipment consisted of an avian 

intensive care unit with a controlled environmental temperature and oxygen 

enriching capacity, general anesthesia and surgical capabilities, equipment and 

supplies to treat traumatic injuries, antimicrobial drugs, and diagnostic equipment 

required to perform complete blood counts, cytology, and harvest plasma for 

chemical analysis. In the event of a death of a po`ouli, various tissues would be 

collected for cell culture and immediately sent to both the Zoological Society of 

San Diego’s Conservation and Research for Endangered Species center and the 

Audubon Nature Institute Center for Research of Endangered Species. 

 

A detailed protocol to carry out a po`ouli translocation was cooperatively 

designed and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the Zoological Society of San 

Diego in December 2001. After nearly 2 years of preparation, efforts to capture 

and translocate po`ouli began in January 2002. On April 4, 2002, a presumed 

female po`ouli was captured and translocated 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) on foot 

into the home range of the male (Groombridge et al. 2004b; see Figure 20). 

Transit time for the bird was 1 hour and 15 minutes. Upon arrival, the female was 

examined by an avian veterinarian and determined to be in good health. 

Following examination, a radio transmitter was attached to the bird, and it was 

observed for approximately 2 hours in the holding cage. While in captivity, the 

bird consumed several food items, including nonnative waxworms and native 

Succineid snails. The female po`ouli was released within the male’s home range 

at dusk that evening. The following morning, radio telemetry signals confirmed 

that she had roosted within the male’s home range overnight and was still present. 

However, signals throughout the morning indicated that she was steadily moving 

back toward her own home range, and by that evening she had traveled back to 

her capture site. The female po`ouli was radio-tracked for 9 days within her home 

range following her return. It is not known whether the two birds encountered 

one another, but there was no indication that they did (Groombridge et al. 2004b). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-152 

Although the translocation was unsuccessful in establishing a wild 

breeding pair, several important lessons were learned from the effort 

(Groombridge et al. 2004b). First, field biologists demonstrated that individuals 

of the species could be safely manipulated. Subsequent sightings of the 

translocated bird indicated that it was not adversely affected by its handling, 

transport, and temporary captivity. Second, the bird showed signs of potential 

positive acclimation to captivity, reacting passively to its holding cage and readily 

consuming foreign food. Third, information gained from observations and radiotelemetry was used to refine estimates of the birds’ home ranges. 

On June 25, 2002, representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Maui Forest Bird Recovery 

Project, Zoological Society of San Diego, and the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery 

Team convened on Maui to discuss the next step in attempting to recover the 

po`ouli. Several alternatives from the 1999 Environmental Assessment were 

discussed, including another translocation attempt, placing the birds in a field 

aviary in Hanaw§, removing the birds from the wild and placing them in captivity, 

or taking no further action. In addition, a new alternative was introduced which 

called for the birds to be placed in a field aviary at a more accessible location. It 

was clear that there were risks associated with all the options and that the chances 

of success were low no matter what alternative was chosen. Each option 

appeared to have advantages and disadvantages, and the decision was extremely 

difficult. No alternative was universally supported. A structured decisionmaking process was used to help evaluate and compare the alternatives based on 

the best available information and expertise (VanderWerf et al. 2006). Although 

most participants agreed that the first translocation attempt was worthwhile, a 

second translocation attempt was rejected because available evidence indicated 

that adult Hawaiian forest birds have high site fidelity and usually return to their 

own home range following translocation (Fancy et al. 1997, 2001; Groombridge 

et al. 2004a), and there was no reason to suspect a second female po`ouli to 

behave differently. The two options that were judged to have the highest 

probability of success were removal to captivity and a field aviary in a more 

accessible location. Based on the results of the decision process, consensus 

eventually was reached within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, the two agencies mandated to 

recover the species, to capture the three known birds and remove them from the 

wild for captive breeding. The factors that ultimately were judged to favor 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-153 

removal to captivity over a field aviary were that removal to captivity could be 

implemented more quickly, which was considered important given the advanced 

age of the three birds, and that it would be more difficult to provide adequate 

veterinary care in a field aviary and ensure the safety of the birds from predators, 

severe weather, and vandals. The Zoological Society of San Diego expressed 

with reservations that they would undertake the difficult task of attempting to 

manage and breed the po`ouli in captivity at the Maui Bird Conservation Center. 

Captive breeding programs for Hawaiian forest birds operated by the Zoological 

Society of San Diego at the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center and the Maui Bird 

Conservation Center have been very successful (Kuehler et al. 2000, 2001; ZSSD 

2004), but establishing a successful program with just a single breeding pair 

would be the ultimate avicultural challenge. 

A detailed protocol for capturing the remaining wild po`ouli and 

transferring them to captivity was cooperatively designed and approved by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, and the Zoological Society of San Diego in January 2003, for the 

purpose of establishing a captive propagation and reintroduction program. The 

agencies involved in this effort recognized that there were risks involved in such 

an attempt to capture wild birds and transport them into captivity. In light of the 

extreme rarity of the po`ouli, strict operational guidelines were followed 

throughout the capture effort to ensure that these risks were addressed and 

mitigated to the fullest extent possible. 

Adverse weather and practical constraints hampered capture efforts, but 

on September 9, 2004 the first of the three po`ouli was captured and removed to 

captivity at the Maui Bird Conservation Center. Genetic sexing using a blood 

sample taken from the bird in captivity indicated it was a male. This result 

conflicted with that of earlier tests and cast some doubt on the sex of the two 

remaining birds, leading to the possibility that only one sex of po`ouli had 

remained for the past several years. Even more remarkable, upon capture the bird 

was found to have only one functioning eye, probably as a result of a previous 

traumatic injury (K. Swinnerton, Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project, pers. obs.), 

and it was found to have been infected with avian malaria before it was captured 

(C. Atkinson, unpubl. data). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-154 

Sadly, after being successfully maintained in captivity for 78 days, the 

captive po`ouli died on 26 November 2004, before a potential mate could be 

obtained. The death of the captive bird was obviously a severe setback to the 

recovery of the species. Necropsy results revealed several chronic health 

problems, indicating the likely cause of death was old age (B. Rideout, Zoological 

Society of San Diego, pers. comm.). Although the bird had avian malaria, the 

infection was sub-clinical and was not the primary cause of death. Tissue 

samples were collected from the bird immediately following its death, and 

fibroblast cells were successfully grown and cryogenically preserved at the 

Zoological Society of San Diego’s center for Conservation and Research for 

Endangered Species. 

The remaining two birds have not been seen since December 2003 and 

January 2004 (Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project, unpubl. data.). If they are 

located, or if new birds are discovered, efforts to facilitate formation of a breeding 

pair will resume if at all possible. Although much of the suitable habitat on east 

Maui has been surveyed for po`ouli (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001; Maui Forest 

Bird Recovery Project, unpubl. data), there are some areas that have not been 

thoroughly searched, and due to the rugged terrain and cryptic nature of the 

species it is not possible to say with certainty that no additional po`ouli exist. 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-155 

20. `Akikiki (Kaua`i Creeper), Oreomystis bairdi 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Kaua`i creeper, or `akikiki, 

is a small honeycreeper, 10.9 to 12.2 

centimeters (4.3 to 4.8 inches) in 

length and 11.5 to 17.0 grams (0.39 to 

0.58 ounces) in weight, endemic to the 

Island of Kaua`i. Its head, back, sides, 

and flanks are dull gray to olive, the 

throat, breast, belly, and undertail 

coverts are white to off-white. The bill 

is short and slightly downcurved, the 

tail is short and square-tipped, and the 

legs, feet, nails, and bill are dull pink. Male and female plumages are identical. 

Juveniles are similar to adults but are distinguishable by white "spectacles" 

around the eyes. The song is a short, descending trill. Males and females give a 

soft “whit” contact call. 

At the time of European discovery, each of the six main Hawaiian Islands 

harbored a small, straight-billed, simple-tongued, insectivorous bird. The Kaua`i 

creeper was first described as Oreomyza bairdi by Stejneger in 1887 (the genus 

was later changed to Oreomystis because Oreomyza had been used previously, 

Stejneger 1903). Subsequent nomenclature has been problematic (reviewed in 

Pratt 1992b, Foster et al. 2000), and the species has been variously considered a 

full species Oreomystis bairdi (Perkins 1903), a subspecies of Paroreomyza 

bairdi (Bryan and Greenway 1944), and a subspecies of Loxops maculata

(Amadon 1950). It is currently classified as Oreomystis bairdi (American 

Ornithologists’ Union 1998) following Pratt (1979, 1992b), but its inclusion with 

the Hawai`i creeper in the genus is a matter of ongoing debate (Johnson et al.

1989, Fleischer et al. 1998, Pratt 2001). Additional evidence, particularly 

molecular, may confirm that the Maui `alauahio (P. montana newtoni) is the 

closest living relative of the `akikiki (Foster et al. 2000). The `akikiki is in the 

Hawaiian honeycreeper family (family Fringillidae, subfamily Drepanidinae). 

Adult `akikiki foraging on `ōhi`a trunk. 

Photo permission pending.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-156 

LIFE HISTORY 

The life history of the Kaua`i creeper or `akikiki is poorly known. Data 

below have been summarized from Eddinger (1972) and Foster et al. (2000), 

except where otherwise noted. `Akikiki are usually found in pairs, family groups, 

and small flocks of 5 to 6 (rarely up to 12) individuals (J. Denny, Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, pers. comm.; T. Snetsinger, U.S. 

Geological Survey, pers. comm.). `Akikiki also form mixed-species flocks with 

`akeke`e (Loxops caeruleirostris), `anianiau (Hemignathus parvus), Kaua`i 

`amakihi (Hemignathus kauaiensis), and Kaua`i `elepaio (Chasiempis 

sandwichensis sclateri), and historically with `akialoa (Hemignathus procerus), 

and Kaua`i nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe) (Perkins 1903, Munro 

1944). 

Nest construction has been observed from March to May, and first nests 

are probably active by mid- to late-March or April. The earliest fledgling was 

sighted in late April (T. Casey, Kamehameha Schools, pers. comm.), and the 

breeding season is believed to last into June or July. Only eight nests of the 

Kaua`i creeper have been found (J. Foster, U.S. Geological Survey, pers. comm.) 

and only three of these have been reported in the literature (Eddinger 1972, Foster 

et al. 2000). Females and males both participate in nest-building, although the 

extent of male help is unclear. Three open-cup nests found in the Alaka`i were all 

8 to 9 meters (26 to 29 feet) high in the crowns of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros 

polymorpha) trees and were composed primarily of moss, with `ōhi`a bark, plant 

rootlets, and other fine plant fibers; two others were at 4 and 6 meters (13 and 20 

feet) and at least one included `ōlapa (Cheirodendron trigynum) bark (J. Denny, 

pers. comm.). A nest found on 24 May 2006 in the Halep~`~kai area of the 

Alaka`i contained a single large nestling and was approximately 12 meters (40 

feet) high in the crown of a 14 meter (46 foot) tall `Çhi`a tree (E. VanderWerf, 

unpubl. data). One nest required 14 days from nest completion to first egg 

(Eddinger 1972). Clutch size is probably two eggs, incubation probably lasts 16 

to 18 days, and the nestling period probably lasts 17 to 19 days, based on traits of 

the closely related Hawai`i creeper (VanderWerf 1998b, Woodworth et al. 2001). 

Family groups of parent(s) and one or two juveniles can be found throughout the 

year. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-157 

No data exist on the survival rate of nests, overall proportion of nests 

surviving to fledge, or causes of nest failure. One of the two nests found by 

Eddinger (1972) was abandoned in the egg stage, and one contained two nestlings 

(fate unknown). The fates of the other five nests that have been found are 

unknown because nests were not revisited. Pairs can fledge two young, based on 

observations of a family group with two very young fledglings (J. Foster, pers. 

comm.). A long parental-dependency period makes double-brooding unlikely, 

although no data are available. 

The Kaua`i creeper generally forages on trunks, branches, and twigs of 

live and dead `ōhi`a and koa (Acacia koa) and occasionally forages in subcanopy 

shrubs. Creepers feed primarily on insects, insect larvae, and spiders that they 

glean and probe from the bark, lichens, and moss. In May 2006 an adult Kaua`i 

creeper was observed excavating the dead twig of a hoawa (Pittosporum) tree (E. 

VanderWerf, unpubl. data), though this may be a rare foraging behavior. 

Nectarivory and frugivory also have been rarely observed. 

No data are available on the annual survival rate of the Kaua`i creeper. 

The congeneric Hawai`i creeper has a relatively high annual adult survival of 

about 73 to 88 percent and juvenile survival of about 33 percent (Ralph and Fancy 

1994a, Woodworth et al. 2001). However, these high survival rates may reflect in 

part the rarity of avian disease at high elevations (more than 1,500 meters [5,000 

feet]) where these data were collected (see below). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

The habitat description that follows is primarily from Foster et al. (2000). 

Kaua`i creepers occur primarily in mesic and wet forests. In the eastern edge of 

the species’ range, annual rainfall exceeds 13,000 millimeters (512 inches) a year, 

declining to 1,100 millimeters (43 inches) at the western edge at Kōke`e State 

Park. This rainfall gradient and varied topography cause great variability in 

habitat within Kaua`i creeper range. The montane wet forest is dominated by 

`ōhi`a with a subcanopy of `ōlapa, lapalapa (Cheirodendron spp.), and `ōhi`a ha 

(Syzygium sandwicensis). The forest understory is occupied by many species of 

native shrubs and small trees, typically including `ōhelo (Vaccinium calycinum), 

kanawao (Broussaisia arguta), haha`aiakamanu (Clermontia fauriei), kāwa`u 

(Ilex anomala), kōlea (Myrsine lessertiana), na`ena`e (Dubautia spp.),and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-158 

pūkiawe (Styphelia tameiameiae). The ground cover consists of ferns, mosses, 

herbs, and lichens. Lowland habitats have been drastically altered by introduced 

weeds and feral ungulates. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The Kaua`i creeper is endemic to the island of Kaua`i. It was considered 

common from high to low elevation in native forests in the late 1800s (Perkins 

1903), and was locally abundant on and near the Alaka`i Plateau in the early 

1960s (Richardson and Bowles 1964). From 1968 to 1973, John Sincock 

surveyed 50 points (a total of 866 half-hour counts) throughout the Island of 

Kaua`i and estimated the population to number 6,832 ± 966 birds in a range 

encompassing areas from 600 to 1,600 meters (1,968 to 5,248 feet) elevation 

(Sincock 1982; Figure 21). In 1981, the Hawaii Forest Bird Survey estimated 

there were approximately 1,650 ± 450 Kaua`i creepers in a 25 square kilometer 

(9.7 square mile) area of the southeastern Alaka`i, in the vicinity of what is now 

known as Sincock’s Bog (Scott et al. 1986). Sincock et al. (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1983b) had estimated the population in this same area to be 

2,300 ± 700 birds. More recently, surveys in March and April 2000 by Foster et 

al. (2004) showed that in the last 30 years the range has decreased from 88 to 36 

square kilometers (from 34 to 14 square miles), the species has disappeared from 

much of the periphery of its range, and the estimated population has declined 

from 6,832 ± 966 to 1,472 ± 680 birds (Figure 21). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Modification and loss of habitat, avian disease, predation by introduced 

mammals, and competition from introduced birds have likely played a part in the 

decline of the Kaua`i creeper. 

Habitat loss and degradation/Invasive species. The habitat of the 

Kaua`i creeper has been and continues to be negatively affected by invasive alien 

plant species that displace native plant species used by the creeper for foraging 

and nesting, and by the action of feral ungulates, particularly feral pigs and goats. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-159 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-160 

Feral pigs and goats have had a long-term damaging effect upon native 

pristine forests in the Alaka`i region, opening space for weeds, and transporting 

weed seeds into the forest. The negative impacts of feral ungulates on forested 

ecosystems in Hawai`i include direct browsing of native plants, soil erosion, 

disruption of plant regeneration, spreading of invasive alien weeds, opening of 

space for invasive alien plants, and creation of mosquito breeding habitat (Cabin 

et al. 2000). Habitat degradation resulting from the invasion of many nonnative 

weeds has drastically changed the forest structure and integrity. Furthermore, two 

hurricanes in 1982 and 1992 have severely disrupted portions of native forest and 

made space for germination and expansion of alien plants. 

It has been suggested that the Kaua`i creeper may be negatively impacted 

by competition from the insectivorous Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicus; 

Mountainspring and Scott 1985). Japanese white-eyes are extremely common, 

numbering over 255,000 during Sincock’s surveys from 1968 to 1973 (Sincock 

1982). New avian species that have recently become established on Kaua`i, such 

as the Japanese bush-warbler (Cettia diphone), could eventually become 

competitors for food and space. Perhaps less obvious, but potentially detrimental 

to the Kaua`i creeper, are additions of new exotic invertebrates to the forest 

ecosystem. The role of alien invertebrates is unclear; new insects may compete 

with or prey upon the native insect prey of the creeper, or they could be used as 

prey by the creeper. 

Disease. Avian diseases transmitted by the introduced southern house 

mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus), including pox (Poxvirus avium) and malaria 

(Plasmodium relictum), are thought to play a major role in limiting the 

distribution of Kaua`i creepers. The Kaua`i creeper is restricted to higher 

elevation areas where mosquitoes and the diseases they carry are less prevalent 

(Scott et al. 1986), but mosquitoes have been captured as high as Sincock’s Bog 

at 1,330 meters (4,400 feet) elevation and are likely to occur to the highest 

elevations on Kaua`i (D. LaPointe, U.S. Geological Survey, pers. comm.). Mistnetting of forest birds from 1994 to 1997 in three locations, Pihea-Alaka`i Swamp 

Trail, Koia`e Camp, and Sincock’s Bog, documented 2 to 5 percent of all birds 

with active malaria infections in these areas, and up to 12 percent with malarial 

antibodies (C. Atkinson, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data, cited in LaPointe 

2000). Malarial infection rates were highest in the west, at Pihea, and lowest in 

Sincock’s Bog. None of the 10 Kaua`i creepers tested for malaria had active 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-161 

infections or evidence of past infection (C. Atkinson, U.S. Geological Survey, 

unpubl. data, cited in LaPointe 2000), but more data is needed to determine if this 

low infection rate is caused by a low transmission rate or high mortality of 

infected birds. 

Predation from introduced and native species. The biology of the 

Kaua`i creeper has been little studied and predation on adults and nests has not 

been documented, but several introduced mammals known to be serious predators 

on Hawaiian forest birds are present in the Alaka`i swamp on Kaua`i where 

`akikiki occur (Tweed et al. 2000), including black rats (Rattus rattus), 

Polynesian rats (R. exulans), Norway rats (R. norvegicus), and feral cats (Felis 

catus). Two species of owls, the native pueo or Hawaiian short-eared owl (Asio 

flammeus sandwichensis) and introduced barn owl (Tyto alba), are known to prey 

on forest passerines (Snetsinger et al. 1994). 

Other Factors. Hurricanes struck Kaua`i in 1982 and 1992 and 

significantly reduced habitat by destroying forests and promoting the spread of 

alien weeds. Surveys by Foster et al. (2000) showed that the Kaua`i creeper 

declined significantly from 1989 to 1994. 

Climate change poses a threat to the Kaua`i creeper and other Hawaiian 

forest birds by causing an increase in the elevation at which regular transmission 

of avian malaria occurs (Benning et al. 2002). Experimental evidence has shown 

that the malarial parasite does not develop in birds below 13 degrees Celsius (55 

degrees Fahrenheit), and field studies have found that maximum malaria 

transmission occurs where mean ambient summer temperature is 17 degrees 

Celsius (63 degrees Fahrenheit; LaPointe 2000). Between 13 and 17 degrees 

Celsius, malaria transmission is limited and usually associated with warmer 

periods, such as El Nino events (Feldman et al. 1995). There are no forested 

areas on Kaua`i where mean ambient temperature is below 13 degrees Celsius, 

meaning all areas are subject to malaria at least periodically. Benning et al. 

(2002) used GIS (Geographic Information System) simulation to show that an 

increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 

predicted by some climatic models (Pounds et al. 1999, Still et al. 1999, IPCC 

2001), would raise the 17 degree isotherm by 300 meters (985 feet), resulting in 

an 85 percent decrease in the land area where malaria transmission currently is 

only periodic. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-162 

SPECIES-SPECIFIC CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

Legal protection. The Kaua`i creeper is a candidate for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). If the creeper is 

listed federally, it will be added automatically to the State of Hawai`i’s list of 

endangered species. 

Ecological Studies. In June 1985, the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted the first systematic 

survey of forest bird populations throughout the Alaka`i region since John 

Sincock’s 1968 to 1973 surveys. A total of 34 transects were surveyed using 

standard variable circular plot methodology, including over 77 linear kilometers 

(48 miles) and 550 point count stations covering approximately 100 square 

kilometers (38 square miles) of the Alaka`i region (Figure 21). The surveys 

included the majority of native forest on Kaua`i above about 1,200 meters (4,000 

feet). Surveys by Foster et al. (2000) have provided more recent estimates of the 

range and abundance. In combination these surveys have demonstrated serious 

declines in the abundance and distribution of the species. 

 

Captive propagation and reintroduction. The Zoological Society of 

San Diego currently is developing techniques for rearing Oreomystis creepers 

from eggs and breeding them in captivity, using the related Hawai`i creeper as a 

surrogate. To date, nine Hawai`i creepers have been reared from eggs collected 

from the wild, and two Hawai`i creeper pairs have produced eggs in captivity. In 

June 2000, the first Hawai`i creeper egg laid in captivity successfully hatched at 

the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center in Volcano, Hawai`i (The Peregrine Fund 

1997, 1998, 1999; The Peregrine Fund and Zoological Society of San Diego 

2000). 

HABITAT-WIDE CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The habitat that is home to the `akikiki also harbors (or harbored) 

populations of six other endangered forest birds: the `ō`ū (Psittirostra psittacea), 

Kaua`i `ō`ō (Moho braccatus), kāma`o (Myadestes myadestinus), Kaua`i 

nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe), Kaua`i `akialoa (Hemignathus 

procerus), and puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). The area is also important as a 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-163 

watershed, and is popular for recreational hiking, bird watching, and hunting. 

Thus, there have been ongoing efforts aimed at protecting the Alaka`i region, 

including legal protection, periodic surveys, control of feral ungulates, education 

and outreach, and ecological studies. 

Legal Protection. The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important 

action that protected watersheds in Hawai`i. The Act has been strengthened and 

re-titled “Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 

104 Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves,” and provides protection 

to native forest habitats from certain degrading factors caused by human 

activities. The Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources established 

the 4,022 hectare (9,938 acre) Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve in 1964 

(Administrative Rule No. 1, Chapter 3), recognizing the pristine forest values of 

that area, and the need to control potential degrading factors. 

 

Periodic Surveys and Inventories. Regular surveys and inventories of 

Kaua`i forest bird populations and habitat conditions within the Alaka`i 

Wilderness Preserve have been conducted on established transects since the late 

1960s. John L. Sincock, research biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Kaua`i Field Station, conducted intensive status and distribution surveys 

of Kaua`i forest birds between 1968 and 1973 (Sincock 1982). Large-scale multiagency surveys were conducted on established transects in 1981, 1985, 1989, 

1993, 1994, and 2000 (Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

unpubl. data; U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data; Foster et al. 2004). The 

Hawai`i Rare Bird Search and Survey Team made an intensive systematic effort 

to locate any surviving endangered Kaua`i forest bird populations still in 

existence on Kaua`i (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

 

Control of Feral Ungulates. The Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources has maintained liberal public hunting seasons to minimize 

forest damage caused by feral pigs and goats within the Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve for several decades. Unfortunately, public hunting is effective only in 

the more accessible areas of the preserve, and ungulate populations in more 

remote areas remain high. Limited aerial reconnaissance and aerial shooting of 

feral goats and pigs has been attempted in the most remote regions, but has not 

proven to be economically effective. Long-term protection of the Alaka`i from 

feral ungulates will require creativity, commitment, political practical 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-164 

understanding, an extensive public relations campaign, and significant financial 

support. 

Information and Education. Materials featuring Kaua`i’s endangered 

forest birds, as well as those found on other islands, have been published and 

distributed to schools to assist efforts to inform the public and gain support for 

funding to preserve endangered species. Privately-funded filmmakers including 

the British Broadcasting Company and the National Geographic Society have 

assisted by filming and publicizing the plight of endangered forest birds. Several 

articles have appeared in popular nature magazines and local newspapers to tell 

the story of the endangered Hawaiian forest birds, including those on Kaua`i. 

Most recently, Audubon magazine featured the puaiohi recovery effort in an 

article in its February 1999 issue. 

Ecological Studies. Dr. Carter Atkinson of the Biological Resources 

Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey, initiated forest bird disease studies on several 

of the main Hawaiian islands, including Kaua`i, focusing primarily on bloodborne diseases within the range of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. This 

research is aimed at understanding the significance of disease and confirming the 

long-held theory that diseases brought to Hawai`i by introduced exotic birds and 

the establishment of alien vectors of disease such as mosquitoes has had a major 

role in the decline and extinction of native birds in Hawai`i. 

CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

The primary strategy for the conservation of the Kaua`i creeper and to 

preclude the need for listing this species under the Endangered Species Act is 

protection and management of remaining forest above 1,200 meters (4,000 feet) 

in the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve and surrounding State and private lands 

(Figure 21). 

Habitat Protection. Prospects for conservation lie in maintaining and 

restoring forest habitat by developing, testing, and applying broad-scale habitat 

restoration measures, including: 

• Minimizing populations of feral ungulates through a combination of 

hunting, fencing, snaring, and possibly development of lethal non-toxicant 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-165 

devices for use in areas inaccessible to hunters, or in areas closed to 

hunters; 

• Controlling the encroachment of noxious weed plants and insects through 

tested bio-control, and where feasible, mechanical and chemical measures; 

and 

• Continuing enforcement of State and Federal laws that protect against 

destructive human activities and developments. 

Predator Control. Long-term protection of many Hawaiian forest birds, 

including the Kaua`i creeper, likely will require large-scale control of alien 

predators, particularly black rats and feral cats. Development of safe and 

effective toxicants and application methods for control of feral cats and 

introduced rodents in remote forested habitat is severely needed. Preventing the 

introduction of additional alien predators, especially the small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus), which currently is found on other Hawaiian islands, is 

also important. 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Programs. Development of 

captive breeding and release techniques for Oreomystis creepers, including the 

Kaua`i creeper, may be needed and should be pursued if funds are available. 

Population Surveys and Monitoring. A primary need is an intensive 

demographic study of Kaua`i creeper to document key aspects of its life history, 

especially survival rate, causes of mortality, susceptibility to disease, recruitment 

rates, and causes of nest failure, in concert with management actions designed to 

mitigate key limiting factors. Continued monitoring of the status of forest bird 

populations and their habitats is needed to measure the effectiveness of 

management actions.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-166 

Bishop’s `ō`ō. © from Rothschild (1893-

1900). Courtesy Smithsonian Institution 

Libraries.

21. Bishop’s `Ō`ō, Moho bishopi

DESCRIPTION and TAXONOMY 

Bishop’s `ō`ō, considered a 

“species of concern,” was a large, 12-

inch (31-centimeter) long, vociferous, 

long-tailed black forest bird with a 

yellow ear patch, undertail coverts, and 

axillary (under the wing) tufts. 

Bishop’s `ō`ō was known with 

certainty only from Moloka`i, and was 

a member of the honeyeater family 

(Meliphagidae), originating in 

Australia and the South Pacific and not 

related to the Hawaiian honeycreepers. 

The genus Moho was endemic to the 

Hawaiian Islands. The Bishop’s `ō`ō

was last seen in 1904 (Munro 1944), 

though there were unconfirmed reports into the 1980s (Sabo 1982). Detailed 

descriptions of this species and its calls were provided by Perkins (1903) and 

Munro (1944). 

 

LIFE HISTORY 

Information on the life history of the Bishop’s `ō`ō is very fragmentary 

and known only from the writings of early naturalists (Perkins 1903, Munro 

1944). Apparently this species was primarily nectarivorous, preferring lobelia 

(Lobelia spp.) flowers, but it also fed on insects. Nothing is known of its nesting 

biology. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Munro (1944) reported Bishop’s `ō`ō from forested areas with `ōhi`a 

(Metrosideros polymorpha) and lobeliads in the upper elevations of Moloka`i. 

Possible detections of `ō`ō on Maui were from montane rainforest of northeastern 

East Maui (Sabo 1982). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 2-167 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Historically, this species was recorded only from Moloka`i (see Figure 8 

on page 2-29). Subfossil remains of Moho from Maui may be this species (James 

and Olson 1991). Black birds reported to be `ō`ō, and perhaps most likely this 

species, have been reported historically from `ōhi`a forests on Maui according to 

Banko (1980 to 1984) and most recently Sabo (1982), but these reports were 

never confirmed. The 1980 Hawaiian Forest Bird Survey failed to detect this 

species on Moloka`i or Maui (Scott et al. 1986), nor have subsequent searches 

and other field work turned up any (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). This species 

should most likely be considered extinct. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Reasons for the early decline and loss of Bishop’s `ō`ō are unknown, but 

presumably are the same as for other endangered forest birds on Moloka`i and 

Maui. Additionally, this species was hunted by early Hawaiians for its yellow 

plumes, and it is possible that unregulated feather collecting in the 1800s, when 

guns became available, contributed to the bird’s demise. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

No specific efforts to conserve this species have been initiated because no 

individuals are known to exist and the species is almost certainly extinct. 

CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

It is very unlikely that this species survives on either Moloka`i or Maui. 

However, the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III-D is provided in the 

event that the species should possibly persist.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-1 

III. RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Goal and Objectives 

The ultimate goal of this plan is to achieve the successful conservation and 

recovery of the 19 Hawaiian forest birds listed as endangered. Once recovery is 

achieved, the protections of the Endangered Species Act (Act) are no longer 

necessary and these species may be removed from the Federal List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (delisted). For the candidate species and 

species of concern, the goal is to address the threats to the species and arrest or 

reverse the declines in their populations such that the protections of the Act are 

not required and the need to list the species is precluded. 

In order to reach these recovery goals, the primary objective of this plan is 

to specify how to restore and maintain each species to self-sustaining populations, 

while at the same time promoting natural demographic and evolutionary 

processes. Small populations are especially susceptible to extinction by chance 

demographic events, and species with a limited distribution are more susceptible 

to extinction due to catastrophes (e.g., hurricanes, fires, disease) and 

environmental stochasticity (e.g., periodic absence of an important food item). 

 

For each taxon, the recovery objectives are to: 

(1) Restore populations to levels that allow the taxon to persist despite 

demographic and environmental stochasticity and that are large 

enough to allow natural demographic and evolutionary processes to 

occur; 

(2) Protect enough habitat to support these populations; and 

(3) Identify and remove the threats responsible for its decline. 

In addition, stabilization of the current population(s) is considered an 

interim recovery objective. Once stabilization has been accomplished, the focus 

should shift to the recovery of viable, self-sustaining populations. For species 

that are extremely rare (no individuals can be located), an implicit interim 

objective is to locate any remaining individuals and implement the Rare Bird 

Discovery Protocol (Section III-D). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-2 

B. Recovery Criteria 

Recovery criteria common to all taxa covered by this recovery plan are 

listed below. More specific criteria have been developed for well-studied taxa 

based on their life histories, and for taxa with specific recovery needs. These 

recovery criteria are based on the threats that have caused the decline of Hawaiian 

forest birds, as discussed in the Introduction, and they include population stability 

and growth rates, habitat protection, and threat management. For those taxa for 

which sufficient information was available (O`ahu `elepaio, puaiohi, palila, Maui 

parrotbill, `akiapÇl~`au, Hawai`i creeper, Hawai`i `~kepa, `~kohekohe, po`ouli, 

and `akikiki), we have developed species-specific recovery criteria, listed in Table 

6. For species that have not been detected in 10 or more years, the general 

recovery criteria provided still pertain in the long-term; however, the immediate 

recovery need is to continue searching for them, following the Rare Bird 

Discovery Protocol (Section III-D), and to find nesting pairs if possible. These 

species include the kāma`o, `oloma`o, Kaua`i `ō`ō, `ō`ū , Kaua`i `akialoa, Kaua`i 

nukupu`u, Maui nukupu`u, O`ahu `alauahio, kākāwahie, and Maui `ākepa. 

Bishop’s `ō`ō also falls into this category, although as the species is not yet listed, 

the recovery criteria do not technically apply. More specific recovery criteria will 

be developed for these taxa should the species be relocated and sufficient 

information becomes available to do so. 

Forest bird surveys are conducted on only one of the main Hawaiian 

islands each year, because there are limited numbers of personnel trained to 

survey Hawaiian forest birds, and the time frame in which surveys can be 

conducted is limited to only a few months each year during the forest bird 

breeding season. The surveys rotate among Hawai`i, Maui, Moloka`i, O`ahu, and 

Kaua`i, but Hawai`i is divided in halves because of its larger size and thus takes 2 

years to survey. Systematic surveys have been conducted only once on O`ahu, in 

1991, though targeted surveys for the O`ahu `elepaio are conducted each year in 

portions of the island (VanderWerf et al. 2001). After 15 years, this survey 

schedule will thus produce four data points on each island, which is the minimum 

required to conduct a meaningful population trend analysis. We feel this amount 

of information will be adequate to determine if a species can be downlisted under 

recovery criterion 2, in conjunction with other downlisting criteria identified 

below. However, a greater number of data points are needed (seven data points, 

or censuses every 5 years over a 30-year period) to be able to determine 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-3 

population trends with the improved confidence necessary for delisting, in 

conjunction with other delisting criteria. Because populations may fluctuate in 

response to good or poor breeding years and environmental factors, we feel it is 

important to survey over a long enough time so that results are representative of 

long-term trends. 

A taxon may be downlisted from endangered to threatened when all four 

of the following criteria are met, as well as any species-specific downlisting 

criteria listed in Table 6: 

1. The species occurs in two or more viable populations or a viable 

metapopulation∗ (as described in Table 6; viable as defined in criterion 

2) that represent the ecological, morphological, behavioral, and genetic 

diversity of the species. 

2. Viability of the populations is demonstrated through either a) 

quantitative surveys that show that the number of individuals in each 

isolated population or in the metapopulation has been stable or 

increasing for 15 consecutive years, or b) demographic monitoring that 

shows each population or the metapopulation has an average growth 

rate (lambda, λ) not less than 1.0 over a period of at least 15 

consecutive years; and total population size is not expected to decline 

by more than 20 percent within the next 15 consecutive years for any 

reason. 

3. Sufficient habitat in recovery areas (described in Section III-C) is 

protected and managed to achieve Criteria 1 and 2 above. 

4. The threats that were responsible for the decline of the species have 

been identified and controlled. 

The 21 taxa of Hawaiian forest birds covered in this plan all face the same 

set of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, disease, predation, and 

natural stochastic events. However, the severity of these threats varies among 

species depending on their life history and current distribution. Moreover, these 

 

∗ A metapopulation, as used here, is defined as a group of partially isolated populations 

belonging to the same species among which at least occasional exchange of individuals occurs.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-4 

factors interact in complex and dynamic ways that are only partly understood, and 

the degree to which each threat must be managed in order to recover each species 

is difficult to ascertain. For example, transmission and prevalence of avian 

diseases and abundance of alien predators vary from year to year and from site to 

site, causing fluctuations in the amount of management that would be needed to 

ameliorate these threats. If bird populations are stable in the long-term, despite 

periodic episodes of increased disease, predation, and other threats, then the 

species can be considered safe from extinction. Setting a recovery criterion of 

demographic persistence highlights the need for effective monitoring, and helps 

ensure that all threats have been adequately managed and any population 

increases are not transient. 

A taxon may be delisted due to recovery when the downlisting criteria 

described above, as well as any species-specific criteria listed in Table 6 for 

species downlisting and delisting, have been satisfied for at least 30 consecutive 

years. To delist because of extinction will require additional information 

gathering, including sufficient survey effort in areas where the species was 

detected most recently and in other areas of the species’ historical range, as 

described in individual species accounts. An analysis of historical information, 

search effort, and survey results will be conducted to determine the probability of 

the species’ extinction, and based on this analysis the species could be considered 

for delisting because of extinction (see Section D, Rare Bird Search Protocol 

below for discussion on designation of species as “potentially extinct”). 

We set recovery criteria to serve as objective, measurable guidelines to 

assist us in determining when a listed species has recovered to the point that the 

protections of the Act are no longer necessary. However, the actual change in 

status (downlisting or delisting) requires a separate rulemaking process based 

upon an analysis of the same five factors considered in the listing of a species (see 

page 5-2). The recovery criteria presented in this recovery plan thus represent our 

best assessment of the conditions that would most likely result in a determination 

that downlisting or delisting of a taxon is warranted as the outcome of a formal 

five factor analysis in a subsequent regulatory rulemaking. Achieving the 

prescribed criteria is an indication that the taxon no longer meets the definition of 

threatened or endangered under the Act, but this must be confirmed by a thorough 

analysis of the five factors. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-5 

Table 6. Additional species-specific recovery criteria for some of the Hawaiian 

forest birds, as discussed in Section III-B, Recovery Criteria. See 

individual species accounts for discussion of the recovery strategy and 

justification of recovery criteria. 

Table 6. Additional Species-specific Recovery Criteria 

Listed Species Downlisting Criteria Delisting Criteria 

O`ahu 

`elepaio 

Existing core populations in 

Waikāne/Kahana, southern Ko`olau, central 

Ko`olau, southern Wai`anae, Schofield 

Barracks West Range, and Mākaha/Wai`anae 

Kai are viable, or function as viable 

metapopulations on both the windward and 

leeward sides of the Ko`olau and Wai`anae 

Mountains, and criteria 2 and 3 apply over a 

15-year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

Puaiohi Total population of 1,000 adults in at least 5 

subpopulations (Mōhihi, Kawaikōī, Koai`e, 

Halehaha/Halepā`ākai, and Halekua 

drainages) that constitute a single 

metapopulation, and criteria 2 and 3 apply 

over a 15-year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

but with total 

population of 2,000 

adults, and criteria 2 

and 3 apply over a 30-

year period. 

Palila Viable populations exist on the southwestern 

slope of Mauna Kea, either the northern, 

eastern or the southern slope of Mauna Kea, 

and at least one other location on Hualālai or 

Mauna Loa, and criteria 2 and 3 apply over a 

15-year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

Maui 

parrotbill 

Viable populations exist on Haleakalā and 

either West Maui or Moloka`i, and criteria 2 

and 3 apply over a 15-year period. 

Same for downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

`Akiapōlā`au Viable populations or metapopulations exist 

in Hāmākua, Kūlani/Kīlauea/Keauhou, Ka`ū, 

south Kona, and māmane forest on Mauna 

Kea, and criteria 2 and 3 above apply over a 

15-year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-6 

Table 6. Additional Species-specific Recovery Criteria 

Listed Species Downlisting Criteria Delisting Criteria 

Hawai`i 

creeper 

Viable populations or metapopulations exist 

in Hāmākua, Kūlani/Kīlauea/Keauhou, Ka`ū, 

south Kona, and Pu`u Wa`awa`a/Hualālai, 

and criteria 2 and 3 above apply over a 15-

year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

Hawai`i

`ākepa

Viable populations or metapopulations exist 

in Hāmākua, Kūlani/Kīlauea/Keauhou, Ka`ū, 

south Kona, and Pu`u Wa`awa`a/Hualālai, 

and criteria 2 and 3 above apply over a 15-

year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

`Ākohekohe Viable populations exist on Haleakalā and 

either West Maui or Moloka`i, and criteria 2 

and 3 apply over a 15-year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

Po`ouli Viable populations exist on Haleakalā and 

West Maui, and criteria 2 and 3 apply over a 

15-year period. 

Same as downlisting, 

and criteria 2 and 3 

apply over a 30-year 

period. 

Candidate 

Species Guidelines to preclude listing; short-term goal Long-term goal 

`Akikiki Total population of 6,000 birds throughout 75 

percent of the area occupied from 1968 to 

1973 (Sincock surveys, Sincock 1982), and 

criteria 2 and 3 apply over a 15-year period. 

Total population of 

10,000 birds 

throughout the entire 

area occupied from 

1968 to 1973 (Sincock 

surveys, Sincock 

1982), and criteria 2 

and 3 apply over a 30-

year period. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-7 

C. Recovery Areas 

1. Guidelines for Establishing Recovery Area Boundaries 

To better address the recovery needs of endangered Hawaiian forest birds, 

we established “recovery area” boundaries to emphasize where recovery efforts 

should be focused. We define “recovery area” as those areas of habitat that will 

allow for the long-term survival and recovery of endangered Hawaiian forest 

birds. The identification of recovery areas is based on a biological evaluation of 

habitat potentially important for the recovery of Hawaiian forest birds only, and 

conveys no legal obligation on the part of private landowners to manage their 

lands for forest bird recovery. The delineation of recovery areas should not be 

confused with “critical habitat,” a formal designation that requires analysis of 

both biological and economic factors. Listing of most of the species in this plan, 

except the O`ahu `elepaio (listed in 2000) and Hawai`i creeper and po`ouli (listed 

in 1975), preceded the legal requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

to consider the designation of critical habitat at time of listing, therefore critical 

habitat was not a consideration for these species. Of the birds in this plan, critical 

habitat has been designated for the O`ahu `elepaio (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2001) and palila (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977). Implementation of the 

recovery actions identified in the Recovery Actions Narrative (Section IV) within 

the recovery areas identified on each island will address the threats to each 

species and allow for its stabilization, recovery, and ultimately, delisting. 

 The biological determination of recovery area boundaries was based on 

each species’ ecology, conservation needs, current and former distribution, and 

the recovery criteria of protecting and establishing viable populations and 

metapopulations. Historical and subfossil records indicate that the distribution of 

many species was originally much larger than the area identified as recovery area 

for each species in this plan. The overall purpose of recovery areas is to guide 

efforts to stabilize and recover listed species. Recovery areas include lands that 

currently provide habitat for existing populations, lands that are currently 

unoccupied but contain suitable habitat to provide for expansion of existing 

populations and establishment of new populations, and, in cases where sufficient 

suitable habitat currently is not available for recovery, lands where habitat could 

be restored. In addition, recovery areas also include intervening areas that will 

facilitate dispersal of birds and gene flow among high elevation populations that 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-8 

are currently isolated, thereby increasing the effective population size and 

possibly creating a metapopulation. Lands within recovery area currently differ 

in suitability for forest bird recovery; some areas already contain high quality 

habitat and support core populations of endangered forest birds, whereas others 

may need intensive management and restoration before they can be considered 

suitable. 

 The foremost concern in determining recovery areas for the great majority 

of endangered Hawaiian forest birds is to provide areas that are free of introduced 

mosquitoes and disease. This habitat occurs primarily at upper elevations because 

the cooler temperatures at these elevations are less suitable for both the 

introduced mosquito vector and the malarial parasite (van Riper et al. 1986, 

LaPointe 2000). In addition, there is generally less habitat degradation and 

urbanization at these higher elevations. Recovery areas therefore focus on 

existing habitat and restorable habitat at high elevations, up to treeline on the 

higher islands (Maui and Hawai`i) and to the mountain summits on lower islands 

(Kaua`i, O`ahu, and Moloka`i). The lower elevational boundaries in most cases 

were chosen to include areas that provide a buffer from transmission of avian 

disease by mosquitoes, which can travel up to 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) and 

possibly farther depending on environmental conditions (D. LaPointe, U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

For species on some islands (Maui, Moloka`i, O`ahu), recovery areas occur 

in blocks that are separated by large gaps of unsuitable developed land, while on 

other islands (Hawai`i, Kaua`i) there is one contiguous block that contains a 

mosaic of different habitat types that vary in degree of suitability. Within this 

mosaic some areas may support permanent breeding populations, while others 

may be used only temporarily as dispersal corridors. On all main islands except 

Kaua`i, which has only a single mountain, it should be possible, in principle, to 

establish two or more disjunct viable populations. The establishment of more 

than one population will help incorporate existing variation, provide the 

opportunity for local adaptation to evolve, and spread the risk associated with 

catastrophes such as hurricanes and fires. In the event that the amount of 

recovery area possible on an isolated mountain does not support a viable 

population, translocation of individuals from a viable population, or other 

management techniques, can be used to create a managed metapopulation among 

different isolated mountains or blocks of habitat. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-9 

Within the identified recovery areas, every attempt should be made to 

manage for continuous habitat that matches the historical distribution and 

environmental conditions in which the life history characteristics of each species 

evolved, such as dispersal. High philopatry of juveniles is characteristic of all the 

endangered Hawaiian forest birds studied thus far, and these birds are not 

expected to cross wide habitat gaps. The maintenance or development of 

continuous habitat within recovery areas will facilitate dispersal and connectivity. 

Contiguous recovery area is also important for providing heterogeneity in forest 

structure that can shape local adaptation and genetic variability, and for 

permitting movements in response to seasonal variation in food resource 

availability. The density of birds is not expected to be uniform throughout the 

recovery area; source-sink dynamics, metapopulation dynamics, and seasonal 

movements in response to geographic variation in resources should be included 

where they naturally would exist. 

The immediate recovery action needed for species that have not been 

detected in 10 or more years is to continue searching for them, following the Rare 

Bird Discovery Protocol (Section III-D), and to find nesting pairs if possible. 

These species include the kāma`o, `oloma`o, Kaua`i `ō`ō, `ō`ū , Kaua`i `akialoa, 

Kaua`i nukupu`u, Maui nukupu`u, O`ahu `alauahio, kākāwahie, Maui `ākepa, and 

Bishop’s `ō`ō. With the exception of the `ō`ū on the island of Hawai`i, we have 

not identified separate recovery areas for species that have not been seen recently 

because areas that should be searched are included in the recovery area for other 

species. We have identified recovery area for the `ō`ū because it is most likely to 

occur in different parts of Hawai`i than other species on the Island. Maps of 

recovery areas and historical and current ranges for all 21 species covered by this 

plan are presented with the species accounts (Figures 6 – 11 and 13 – 21). 

2. Hawai`i Recovery Areas 

`Akiapōlā`au 

• Recovery areas encompass all portions of the current and historical ranges 

that lie above the mosquito zone and within elevations that can be expected to 

support suitable forest habitat, including areas that currently contain forest 

and areas where forest could be restored (Figure 15, page 2-101 ). 

`Akiapōlā`au inhabit both koa/`ōhi`a (Acacia koa/Metrosideros polymorpha) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-10 

forest and māmane (Sophora chrysophylla) forest. More than half of the 

recovery area is currently in a heavily degraded state and will need 

restoration. Recent observations of `akiapōlā`au using relatively young koa 

plantations on Kamehameha Schools land at Keauhou Ranch and at Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge indicate that both old growth and second 

growth forest are suitable. 

• Avian diseases transmitted by mosquitoes limit `akiapōlā`au distribution at 

low elevations in all forest areas. Because of differences in topography, wind 

patterns, and temperature, mosquitoes have differing elevational limits on 

different mountain slopes. Therefore, the lower limit of suitable habitat 

occurs at 910 meters (3,000 feet) on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea, 910 

meters (3,000 feet) on the eastern and southeastern slopes of Mauna Loa, 

1,210 meters (4,000 feet) on the western slopes of Mauna Loa, and 1,150 

meters (3,800 feet) on the northern slope of Hualālai. 

• The upper limit of recovery area is delineated by the highest elevation edge of 

the historical koa and māmane vegetation zones on all volcanoes. 

Hawai`i Creeper and Hawai`i `Ākepa 

• Recovery areas encompass all portions of the current and historical ranges of 

these species that lie above the mosquito zone and within elevations that can 

be expected to support suitable forest habitat, including areas that currently 

contain forest and areas where forest could be restored (Figure 16, page 2-112 

and Figure 18, page 2-129). Both species are found in koa-`ōhi`a forest, but 

unlike the `akiapōlā`au they do not regularly inhabit māmane forest, such as 

that found at higher elevations on Mauna Kea. Hawai`i `ākepa are currently 

restricted to only a portion of their recovery area due to the limited 

availability of large diameter trees for nesting as well as other limiting factors. 

• The lower limit of recovery area is determined by the distribution of 

mosquitoes, the same as for the `akiapōlā`au. 

• The upper limit of recovery area is delineated by the highest elevation edge of 

koa and `ōhi`a vegetation zones on all volcanoes. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-11 

Palila

• The palila is an extreme food specialist, preferring unhardened māmane 

(Sophora chrysophylla) seeds in green pods or in pods that are just beginning 

to turn brown. Palila are dependent on māmane and māmane/naio (Myoporum 

sandwicense) forest for all their needs. 

• The elevational range of māmane forest is the most important variable of 

response of palila to available habitat. A wide belt of māmane forest results in 

more consistent availability of seeds within the range of daily movements 

typically made by palila, especially during the breeding season. Remaining 

large areas of māmane and māmane-naio forest that meet the biological 

requirements of palila or that are restorable occur at elevations above 1,360 

meters (4,500 feet) on Mauna Kea and the western slope of Mauna Loa. 

• The current population of palila is concentrated on the southwestern slope of 

Mauna Kea. Additional habitat is needed to reestablish populations or a 

metapopulation in portions of the historical range on the northern, eastern, or 

southern slope of Mauna Kea, and on Mauna Loa, as described in the recovery 

criteria. Management and restoration of māmane forest may be necessary at 

some sites before they are suitable for palila establishment. 

• The upper limit of recovery area is delineated by the highest elevation edge of 

the historical māmane and māmane-naio forest on Mauna Kea and the upper 

limit of historical māmane and māmane-naio forest on the western slope of 

Mauna Loa. 

3. Maui Nui Recovery Areas 

Maui Parrotbill and `Ākohekohe

• Currently there is only one population each of Maui parrotbill and 

`ākohekohe, both on the windward side of Haleakalā volcano on east Maui 

(Figure 13, page 2-80 and Figure 19, page 2-141). Suitable habitat is needed 

in other areas to achieve at least two populations or a metapopulation of each 

species on Maui Nui (Maui, Moloka`i, Lāna`i, and Kaho`olawe). Parrotbills 

and `ākohekohe are known to have occurred on Moloka`i, but not on Lāna`i or 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-12 

Kaho`olawe. West Maui and Moloka`i currently contain intact native forest 

that appears suitable for both species, except for the presence of mosquitoes 

and avian diseases. Forest habitat on Lāna`i and Kaho`olawe is much more 

degraded, occurs at lower elevations, and would require a great deal more 

restoration than forest on West Maui or Moloka`i. It is possible that Lāna`i 

and Kaho`olawe may again provide suitable habitat for forest birds, possibly 

including parrotbills and `ākohekohe, but no recovery areas for these species 

have been identified on those islands because other areas currently provide 

more cost effective recovery potential. 

• Haleakalā population: Haleakalā currently supports a population of 

approximately 3,800 `ākohekohe that occupy about 58 square kilometers (22 

square miles) from 1,100 to 2,300 meters (3,600 to 7,550 feet) elevation, and 

a population of approximately 500 Maui parrotbills that occupy about 50 

square kilometers (19 square miles) from 1,200 to 2,350 meters (4,000 to 

7,700 feet) elevation. For each species these areas represent less than 5 

percent of the estimated historical ranges on Maui (Scott et al. 1986). Both 

species appear to occupy almost all habitat that is currently suitable, given 

disease constraints at lower elevations and boundaries of native vegetation. 

Population increases could be achieved by increasing the amount of suitable 

habitat or possibly by enhancing habitat quality and increasing carrying 

capacity. The potential for increasing carrying capacity is poorly known, 

however, and to ensure the potential for population increase, additional 

suitable habitat must be restored from 1,210 to 2,120 meters (4,000 to 7,000 

feet) on the leeward slopes and from 1,515 to 2,120 meters (5,000 to 7,000 

feet) on the western slopes. A lower elevational limit of 750 meters (2,500 

feet) on windward Haleakalā encompasses nonbreeding habitat for some birds 

following seasonal flowering downslope. 

• West Maui population: The recovery area indicated in Figure 13, from 750 

meters (2,500 feet) to the summit of Pu`u Kukui at 1,765 meters (5,788 feet), 

encompasses all remaining forest habitat on West Maui currently suitable for 

forest bird habitation. Most of this area is already managed for conservation, 

and vegetation condition in some areas is virtually pristine. Populations of 

parrotbill and `ākohekohe situated here would provide second geographically 

disjunct populations for each of these species. Only a small area is high 

enough to provide disease- and vector-free habitat, but management actions 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-13 

such as strategic fencing to exclude feral pigs might reduce mosquito breeding 

habitat and disease transmission. 

• Moloka`i population: The recovery area indicated in Figure 19, from 750 

meters (2,500 feet) to the summits of Oluku`i at 1,403 meters (4,602 feet) and 

Kamakou at 1,515 meters (4,970 feet), encompasses all remaining forest 

habitat on Moloka`i currently suitable for forest bird habitation. The upper 

elevations are managed for conservation, and habitat conditions and disease 

implications are similar to West Maui. 

Po`ouli

• No po`ouli are currently known to exist in the wild. As the habitat 

requirements for the po`ouli are poorly understood, it must be assumed that 

habitat needs of this species are similar to those of the Maui parrotbill, with 

which it is sympatric and often associates, and that recovery needs of the 

po`ouli will be met by the recovery area identified for Maui parrotbill (Figure 

13, page 2-80). Fossil evidence suggests the original range of the po`ouli 

probably encompassed the full range of forest habitats on the windward, 

leeward, and western slopes of East Maui. To allow for recovery of a 

population on Haleakalā, additional habitat must be restored on the leeward 

slopes from 1,210 to 2,120 meters (4,000 to 7,000 feet) and from 1,515 to 

2,120 meters (5,000 to 7,000 feet) on the western slopes. 

• To accomplish the goal of a second population it will be necessary to establish 

po`ouli in some part of Maui Nui other than Haleakalā. West Maui is the 

most appropriate area because po`ouli are not known to have inhabited 

Moloka`i or Lāna`i (Olson and James 1991). If it is not possible to establish a 

population on West Maui, then Moloka`i could be considered as an 

alternative, but at this time West Maui is given higher priority because it is 

within the known range of the species. The indicated area on West Maui in 

Figure 13, from 750 meters (2,500 feet) to the summit of Pu`u Kukui at 1,765 

meters (5,788 feet), encompasses all remaining forest habitat sufficient for 

forest bird habitation on West Maui. This area is already managed for 

conservation, and vegetation condition in some areas is virtually pristine. 

Only a small area is high enough to provide disease- and vector-free habitat, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-14 

but management actions such as strategic fencing to exclude feral pigs might 

reduce mosquito breeding habitat and disease transmission. 

4. Lāna`i and Kaho`olawe 

Currently there is no forest bird recovery area identified on Lāna`i or 

Kaho`olawe. These islands once supported a variety of forest birds, including a 

now-extinct endemic species in the case of Lāna`i, the Lāna`i hookbill 

(Dysmorodrepanis munroi; James et al. 1989), but they are now highly disturbed, 

contain little (Lāna`i) or no (Kaho`olawe) forest, and are too low in elevation to 

provide disease free habitat. Efforts are underway to restore native ecosystems on 

both islands (Kaho`olawe Island Reserve Commission 2004), and it is possible 

that they may be suitable for reintroduction of forest birds at some point in the 

future. Their status should be reassessed in future revisions of this plan. 

5. O`ahu Recovery Areas 

O`ahu `Elepaio

• Recovery areas include all areas that are currently occupied by the O`ahu 

`elepaio, excluding one very small, isolated area near Hau`ula that contains 

only a single male (Figure 6, page 2-7). 

• Currently unoccupied lands were added to provide for range expansion, 

dispersal corridors, and recovery of viable populations or metapopulations. 

Lands were considered to have greater recovery value and were included first 

if they: (a) provided forest types more preferred by `elepaio, (b) were more 

recently occupied, or (c) were contiguous, formed large blocks of suitable 

habitat, and helped link existing populations. 

• Boundaries of recovery areas were determined by the extent of suitable forest, 

which in many areas coincided with the boundaries of State Forest Reserves, 

Natural Area Reserves, and other conservation lands. Urban and agricultural 

lands generally were not included because they did not contain suitable forest, 

but lower Wailupe Valley, which is zoned for urban use but has not been 

developed yet, was included because it contains suitable forest and is 

currently occupied by O`ahu `elepaio. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-15 

• Although disease is a serious threat to the O`ahu `elepaio, it was not 

considered in delineating recovery areas because no parts of the island are 

high enough to provide refuge from mosquitoes and all areas are subject to 

disease (VanderWerf et al. 2006). 

6. Kaua`i Recovery Areas 

Puaiohi

• Puaiohi currently have a more restricted distribution than the `akikiki because 

they are found only in areas with deeply eroded, rocky stream beds that 

provide nest sites on cliff ledges that are relatively safe from alien predators. 

Puaiohi currently exist at a density of about 16 birds per square kilometer (42 

birds per square mile) in the core of their range that contains the best 

remaining habitat (Snetsinger et al. in prep.). However, it may be possible to 

increase the distribution and abundance of puaiohi by improving habitat 

quality through the use of predator-resistant artificial nesting structures. 

Surrounding lowland areas are too degraded to consider as possible habitat 

and would require development of methods for dealing with avian disease. 

The small amount of forest habitat at high elevations outside the 

Alaka`i/Koke`e region may make it difficult to establish a second population 

that is functionally isolated. Recovery area for the puaiohi (Figure 9, page 2-

36) includes: 

o All the high elevation montane wet forest remaining in the 

Alaka`i/Kōke`e region above 900 to 1,060 meters (3,000 to 3,500 

feet), that contains suitable stream beds with suitable nest sites; 

o Montane wet and mesic forest and scrub on Lā`au Ridge and 

Nāmolokama Peak, based on historical distribution of the species in 

these areas documented by John Sincock (Sincock 1982). However, 

Lā`au and Nāmolokama are isolated habitat areas that may be too 

small to sustain viable populations separate from the main population 

in the Alaka`i; and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-16 

o All of the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, portions of Kōke`e State Park, 

and private lands to the south deemed recoverable. 

`Akikiki

• `Akikiki recovery will require protecting and managing as much of the 

remaining forest habitat on Kaua`i as possible, as well as restoring forest 

habitat in additional areas to allow range expansion. It may also be possible 

to increase population density in some areas by improving habitat quality, 

though there is limited information available about habitat needs in this 

species. As with the puaiohi, the small amount of forest habitat at high 

elevations outside the Alaka`i/Koke`e region may make it difficult to establish 

a second population that is functionally isolated. Recovery areas for the 

`akikiki (Figure 21, page 2-159) include: 

o All the high elevation montane wet forest remaining in the 

Alaka`i/Kōke`e region above 900 to 1,060 meters (3,000 to 3,500 

feet), except steep unforested cliffs; 

o Montane wet and mesic forest and scrub on Lā`au Ridge and 

Nāmolokama Peak, based on historical distribution of the species in 

these areas documented by John Sincock (Sincock 1982). However, 

Lā`au and Nāmolokama are isolated habitat areas that may be too 

small to sustain viable populations separate from the main population 

in the Alaka`i; and 

o All of the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, portions of Kōke`e State Park, 

and private lands to the south and northeast deemed to be recoverable. 

Other Endangered Kaua`i Forest Birds

There have been no confirmed sightings of the Kaua`i `akialoa, Kaua`i 

nukupu`u, Kaua`i `ō`ō, kāma`o, and `ō`ū for several years, but it is possible that 

some of these species still exist. All recent observations of these species occurred 

within the boundaries of the recovery area identified for the puaiohi, so for the 

purposes of this recovery plan, their recovery areas are included within that of the 

puaiohi. However, historical data suggest that some of these species (e.g., 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-17 

nukupu`u) were originally more widespread than puaiohi, existing in lowerelevation koa (Acacia koa) forests. Presumably the Alaka`i was a last refuge 

from disease for these species, but it may not necessarily provide the preferred or 

optimal habitat. 

D. Rare Bird Discovery Protocol 

1. Background and Justification 

While numerous surveys of forest birds have taken place since 1976, the 

majority of these surveys have focused on determining the relative abundance of 

species and have not targeted individual species or populations. With the status 

and life history characteristics of many critically endangered species unknown, 

there is an urgent need to collect information before management strategies can 

be developed and implemented. Moreover, given the magnitude of the threats to 

Hawaiian forest birds, immediate management measures should be undertaken 

whenever possible. In October 1993, personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service formed a field team (the Hawai`i Rare Bird Search Team), to determine 

the status of rare forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. The objectives of this 

project (excerpted from Draft Memorandum, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

October 17, 1993) were to: (1) systematically search areas of forest habitat on all 

of the main Hawaiian Islands in an attempt to locate critically endangered forest 

bird species; (2) assist with field surveys and more detailed ecological surveys in 

areas where any of the extremely rare birds might be found; (3) coordinate, via 

the project leader, annual systematic Statewide surveys of Hawaiian forest bird 

populations; and (4) investigate sightings of rare bird species by other observers, 

and conduct follow-up surveys if deemed necessary. 

These objectives helped to guide the activities of the Hawaiian Rare Bird 

Search Team through 1996. The purpose in developing the following protocol is 

to add additional objectives and establish guidelines in the event of a future 

rediscovery of a species that is extremely rare or possibly extinct. These 

additional objectives are to: (5) maximize data collection efforts; (6) facilitate 

communication and decisions between collaborating individuals, agencies, and 

species working groups; and (7) provide the information necessary to formulate 

the most effective and successful conservation management strategies for the 

target species. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-18 

2. Target Species 

The species for which these protocols may pertain, generally those 

numbering fewer than 50 individuals and/or that have not been seen for 10 years 

or longer, include: 

kāma`o (large Kaua`i thrush) Myadestes myadestinus 

oloma`o (Moloka`i thrush) Myadestes lanaiensis rutha 

Kaua`i `ō`ō Moho braccatus 

Bishop’s `ō`ō Moho bishopi 

`ō`ū Psittirostra psittacea 

Kaua`i `akialoa Hemignathus procerus 

Kaua`i nukupu`u Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe 

Maui nukupu`u Hemignathus lucidus affinis 

O`ahu `alauahio (O`ahu creeper) Paroreomyza maculata 

kākāwahie (Moloka`i creeper) Paroreomyza flammea 

Maui `ākepa Loxops coccineus ochraceus 

po`ouli Melamprosops phaeosoma 

 

3. Protocol 

The following outline shows the steps, the order to be followed, and the 

agencies, teams, working groups, and cooperators responsible for each step. 

i. Identify and prioritize target species (Hawaiian Forest Bird 

Recovery Team, Captive Propagation Working Group). 

Determination of species priority and status, including 

categorization as “possibly extinct” or “extinct,” should be made 

only after thorough analysis of the number of years since the 

species was last observed, the rate and causes of decline, condition 

of preferred habitat, accessibility of habitat, natural history 

characteristics, frequency and thoroughness of previous searches, 

and the joint recommendations of the participating biologists of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawai`i Division of Forestry and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-19 

Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, and 

Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team. 

ii. Search, find, and study target species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, U.S. 

Geological Survey, private birdwatchers∗). 

Once a target species is located, an intensive search of the 

surrounding vicinity should be made to study the target species and 

determine: 

a) Number of individuals, and, if possible, sex and age of each. 

b) Immediate threat(s) to the population (e.g., predators, disease, 

human disturbance, habitat loss, hurricane and other weatherrelated risks, avian competitors, pesticides, etc.). 

c) Reproductive status (e.g., observations/descriptions of nests, 

photos of nests when possible, copulation, courtship, carrying 

of nesting material or insects, vocalizations, etc.). 

d) Foraging activities (e.g., identification and quantification of 

food, and collection of samples for nutrient analyses). 

e) Inter- and intra-specific behavioral interactions. 

iii. Evaluate all possible management strategies (Hawaiian Forest Bird 

Recovery Team, Captive Propagation Working Group, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, 

U.S. Geological Survey, and National Park Service). 

After the target species has been initially observed and its situation 

documented, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Hawai`i 

 

∗ Private citizens who sight any of these rare birds are requested to report their 

observations immediately to either the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, or to the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-20 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, in consultation with the 

Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team and Captive Propagation 

Working Group, will consider some or all of the following 

procedures and management actions: 

a) Mist-netting and banding of individuals with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service metal bands and unique combination of color 

bands to facilitate monitoring. 

b) Collecting feather and/or blood samples for genetics, sexing, 

and veterinary evaluation. 

c) Attachment of transmitters on some or all individuals to allow 

tracking of movements. 

d) Implementation of control measures for potential threats (e.g., 

fencing, trapping, poisoning, shooting, public education, etc.). 

e) Implementation of measures that may enhance reproductive 

success in the wild (e.g., providing supplementary food 

stations, artificial nests and nesting material, and field 

aviaries). 

f) Translocation, in situations where birds of the opposite sex 

exist but are not paired. 

g) Removal from the wild of individuals and nestlings and/or eggs 

for transfer to one of the captive propagation facilities for 

propagation and/or hand-rearing for release. These actions will 

be coordinated with the managers of the captive propagation 

facilities. Timely and practical issues such as cage space, 

available labor, and transfer logistics, will require discussion 

before each proposed action. Avicultural options including 

egg/nest manipulation, and captive propagation will be 

evaluated based on current levels of expertise. Subsequent 

release options will be dependent on available habitat, levels of
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 3-21 

habitat management (i.e., continuous funding and 

implementation), and current levels of expertise. 

h) Cryopreservation. If removal from the wild of individuals is 

attempted, and mortality occurs during capture, transport, or 

later when the animal is in captivity, appropriate techniques 

should be used to cryopreserve gonads and ovaries for possible 

transplantation in hosts and to cryopreserve other body tissues 

for cloning and post-mortem methods to propagate the species. 

iv. Initiate intervention if necessary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Captive Propagation 

Working Group, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service). 

Each management strategy selected will require 

participation by various combinations of agencies, personnel 

and/or facilities managers. Each step will require population 

specific protocols, which should be developed by all entities 

involved prior to the time of need. 

If invasive procedures are undertaken, their effectiveness 

will be evaluated and a summary report will be written and 

circulated by the responsible participants. This report will 

critically evaluate each procedure and its relative impact on the 

species in question. At that time a preliminary long-range plan 

with specific goals and objectives should be developed for species 

restoration. 

If it is determined that a technique is not effective, or is 

potentially too hazardous to the survival of the individual or 

population in relation to the recovery of the species in question, it 

will be suspended. If an approach is determined to be beneficial or 

cannot yet be evaluated, it may be continued after consultation.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-1 

IV. RECOVERY ACTIONS 

 

The recovery program for the Hawaiian forest birds is organized into six 

broad categories of recovery actions: 

1) Protect Ecosystems for Recovery of Endangered Forest Birds, which 

includes recommendations for new partnerships, private and Federal 

conservation agreements on private lands, and land use and management 

goals; 

2) Manage Forest Ecosystems for the Benefit and Recovery of Endangered 

Forest Birds, which includes recommendations for reforestation of recovery 

areas, reducing or eliminating the detrimental effects of alien plants, feral 

ungulates, and introduced predators, and ways to decrease the threat of avian 

disease; 

3) Develop Captive Propagation and Related Recovery Strategies, which 

describes techniques and priorities for the captive propagation and release of 

Hawaiian forest birds into the wild; 

4) Conduct Research as Needed, which describes general categories of research 

needed to better evaluate threats to Hawaiian forest birds and to develop and 

evaluate management strategies to address those threats; 

5) Monitor Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Forest Birds, 

which describes systematic surveys to monitor changes in the distribution 

and abundance of forest birds, to help evaluate the effects of management 

actions, and to provide necessary information for developing measures of 

population stability for future listing actions; and 

6) Public Awareness and Information, which describes important outreach and 

information activities. 

The general recovery action categories above are not assigned priority 

numbers for implementation, but each specific recovery action was assigned an 

implementation priority number (see below; also Table 19, Implementation 

Schedule). Tables in the recovery action narrative are organized by island and 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-2 

land parcel, and show priority numbers to help landowners identify management 

needs for their lands and the relative importance of each action for recovery of 

forest birds. The detailed Recovery Action Narrative below is preceded by a 

Step-down Outline, showing only the most general recovery action categories. 

Definition of Recovery Action Priorities: 

Priority 1 C An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to 

prevent a species from declining irreversibly in the 

foreseeable future. 

Priority 2 C An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline 

in the species’ population, habitat quality, or some other 

significant negative impact short of extinction. 

Priority 3 C All other actions necessary to meet the recovery objectives. 

A. Step-down Outline of Recovery Actions 

1. Protect Ecosystems for Recovery of Endangered Forest Birds. 

1.1 Describe and delineate recovery areas. 

 

1.2 Continue existing partnerships and develop new partnerships. 

1.3 Secure recovery areas through conservation easements, partnership 

agreements, safe harbor agreements, changes in land use 

designation, leases, or purchase from willing sellers. 

1.4 Provide private landowners with financial and regulatory 

incentives to restore and manage suitable habitat for native forest 

birds. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-3 

2. Manage Forest Ecosystems for the Benefit and Recovery of Endangered 

Forest Birds. 

2.1 Reforest recovery areas that no longer contain the necessary 

constituent elements for species recovery. 

2.2 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on 

vegetation within forest ecosystems. 

 

2.3 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of alien plants within 

forest ecosystems, through mechanical, chemical, or biological 

means, as appropriate. 

2.4 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of alien mammalian 

predators (rats, mice, feral cats, mongooses) on forest birds. 

2.5 Decrease the threat of avian disease. 

2.5.1 Prevent introduction of new diseases and disease vectors 

into Hawai`i. 

2.5.2 Prevent movement of diseases and disease vectors between 

islands. 

2.5.3 Control the mosquito vector (Culex quinquefasciatus) of 

avian pox and malaria. 

2.5.4 Foster ability of native birds to tolerate or develop 

resistance to avian pox and malaria. 

2.5.5 Monitor long-term changes in the prevalence and 

transmission of avian diseases in recovery forest bird 

habitats. 

2.6 Reduce or eliminate effects of other alien species. 

2.6.1 Prevent introductions of new detrimental species. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-4 

2.6.2 Eradicate all incipient populations of new nonnative 

vertebrate species. 

2.6.3 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of vespulid

wasps (yellow jackets) on forest birds within forest 

ecosystems. 

 

3. Develop Captive Propagation and Related Recovery Strategies. 

3.1 Periodically evaluate and identify the target species that will 

require captive propagation for recovery and the appropriate 

strategy to be used. 

3.2 Develop captive propagation programs for target species, including 

both endangered and surrogate species. 

3.3 Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for 

releases and/or translocation of endangered birds to ensure longterm persistence of reintroduced populations. 

 

 3.4 Acquire funding to build additional facilities to maintain, 

propagate, incubate, and rear endangered species and, if necessary, 

surrogate species. 

 3.5 Identify wild populations and/or individuals with potential natural 

disease resistance on a species-by-species basis. 

3.6 Develop and refine techniques for the release of captive-reared 

birds into managed habitat. 

3.7 For each of the species identified as candidates for captive 

propagation, establish demographic goals for captive propagation 

programs, e.g., how many birds to produce using which 

demographic strategy over what period of time and released into 

how many sites. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-5 

3.8 Develop species-specific reintroduction guidelines based on risk 

assessments that consider the behavioral, disease, demographic and 

genetic needs of the species, with the ultimate goal being the reestablishment of wild populations. 

3.9 Provide biological samples from captive-held birds to an approved 

holding location or locations determined on a species-by-species 

basis for use in genetic and/or veterinary examination. 

3.10 If egg collections fail, develop methods of bringing nestling birds, 

juveniles, and/or adults into captivity with concomitant quarantine 

procedures. 

3.11 Establish a cryogenic cell culture of germplasm of the endangered 

Hawaiian avifauna at two partner institutions willing to hold the 

cell line in perpetuity. 

3.12 Evaluate the outplacement of endangered species currently at the 

Keauhou Bird Conservation Center and Maui Conservation Center 

to the Honolulu Zoo or other qualified institutions. 

4. Conduct Research as Needed. 

4.1 Identify the threats that cause geographical variation in density and 

that maintain populations at or below carrying capacity within 

particular locations. 

4.2 Study the magnitude of threats and, if appropriate, develop and 

evaluate effective methods for control. 

4.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of threat management actions. 

4.4 Determine safety of threat management to non-target species. 

4.5 Investigate role of natural selection in dealing with threats. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-6 

4.6 Conduct research that may lead to new tools for managing forest 

birds or their habitat, or to identification of emerging or 

unrecognized threats. 

4.7 Special research considerations for translocations and 

reintroduction programs. 

4.7.1 Evaluate effectiveness of translocations of both disease 

survivors and disease resistant forest birds for restoration of 

populations in areas with active disease transmission. 

 

4.7.2 Determine optimal parameters for translocation and 

reintroduction efforts. 

4.7.3 Evaluate the relative costs of habitat suitability analysis 

versus experimental translocation or reintroduction. 

4.8 Special research considerations for disease and parasitism. 

4.8.1 Determine the effects of land use changes on disease 

transmission. 

4.8.2 Determine the effects of long-term climate change on 

disease transmission. 

 

4.8.3 Conduct research on the feasibility of vaccines for avian 

pox and malaria, methods for their delivery, and possible 

effects on host-parasite coevolutionary adaptations. 

4.8.4 Conduct research on genetic variability, virulence, and 

interactions between avian pox virus and malarial parasites 

and how these variants interact with susceptible and 

resistant host genotypes. 

4.8.5 Determine dispersal distances of adult mosquitoes from 

point sources outside of recovery area. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-7 

4.8.6 Determine the feasibility of decreasing malarial 

transmission through genetic manipulation of vector 

populations. 

4.8.7 Determine the role that ectoparasites such as ticks and lice 

play in transmission of avian pox, particularly during the 

nesting cycle when adults may pass infections to offspring. 

4.8.8 Determine the role that endoparasites such as Coccidea 

play in demography of birds. 

 

4.8.9 Monitor long-term changes in the prevalence and 

transmission of avian diseases in forest bird recovery areas. 

4.9 Special research considerations for monitoring. 

4.10 Research needs and priorities by species. 

5. Monitor Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Forest Birds. 

5.1 Systematically survey all forest bird habitat on Kaua`i, O`ahu, 

Moloka`i, Lāna`i, Maui, and Hawai`i at least once every 5 years to 

determine changes in distribution and population size of all native 

and nonnative forest birds. 

5.2 Conduct systematic annual surveys of selected forest areas to more 

carefully monitor changes in distribution and population size and 

efficacy of management actions. 

5.3 Establish and support an interagency Forest Bird Monitoring 

Coordinator position to coordinate monitoring and provide regular 

reports on the status and trend of forest bird populations. 

6. Public Awareness and Information. 

 

6.1 Build alliances with the public through outdoor experience with 

native forest birds and their forest habitats. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-8 

6.1.1 Promote and support public native species awareness and 

environmental education through increased visitor access 

on trails with interpretive and educational displays. 

6.1.2 Promote increased access and interpretation programs on 

Federal, State, County, and private refuges, parks, 

preserves, and other lands where native species are found. 

6.1.3 Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor 

centers, displays, facilities, and public interpretive 

programs. 

6.1.4 Promote the opening of State Forest Reserve trails to the 

general public for nature walks and birding on all islands. 

6.1.5 Support the Nā Ala Hele Trail System. 

6.2 Fund, support, and promote programs that inform teachers and 

educate children, lawmakers, the local public, and visitors. 

6.2.1 Fund and support teacher education programs that promote 

native species issues. 

6.2.2 Support and fund programs that educate children about 

Hawai`i’s natural environments and that inform the public 

through non-traditional partnerships. 

 

6.2.3 Create a clearinghouse, such as a website or “hotline,” for 

information and educational materials about Hawai`i’s 

native species. 

6.2.4 Provide information and promote awareness of the harmful 

effects of some alien species to public health, native 

species, and native ecosystems. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-9 

6.3 Use a professional marketing agency and business marketing 

techniques (television, radio, internet, newspapers, advertising, and 

magazines) to promote awareness of the uniqueness of Hawai`i’s 

native species and gain local support for endangered species and 

related conservation issues. 

 

6.3.1 Conduct market research on the public’s knowledge of 

native species and attitudes towards conservation in order 

to provide information on the most direct ways to inform 

the public and gain support for native species. 

6.3.2 Promote and fund the development of public service 

announcements for television and radio about native 

species and their habitat. 

6.3.3 Promote private business use of native species likenesses, 

images, and names on old and new products and use them 

in advertising and logos. 

 

6.3.4 Promote fundraisers and solicit corporate funding and 

promotion to expand the economic base for public 

awareness and information campaigns. 

6.4 Promote the creation of and support “Friends” groups, 

partnerships, environmental outreach programs, and other groups 

to provide support for parks, refuges, reserves, and natural areas to 

cultivate understanding and conservation of Hawai`i’s natural and 

cultural resources. 

6.4.1. Recruit, train, and support volunteer community leaders to 

organize native species outreach and awareness programs 

at the community level. 

6.4.2. Develop and support partnership and outreach programs 

with other conservation agencies, native Hawaiian groups, 

hunter groups, and private landowners. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-10 

B. Recovery Actions Narrative 

1. Protect Ecosystems for Recovery of Endangered Forest Birds. 

1.1 Describe and delineate recovery areas. (Priority 1) 

Recovery area maps have been created for each island and for 

species with known current distributions (Figures 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 

16, 18, 19, and 21; see also Section III-C, Recovery Areas). 

1.2 Continue existing partnerships and develop new partnerships. 

(Priority 2) 

Partnerships among local community groups, private individuals, 

non-governmental organizations, and State and Federal agencies 

contribute substantially to conservation efforts and community 

education. Existing partnerships should be continued, and 

expanded if appropriate, and new partnerships should be developed 

on islands where they currently do not exist. The goals and 

mission of each partnership are described below: 

1.2.1 `Ōla`a/Kīlauea Partnership. The `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership is a cooperative land management effort for 

approximately 24,240 hectares (60,000 acres) on the island 

of Hawai`i. This joint management program offers an 

exceptional opportunity to preserve a large, functioning 

native ecosystem and the endangered species that depend 

on it for survival. It can also serve as a model for future 

biological resource conservation efforts. 

1.2.2 Kahikinui Forest Partnership Working Group, Maui. 

The Working Group’s mission/purpose is to revive 

Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiary involvement in 

management of the 3,030 hectare (7,500 acre) Kahikinui 

Forest Reserve, to protect the Kahikinui Forest Reserve 

from further deterioration, to begin the process of 

restoration of its native flora and fauna, and to integrate 

forest management with the Department of Hawaiian Home 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-11 

Lands and the beneficiary community initiative to resettle 

the ahupua`a∗ of Kahikinui. 

1.2.3 The East Maui Watershed Partnership is a voluntary 

effort between six public and private landowners and the 

County of Maui to jointly protect the 40,400-hectare 

(100,000-acre) core of critical watershed against ungulates, 

destructive weeds, insect pests, and other threats. The 

long-range goal is to stop ungulate damage in native forests 

and other upland areas and to limit ungulate damage in 

lowland forests to levels that prevent loss of forest cover, 

utilizing increased public hunting, and fencing in the 

strategy. 

1.2.4 The Leeward Haleakalā Watershed Restoration 

Partnership began in June 2003 as a voluntary effort 

among 11 private and public landowners and managers to 

restore healthy and sustainable koa (Acacia koa) forests on 

the leeward side of Haleakalā from `Ulupalakua to Kaupō

above 1,067 meters (3,500 feet) elevation, encompassing 

17,473 hectares (43,175 acres). This area once supported 

some of the tallest and most extensive koa forests in the 

islands, but today only about 5 percent remain. Restoration 

of these forests will greatly enhance the watershed 

potential, provide for the long-term survival of many native 

plants and animals, and present possibilities for the 

renewable use of koa for canoes and woodworking. 

1.2.5 The West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership is a 

voluntary cooperative effort between eight public and 

private landowners of Kahalawai with a shared 

commitment to the long-term protection and preservation 

of the West Maui Mountains Watershed. The partners 

recognize that cooperation is the key to a timely and 

successful watershed management program to protect this 

 

∗ A section of land that extends from the mountain top to the ocean. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-12 

region from alien pest animals, weeds, inappropriate human 

activities, and other threats. 

1.2.6 The East Moloka`i Watershed Partnership is a coalition 

of conservation interests, landowners, and County, State, 

and Federal government agencies bringing together 

economic and conservation interests to save, protect, and 

enhance water resources and native forest species and 

ecosystems. The East Moloka`i Watershed Partnership is 

based on community-wide planning and economic 

revitalization efforts under the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Empowerment Zone Initiative, with a focus on 

watershed protection, sustainability, and Moloka`i’s culture 

and traditions. 

1.2.7 Ko`olau Mountains Watershed Partnership, O`ahu. 

The memorandum of understanding made among 

landowners in this partnership provides for accretive, 

cooperative management “to maintain a healthy forested 

watershed.” The partners also agreed to jointly develop a 

management plan, but it is still in draft form. The overall 

goals of the partnership are generally consistent with and 

favorable toward the recovery of forest birds, but the 

degree of current management varies substantially among 

landowners. Certain parcels of land that support important 

core populations of O`ahu `elepaio have been identified for 

additional, more specific measures to protect and manage 

forest habitat. 

1.3 Secure recovery areas through conservation easements, 

partnership agreements, safe harbor agreements, changes in 

land use designation, leases, or purchase from willing sellers. 

Table 7 lists, by island, recovery areas requiring protection. 

Habitat management plans should be written for all protected 

areas, and protection could be implemented through conservation 

easements, partnerships, changes in land use designation, or, if 

necessary, land exchanges or purchase from willing sellers. Public 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-13 

(Federal, State, and County) lands should be managed or restored 

to provide suitable habitat for native forest birds. Private lands 

should be managed through easements, partnerships, and safe 

harbor agreements whenever possible. Further incentives such as 

tax breaks and partnership financial rewards could be used to 

secure recovery areas and for reforestation programs (see 

Recovery Action 1.4) and reducing or eliminating the detrimental 

effects of ungulates on vegetation within forest ecosystems (see 

Recovery Action 2.2), in addition to planting assistance programs. 

Several watershed partnerships are in effect across the State, and 

the overall goals of these partnerships are generally consistent with 

and favorable to the recovery of forest birds, but the degree of 

current management varies substantially among landowners. Most 

land parcels contained in these partnerships are not included in 

Table 7, but a few parcels have been identified as possibly 

requiring additional protection because they support particularly 

important populations of forest birds or because there are concerns 

about the extent of current management. In Table 7, under 

Landowner/Comments, the most appropriate approach(es) to 

achieving land protection are listed. While private lands in many 

cases are best managed through partnerships or easements, parcels 

may be considered for purchase by private and public conservation 

organizations when owners are interested in selling and an 

organization is prepared to take on ownership and management. 

Because the course of such acquisitions varies greatly with each 

situation, this recovery plan can only prioritize parcels for their 

potential contribution to recovery area and state that, when the 

opportunity arises, purchase in each case should be weighed as an 

option for forest bird conservation. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-14 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection or that should remain 

protected for forest bird recovery. The “Landowner/Comments” 

column includes suggested means of protection. Island codes: H = 

Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. 

Species Codes: AKEP = Hawai`i `ākepa; AKIP = `akiapōlā`au; AKOH 

= `ākohekohe; HCRE = Hawai`i creeper; KAAK = Kaua`i `akialoa; 

KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i 

nukupu`u; MAPA = Maui parrotbill; OAEL = O`ahu `elepaio; OO = 

Kaua`i `ō`ō; OU = `ō`ū; PALI = palila; POOU = po`ouli; PUAI = 

puaiohi. Refer to the Implementation Schedule, Key to Acronyms on 

page 5-7 for landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.1 H Northeastern Slopes 

of Mauna Kea, 

Portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR. Currently leased for 

cattle grazing. By lease, 

conservation easement, change of 

jurisdiction, or change in land use 

designation to protective subzone of 

conservation. 

2 

1.3.2 H Kanakaleonui 

Corridor, 

338001009 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Provides vital link 

between mesic koa forest and dry 

māmane forest. By conservation 

easement, lease, or partnership. 

Remove grazing and enhance natural 

communities. 

1 

1.3.3 H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe 

Section, 

337001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Currently the 

Laupāhoehoe Section of Hilo Forest 

Reserve Area. By change in land use 

designation to conservation 

protective subzone. Mid-elevation 

forest with native tree canopy 

vulnerable to destruction by 

continued sustained yield pig 

hunting. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-15 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.4 H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Pīhā Section, 

333001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Important wet 

and mesic forest remnants. Currently 

the Pīhā Section of Hilo Forest 

Reserve, bounded on both sides by 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge. By conservation easement 

or change in land use designation to 

protective subzone of conservation. 

Mid-elevation forest with intact 

native tree canopy vulnerable to 

destruction by sustained yield pig 

hunting. 

2 

1.3.5 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL, leased by DOFAW 

and currently under annual lease. A 

long-term lease should be negotiated. 

2 

1.3.6 H Humu`ula, 

338001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Restorable. A vital 

link between wet and dry forest 

communities. Former lease for cattle 

grazing recently terminated. By 

lease, conservation easement, 

cooperative agreement, or 

partnership. 

1 

1.3.7 H Humu`ula, 

Portions of 

338001007 

AKEP 

AKIP 

HCRE 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Leased to Parker 

Ranch for grazing. Restorable. A 

vital link between wet and dry forest 

communities. By lease, conservation 

easement, cooperative agreement, or 

partnership. 

2 

1.3.8 H Luma`ia Section, 

326018002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL, adjacent to Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

Highest mesic forest remnant on the 

eastern slope of Mauna Kea. By 

lease, conservation easement, 

cooperative agreement, or 

partnership. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-16 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.9 H TMK 

326018001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Leased for cattle grazing. Important 

mesic and wet koa/`ōhi`a forest 

remnants, link between wet and dry 

forest communities. By lease, 

conservation easement, change of 

jurisdiction, or change in land use 

designation to conservation. 

1 

1.3.10 H Ka`ohe Lease, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, 

currently leased for cattle grazing. A 

link could be restored between wet 

and dry forest communities. By 

lease, conservation easement, change 

of jurisdiction, or change in land use 

designation to conservation. 

1 

1.3.11 H Keauhou Ranch, 

399001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Remnant 

mesic koa and `ōhi`a forest. By lease 

or conservation easement. Currently 

a member of the Ōla`a-Kīlauea 

Partnership. 

2 

1.3.12 H Kapāpala Ranch, 

Portions of 

398001010 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, 

Kapāpala Ranch. Currently leased 

for cattle grazing. Restorable. A 

link between forest to the east and 

west. By lease, conservation 

easement, or change in land use 

designation to conservation. 

2 

1.3.13 H Ka`ū Forest Reserve,

397001007 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. 

Protect wet forest habitat from 

development. 

2 

1.3.14 H Ka`ū Forest Reserve,

Portions of 

397001006 

397001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Protect wet 

forest habitat from development. By 

lease, conservation easement, 

partnership agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.15 H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Recently purchased by Hawai`i 

Volcanoes National Park. Valuable 

wet and mesic forest habitat that 

links Ka`ū Forest and South Kona 

Forest. Restorable. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-17 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.16 H Honomalino, 

389006004 

389006029 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Scott C. Rolles Trust. Links Ka`ū

Forest and South Kona Forest. By 

lease, conservation easement, 

partnership, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.17 H Pāpā, 

388001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy, Kona 

Hema Preserve. Recently sold by 

Koa Aina Ventures. A link between 

Ka`ū Forest and South Kona Forest. 

2 

1.3.18 H Yee Hop Ranch, 

Portions of 

388001003 

388001004 

387012001 

392001005 

387012003 

387012004 

387001007 

387001006 

387001011 

387001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. Provides links 

between state owned land parcels and 

protects contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona from development. By 

lease, conservation easement, 

partnership agreement, change in 

land use designation, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.19 H `Alae Ranch, 

Portions of 

387001014 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Currently leased for cattle grazing. 

By conservation easement, lease, 

change of jurisdiction, or change in 

land use designation to conservation 

protective subzone. 

3 

1.3.20 H McCandless Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001003 

386001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

McCandless Ranch. Protect 

contiguous forest habitat in South 

Kona from development. By lease, 

conservation easement, partnership 

agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-18 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.21 H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR. Land Division. 

Protect contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona from continued 

degradation. Currently leased for 

cattle grazing. By conservation 

easement, lease, change of 

jurisdiction, or change in land use 

designation to conservation 

protective subzone. 

2 

1.3.22 H Keālia Ranch, 

385001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. By lease, 

conservation easement, partnership 

agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.23 H Hōnaunau Forest, 

384001001 

384001002 

383001001 

383001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Kamehameha Schools. By lease, 

conservation easement, partnership 

agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.24 H Keālia Ranch, 

Portions of 

385001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Elizabeth Stack et al. Protect 

contiguous forest habitat in South 

Kona from development. By lease, 

conservation easement, partnership 

agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.25 H Kealakekua 

Development Corp., 

Portions of 

382001001 

AKIP 

PALI 

Protect contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona from development, and 

provide habitat for a second palila 

population. Restorable. By lease, 

conservation easement, partnership 

agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-19 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.26 H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portions of 

378001003 

378001007 

372002001 

378001001 

AKIP 

PALI 

HCRE 

Kamehameha Schools. Provides 

habitat for a second palila population. 

Restorable. By lease, conservation 

easement, partnership agreement, 

change in land use designation to 

conservation, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.27 MA Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 224016003 

224016004 

228008001 

228008007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Alexander and Baldwin, East Maui 

Irrigation. Additional measures may 

be needed to ensure forest bird 

recovery. By partnership, safe 

harbor agreement, easement, change 

of land use designation to protective 

subzone of conservation, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

1 

1.3.28 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, Kukui`ula, 

216001007 

AKOH, 

MAPA, 

POOU 

J. Haili. Small parcel at lower edge 

of recovery area. By partnership 

with LHWRP. 

3

1.3.29 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, Kukui`ula, 

216001006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Cleveland Kalalau. Small parcel at 

lower edge of recovery area. By 

partnership with LHWRP. 

3 

1.3.30 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

218001007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Isolated; secure 

access for management needed. By 

continuing partnership with LHWRP. 

1 

1.3.31 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 217001032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

A. Kaapana et al. Small parcel at 

lower edge of recovery area. By 

partnership with LHWRP. 

3

1.3.32 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 217001024 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Small parcel at 

lower edge of recovery area. By 

partnership with LHWRP. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-20 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.33 MA Nu`u, 218001001 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Degraded former 

forest land in need of active 

management. By continuing 

partnership with LHWRP, safe 

harbor agreement, conservation 

easement, change of land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. Acquisition being negotiated 

by NPS. 

3 

1.3.34 MA Nu`u, 218001002 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Degraded 

former forest land in need of active 

management. By continuing 

partnership with LHWRP, safe 

harbor agreement, conservation 

easement, change of land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. Acquisition being negotiated 

by NPS. 

3 

1.3.35 MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Isolated; secure 

better access for management. 

Degraded former forest land in need 

of active management. By 

continuing partnership with LHWRP. 

1 

1.3.36 MA Kahikinui 

Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

219001011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DHHL. Degraded former 

forest land in active forest 

stewardship program with FWS. By 

continuing partnership with LHWRP. 

1 

1.3.37 MA Upper Auwahi, 

219001006 

221009001 

222001001 

222001034 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. Pasture with 

ongoing restoration at selected sites 

in partnership with DOI and NHPS. 

By continuing partnership with 

LHWRP, conservation easement, 

safe harbor agreement, change in 

land use designation, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-21 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.38 MA Kula Forest Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. By continuing 

partnership with LHWRP. Degraded 

forest dominated by alien species. 

Resolve conflicting management as 

game management area. 

2

1.3.39 MA Kēōkea, 222004033 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Degraded 

former forest in need of active 

management. By partnership with 

LHWRP, conservation easement, 

safe harbor agreement, change in 

land use designation, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2

1.3.40 MA Waiohuli, 222005052 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Degraded 

former forest in need of active 

management. By continuing 

partnership with LHWRP, 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2

1.3.41 MA Ka`ono`ulu, 

222007002 

222006009 

222006032 

222007010 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd. 

Degraded former forest in need of 

active management. By continuing 

partnership with LHWRP, 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2

1.3.42 MA Waiakoa, 222008001 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Lucky Shoji USA Inc. et al. 

Degraded former forest in need of 

active management. By partnership 

with LHWRP, conservation 

easement, safe harbor agreement, 

change of land use designation, or 

purchase from willing seller. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-22 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.43 MA Kamehame 

Nui/Kealahou, 

223005002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

John Zwaanstra. Degraded former 

forest in need of active management. 

By continuing partnership with 

LHWRP, conservation easement, 

safe harbor agreement, change of 

land use designation, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2

1.3.44 MA Haleakalā Ranch 

(Pūlehu Nui/ 

Kalialinui), 

223005003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co. Degraded 

former forest in need of active 

management. By continuing 

partnership with LHWRP, 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, change of land use 

designation, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

1

1.3.45 MA Waikamoi Preserve, 

223005004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co. Under active 

management by The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i through 

conservation easement. In EMWP 

and NAPS. Support continued 

management by TNCH, or by 

purchase from willing seller. 

1

1.3.46 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Wailuku, 

233003003 

235003001 

236003001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Wailuku Agriculture. In West Maui 

Watershed Partnership (WMWP). 

By conservation easement or 

purchase from willing seller. 

2

1.3.47 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Launiupoko, 

247001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. In WMWP. By 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.48 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaua`ula, 

246025001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. In WMWP. By 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-23 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.49 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kahoma, 

245022001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. In WMWP. 

By conservation easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.50 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Pu`u 

Kī/Haakea, 

245022002 

245022004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. In WMWP. By 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.51 MA Kapunakea Preserve, 

244007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. Currently managed by 

TNCH through conservation 

easement. In WMWP and NAPS. 

By purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.52 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kapāloa, 

244007007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Unknown. In WMWP. By 

conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.53 MA Pu`u Kukui 

Watershed 

Management Area, 

242001001 

241001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Land and Pineapple. In 

WMWP and NAPS. Support 

continued conservation management 

by Maui Land and Pine, or by 

purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.54 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kahanui, 

252014001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. By easement, 

safe harbor agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.55 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pelekunu 

Valley, 259006011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

Support continued Management by 

TNCH. 

2 

1.3.56 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pelekunu 

Valley, Wawaeolepe, 

259008017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Wm. Hitchcock et al. By easement, 

safe harbor agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.57 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pelekunu 

Valley, 254003032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

Support continued Management by 

TNCH. 

2 

1.3.58 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Wailau 

Valley and Oloku`i, 

259006004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

G. Brown III et al. By easement, 

safe harbor agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-24 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.59 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Laeokapuna, 

257005027 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Hodgins. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.60 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Keanakoholua, 

257005001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

M. Hustice Trust. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.61 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Manawai, 

256006013 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Petro Trust. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.62 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, West `Ōhi`a 

Gulch, 256006010 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

E. Wond Trust. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.63 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Keawa Nui, 

256006007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. In EMOWP. 

By easement, safe harbor agreement, 

or purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.64 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pua`ahala, 

256006002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

K&H Horizons Hawai`i. In 

EMOWP. By easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.65 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kumu`eli, 

256006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

D. Fairbanks III Trust. In EMOWP. 

By easement, safe harbor agreement, 

or purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.66 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kamalō, 

255001016 

255001006 

255001017 

AKOH, 

MAPA, 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. In EMOWP. 

By easement, safe harbor agreement, 

or purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.67 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Mākolelau, 

255001015 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust. By easement, 

safe harbor agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.68 MO Kamakou Preserve, 

Kawela, 2540003026

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd., The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. In 

EMOWP. By easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-25 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.69 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kawela, 

254003001 

254003028 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kawela Plantation Homes 

Association. By easement or 

purchase from willing seller. In 

EMOWP. 

2 

1.3.70 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kaunakakai, 

253003005 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. By easement, 

safe harbor agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.71 O Pia Valley, 37003073 

37003033 

OAEL Benjamin Cassiday, James Pflueger. 

Upper valley in KMWP, but 

additional measures may be needed 

to ensure protection of large `elepaio 

population. Lower valley zoned 

conservation, but no other protection. 

By enrollment in KMWP, easement, 

or purchase from willing seller. 

1 

1.3.72 O Lower Wailupe 

Valley, 36004001 

OAEL City and County of Honolulu. 

Contains lower edge of large `elepaio 

population. Currently zoned urban. 

By enrollment in KMWP, easement, 

change in land use designation, or 

purchase from willing seller. 

1 

1.3.73 O Kūpaua Valley, 

37004001 37004002 

OAEL Hawai`i Humane Society. Upper 

valley in KMWP, but additional 

measures needed to ensure protection 

of large `elepaio population. By 

easement, safe harbor agreement, 

enrollment in KMWP, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

1 

1.3.74 O Kuli`ou`ou Valley, 

38013001 

OAEL Joseph Paiko Trust. Contains 

western half of small `elepaio 

population. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, enrollment in 

KMWP, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

1 

1.3.75 O Ka`alākei Valley, 

39009001 

OAEL Hawai`i Kai Development Co. 

Contains small `elepaio population. 

By easement, safe harbor agreement, 

enrollment in KMWP, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-26 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.76 O Kapālama, 14015009 OAEL Julius Chung Trust. Small parcel. 

By partnership in KMWP. 

3 

1.3.77 O Moanalua Valley, 

11013001 

OAEL Damon Estate. In KMWP, but 

additional measures may be needed 

to ensure protection of large `elepaio 

population. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement or purchase from 

willing seller. 

1 

1.3.78 O South Hālawa Valley, 

Tripler Ridge, 

99011001 

OAEL Queen’s Medical Center. In KMWP, 

but additional measures may be 

needed to ensure protection of large 

`elepaio population. By easement, 

safe harbor agreement, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

1 

1.3.79 O Waikāne Valley, 

48014005 

OAEL SMF Enterprises. In KMWP, but 

additional measures may be needed 

to ensure protection of large `elepaio 

population. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

1 

1.3.80 O Waianu Valley, 

48014003 48013014 

OAEL Waiāhole Irrigation Co. Ltd. In 

KMWP, but additional measures may 

be needed to ensure protection of 

large `elepaio population. By 

easement, safe harbor agreement, or 

purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.81 K Southern Alaka`i 

Plateau, 

Portions of 

417001001 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Robinson Family Partners. Develop 

cooperative management agreement 

or purchase from willing seller. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-27 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, Tax 

Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted 

Landowner/Comments Priority

1.3.82 K Upper Wainiha Pali, 

Portions of 

458001001 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Alexander and Baldwin Hawai`i Inc. 

Currently under surrender agreement 

to DLNR. Area under management 

of DLNR. Land is remote, no public 

access. Adequately protected at 

present and for foreseeable future. 

Any change in this status should be 

reassessed. 

2 

1.4 Provide private landowners with financial and regulatory 

incentives to restore and manage suitable habitat for native 

forest birds. Approximately one-half of lands in the State 

conservation district are privately owned. Many private 

landowners are interested in taking conservation measures but may 

be concerned they will face additional regulation as a result of 

their voluntary stewardship. Other landowners are willing to 

implement conservation actions but lack the resources to do so. 

1.4.1 Continue and expand private landowner incentive 

programs that support restoration and management of 

private lands, including the U.S. Department of Interior’s 

Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) and Private 

Stewardship Grants Program (PSGP), the State of 

Hawai`i’s Natural Areas Partnership Program (NAPP) and 

Forest Stewardship Program (FSP), and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Healthy Forest Reserve 

Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and 

other “farm bill” programs (those authorized through the 

Food Security Act of 1985). 

1.4.2 Continue to provide regulatory incentives and 

assurances to private landowners, such as safe harbor 

agreements, and encourage making these a permanent 

provision of Hawai`i State law. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-28 

1.4.3 Provide dedicated State and Federal staffing to 

administer and provide technical support for private 

landowner programs. 

1.4.4 Develop local, State, and Federal tax incentives for 

landowners who convert lands to native forest, provide 

greater conservation management of forested lands, or 

agree to protect native forest through term or permanent 

easements. 

2. Manage Forest Ecosystems for the Benefit and Recovery of Native 

Forest Birds. 

2.1 Reforest recovery areas that no longer contain the necessary 

constituent elements for species recovery. (Priority 1-3) 

Recovery of most forest bird species included in this plan will 

require reforestation of degraded habitats. Parcels in need of 

restoration efforts and bird species expected to benefit from these 

efforts are listed in Table 8. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-29 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery areas needing reforestation. Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K 

= Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. Species Codes: AKEP = 

Hawai`i `ākepa; AKIP = `akiapōlā`au; AKOH = `ākohekohe; HCRE = Hawai`i 

creeper; KAAK = Kaua`i `akialoa; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; 

KANU = Kaua`i nukupu`u; MAPA = Maui parrotbill; OAEL = O`ahu `elepaio; 

OO = Kaua`i `ō`ō; OU = `ō`ū; PALI = palila; POOU = po`ouli; PUAI = 

puaiohi. Refer to the Implementation Schedule, Key to Acronyms (page 5-7) 

for landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.1 H Northeastern Slope 

of Mauna Kea, 

Portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Reforest and restore pasturelands to 

dry māmane and mesic koa forest. 

2 

2.1.2 H Kanakaleonui 

Corridor, 

338001009 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Provides a vital link 

between mesic koa forest and dry 

māmane forest. Restore upper 

pasturelands. 

1 

2.1.3 H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe 

Section, 

337001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Remove alien 

trees, restore transition forest from 

wet `ōhi`a to mesic koa. 

3 

2.1.4 H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Pīhā Section, 

333001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Remove alien 

trees. Restore transition forest from 

wet `ōhi`a to mesic koa. Facilitate 

understory regeneration. 

3 

2.1.5 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, 

337001010 

329005005 

333001007 

329005003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

USFWS. Remove alien trees and 

continue successful forest restoration 

program. 

1 

2.1.6 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

 Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL, leased by DOFAW. 

Facilitate canopy tree and understory 

regeneration. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-30 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.7 H Humu`ula, 

338001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Restorable. A vital 

link between wet and dry forest. 

Reforest pasturelands to transition 

forest from mesic koa to dry māmane. 

2 

2.1.8 H Humu`ula, 

Portions of 

338001007 

AKEP 

AKIP 

HCRE 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL, leased to Parker 

Ranch. Reforest pasturelands to 

native montane dryland habitat. 

2 

2.1.9 H Luma`ia Section, 

326018002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL, adjacent to Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

Vital link between montane mesic 

forest and montane dry forest. Protect 

existing forest and reforest 

pasturelands. 

2 

2.1.10 H Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch, 

326018001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, leased 

to Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch. Important mesic 

and wet koa/`ōhi`a forest remnants, 

and vital link between wet and dry 

forest communities. Protect and 

reforest. 

2 

2.1.11 H Ka`ohe, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Protect and reforest. 

2 

2.1.12 H Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve, 

 344015001 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR. Restore montane dry 

māmane/naio forest. 

1 

2.1.13 H Keauhou Ranch, 

399001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Reforest 

transition wet `ōhi`a, mesic koa and 

dry māmane/sandalwood. 

3 

2.1.14 H Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park, 

399001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park. 

Continue dryland forest restoration. 

3 

2.1.15 H Kapāpala Ranch, 

398001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, 

Kapāpala Ranch. A link between 

forest communities to the east and 

west. Remove alien trees, restore 

montane dry koa, `ōhi`a and māmane 

forest. 

2 

2.1.16 H Ka`ū Forest Reserve, 

397001007 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Mauna Kea Agribusiness. Protect and 

facilitate natural regeneration. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-31 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.17 H Ka`ū Forest Reserve, 

Portions of 

397001006 

397001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Protect and 

facilitate natural regeneration. 

2 

2.1.18 H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Samuel M. Damon Trust. Valuable 

wet and mesic forest habitat needs 

restoring. A link between Ka`ū Forest 

and the South Kona Forest. 

2 

2.1.19 H Honomalino, 

389006004 

389006029 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Scott C. Rolles Trust. A link between 

Ka`ū Forest and South Kona Forest. 

Protect and restore montane mesic koa 

forest. 

3 

2.1.20 H Pāpā, 

388001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy, Kona Hema 

Preserve. Recently sold by Koa Aina 

Ventures. A link between Ka`ū

Forest and South Kona Forest. 

Restore montane mesic koa forest. 

3 

2.1.21 H TNCH, Honomalino, 

389001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

Continue forest restoration program. 

3 

2.1.22 H Honomalino Forest 

Reserve, 

389001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

mesic koa and `ōhi`a forest. 

2 

2.1.23 H Yee Hop Ranch, 

Portions of 

388001003 

388001004 

387012001 

392001005 

387012003 

387012004 

387001007 

387001006 

387001011 

387001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. Provides links 

between State land parcels and 

protects contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona from development. 

Protect and restore wet `ōhi`a, mesic 

koa and dry māmane/naio forest. 

2 

2.1.24 H Kona Forest NWR, 

386001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

USFWS. Restore montane mesic koa 

and `ōhi`a forest. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-32 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

2.1.25 H `Alae Ranch, 

Portions of 

387001014 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, leased 

to `Alae Ranch. Protect and restore 

wet `ōhi`a forest. 

3 

2.1.26 H McCandless Ranch 

and E. Stack et al., 

Portions of 

392001003 

386001001 

385001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Protects contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona from development. 

Restore pasture to mesic koa and dry 

māmane/naio forest. 

2 

2.1.27 H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Protects contiguous mesic koa forest 

habitat in South Kona. 

2 

2.1.28 H Keālia Ranch 

385001001 and 

Portions of 

384001001 

383001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Restore mesic 

koa forest and dry māmane/naio 

forest. 

2 

2.1.29 H Kealakekua 

Development Corp., 

Portions of 

382012001 

AKIP 

PALI 

Kealakekua Development Corp. 

Protect contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona, provide habitat for a 

second palila population. Restore wet 

`ōhi`a, mesic koa and dry montane 

māmane forest. 

3 

2.1.30 H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portions of 

378001003 

378001007 

378001002 

378001001 

AKIP 

PALI 

Kamehameha Schools. Protects 

contiguous forest habitat in South 

Kona from development, and provide 

habitat for a second palila population. 

Restore mesic koa and dry montane 

māmane forest. 

2 

2.1.31 H Pu`u Wa`awa`a, 

371001001 

371001006 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DOFAW, Pu`u Wa`awa`a 

Forest Bird Sanctuary. Restore 

montane mesic koa and māmane/naio 

forest habitat. 

2 

2.1.32 H Haulālai Ranch, 

372002001 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Restore mesic 

and dry montane forest. 

2 

 2.1.33 MA Haleakalā National 

Park, 218001007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

NPS. Restore montane mesic forest in 

Kaupō Gap. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-33 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

 2.1.34 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 217004006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

mesic forest along cliffs and head of 

Manawainui Valley. 

2 

 2.1.35 MA Nu`u, 218001001 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. 

3 

 2.1.36 MA Nu`u, 218001002 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

3 

 2.1.37 MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. 

1 

 2.1.38 MA Kahikinui 

Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

219001011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DHHL. Support ongoing 

restoration of montane mesic forest 

and shrubland. 

1 

 2.1.39 MA Upper Auwahi, 

219001006 

221009001 

222001001 

222001034 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. Support 

ongoing restoration of montane mesic 

forest and shrubland. 

2 

 2.1.40 MA Kula Forest Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.41 MA Kēōkea, 222004033 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.42 MA Waiohuli, 

222005052 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.43 MA Ka`ono`ulu, 

222007002 

222006009 

222007010 

222006032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-34 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

 2.1.44 MA Waiakoa, 222008001 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Lucky Shoji USA Inc. et al. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

3 

 2.1.45 MA Kamehame 

Nui/Kealahou, 

223005002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

John Zwaanstra. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. 

3 

 2.1.46 MA Haleakalā Ranch 

(Pūlehu 

Nui/Kalialinui), 

223005003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

1 

 2.1.47 MA Waikamoi Preserve, 

223005004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co., The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland at 

high elevation. Replace nonnative 

trees. 

1 

 2.1.48 MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve, 

224016001 

224016002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.49 MA West Maui NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

231006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

wet forest and shrubland. 

2 

 2.1.50 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaheawa, 

248001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

wet forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.51 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Ukumehame/Olowal

u, West Maui NAR, 

Līhau, 248001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

wet forest and shrubland. 

2 

 2.1.52 MA Pu`u Kukui 

Watershed 

Management Area, 

241001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Land and Pineapple. Restore 

montane wet forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.53 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kalamāula, 

252014003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

wet forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.54 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kahanui, 

252014001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. Restore 

montane wet forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-35 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery area needing reforestation 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Species 

Targeted

Landowner/Comments Priority

 2.1.55 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kahanui, 

261001004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

wet forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.56 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kamalō, 

255001016 

255001006 

255001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

2 

 2.1.57 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Mākolelau, 

255001015 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

3 

 2.1.58 MO Kamakou Preserve, 

Kawela, 2540003026 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd, The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.59 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kawela, 

254003001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kawela Plantation Homes 

Association. Restore montane mesic 

forest and shrubland. 

3 

 2.1.60 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kamiloloa/ 

Makakupaīa, 

254003025 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.61 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kaunakakai, 

253003005 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. Restore 

montane mesic forest and shrubland. 

Replace nonnative trees. 

3 

 2.1.62 O Mākua Military 

Reservation 

OAEL U.S. Army. Portions of upper valley 

recently burned, need reforestation. 

3 

 2.1.63 K Kōke`e State Park, 

414001013 

459001016 

414001020 

414001014 

414001002 

and numerous small 

parcels 

KACR Hawai`i DLNR, Division of State 

Parks. Additional protection may be 

needed to secure remaining forested 

habitat. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-36 

2.2 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on 

vegetation within forest ecosystems. 

 The detrimental effects of introduced feral ungulates including 

pigs, cattle, goats, sheep, mouflon, axis deer, and other species on 

forest ecosystems is well documented (Loope and Scowcroft 1985, 

Stone 1985, Stone et al. 1992, Loh and Tunison 1999). These 

alien species damage forest bird habitat and negatively affect forest 

bird populations by removing native understory vegetation, 

suppressing regeneration of native canopy species, and dispersing 

seeds of invasive alien plant species in their fur, hooves, and 

droppings. Effective control or elimination of introduced 

ungulates requires fencing in most cases. The most cost-effective 

approach in the long term to restore habitat damaged by feral 

ungulates is to fence areas and remove all ungulates using drives, 

hunting, snaring, and other measures as appropriate. Parcels where 

fencing and/or ungulate control are needed for recovery of species 

included in this plan are listed in Table 9. 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control. Island codes: 

H = Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. Species 

Codes: AKEP = Hawai`i `ākepa; AKIP = `akiapōlā`au; AKOH = `ākohekohe; 

HCRE = Hawai`i creeper; KAAK = Kaua`i `akialoa; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; 

KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nukupu`u; MAPA = Maui parrotbill; 

OAEL = O`ahu `elepaio; OO = Kaua`i `ō`ō; OU = `ō`ū; PALI = palila; POOU 

= po`ouli; PUAI = puaiohi. Refer to the Implementation Schedule, Key to 

Acronyms (page 5-7) for landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.2.1 H Northeastern 

slopes of Mauna 

Kea, portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-37 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.2 H Kanakaleonui 

Corridor, 

338001009 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Provides vital 

link between mesic koa forest and 

dry māmane forest. Currently 

under lease for cattle grazing. 

1 

 2.2.3 H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe and 

Pīhā

 Sections, 

337001004 

333001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Currently 

managed for game hunting. 

2 

 2.2.4 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, 

337001010 

333001007 

329005005 

329005003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

USFWS. Ungulate control under 

way. Construct additional fences 

and control ungulates in 

unmanaged areas. 

1 

 2.2.5 H Luma`ia Section 

326018002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL, adjacent to 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge. Encourage fencing and 

ungulate removal. 

2 

 2.2.6 H Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch, 

326018001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, 

Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch lease. 

Encourage fencing and ungulate 

removal. 

2 

 2.2.7 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL. Encourage 

fencing and ungulate removal. 

2 

 2.2.8 H Ka`ohe, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Suspend lease. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.9 H Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve, 

344015001 

344016003 

338001004 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR. Palila critical 

habitat. Continue to remove 

ungulates. 

1 

 2.2.10 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Upper 

Portion, 

324008001 

AKIP 

AKEP 

HCRE 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-38 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.11 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Lower 

Portion, 

324008001 

OU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

1 

 2.2.12 H `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, 

324008009 

399001007 

399001004 

324008025 

319001001 

319001007 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools, Keauhou 

Ranch. Kūlani Correctional 

Facility, Pu`u Maka`ala NAR, 

HVNP. 

1 

 2.2.13 H Kapāpala Forest 

Reserve, 

Portions of 

398001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, 

Kapāpala Forest Reserve. Fence 

and remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.14 H Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve, 

397001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i, DOFAW, Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve. Fence and remove 

ungulates. 

1 

 2.2.15 H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Recently purchased by NPS. 

Fence and remove ungulates, 

particularly mouflon sheep. 

1 

 2.2.16 H Manukā NAR, 

Upper portions of 

391001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i, DOFAW. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.17 H TNCH, 

Honomalino, 

389001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. Fence and remove 

ungulates. 

3 

 2.2.18 H Yee Hop Ranch, 

392001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

3 

 2.2.19 H Kona Forest 

NWR, 386001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

USFWS. Fence and remove 

ungulates. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-39 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.20 H McCandless 

Ranch and E. 

Stack et al., 

392001003 

386001001 

385001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

McCandless Ranch and E. Stack 

et al. Fence and remove 

ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.21 H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division. 

Fence and remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.22 H Hōnaunau Forest, 

384001001 

384001002 

383001001 

383001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Fence 

and remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.23 H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portion of 

378001003 

PALI Kamehameha Schools. Fence 

and remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.24 MA Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

224016003 

224016004 

228008001 

228008007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Alexander and Baldwin, East 

Maui Irrigation. EMWP fence 

protects lower boundary in east; 

TNCH protects upper boundary. 

Remove ungulates from protected 

areas. Additional ungulate 

removal needed from unprotected 

areas. 

1 

 2.2.25 MA Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

211002002 

212004005 

229014001 

211001050 

211001044 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. EMWP 

fencing underway to protect 

forest above about 3,600 ft. 

Remove ungulates above fence. 

Additional ungulate control 

needed from unprotected areas 

below fence. Proposed additions 

to Hanawī NAR would support 

forest bird recovery. 

1

 2.2.26 MA Hanawī NAR and 

Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

212004007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DLNR. NAR fencing 

protects 1,734 acres, ungulatefree, above 5,400 ft. Fence and 

remove ungulates from remain 

portions of NAR (above 2,500 ft. 

for bird management). 

1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-40 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.27 MA Hāna Forest 

Reserve, 

210001001 

214001001 

215001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DLNR. Fencing and 

ungulate control urgently needed. 

Proposed additions to Hanawī

NAR would support forest bird 

recovery. 

1

 2.2.28 MA Haleakalā National 

Park, 213001003 

216001002 

216001001 

216001003 

217004016 

216010001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

NPS. Mostly protected by 

fencing, ungulate removal needs 

to be completed in some areas. 

Fence and remove ungulates from 

remaining areas, e.g., Ka`āpahu. 

1

 2.2.29 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, 

216001007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

J. Haili. Encourage ungulate 

control and fencing. 

3

 2.2.30 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, 

216001006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

C. Kalalau. Encourage ungulate 

control and fencing. 

3

 2.2.31 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DLNR. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

1

 2.2.32 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217001032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

A. Ka`apana et al. Encourage 

ungulate control and fencing. 

3 

 2.2.33 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217001024 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Encourage 

ungulate control and fencing. 

2 

 2.2.34 MA Nu`u, 218001001 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Encourage 

ungulate control and fencing. 

3

 2.2.35 MA Nu`u, 218001002 AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Encourage 

ungulate control and fencing. 

3
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-41 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.36 MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Fencing of 

portion underway. Complete 

fencing and ungulate removal 

from Forest Reserve above 4,000 

ft. 

1

 2.2.37 MA Kahikinui 

Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

219001011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DHHL. Fencing of 

portions underway. Continue 

fencing through partnership 

programs. Ungulate removal 

above 4,000 ft. 

1

 2.2.38 MA Upper Auwahi, 

219001006 

221009001 

222001001 

222001034 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. Some 

exclosures for plant protection in 

place or underway. Encourage 

fencing and ungulate removal 

above 4,000 ft. 

1

 2.2.39 MA Kula Forest 

Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Currently a 

sustained yield game 

management area. For portions 

within forest bird recovery area, 

fence and remove ungulates to 

allow regeneration of native 

forest. 

2

 2.2.40 MA Kēōkea, 

222004033 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Fence and 

remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery area, manage with 

Kula Forest Reserve. 

2

 2.2.41 MA Waiohuli, 

222005052 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Fence and 

remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery area, manage with 

Kula Forest Reserve. 

2

 2.2.42 MA Ka`ono`ulu, 

222007002 

222006009 

222007010 

222006032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd. 

Fence and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery area, 

manage with Kula Forest 

Reserve. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-42 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.43 MA Waiakoa, 

222008001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Lucky Shoji USA Inc. et al. 

Fence and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery area, 

manage with Kula Forest 

Reserve. 

2

 2.2.44 MA Kamehame 

Nui/Kealahou, 

223005002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

John Zwaanstra. Fence and 

remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.45 MA Haleakalā Ranch 

(Pūlehu Nui/ 

Kalialinui), 

223005003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co. The ranch 

is formulating a conservation 

reforestation plan. Fence and 

remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery area. 

2 

 2.2.46 MA Waikamoi 

Preserve, 

223005004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co., The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

Strategic fencing and ungulate 

control protects the Preserve. 

Additional protection, especially 

from deer, may be warranted. 

1 

 2.2.47 MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve, 

224016001 

224016002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Public 

hunting currently permitted. 

Fence and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery area. 

1 

 2.2.48 MA West Maui NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

231006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery area. 

2

 2.2.49 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Waihe`e, 

232014001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Board of Water Supply. 

Strategic fencing and ungulate 

removal within forest bird 

recovery area. 

2

 2.2.50 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kou, 

232014002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.51 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Wailuku, 

233003003 

235003001 

236003001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Wailuku Agriculture. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-43 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.52 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, `Īao, 

233003004, 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.53 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Kealaloloa, 

236001014 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.54 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Manawainui Plant 

Reserve, 

236001052 

248001010 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.55 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaheawa, 

248001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.56 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Ukumehame/ 

Olowalu, West 

Maui NAR, Līhau, 

248001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.57 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Launiupoko, 

247001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.58 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Pūehuehu, 

247001004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.59 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaua`ula, 

246025001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.60 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Pana`ewa, 

246025002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-44 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.61 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kahoma, 

245022001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.62 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kahoma, 

245022005 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.63 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Pu`u 

Kī/Haakea, 

245022002 

245022004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.64 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Wahikuli, 

245022003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.65 MA Kapunakea 

Preserve, 

Amfac/JMB, 

TNCH, 

244007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., TNCH. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.66 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kapāloa, 

244007007 

AKOH 

MAPA, 

POOU 

Unknown. Strategic fencing and 

ungulate removal within forest 

bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.67 MA West Maui NAR, 

Honokōwai, 

244007004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DLNR. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.68 MA Pu`u Kukui 

Watershed 

Management Area, 

242001001, 

241001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Land and Pineapple. 

Strategic fencing and ungulate 

removal within forest bird 

recovery area. 

2

 2.2.69 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kalama`ula, 

252014003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.70 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kahanui, 

252014001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.71 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kahanui, 

261001004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-45 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.72 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Waikolu, 

261001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Ungulate 

control currently ongoing at Pu`u 

Ali`i NAR. Strategic fencing and 

ungulate removal within forest 

bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.73 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pelekunu 

Valley, 

259006011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. Ungulate control 

currently ongoing. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.74 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pelekunu 

Valley, 

Wawaeolepe, 

259008017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Wm. Hitchcock, et al. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.75 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pelekunu 

Valley, 

254003032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. Ungulate control 

currently ongoing. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.76 MO Oloku`i NAR, 

Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Wailau 

Valley, 

 259006002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Naturally 

isolated but vulnerable to 

incursion. Ungulate control 

ongoing. Strategic fencing and 

ungulate removal within forest 

bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.77 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Wailau 

Valley and 

Oloku`i, 

259006004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

G. Brown III, et al. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.78 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Laeokapuna, 

257005027 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Hodgins. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.79 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Keanakoholua, 

257005001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

M. Hustice Trust. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-46 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.80 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

`Uala`pue, 

256006026 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.81 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kahananui, 

256006014 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.82 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Manawai, 

256006013 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Petro Trust. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.83 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, eastern 

`Ōhi`a Gulch, 

256006011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.84 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, West 

`Ōhi`a Gulch, 

256006010 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

E. Wond Trust. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.85 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Keawa 

Nui, 256006007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.86 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Pua`ahala, 

256006002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

K&H Horizons Hawai`i. 

Strategic fencing and ungulate 

removal within forest bird 

recovery area. 

2

 2.2.87 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kumu`eli, 

256006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

D. Fairbanks III Trust, (Austin 

Estate?). In EMOWP; currently 

fencing portions and removing 

ungulates. Continue strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.88 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kamalō, 

255001016 

255001006 

255001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. In 

EMOWP; currently fencing 

portions and removing ungulates. 

Strategic fencing and ungulate 

removal within forest bird 

recovery area. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-47 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.89 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Mākolelau, 

255001015 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.90 MO Kamakou 

Preserve, Kawela, 

2540003026 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd., The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. In 

EMOWP. Ungulate control 

currently ongoing. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.91 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Kawela, 

254003001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kawela Plantation Homes 

Association. Strategic fencing 

and ungulate removal within 

forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.92 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kamiloloa/ 

Makakupa`ia, 

254003025 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.93 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kaunakakai, 

253003005 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. Strategic 

fencing and ungulate removal 

within forest bird recovery area. 

2

 2.2.94 O Honouliuli 

Preserve, 

92005013 

OAEL James Campbell Estate, managed 

by The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. One 40-acre exclosure 

completed, a second is planned. 

More, larger fences needed to 

exclude ungulates from as much 

of the preserve as possible. 

1 

 2.2.95 O Lualualei Naval 

Magazine, 

88001001 

OAEL U.S. Navy. Fencing and 

eradication of ungulates and/or 

time/area closure to hunting may 

be needed in preparation for 

aerial broadcast of rodenticides. 

Not open to public hunting. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-48 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.96 O Schofield Barracks 

West Range, 

77001001 

OAEL U.S. Army. Ungulate control to 

protect forest and reduce 

mosquito breeding habitat. 

Fencing and eradication of 

ungulates and/or time/area 

closure to hunting may be needed 

in preparation for aerial broadcast 

of rodenticides. Not open to 

public hunting. 

1 

 2.2.97 O Pahole NAR, 

68001002 

OAEL Hawai`i State. Fencing and 

ungulate eradication to protect 

forest, reduce mosquito breeding 

habitat. Fencing and eradication 

of ungulates and/or time/area 

closure to hunting may be needed 

in preparation for aerial broadcast 

of rodenticides. Currently few 

`elepaio, but high potential for 

augmentation. 

2 

 2.2.98 O Kahanahāiki 

Valley, 

 81001012 

OAEL U.S. Army. Fencing and 

eradication of ungulates and/or 

time/area closure to hunting may 

be needed in preparation for 

aerial broadcast of rodenticides. 

2 

 2.2.99 O O`ahu Forest 

NWR, 

95004001 

76001001 

OAEL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Fencing and eradication of 

ungulates and/or time/area 

closure to hunting may be needed 

in preparation for aerial broadcast 

of rodenticides. Currently no 

`elepaio, but high potential for 

reintroduction. 

3 

 2.2.100 O Lower Ka`ala 

NAR, 

 67003025 

OAEL Hawai`i State. Currently few 

`elepaio, but high potential for 

augmentation/ reintroduction. 

Fencing and eradication of 

ungulates and/or time/area 

closure to hunting may be needed 

in preparation for aerial broadcast 

of rodenticides. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-49 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs 

Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.101 K Halehaha, 

Halepā`ākai and 

Koai`e drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, Portions 

of 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Fencing of at 

least a 4 km square area in the 

Halepā`ākai and Koai`e Stream 

drainage and eradication of pigs 

is needed to protect key habitat. 

Fencing and ungulate control 

and/or time/area closure to 

hunting may be needed in 

preparation for aerial broadcast of 

rodenticides. 

1 

 2.2.102 K Upper Mōhihi and 

Waiakoali 

drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, Portions 

of 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Fencing as 

much of the core puaiohi 

population as possible. Fencing 

and ungulate control and/or 

time/area closure to hunting in 

preparation for aerial broadcast of 

rodenticide. 

2 

 2.2.103 K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve 

4414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Strategic 

fencing to exclude ungulates from 

as much of the preserve as 

practical. 

2 

 2.2.104 K Southern Alaka`i 

Plateau, Portions 

of 

417001001 

PUAI 

AKIK 

Gay and Robinson Partnership 

with DLNR/ DOFAW. Fencing 

and ungulate control may be 

needed in preparation for aerial 

broadcast of rodenticides. 

2 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-50 

2.3 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of alien plants 

within forest ecosystems, through mechanical, chemical, or 

biological means, as appropriate. (Priority 1-3) 

Habitat degradation resulting from the invasion of nonnative 

weeds is a long-term, pervasive threat in many recovery areas. 

Alien plants can drastically alter forest structure and function and 

impact forest birds by choking out native vegetation, altering food 

availability and phenology, and altering roost- and nest-site 

availability. Priority control efforts should be aimed at eradicating 

incipient populations of known forest invasives, and controlling 

established populations of species that highly impact forest 

structure or function. For species that have become established 

and are beyond the means of mechanical or chemical control, 

research into biological control agents is imperative. Table 10 lists 

species, genera, and families of plants that pose serious threats to 

habitat needed for forest bird recovery on all islands. 

Table 10. Alien plant taxa known or suspected to pose a significant threat to forest bird 

recovery areas on the main Hawaiian Islands. At the species level, 39 taxa of 

alien grasses, shrubs, vines, or trees pose a significant threat to forest bird 

recovery areas. At higher taxonomic levels, all known naturalized taxa from 

five genera and four families pose significant threats to forest bird recovery 

areas. Urgency of the need for management of each taxon is represented by a 

code: 1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low. 

Table 10. Threatening alien plant taxa. 

Scientific Name Common Name Hawai`i Maui Nui O`ahu Kaua`i 

Acacia mearnsii black wattle 3 1 3 

Acacia melanoxylon Australian blackwood 1 3 

Cinchona pubescens quinine 1 3 

Cinnamomum burmannii padang cassia 2 

Cinnamomum camphora camphor tree 1 

Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass 2 2 

Cortaderia selloana 2 2 

Delairea odorata German ivy 2 

Ehrharta stipoides meadow ricegrass 2 

Erigeron karvinskianus daisy fleabane 3 1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-51 

Table 10. Threatening alien plant taxa. 

Scientific Name Common Name Hawai`i Maui Nui O`ahu Kaua`i 

Heliocarpus 

popayanensis 

white moho 3 3 1 

Holcus lanatus velvetgrass, Yorkshire 

fog 

3 3 

Ilex aquifolium English or European 

holly 

1 2 

Juncus effuses Japanese mat rush 1 3 2 

Juncus planifolius rush 3 3 

Lantana camara lantana, lakana 3 3 1 

Leptospermum 

scoparium 

New Zealand tea tree 2 

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 3 3 2 

Melinis minutiflora molasses grass 3 3 3 

Myrica faya firetree 1 2 1 

Oplismenus hirtellus basketgrass, honohono 3 

Panicum maximum Guinea grass 3 2 

Paspalum conjugatum Hilo grass, mau`u-hilo 3 3 3 

Paspalum urvillei Vasey grass 3 3 2 

Pennisetum 

clandestinum 

kikuyu grass 1 

Pennisetum setaceum fountain grass 1 

Pyracantha angustifolia firethorn, pyracantha 3 3 3 

Rubus argutus blackberry 1 1 1 1 

Rubus discolor 3 2 

Rubus ellipticus var. 

obcordatus 

yellow Himalayan 

raspberry 

1 2 

Rubus niveus hill or mysore raspberry 3 2 

Rubus rosifolius thimbleberry 3 3 2 2 

Schinus terebinthifolius Christmas berry 2 2 1 

Schizachyrium 

condensatum 

beardgrass 3 3 2 

Setaria palmifolia palmgrass 2 2 2 

Sphaeropteris cooperi Australian tree fern 2 2 2 2 

Toona ciliata Australian red cedar 3 1 

Ulex europaeus gorse 2 2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-52 

Genera 

Eucalyptus spp. (90+ 

spp) 

gum trees 2 1 1 3 

Ficus (microcarpa, nota, 

platyphyllum, 

rubigenosa) 

figs 2 2 1 

Fraxinus (uhdei, 

griffithi) 

ashes 1 1 3 

Hedychium (coronarium, 

flavescens, 

gardnerianum) 

gingers 1 1 3 1 

Psidium (cattleianum, 

guajava) 

guavas 1 1 1 1 

Families 

Melastomataceae Melastome family 1 1 1 3 

Passifloraceae Passion fruit family 1 2 2 2 

Pinaceae Pine family 2 2 

Proteaceae Protea family 2 3 2 

2.4 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of alien 

mammalian predators (rats, mice, feral cats, mongooses) on 

forest birds. 

Hawaiian birds evolved in the absence of mammalian predators 

and are extremely vulnerable to the novel selection pressure 

exerted by these introduced species, particularly rats (Rattus spp.)

and feral cats (Felis catus). The black rat (R. rattus) is thought to 

have been a major cause of the declines in native bird populations 

in the early 1900s (Atkinson 1977), and it continues to limit 

recovery of listed forest birds through predation on eggs, nestlings, 

and adults (Amarasekare 1993, VanderWerf 2001, VanderWerf 

and Smith 2002). Feral cats have a widespread distribution 

throughout forest bird habitat on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, 

and have been described as “the most dangerous predator ever 

introduced by man” because of their devastating effect on island 

bird populations (Ebenhard 1988). The small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus) has had a major negative effect on the 

nēnē, seabirds, and waterbirds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1999, Hodges and Nagata 2001, Hu et al. 2001), but its limited 

climbing ability suggests it is a lesser threat to forest birds than rats 

and feral cats. Nonetheless, field observations and necropsies by 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-53 

National Park Service personnel indicate the impact of mongooses 

should not be underestimated (D. Reeser, National Park Service, 

pers. comm.). Recovery of most Hawaiian forest bird species will 

require active predator control efforts, as well as increased 

research into the development of effective means for controlling 

predators over large areas of forest. Attempts at reintroducing 

birds by translocation or captive releases to areas where they have 

been extirpated should be accompanied by predator control. 

2.4.1 Control alien mammalian predators in core forest bird 

habitat by trapping, poisoning, and other means (see 

Table 11). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-54 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed. Island codes: H = 

Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. Species 

Codes: AKEP = Hawai`i `ākepa; AKIP = `akiapōlā`au; AKOH = `ākohekohe; 

HCRE = Hawai`i creeper; KAAK = Kaua`i `akialoa; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; 

KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nukupu`u; MAPA = Maui parrotbill; 

OAEL = O`ahu `elepaio; OO = Kaua`i `ō`ō; OU = `ō`ū; PALI = palila; POOU 

= po`ouli; PUAI = puaiohi. Refer to the Implementation Schedule, Key to 

Acronyms (page 5-7) for landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.1 H Northeastern slopes of 

Mauna Kea, portions 

of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, State Land 

Division. 

2 

2.4.1.2 H Kanakaleonui 

Corridor, 

338001009 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DHHL. Predator control 

needed in conjunction with 

reforestation to allow range 

expansion by forest birds. 

2 

2.4.1.3 H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā

Sections, 

337001002 

333001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i, DOFAW. Currently 

managed for game hunting. 

2 

2.4.1.4 H Hakalau Forest NWR,

337001010 

333001007 

329005005 

329005003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

USFWS. Currently managed 

forest bird habitat. Predator 

control needed to protect core 

populations of three listed 

species. 

1 

2.4.1.5 H 326018002 AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL. Adjacent to 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

2 

2.4.1.6 H Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch, 

326018001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, State Land 

Division, Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch lease. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-55 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.7 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DHHL. 2 

2.4.1.8 H Ka`ohe, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DLNR, State Land 

Division. Suspend lease. 

2 

2.4.1.9 H Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve, 

344015001 

344016003 

338001004 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Palila critical 

habitat. Feral cats known to be 

predators in this area. 

1 

2.4.1.10 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Upper 

portion, 

 324008001 

AKIP 

AKEP 

HCRE 

Hawai`i, DOFAW. 2 

2.4.1.11 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, lower 

portion, 324008001 

OU Hawai`i, DOFAW. 2 

2.4.1.12 H `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, 

324008009 

399001007 

399001004 

324008025 

319001001 

319001007 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools, Keauhou 

Ranch. Kūlani Correctional 

Facility, Pu`u Maka`ala NAR, 

HVNP. 

1 

2.4.1.13 H Kapāpala Forest 

Reserve, 

Portions of 

398001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR, Land Division, 

Kapāpala Forest Reserve. Needs 

predator control. 

2 

2.4.1.14 H Ka`ū Forest Reserve, 

397001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Predator 

control needed to protect large 

populations of three listed 

species. 

1 

2.4.1.15 H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Samuel M. Damon Trust. 

Purchase by NPS. 

2 

2.4.1.16 H Manukā NAR, Upper 

portions of 391001002

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i, DOFAW. 2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-56 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.17 H TNCH, Honomalino, 

389001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

2 

2.4.1.18 H Yee Hop Ranch, 

392001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 2 

2.4.1.19 H Kona Forest NWR, 

386001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

USFWS. Predator control 

needed to protect last wild `alalā

and other listed species. 

1 

2.4.1.20 H McCandless Ranch 

and E. Stack et al., 

392001003 

386001001 

385001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Elizabeth Stack et al., 

McCandless Ranch. 

2 

2.4.1.21 H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. 

2 

2.4.1.22 H Hōnaunau Forest, 

384001001 

384001002 

383001001 

383001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. 2 

2.4.1.23 H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portion of 

378001003 

PALI Kamehameha Schools. 2 

2.4.1.24 H Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest 

Bird Sanctuary, 

371001001 

371001006 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 2 

2.4.1.25 MA Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

224016003 

224016004 

228008001 

228008007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Alexander and Baldwin, East 

Maui Irrigation. Portions 

providing habitat for endangered 

species; remaining portions are 

priority 2. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-57 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.26 MA Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

 211002002 

212004005 

229014001 

211001050 

211001044 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Portions 

providing habitat for endangered 

species; remaining portions are 

priority 2. 

1

2.4.1.27 MA Hanawī NAR and 

Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

212004007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Portions 

providing habitat for endangered 

species; remaining portions are 

priority 2. 

1

2.4.1.28 MA Hāna Forest Reserve, 

210001001 

214001001 

215001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Portions 

providing habitat for endangered 

species; remaining portions are 

priority 2. 

1 

2.4.1.29 MA Haleakalā National 

Park, 

213001003 

216001002 

216001001 

216001003 

217004016 

216010001 

218001007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

National Park Service. Portions 

providing habitat for endangered 

species; remaining portions are 

priority 2. 

1

2.4.1.30 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Adjacent to 

known populations of AKOH 

and MAPA. Potential for range 

expansion. 

2

2.4.1.31 MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Potential longterm site for reintroduction. 2 

2.4.1.32 MA Kahikinui Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

219001011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Potential 

long-term site for reintroduction. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-58 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.33 MA Kula Forest Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Potential longterm site for reintroduction. 3

2.4.1.34 MA Haleakalā Ranch 

(Pūlehu Nui/ 

Kalialinui), 

223005003 

AKOH, 

MAPA, 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co. Adjacent 

to current populations. Likely 

site of near-term range expansion 

for AKOH and MAPA. 

3

2.4.1.35 MA Waikamoi Preserve, 

223005004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Haleakalā Ranch Co., The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

Portions providing habitat for 

endangered species, priority #1; 

remaining portions, priority #2. 

1

2.4.1.36 MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve, 

224016001 

224016002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Likely site of 

near-term range expansion for 

AKOH and MAPA. 

2

2.4.1.37 MA West Maui NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

231006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Primary site for 

reintroduction. 

2

2.4.1.38 MA West Maui NAR, 

Līhau, 

 248001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Potential longterm site for reintroduction. 3

2.4.1.39 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Pana`ewa, 

246025002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Potential longterm site for reintroduction. 3

2.4.1.40 MA Kapunakea Preserve 

Amfac/JMB, TNCH, 

244007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., TNCH. Primary 

site for reintroduction. 

2

2.4.1.41 MA West Maui NAR, 

Honokōwai, 

244007004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Primary site for 

reintroduction. 

2

2.4.1.42 MA Pu`u Kukui Watershed 

Management Area, 

242001001 

241001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Land and Pineapple. 

Primary site for reintroduction. 

2

2.4.1.43 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Pu`u Ali`i 

NAR and Waikolu, 

261001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Primary site for 

reintroduction. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-59 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.44 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve and Oloku`i 

NAR, Wailau Valley, 

259006002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Primary site for 

reintroduction. 

2

2.4.1.45 MO Kamakou Preserve, 

Kawela, 2540003026 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd., The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

Primary site for reintroduction. 

2 

2.4.1.46 O Honouliuli Preserve, 

92005013 

OAEL James Campbell Est. The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i has 

controlled rodents since 2000 

with snap traps and bait stations. 

Control should be continued and 

expanded, using aerial broadcast 

if possible. 

1 

2.4.1.47 O Lualualei Naval 

Magazine, 88001001 

OAEL U.S. Navy. Rodent control 

initiated in 2002 using 

diphacinone bait stations and 

snap traps, should be continued 

and expanded, using aerial 

broadcast if possible. 

2 

2.4.1.48 O Schofield Barracks 

West Range, 

77001001 

OAEL U.S. Army. Environmental 

Division has controlled rodents 

on a small-scale using snap traps 

and bait stations, but insufficient 

access to be effective. Aerial 

broadcast of rodenticide would 

increase scale, less access 

needed. 

1 

2.4.1.49 O Honolulu Watershed 

Forest Reserve 

(Wailupe), 36004004 

OAEL Hawai`i DOFAW. Rodent 

control begun in 1997 using snap 

traps and bait stations, should be 

continued and expanded, using 

aerial broadcast if possible. 

1 

2.4.1.50 O North Hālawa Valley, 

99011002 

OAEL Kamehameha Schools. Rodent 

control needed to protect core 

`elepaio population. 

1 

2.4.1.51 O Moanalua Valley, 

11013001 

11013002 

OAEL Damon Estate. Rodent control 

needed to protect core `elepaio 

population. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-60 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.52 O Waikāne Valley, 

48014005 

OAEL SMF Enterprises. Rodent control 

needed to protect core `elepaio 

population. 

1 

2.4.1.53 O Kahana Valley State 

Park, 

52001001 

52002001 

OAEL Hawai`i DLNR, State Parks. 

Rodent control needed to protect 

core `elepaio population. 

1 

2.4.1.54 O Mākaha Valley, 

84002014 

84002001 

OAEL City and County of Honolulu. 

Rodent control needed to protect 

core `elepaio population. 

1 

2.4.1.55 O Pahole NAR, 

68001002 

OAEL Hawai`i DLNR, NARS. Rodent 

control conducted in 1999 using 

bait stations. Currently few 

`elepaio, but aerial broadcast 

would help prepare site for 

reintroduction. 

2 

2.4.1.56 O Kahanahāiki Valley, 

81001012 

OAEL U.S. Army. Rodent and 

mongoose control begun in 1998 

using snap traps, bait stations, 

and live traps. Currently few 

`elepaio, aerial broadcast would 

help prepare site for 

reintroduction. 

2 

2.4.1.57 O O`ahu Forest NWR, 

95004001 

76001001 

OAEL USFWS. Currently no `elepaio, 

rodent control would help 

prepare site for reintroduction. 

2 

2.4.1.58 O Lower Ka`ala NAR, 

67003025 

OAEL Hawai`i DLNR, NARS. 

Currently few `elepaio, predator 

control would help prepare site 

for reintroduction. 

3 

2.4.1.59 K Halehaha, 

Halepā`ākai, and 

Koai`e drainages, 

Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Recommend 

aerial broadcast of rodenticide in 

Halehaha and Halepā`ākai 

drainages, and a tributary of 

Koai`e Stream. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-61 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Species 

Targeted 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.4.1.60 K Upper Mōhihi and 

upper Waiakoali 

drainages, 

Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Pending 

study of threat posed by rats to 

core puaiohi population, aerial 

broadcast of rodenticides in 

upper Mōhihi and Waiakoali 

drainages. Ground-based 

protection of active nests. 

2 

2.4.1.61 K Upper Kawaikōī, 

Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve, 

459001001 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i DOFAW. Groundbased bait station rodent control 

in association with puaiohi 

release, and ground-based feral 

cat control. 

2 

2.4.1.62 K Southern Alaka`i 

Plateau, 

417001001 

(in part) 

PUAI 

AKIK 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

NUKU 

Robinson Family Partners, aerial 

broadcast of rodenticide in 

conjunction with release program 

for puaiohi. 

2
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-62 

2.4.2 Continue the public information campaign explaining 

the need and low relative risks of using aerial broadcast 

of diphacinone for conservation purposes. (Priority 1) 

2.4.3 Examine feasibility/appropriateness of time/area 

closure of public use areas when using broadcast 

application of diphacinone. (Priority 1) 

2.5 Decrease the threat of avian disease. 

Introduced avian disease and disease vectors have had a 

devastating effect on Hawai`i’s endemic forest birds. The 

introduction of the southern house mosquito (Culex 

quinquefasciatus) to the islands in 1826, introduction of avian pox 

virus (Poxvirus avium) in the 1800s, and the introduction of avian 

malaria (Plasmodium relictum) in the early 1900s each played 

significant roles in the wave of extinctions of lowland native birds 

that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Warner 

1968, van Riper et al. 1986). Both diseases continue to limit the 

geographic range, recruitment, and survivorship of native forest 

bird populations, with the most significant impacts on Hawaiian 

honeycreepers (subfamily Drepanidinae) at elevations below 1,200 

meters (4,000 feet) (Atkinson et al. 1995, 2000; VanderWerf 

2001). Differences between the current and historical ranges of 

most species can, in large part, be explained by high susceptibility 

to introduced diseases. With the exception of the O`ahu `elepaio, 

all populations of endangered Hawaiian forest birds occur at 

elevations higher than 1,200 meters (4,000 feet), where thermal 

constraints limit development of the malarial parasite in the 

mosquito vector (LaPointe 2000) and where abundance of 

mosquito vectors is low (van Riper et al. 1986, LaPointe 2000). 

Given the high susceptibility of isolated island populations to 

disease introductions and the significant impacts of established 

diseases, high priority should be given to efforts to prevent 

introductions of new vectors and pathogens and efforts to control 

or mitigate the effects of those that are already established in the 

Hawaiian Islands. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-63 

2.5.1 Prevent introduction of new diseases and disease 

vectors into Hawai`i. 

Hawai`i has become a textbook example of what can 

happen to a highly susceptible wildlife population after 

introduction of a novel pathogen. Preventing the 

introduction of new diseases and disease vectors to Hawai`i 

must receive high priority because of potential impacts on 

wildlife populations, domestic animals, and human health. 

An Avian Disease Working Group involving 

representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, Department of Defense, U.S. 

Geological Survey, State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, 

State Department of Agriculture, State Department of 

Health, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the 

U.S. Postal Service, and key private landowners should be 

convened to identify loopholes and propose legislation for 

regulating movement of live animals and potentially 

infectious biological material both into the State and 

between islands. 

2.5.1.1 Enforce existing quarantine laws for 

importation of pet birds. (Priority 1) 

 The pet bird trade rather than domestic poultry or 

the poultry industry poses the greatest threat to 

endemic forest birds because of the large number 

of species involved, their ability to establish 

breeding populations in remote native forest 

habitats, and lack of regulation and enforcement. 

Efforts should be made to encourage local 

production of pet birds in disease-free facilities to 

minimize numbers of new hosts entering the 

State. A public outreach program is needed to 

educate pet bird owners about the threats pet birds 

pose to the endemic avifauna. Existing quarantine 

and importation laws should be enforced and 

made more restrictive. The Avian Disease 

Working Group should meet to determine whether 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-64 

a centralized quarantine facility similar to the 

facility for rabies quarantine for dogs and cats 

should be established for imported birds. 

2.5.1.2 Work with the Postal Service and the State 

Department of Agriculture to ban shipments of 

poultry and game birds to Hawai`i via first 

class mail. (Priority 1) 

 Importation of day-old poultry and game birds 

from flocks that are not tested or certified to be 

free of avian pathogens can be an important 

unregulated route for entry of new pathogens into 

the State. The Avian Disease Working Group 

should meet to propose legislation that will close 

loopholes in laws regulating movement of 

domestic and wild birds to Hawai`i. An outreach 

program is needed to educate the public about the 

potential dangers of unregulated shipments of live 

birds to public health, domestic poultry, pet birds, 

and wildlife. 

2.5.1.3 Establish a monitoring program for new 

diseases and diagnose causes of avian disease 

outbreaks. Rapid response to new introductions 

of both diseases and disease vectors is essential 

for containing their spread. The Avian Disease 

Working Group should meet to discuss strategies 

for monitoring for disease outbreaks and to 

discuss creation of a rapid response plan for 

containing and eradicating new outbreaks that 

threaten endemic wildlife. This plan should 

identify responsible parties, lines of authority, and 

funding sources for actual control operations. 

2.5.1.3.1 Develop a list of priority diseases to 

be screened in all imported cage 

birds and poultry. (Priority 1) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-65 

 Some pathogens, such as West Nile 

virus (Bernard et al. 2000), pose an 

inherently greater risk to wildlife than 

others, particularly those with a broad 

host range and those that affect species 

with close phylogenetic relationships 

to Hawaiian avifauna. The Avian 

Disease Working Group should 

identify a list of “hot” pathogens that 

may pose a high risk for the endemic 

avifauna. Mandatory testing for these 

pathogens should be required for 

imported birds that may serve as 

potential carriers. 

2.5.1.3.2 Respond to and determine causes of 

avian disease outbreaks in forest 

bird recovery areas and in other 

areas. (Priority 1) 

 Because of their close proximity to 

human habitation, areas outside forest 

bird recovery areas may be where a 

new pathogen or vector is detected. 

Long-term funding and expansion of 

diagnostic and research capabilities at 

the Honolulu Field Station of the U.S. 

Geological Survey - National Wildlife 

Health Center and veterinary expertise 

at the Hawai`i Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife should be supported. All 

State and Federal wildlife biologists 

and technical support personnel should 

receive training in how to collect 

wildlife carcasses and recognize 

potential wildlife disease outbreaks so 

that Federal and State wildlife disease 

experts can be notified immediately 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-66 

about potential outbreaks. Agencies 

responsible for this training should be 

identified by the Avian Disease 

Working Group. The Avian Disease 

Working Group should prepare 

detailed protocols, lines of 

responsibility and designate funding 

sources to eradicate new disease 

introductions into the state and to 

control the spread of existing 

pathogens into new areas. 

2.5.1.4 Work to stop global climate change. (Priority 1) 

Global warming and local climate change are a 

serious threat to listed species in Hawai`i 

primarily because of the potential for movement 

of disease carrying mosquitoes into higher 

elevation avian refugia currently free of mosquito 

breeding sites. This work will require 

cooperation by appropriate agencies and entities 

to develop agreements and technologies needed to 

slow greenhouse gas emissions, a significant 

factor contributing to global climate change. 

2.5.2 Prevent movement of diseases and disease vectors 

between islands. 

Detailed knowledge about potential routes of introduction 

and spread of diseases and disease vectors between islands 

is essential for preventing spread of introduced pathogens 

and vectors. Research that identifies these routes and 

assesses their relative importance should be supported. 

Once obtained, this information should be used to assess 

the magnitude of the problem, institute new procedures for 

preventing transport of vectors on vessels and aircraft, and 

introduce new legislation to make inter-island movement of 

live birds subject to stricter regulation and enforcement. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-67 

2.5.2.1 Initiate inspection programs for all inter-island 

vessels, including ships, airplanes, and barges 

and their cargos to intercept and kill mosquito 

larvae and adults. (Priority 1) 

 Commercial shipping is the most likely route by 

which mosquitoes first reached the Hawaiian 

Islands. It is not known whether ocean traffic still 

plays a role in the spread of mosquitoes from 

island to island or whether aircraft are now the 

primary vehicles. Research should assess these 

risks, attempt to measure the magnitude of the 

problem, and identify measures that can be taken 

to decontaminate these vessels. High risk cargos, 

e.g., bromeliads for the commercial nursery 

industry, old tires, and containers that may hold 

water, should be targeted for inspection to insure 

that mosquito larvae are not transported between 

islands. 

2.5.2.2 Enforce and toughen existing laws that require 

health certificates for inter-island movement of 

pet birds and poultry. (Priority 1) 

 Existing regulations require a health certificate for 

inter-island movement of domestic poultry and 

pet birds, but this does not require that birds 

undergo quarantine or be tested for specific 

pathogens. Research that assesses the magnitude 

of inter-island movement of live birds and the 

effectiveness of existing regulations in preventing 

spread of pathogens should be conducted in order 

to justify legislation that will toughen existing 

laws. 

2.5.2.3 Establish disease monitoring protocols for 

captive native birds to assess presence of avian 

disease in captive held populations and risk of 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-68 

transfer of disease strains between avian 

captive holding facilities. (Priority 2) 

 The inter-island transport and release of birds that 

are reared in captive propagation facilities can be 

a route for movement of disease organisms 

between isolated populations and facilities if these 

birds are not reared under mosquito netting or in 

isolation from wild and domestic birds. Adequate 

quarantine and isolation protocols must be 

maintained at all times and periodic disease 

screening should be conducted to assess efficacy 

of those protocols. 

 

2.5.2.3.1 Develop a list of diseases of concern 

for which captive birds should be 

routinely tested before they can be 

transferred between avian captive 

holding facilities. (Priority 2) 

2.5.3 Control the mosquito vector (Culex quinquefasciatus) 

of avian pox and malaria. 

Source reduction by eliminating larval habitats for 

mosquito vectors is still the most effective way to 

manage mosquito populations, although emerging 

technologies that use cytoplasmic incompatibility to 

control adult populations or genetic manipulation of 

vectors to reduce their capacity to transmit infections 

may be feasible in the future. 

2.5.3.1 Determine primary source areas of mosquitoes 

through surveys of potential larval habitats. 

 Culex quinquefasciatus is a mosquito that has 

become established in native and nonnative 

habitats in the Hawaiian Islands at elevations 

below 1,800 meters (5,900 feet), although a few 

records exist from sites as high as 2,100 meters 

(6,900 feet) (Goff and van Riper 1980). The 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-69 

preferred larval habitat is standing water with a 

high organic content, although larvae of this 

mosquito can develop in clear, clean aquatic 

habitats if other sites are not available. Primary 

sources for Culex mosquitoes in Hawai`i are manmade bodies of water (cattle troughs, buckets, 

cans, and small ponds) in residential and 

agricultural areas that are contaminated with 

animal or human waste and feral animal-damaged 

tree ferns that catch and hold rain water in forest 

habitats. Other sites that contribute to mosquito 

productivity are temporary ground pools, pig 

wallows, tree holes, and stream margins, but their 

relative role in contributing to epidemic outbreaks 

or pox and malaria are not known (D. LaPointe 

and C. Atkinson, U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. 

data). Effective control depends on identifying 

and either eliminating or treating these sites over 

areas large enough to exceed the flight range of 

adult mosquitoes. The ability of adult Culex to 

travel up to 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) through 

closed-canopy forest (D. LaPointe, U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data) and potentially 

much farther along natural and man-made 

corridors such as fence lines, roads, and lava 

flows makes it important to create a suitable 

buffer around recovery areas where management 

actions can be taken to reduce numbers of 

mosquitoes. 

2.5.3.1.1 Survey recovery areas for mosquito 

breeding sites and adjacent lands for 

mosquito breeding sites that may serve 

as sources of wind-dispersed adult 

mosquitoes (see Table 12). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-70 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed. Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = 

Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. For key to landowner and 

partnership acronyms, refer to the Implementation Schedule (page 5-7). 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.1 H Portions of parcels 

between the 2,000 and 

5,000 foot contour lines 

on Mauna Loa and 

Kīlauea Volcanoes that 

include recovery area 

Results of surveys for larval 

mosquitoes conducted by U.S. 

Geological Survey-BRD in the Upper 

Waiākea Forest Reserve, Hawai`i 

Volcanoes National Park, and Kona 

Unit of Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge indicate that primary 

larval habitats are feral pig damaged 

tree ferns, cattle troughs and stock 

ponds, and infrastructure associated 

with human dwellings. Extensive 

work already conducted in these areas 

lowers priority ranking. 

3 

2.5.3.1.1.2 H Portions of parcels 

between the 3,400 and 

5,000 foot contour lines 

on Mauna Kea Volcano 

that include recovery 

area 

Preliminary surveys by U.S. 

Geological Survey-BRD conducted at 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge found abundant larval habitat 

in feral pig damaged tree ferns, but 

few mosquitoes. Larvae were rarely 

found in stagnant pools along stream 

margins. Additional work is needed 

in these areas to document seasonal 

trends and distribution of mosquito 

vectors. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.3 H Portions of parcels 

371001001,372002001, 

374002008,374001003, 

374002007, 374001002 

between the 3,400 and 

5,000 foot contour lines 

on Hualālai Volcano 

that include recovery 

area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas and have high priority. 

Preliminary disease surveys by State 

of Hawai`i, Hawai`i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources have 

shown that pox and malaria are 

present, but nothing is known about 

the dynamics of their transmission. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-71 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.4 H Portions of windward 

Hāmākua parcels 

between the 3,400 and 

2,000 foot contour lines 

on Mauna Kea Volcano 

that are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers (1.9 

miles) of recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas. Their windward 

location makes them possible sources 

for wind-dispersed mosquitoes that 

could threaten higher elevation 

habitats, but their distance from 

recovery area makes them lower 

priority. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.5 H Portions of parcels on 

Kīlauea Volcano that 

are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers (1.9 

miles) of recovery area 

Results of surveys for larval 

mosquitoes conducted by U.S. 

Geological Survey-BRD in Hawai`i 

Volcanoes National Park and 

Keauhou Ranch indicate that primary 

larval habitats are feral pig damaged 

tree ferns, cattle troughs and stock 

ponds, and infrastructure associated 

with human dwellings. Mosquito 

survey work on parcels on Kīlauea 

Volcano near recovery area should 

determine relative contributions of 

human-associated dwellings and 

infrastructure and forest habitat to 

mosquito populations. High priority 

areas include Volcano Village and 

surrounding subdivisions and 

agricultural lands. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.6 H Portions of parcels on 

Hualālai Volcano that 

are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers (1.9 

miles) of recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas. Their close proximity 

to recovery area on Hualālai and role 

as potential sources of dispersing 

adult mosquitoes give them high 

priority for surveys. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-72 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.7 M Multiple land parcels in 

recovery area between 

2,500 and 5,000 foot 

contour lines 

Limited surveys by U.S. Geological 

Survey-BRD from 4,000-6,000 feet on 

parcels 224016002 and 223005004 

suggest that tree ferns damaged by 

feral pigs may be a primary larval 

habitat for mosquitoes and a major 

contribution to mosquito populations. 

The importance of temporary and 

permanent pools in stream drainages 

is less clear. Additional surveys 

throughout recovery area in this 

elevation zone are needed to prioritize 

mosquito control efforts. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.8 M Multiple land parcels 

on the northern slope of 

Haleakalā between the 

2,500 foot contour line 

and Hāna Highway 

Mosquito surveys in these parcels 

have not been conducted and their 

relative contribution to mosquito 

populations on East Maui is not 

known. These parcels could be a 

significant source of wind-dispersed 

mosquitoes that could threaten higher 

elevation habitats, but are classified as 

lower priority because of their 

distance from recovery area. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.9 M 217004006 Manawainui Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 1,600 

feet. Deep valleys may serve as 

natural corridors for dispersal of 

wind-blown mosquitoes. Because of 

their potential role as natural funnels, 

priority ranking for mosquito surveys 

is higher. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.10 M 215001001 Waiho`i Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 2,000 

feet. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.11 M 216001002 Kīpahulu Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 1,600 

feet. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.12 M 211002002 Ke`anae Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 1,800 to 2,500 

feet. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-73 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.13 M Multiple parcels below 

and within 3 kilometers 

(1.9 miles) of the 4,000 

foot contour line on the 

southern and western 

slopes of Haleakalā 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas, but high density of 

rural development, particularly on the 

western slopes of Haleakalā, could be 

a significant source of mosquitoes. 

Priority for this area is low until 

suitable recovery area has been 

restored. 

3 

2.5.3.1.1.14 M Multiple land parcels in 

recovery area between 

2,500 and 5,000 foot 

contour lines 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas. Detailed knowledge 

about the dynamics of disease 

transmission in the West Maui 

mountains is needed. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.15 M 233003003, 

235003001, 

233003004, and 

multiple smaller parcels 

within `Īao Valley 

`Īao Valley incursion into recovery 

area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. Low 

elevation parcels located in deep 

valleys in the West Maui mountains 

could be a significant source of winddispersed mosquitoes that could 

threaten higher elevation habitats. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.16 M 232014001, 233003003 Waiehu Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.17 M 232014001 Waihe`e Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.18 M 231006001 Kahahuloa Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.19 M 241001017 Honokōhau Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.20 M 236003001, 235003001 Waikapū Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.21 M 241001017 Honolua Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.22 M 242001001 Honokahua Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.23 M 242001001 Kahana Valley incursion into recovery 

area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-74 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.24 M 244007004, 

244007011, 

244007001, 244007005 

Honokōwai Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.25 M 245022001 Kahoma Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.26 M 246025002 Kanahā Valley incursion into recovery 

area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.27 M 246025001, 247001002 Mākila Valley incursion into recovery 

area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.28 M 248001002 Olowalu Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.29 M 248001002 Ukumehame Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.30 M 236003001 Pōhākea Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.31 M 245022003 Waihikuli Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.32 M 245022004 Hanakea Valley incursion into 

recovery area, from 2,500 to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.33 M Multiple parcels below 

and up to 3 kilometers 

(1.9 miles) from the 

2,500 contour line 

around the West Maui 

mountains 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas, but they could be 

important sources for wind-dispersed 

mosquitoes, particularly rural and 

urban areas in and near Kahului and 

Lahaina. Priority for surveying these 

areas is lower because of their 

distance from recovery area. 

3 

2.5.3.1.1.34 MO Multiple land parcels in 

recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas and virtually nothing is 

known about disease threats to forest 

birds. Vector surveys and disease 

studies should be done prior to 

attempts to reintroduce endangered 

birds. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-75 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.35 MO 261001002, 

259006011, 259006002 

and smaller windward 

parcels in Waihānau, 

Wai`ale`ia, Waikolu, 

Pelekunu, and Wailau 

Valleys that are 

adjacent to or within 3 

kilometers (1.9 miles) 

of recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas. Their windward 

location increases the possibility they 

funnel mosquitoes into higher 

elevation habitats. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.36 MO Parcels in Kaunakakai 

Gulch 

Kaunakakai Gulch may act as a 

natural corridor for dispersal of 

mosquitoes from urban/suburban 

Moloka`i directly into recovery area. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.37 MO Portions of parcels 

252014003, 

253003005, 

254003025, 

254003001, 255001006 

and others that are 

adjacent to or within 3 

kilometers (1.9 miles) 

of the southern and 

eastern boundaries of 

recovery area on 

leeward Moloka`i 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in these areas. Since the region is 

deeply dissected by numerous stream 

valleys that could funnel mosquitoes 

into recovery area, vector surveys 

should ideally extend from the lower 

boundary of recovery area to the 

coastline, particularly in locations 

with rural agricultural development. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.38 O Portions of parcels that 

include recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been done and 

nothing is known about the dynamics 

of disease transmission in these areas. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.39 O Portions of parcels that 

are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers (1.9 

miles) of recovery area 

Detailed surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been done in 

these areas. It is likely that urban and 

suburban development and agriculture 

are primary contributors to mosquito 

populations that may disperse into 

recovery area, but this needs to be 

documented. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-76 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Land Parcel, 

Tax Map Keys 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.40 K Portions of parcels 

414001020, 

414001014, 

414001013, 

459001016, 

459001001, 

414001003, 

417001001, 458001001 

and others that include 

recovery area 

Preliminary surveys of parcels 

414001013 and 414001003 by U.S. 

Geological Survey-BRD have failed 

to find larval mosquitoes in extensive 

bogs on the lower Alaka`i Plateau. 

Mosquito larvae were rarely found in 

stagnant areas of stream margins. 

Additional detailed surveys needed to 

determine whether stream margins are 

the primary sources for adult 

mosquitoes in remote areas of the 

plateau. Detailed vector surveys are 

needed in developed areas of Kōke`e 

to determine relative role that human 

housing and infrastructure plays on 

generation of mosquitoes. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.41 K Portions of parcels 

459001001, 

458001001, 

458002002, 

459001003, 459001002 

that are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers (1.9 

miles) of recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in windward valleys of the Alaka`i 

Plateau and it is not clear whether 

wind dispersal through these natural 

corridors could be a source of 

mosquito vectors at higher elevations. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.42 K Portions of parcels 

414001014, 

414001020, 

414002040, 

414001003, 417001001 

that are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers (1.9 

miles) of recovery area 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been conducted 

in leeward valleys and slopes of the 

Alaka`i Plateau; it is not clear whether 

wind dispersal up steep canyons that 

abut the southern plateau rim could be 

a source of mosquito vectors at higher 

elevations. Surveys should extend 

into stream drainages in Waimea 

Canyon to determine extent of 

mosquito habitat at lower elevations 

and its potential threat to higher 

elevation forests. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-77 

2.5.3.1.2 Eliminate or treat larval habitats in 

recovery areas and adjacent areas 

with BTI (Bacillus thuringensis 

israeliensis toxin), Dunk®, or other 

environmentally compatible 

pesticides that are safe for nontarget organisms. (Priority 1) 

Known mosquito sources within 

recovery areas or within 3 kilometers 

(1.9 miles) of the lower, windward 

boundaries of recovery areas have the 

highest priority for control. Adjacent 

leeward parcels and stream valleys are 

lower in priority because of lower 

rainfall and location in the wind 

shadow of major topographic features. 

Windward areas more than 3 

kilometers (1.9 miles) from the lower 

boundaries of recovery areas have the 

lowest priority. BTI currently is the 

most specific, environmentally 

compatible pesticide available for use 

against Culex mosquitoes. It has not 

been evaluated on all related 

Nematoceran diptera (other members 

of the order Diptera, suborder 

Nematocera, to which mosquitoes 

belong) and the potential non-target 

effects of this pesticide should be 

evaluated against endemic diptera 

prior to broad scale use over large 

areas. Use is recommended in 

situations where application is limited 

to stock ponds and other man-made 

bodies of water where non-target 

effects are not at issue. In remote 

areas where primary larval habitats are 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-78 

associated with feral pig damaged tree 

ferns, fencing and elimination of feral 

ungulates, coupled with manual 

drainage of all damaged ferns, can 

eliminate larval habitats and reduce 

mosquito populations if coverage is 

adequate and treatment areas are large 

enough to buffer emigration of adult 

mosquitoes from adjacent nonrecovery area. 

2.5.3.1.3 Eliminate or treat larval habitats 

associated with human development 

(e.g., residential areas, agricultural 

sites, game bird waterers) that are 

located within or adjacent to 

recovery areas; coordinate efforts 

with the State Department of 

Health. (Priority 1) 

 In locations where human 

development is close to recovery area 

(e.g., subdivisions and ranches 

adjacent to Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park, Kōke`e State Park, and 

the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve), 

larval habitats associated with 

residential and agricultural 

development may be primary sources 

for mosquitoes responsible for 

seasonal epizootics of pox and 

malaria. Outreach efforts should be 

made to inform the public about 

eliminating refuse, cleaning gutters, 

covering catchment tanks, and treating 

stock ponds and cattle troughs and 

increasing public awareness about 

threats to human (e.g., Japanese B 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-79 

encephalitis, West Nile Fever), animal 

(dog heartworm), and wildlife (avian 

malaria and pox) health from 

mosquitoes. These efforts should be 

coordinated with the State Department 

of Health. 

2.5.3.1.3.1 Eliminate or treat cattle 

troughs and stock 

ponds. (Priority 1) 

2.5.3.1.3.2 Eliminate or treat game 

bird waterers in areas 

where they might 

impact native forest 

birds. (Priority 1) 

2.5.3.1.3.3 Repair rain gutters, 

cover catchment tanks, 

and eliminate 

containers that catch 

and hold rainwater in 

agricultural and 

residential locations 

near recovery areas. 

(Priority 1) 

2.5.3.1.3.4 Initiate public outreach 

efforts to inform the 

public about potential 

human and animal 

diseases transmitted by 

mosquitoes and how 

source reduction can 

reduce those threats. 

(Priority 1) 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-80 

2.5.3.1.4 Eliminate larval habitats associated 

with feral animals in recovery area 

and adjacent lands. (Priority 1) 

 Primary sources of mosquitoes in these 

areas are fallen tree ferns (Cibotium

spp.) that have been hollowed enough 

by feral pigs and rodents to catch and 

hold rain water. Reduction of numbers 

of feral pigs through fencing and 

hunting followed by manual drainage 

of these bodies of water can 

significantly reduce available larval 

habitat, but more than 75 percent of 

these tree ferns must be eliminated and 

the treatment area must exceed the 

minimal dispersal range of adult Culex 

mosquitoes to be effective (C. 

Atkinson and D. LaPointe, U.S. 

Geological Survey, unpubl. data). 

Rodents may contribute to less than 10 

percent of these sites (D. LaPointe, 

U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data), 

but additional research is needed. 

2.5.3.1.4.1 Identify and fence 

priority recovery areas 

below 1,520 meters 

(5,000 feet) and control 

feral ungulates to 

prevent creation of new 

larval habitats. (Priority 

1) 

2.5.3.1.4.2 Manually drain feral 

pig-damaged tree ferns 

that hold water and fill 

or drain pig wallows in 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-81 

appropriate areas to 

reduce mosquito 

breeding sites. (Priority 

2) 

 

2.5.3.1.5 Identify natural sites (e.g., stream 

margins, tree holes) that serve as 

larval habitat and determine 

feasibility of treatment or 

elimination. (Priority 2)

Streams, stream margins, tree holes, 

bogs, and natural ponds are potential 

larval habitat for Culex mosquitoes. 

The importance of these larval habitats 

should be documented through 

additional research. 

2.5.4 Foster ability of native birds to tolerate or develop 

resistance to avian pox and malaria. In the absence of 

continual introductions of new strains or genetic variants of 

avian pox and malaria to Hawai`i, the disease system 

(vector, parasite, and avian hosts) will begin to evolve new 

relationships through processes of natural selection. 

Current evolutionary theory predicts that the virulence of 

the disease agents will decrease and the resistance of highly 

susceptible forest birds to these introduced diseases will 

increase (van Riper et al. 1986, Atkinson et al. 1995, Cann 

and Douglas 1999, Jarvi et al. 2001, Shehata et al. 2001). 

Direct evidence for this process is still limited and based 

primarily on observations of breeding populations of more 

common native species (e.g., O`ahu `amakihi, O`ahu 

`elepaio, `apapane) at elevations where transmission of pox 

and malaria is believed to be stable and endemic. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-82 

2.5.4.1 Ensure that existing low elevation native bird 

populations and habitats within current zones 

of disease transmission are protected to 

preserve disease tolerant genotypes. (Priority 

1) 

2.5.4.2 Use birds that occur in areas with disease 

transmission as founders for translocations to 

establish new populations. (Priority 2) 

2.5.5 Monitor long-term changes in the prevalence and 

transmission of avian diseases in forest bird recovery 

areas. (Priority 2) 

Monitoring that documents the long-term patterns of 

change in the epidemiology and pathogenicity of 

introduced avian diseases will be important for measuring 

the effectiveness of management actions and for 

determining how complex interactions between abiotic and 

biotic environmental factors, anthropogenic factors, native 

and nonnative hosts, vectors and diseases are evolving. 

2.6 Reduce or eliminate effects of alien species. 

Introductions of nonnative species to the Hawaiian Islands have 

caused changes to native ecosystems and harm to native forest 

birds through habitat modification, disease, and competition. 

Efforts to reduce the numbers of new introductions of detrimental 

species and to control nonnative species that are already 

introduced are necessary to conserve and recover Hawaiian forest 

birds. 

2.6.1 Prevent introductions of new detrimental species. 

Prevention of the introduction of new detrimental species 

to the Hawaiian Islands is the most efficient way to protect 

native ecosystems. Once an invasive species has become 

established, technologies may not exist for its removal or 

control, and control programs can be very expensive. The 

most efficient way to prevent further damage to native 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-83 

ecosystems due to effects of new detrimental species is to 

prevent their introduction. 

2.6.1.1 Encourage Hawai`i Department of Agriculture 

to modify import lists to exclude reptiles and 

amphibians from commercial sale. (Priority 2) 

 Reptiles and amphibians that escape into the wild 

may impact listed forest birds by preying on 

insects or other foods upon which these species 

feed, predating eggs, nestlings and adults, and as 

food for forest bird predators, increasing predator 

populations. 

2.6.1.2 Encourage the Hawai`i Department of 

Agriculture to modify import lists to decrease 

the numbers of vertebrate species allowed into the 

State. (Priority 2) 

2.6.1.3 Assist the Hawai`i Department of Agriculture 

with obtaining an enforcement branch to 

pursue smuggling and release violations. (Priority 

2) 

2.6.1.4 Encourage the adoption of State injurious 

species lists as part of Federal injurious wildlife 

listed under the Lacey Act. (Priority 2) 

2.6.1.5 Encourage the Hawai`i Department of 

Agriculture, Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and County police departments to 

develop a task force to pursue smuggling and 

release violations. 

 (Priority 2) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-84 

2.6.1.6 Provide single point-of-exit at airports to help 

facilitate inspection of cargo and interdiction of 

alien species. (Priority 2) 

2.6.1.7 Increase the numbers of Hawai`i Department 

of Agriculture and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture inspectors to better cover nursery 

cargo and passenger baggage/hand-carry. 

(Priority 2) 

2.6.1.8 Secure Congressional approval of U.S. 

Department of Agriculture quarantine of 

goods imported from the U.S. mainland. 

(Priority 2) 

2.6.1.9 Prevent inter-island expansion of established 

vertebrates with currently restricted ranges. 

(Priority 1) 

2.6.2 Eradicate all incipient populations of new nonnative 

vertebrate species. (Priority 1) 

2.6.2.1 Prevent spread of Eleutherodactylus frogs to 

new areas. (Priority 1) The coqui frog, 

Eleutherodactylus coqui, was accidentally 

introduced into Hawai`i from Puerto Rico in 

about 1988. It is established on Hawai`i and 

Maui, and there are incipient populations in other 

areas. Coqui frogs can reach extremely high 

densities, up to 10,000 animals per hectare, and 

are known to consume large numbers of insects. 

Insectivorous birds in particular may be 

threatened by competition for food with the coqui, 

and all forest birds, regardless of their usual diet, 

may be affected during the breeding season when 

they rely on insects to feed their young. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-85 

2.6.2.2 Eradicate/control populations of 

Eleutherodactylus where possible. (Priority 1) 

2.6.3 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of vespulid

wasps (yellow jackets) on forest birds within forest 

ecosystems. (Priority 2) 

Vespulid wasps are known to consume large biomass of 

insect foods. Insectivorous birds in particular are likely to 

be affected by the consequent reduction in available prey, 

and all forest birds may be affected during the breeding 

season, when they rely more on insects to feed their young. 

3. Develop Captive Propagation and Related Recovery Strategies. 

Establish or augment populations of endangered species in suitable, 

managed habitat using captive propagation and reintroduction 

techniques. (Priority 1) 

 Captive propagation programs are developed in accordance with the 

guidelines established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Policy on 

Controlled Propagation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000c) the 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Conservation 

Union’s Conservation Breeding Specialist Group’s policy on captive 

propagation (International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1987, 

2000), the World Conservation Union’s Reintroduction Specialist Group’s 

Guidelines for Reintroduction (International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature 1998), the American Association of Zoological Parks and 

Aquariums Reintroduction Advisory Group’s guidelines (Beck 1992), 

Conservation Breeding Specialist Group’s Conservation Assessment 

Management Plan recommendations (Ellis et al. 1992), and Small 

Population Management Advisory Group Guidelines (AZA, Small 

Population Management Group 2000). 

3.1 Periodically evaluate and identify the target species that will 

require captive propagation for recovery and the appropriate 

strategy to be used. (Priority 1) 

Evaluation of the importance of captive propagation in recovery of 

each species requires consideration of criteria such as taxonomic 

uniqueness, urgency (degree of threat), and cause of decline in the 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-86 

wild. Also of consideration are the available knowledge of 

species’ natural history, status of current research, habitat 

management efforts in the field, and the potential for collaboration, 

practical considerations (funding and expertise/labor), population 

size, probability that the species will breed in captivity in sufficient 

numbers to reestablish a wild population, release history, 

availability of suitable release sites, political environment 

(existence of habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, 

etc.), the species’ value as a basic component of the ecosystem 

(e.g., significance as a seed disperser or pollinator), cultural value, 

educational value, and value as a model for the recovery of other 

endangered species. The relative cost versus benefit for 

maintaining a self-sustaining or genetically viable reproducing 

flock of birds in captivity versus the cost for maintaining a field 

team to locate nests, collect eggs, incubate, rear, and release need 

to be weighed. The most effective recovery programs are those 

that can accomplish their goals for the least amount of investment. 

The appropriate captive propagation strategy should be selected 

based on the recovery imperative, the status of the wild population, 

the accessibility of eggs and the difficulty in locating nests, and the 

relative effectiveness of alternative recovery strategies. Table 13 

provides an overview of recovery strategies and priorities for the 

use of captive propagation facilities for Hawaiian forest bird 

species. Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of 

prioritization considerations. 

3.2 Develop captive propagation programs for target species, 

including both endangered and surrogate species. (Priority 1) 

Such programs will require review of known avicultural and release 

technology in order to address an array of ecologically diverse species, 

from obligate nectarivores to generalists and insectivores. All aspects of 

captive management must be considered, including the demographics of 

small populations, adult diets, incubation, neonatal hand-feeding regimes, 

enclosure requirements (dimensions, enrichment, and construction 

materials), veterinary requirements, mate selection, and proper 

socialization of captive-reared birds. Aviculture and release technology is 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-87 

Table 13. Captive propagation program strategies and priorities for facilities use. Captive 

propagation strategies are as follows: 1) No Captive Program Necessary (other 

recovery strategies more appropriate), 2) Translocation, 3) Rear and Release, 4) 

Captive-breeding/Immediate Release, 5) Captive-breeding/Self-sustaining 

Population, 6) Captive-breeding/Production for Restoration, 7) Emergency Search 

and Rescue, and 8) Technology Development (see Appendix B for more detailed 

definitions of these strategies). Captive breeding priorities are defined as follows: 1) 

Species in critical need of recovery efforts involving captive propagation techniques; 

2) Species in great need of recovery efforts involving captive propagation techniques, 

but with somewhat larger population numbers; 3) Species in need of recovery efforts, 

but for which techniques involving captive propagation are less effective than 

translocation, habitat management, or habitat restoration; and 4) Non-endangered 

surrogate species for which captive breeding techniques could be developed to aid 

the recovery of endangered species. Further details are provided in Appendix B. 

Table 13. Captive propagation program strategies and priorities for facilities use. 

Species Captive Propagation 

Strategies 

Captive Breeding 

Priority 

`alalā 5, 6 1 

kāma`o, oloma`o, Kaua`i oo, Bishop’s 

`o`o, `o`u, `akialoa, Kaua`i nukupu`u, 

Maui nukupu`u, O`ahu `alauahio, 

k~k~wahie, Maui `~kepa, po`ouli 

5, 6, 7 1 

palila 8, 4 2 

nēnē 4 2 

Maui parrotbill 8, 4 2 

puaiohi 4 2 

Kaua`i creeper 8, 4 3 

`akiapōlā`au 8, 4 3 

O`ahu `elepaio 1, 2, 3 3 

Hawai`i `~kepa 8, 4 3 

Hawai`i creeper 8, 4 3 

`~kohekohe 8, 2, 3 3 

Hawai`i `elepaio 8 4 

`i`iwi 8 4 

`Çma`o 8 4 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-88 

recognized to be a process of continuous development, refinement, 

and enhancement. The development of this technology comes only 

with the experience gained from working with each Hawaiian 

species and incorporating that experience across the entire 

spectrum of Hawaiian forest birds. Between 1994 and 2000, the 

technology to incubate, rear, and maintain 12 species of Hawaiian 

forest birds was developed, including the endangered Hawai`i 

creeper, Hawai`i `ākepa, palila, `alalā, Maui parrotbill, and 

puaiohi. In the future, similar programs may be initiated for `ō`ū, 

`akiapōlā`au, Maui nukupu`u, Maui `ākepa, oloma`o, po`ouli, 

O`ahu creeper, kāma`o, Kaua`i nukupu`u, Kaua`i `akialoa, and 

Kaua`i `ō`ō if nests can be located and eggs collected. Captive 

management of the Hawai`i `elepaio as a surrogate species will 

provide propagation and release techniques required for future 

work with the endangered O`ahu `elepaio. The development of 

translocation methods for the `ākohekohe should continue, and 

captive breeding technology should be developed if translocation 

efforts fail. The appropriate captive propagation strategy for each 

species should be evaluated and implemented through the 

development of annual Work Plans and Five-Year Work Plans 

established between the operators of the captive propagation 

facilities, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and the Service, and 

will include input from the public and Recovery Team(s) and 

Working Groups. The plans should incorporate the most current 

information on dynamics of the wild population, available funding, 

research developments, disease information, available release sites, 

the relative benefit of captive release strategies compared to other 

recovery strategies, and the progress made in the captive 

maintenance and propagation of these species. 

3.2.1 `Ō`ū, Maui nukupu`u, Maui `ākepa, oloma`o, O`ahu 

creeper, kāma`o, Kaua`i nukupu`u, Kaua`i `akialoa, 

and Kaua`i `ō`ō. (Priority 1) 

 For these species, which are considered nearly or possibly 

extinct, efforts should be made to search for adults, and to 

collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing to establish 

captive breeding flocks whose progeny will be used for 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-89 

reintroduction into managed habitats in the future. Should 

no breeding pairs exist in the wild, efforts should be made 

to create pairs by translocation, bringing birds into 

captivity, or other appropriate means. 

3.2.2 Po`ouli. (Priority 1) 

 There has been no known reproduction of the po`ouli in the 

wild since 1995, and a translocation attempt in 2002 failed 

to produce a wild pairing (see species account). Efforts are 

currently underway to bring the two po`ouli that may 

remain in the wild into captivity for propagation. Habitat 

management to prepare for reintroduction to the wild also 

must continue. 

3.2.3 Puaiohi. (Priority 2) 

 Maintain a captive breeding flock to produce offspring for 

reintroductions into managed habitat. Current efforts to 

maintain a captive flock for reintroduction of progeny have 

been very successful, with high survival of released birds 

and subsequent breeding in the wild. 

3.2.4 `Akiapōlā`au. (Priority 2) 

 Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing to establish 

a captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used for 

reintroduction into managed habitat. Because `akiapōlā`au 

nests are difficult to locate and access, a strategy to 

maintain a captive breeding flock for release of progeny is 

recommended. 

3.2.5 Maui Parrotbill. 

 Because Maui parrotbill nests are difficult to locate and 

access, a strategy to maintain a captive breeding flock for 

release of progeny is recommended. 

3.2.5.1 Collect eggs of Maui parrotbills and maintain a 

captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-90 

for reintroduction into managed habitat in the 

future. (Priority 2) 

3.2.5.2 Develop methods for releasing captive birds into 

managed habitat on Haleakalā, or on West Maui 

or Moloka`i if disease is known to no longer be a 

threat in these areas. (Priority 2) 

3.2.6 `Ākohekohe. 

3.2.6.1 Translocate wild birds to West Maui or Moloka`i 

to establish a second population, if disease is 

known to no longer be a threat in these areas. 

(Priority 2) 

3.2.6.2 Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing. 

(Priority 2) If translocations fail, use “rear and 

release” of progeny from wild-collected eggs, or 

establish a captive breeding flock whose progeny 

will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat 

in the future. 

3.2.7 Palila. 

3.2.7.1 Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing. 

(Priority 2) 

3.2.7.2 If the genetic diversity of palila in the captive 

flock drops below acceptable levels (defined as 

less than 90 percent), collect wild eggs. (Priority 

2) 

3.2.7.3 Maintain a captive breeding flock whose 

progeny will be used for reintroduction into 

managed habitat. (Priority 2) Initial attempts at 

translocation of wild palila have not been 

successful. Releases of captive reared birds may be 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-91 

a more effective strategy to establish a new and 

disjunct population of palila on Mauna Loa or 

Mauna Kea. 

3.2.8 Hawai`i `Ākepa and Hawai`i Creeper. 

 Because nests of these species are difficult to locate and 

access, a strategy to maintain a captive breeding flock for 

release of progeny is recommended. 

3.2.8.1 Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing. 

(Priority 3) 

3.2.8.2 Maintain captive flocks of Hawai`i `ākepa and 

Hawai`i creeper whose progeny will be used for 

reintroduction into native, managed habitat in the 

future, or rear and release in managed habitat. 

(Priority 3) 

3.2.9 O`ahu `Elepaio. (Priority 3) 

Collect the eggs of Hawai`i `elepaio to serve as a surrogate 

to develop techniques to breed, incubate, rear, and release 

the endangered O`ahu subspecies. At this time recovery 

strategies other than captive propagation and release, such 

as predator control, are likely to be most effective for 

recovering the O`ahu `elepaio. If these strategies are not 

successful, rear and release methods may be needed. 

3.3 Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites 

for releases and/or translocation of endangered birds to ensure 

long-term persistence of reintroduced populations, including 

potentially suitable habitat outside the species’ known historic 

range. The goal is to select and restore habitat that fulfills the 

year-round requirements for the species to ensure that birds remain 

in the managed habitat (e.g., sufficient seasonal food resources, 

nesting and roosting sites). Site selection and subsequent 

management should include the evaluation of the species’ natural 

history requirements, vegetative analysis, physical qualities (area), 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-92 

elevation, elevational gradient, topography, soil characteristics, 

prevailing weather patterns, corridor potential, proximity to other 

congeneric populations, biological limiting factors (e.g., diseases, 

mosquitoes, predators, food availability, feral ungulates, alien 

competitors), anthropogenic threats, historical habitat modification 

and cultural practices of pre-contact Hawaiians, and current level 

of management and landowner cooperation and integration (habitat 

conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, etc.). Methods also 

should consider prevalence of threats identified, and the species’ 

likely response to novel habitat and threats. If areas available for 

releases may not provide all requirements during some periods of 

the year but logistical or other concerns necessitate release in these 

areas, then technologies must be available to support released birds 

during periods when essential niche characteristics are temporarily 

absent. Species and areas currently in need of habitat evaluation 

and selection for releases of endangered birds include: 

3.3.1 Leeward Haleakalā, West Maui, and Moloka`i for Maui 

forest birds. (Priority 2) 

3.3.2 Upland dry forest areas on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa 

for palila. (Priority 2) 

3.3.3 Additional sites for ongoing releases of puaiohi. 

(Priority 2) 

3.3.4 South Kona, Kapāpala/Ka`ū, and upland forests of 

Mauna Kea for `akiapōlā`au. (Priority 2). 

3.4 Acquire funding to build additional facilities to maintain, 

propagate, incubate, and rear endangered species and, if 

necessary, surrogate species. (Priority 1) 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Hawai`i will 

attempt to provide funding to operate the existing captive breeding 

facilities and to construct additional facilities, supplemented by 

private sector funding. Funding needs and availability will be 

considered in Annual Workplans and Five-Year Work Plans that 

prioritize the captive propagation activities for the year as well as 

for the long-term. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-93 

3.5 Identify wild populations and/or individuals with potential 

natural disease resistance on a species-by-species basis. 

(Priority 1) 

It is possible that populations or individual birds exist that have 

some natural resistance to introduced pathogens. If so, these birds 

could serve as the founder stock for reestablishing populations 

within a species’ historical range. Whenever possible, those 

populations or individuals with demonstrated resistance through 

multiple generations should be exploited as a recovery resource, 

either through translocation or through captive propagation. 

Currently there is anecdotal evidence of disease resistance or 

tolerance in some individuals within populations of the O`ahu 

`elepaio (VanderWerf 2006) and the non-endangered O`ahu 

`amakihi (Hemignathus flavus) (Shehata et al. 2001) and Hawai`i 

`amakihi (Hemignathus virens virens) (Jarvi et al. 2001), but this 

needs to be more fully examined and confirmed. Similar 

resistance or tolerance should be sought in other endangered 

species. However, if captive-breeding of founders from potentially 

disease-resistant populations is undertaken in the future, 

management of captive flocks also should continue to focus on the 

preservation of genetic diversity in order to avoid any potentially 

adverse effects associated with artificial selection in a captive 

environment (American Zoological and Aquarium Association, 

Small Population Management Group 2000). 

3.6 Develop and refine techniques for the release of captive-reared 

birds into managed habitat. 

Options include both hard- and soft-release, with the difference 

being the amount of support the released birds receive during their 

transition to independence. Initially, releases should be 

conservative and provide as much support as logistically possible 

(soft release); for example, providing supplemental food, 

protection from weather if necessary, and veterinary attention if 

required. When more is known regarding a species’ tolerance to 

the rigors of release, harder releases can be considered. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-94 

3.6.1 Monitor dispersal, survival, and mortality of released 

birds to refine propagation and release techniques. 

(Priority 1) 

The value of this aspect is often overlooked or 

underestimated as a component of captive propagation for 

recovery. It is important to monitor released birds to 

determine their long-term survivorship, potential to utilize 

managed habitat, and capacity reproduce and expand their 

population. 

3.6.2 Develop and refine release (hacking) procedures. 

(Priority 2) 

Various release methods should be considered for each 

species, subject to constraints of the release site. To be 

considered are microhabitat, size, dimension, and exact 

location of the hacking aviary; location and positioning of 

supplemental food stations; locations of field observations; 

and logistical considerations for the construction and 

dismantling of each release aviary. Continue to develop 

and refine species specific (or program specific) 

reintroduction guidelines based on risk assessments that 

consider the behavioral, disease, demographic, and genetic 

needs of the species, with the ultimate goal being the 

reestablishment and recovery of wild populations. 

3.7 For each of the species identified as candidates for captive 

propagation, establish demographic goals for the captive 

propagation program, e.g., how many birds to produce using 

which demographic strategy over what period of time and released 

into how many sites. (Priority 2) 

 The augmentation of wild populations using captive propagation 

requires the development of cost-effective management programs 

that are designed to maintain population genetic diversity and 

demographic security considering the resources available. 

3.8 Develop species specific reintroduction guidelines based on risk 

assessments that consider the behavioral, disease, demographic, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-95 

and genetic needs of the species, with the ultimate goal being the 

re-establishment of wild populations. (Priority 2) 

3.9 Provide biological samples from captive held birds to an 

approved holding location or locations determined on a species-byspecies basis for use in genetic and veterinary examination. 

(Priority 2) 

Biological samples, such as blood, taken from captive birds can be 

used for a variety of purposes, including testing genetic relatedness 

of founder populations or their progeny, development of genetic 

libraries, and veterinary health studies. These studies may be 

crucial to understanding the threats endangered Hawaiian forest 

birds face in their native habitat and developing effective recovery 

and captive management strategies. 

3.10 If egg collections fail, develop methods of bringing nestling 

birds, juveniles, and/or adults into captivity with concomitant 

quarantine procedures. (Priority 2) 

3.11 Establish a cryogenic cell culture of germplasm of the 

endangered Hawaiian avifauna at two partner institutions 

willing to hold the cell line in perpetuity. Although the 

advancement of several technologies (e.g., cloning and embryo 

transfers) may still be several years in the future, it will be 

increasingly important to anticipate the future potential of such 

options and to preserve the cell lines while there is still the chance 

to do so. Collaborating institutions with laboratory resources, 

institutional stability, and long-term interest need to be identified. 

The goals of such efforts should be established in advance. 

3.11.1 Obtain and hold cryogenic germplasm of the rarest 

species in the event of death, or if a population is below 

300 individuals. (Priority 1) 

3.11.2 Obtain and hold cryogenic germplasm for all other 

endangered forest birds. (Priority 2) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-96 

3.12 Evaluate the outplacement of endangered species currently at 

the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center and Maui 

Conservation Center to the Honolulu Zoo or other qualified 

institutions. 

3.12.1 Evaluate the Honolulu Zoo or other qualified 

institutions as repositories for those endangered species 

and/or individuals that are not contributing to the 

captive propagation program. (Priority 2) 

 These would include non-reproductive, non-releasable 

individuals, individuals of species that are in the captive 

program but for which it is not a high priority to continue 

to enlarge the captive inventory through breeding, and 

species which do not have a release component at the 

present time. Benefits would include public education as 

well as freeing up aviary space for higher priority species. 

4. Conduct Research as Needed. 

The complexity of threats to endangered forest birds and the large 

number of actions proposed to deal with these threats require that 

research and management go hand-in-hand. The relative 

importance of different threats may vary in space and time among 

species of birds, so it is important to identify the threats to 

particular populations through research. Adaptive threat 

management requires the development of methods to control 

identified threats and evaluation of the effectiveness of those 

control methods. In addition, populations may be subject to 

intrinsic natural properties, such as vulnerability to demographic 

and environmental stochasticity, low reproductive rates and 

dispersal, source/sink relations, and social habitat selection. Thus 

we need to determine the role of food, nest-sites, forest structure, 

diseases, predators, and competitors as the basis for different 

densities of birds. Opportunities for applied research are available 

using both experimental approaches as well as observational 

studies that take advantage of correlational patterns in the 

distribution of the bird species and their threats. The knowledge 

gained from research is the basis for identifying threats, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-97 

prioritizing management actions for ecosystems as well as 

individual species, determining the effectiveness of implemented 

actions, and developing new or improving existing management 

approaches.

4.1 Identify the threats that cause geographical variation in 

density and that maintain populations at or below carrying 

capacity within particular locations. 

4.1.1 Identify species-specific niche requirements and the role 

of habitat degradation and competition in reducing 

carrying capacity. (Priority 2) 

The availability of resources such as prey types, foraging 

substrates, nest-sites, and roost sites can dictate the 

carrying capacity of the environment. Knowledge of 

species niche requirements and the availability of required 

resources, in relation to the expected and actual number of 

individuals, is an effective method of identifying the 

magnitude of a threat. Habitat degradation and competition 

are threats that can reduce carrying capacity, and therefore 

population density and size. 

4.2 Study the magnitude of threats and, if appropriate, develop 

and evaluate effective methods for control. 

The numerous species that threaten forest birds have their own life 

histories, including feeding habits, breeding biology, and dispersal 

characteristics. Effective control of plants and animals that 

threaten forest birds can be greatly enhanced by knowledge of their 

biology. Experimental approaches to control will be needed to 

assess the effectiveness of the methods developed in reducing 

populations of these species. 

4.2.1 Develop improved methods for controlling alien 

mammalian predators over large areas. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-98 

4.2.1.1 Continue efforts to register hand and aerial 

broadcast methods for dispersing diphacinone 

toxicants for controlling predators. (Priority 1) 

Experimental studies on Hawai`i and O`ahu have 

demonstrated that diphacinone can be effective in 

reducing numbers of introduced rodents 

(VanderWerf and Smith 2002) and mongooses 

(Keith et al. 1989, Stone et al. 1994, Smith et al. 

2000). The current registration allows only 

application using bait stations, which is very 

labor-intensive and limits effective use of this tool 

to small areas. For control of predators over a 

spatial scale that is meaningful for recovery of 

endangered forest birds, additional efforts leading 

to registration labels that allow hand- or aerialbroadcasting of diphacinone are needed. A public 

education campaign that explains the need for use 

of diphacinone and its relative safety is also 

necessary. 

4.2.1.2 Evaluate the efficacy of toxicants other than 

diphacinone for controlling mammalian 

predators and take the steps needed for their 

registration. (Priority 2) 

4.2.1.3 Develop and evaluate improved methods for 

controlling predators, such as more efficient 

traps, contraceptives, and predator-proof fences 

for important areas. (Priority 1) 

4.2.2 Rat control study. (Priority 1) 

Study rat ecology in forest bird habitats to determine food 

habits, breeding success, and selection of foraging, 

roosting, and breeding habitat at appropriate spatial scales 

in order to determine which aspects of their ecology might 

be the weakest link in their ability to survive control 

programs. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-99 

4.2.3 Feral cat control study. (Priority 1) 

Study feral cat ecology in forest bird habitats to determine 

habitat selection, food habits, range, and density so control 

methods can be designed more efficiently. 

4.2.4 Mongoose control study. (Priority 1) 

Study mongoose ecology in forest bird habitats to 

determine habitat selection, food habits, range, and density 

so control methods can be designed more efficiently. 

4.2.5 Mosquito control study. (Priority 1) 

4.2.6 Ungulate exclusion and control study. (Priority 2) 

 Experimental tests are needed of alternative methods for 

controlling and/or excluding feral pigs, goats, sheep, 

mouflon, and axis deer. 

4.2.7 Weed control study. (Priority 2) 

4.2.8 Yellow jacket wasp control study. (Priority 2) 

Determine the factors that limit yellow jacket populations 

seasonally in some areas in order to develop effective 

methods of control. In addition, dietary work is needed to 

increase understanding of the potential impacts of yellow 

jackets on insectivorous forest birds that specialize on 

different components of the forest arthropod community. 

4.2.9 Barn owl (Tyto alba) and pueo (Asio flammeus 

sandwichensis) study. (Priority 2) 

Study barn owls and pueo in forest bird habitats to 

determine densities and impacts on native forest birds. 

4.2.10 Avian competitor control study. 

Study nonnative passerines in forest habitats to determine 

food habits, breeding success, range, density, nesting 

habitat, and direct and indirect competitive interactions 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-100 

with native forest birds in order to determine the extent of 

niche overlap and competition with native forest birds and, 

if necessary, how their populations might be best 

controlled. 

4.2.10.1 Investigate red-billed leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea) 

as a competitor and reservoir for disease on 

Maui and Hawai`i. (Priority 2) 

4.2.10.2 Investigate competition for food and space and 

disease relations between O`ahu `elepaio and 

introduced birds such as red-vented bulbul 

(Pycnonotus cafer), white-rumped shama 

(Copsychus malabaricus), and Japanese white-eye 

(Zosterops japonicus). (Priority 2) 

4.2.10.3 Investigate role of Japanese white-eye and 

Japanese bush-warbler (Cettia diphone) as 

competitors and reservoirs of disease for on all 

islands. (Priority 2) 

4.2.11 Determine best methods for conducting reforestation 

efforts. (Priority 2) 

Habitat degradation poses threats to species by reducing the 

carrying capacity of the habitat. Development of effective 

methods for restoration is needed to mitigate this threat. 

4.2.12 Investigate nonnative invertebrates in forest habitats to 

determine distribution, direct and indirect interactions with 

native invertebrates, role as a prey base for nonnative birds 

and mammals, and effects on flora. (Priority 2) 

4.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of threat management actions. 

Partial or total removal of a threat should result in an increase in 

population size through changes in demographic parameters. This 

means that knowledge of the natural history of the Hawaiian forest 

birds should include refined estimates of demographic rates, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-101 

including nesting success, seasonal fecundity of females, 

proportion of females and males attempting to breed, annual 

survival of adults and juveniles, and sex ratio. Knowledge of 

causes of nest failure and mortality can provide a link between 

demographic parameters and a particular threat. Measuring the 

increase in a demographic parameter or in the number of 

individuals following an experimental management action is the 

best way of assessing the magnitude of a threat and the 

effectiveness of the management action. 

4.3.1 Examine response of bird populations to habitat 

restoration, including the provisioning of food, foraging 

substrates, nest-sites, and roost sites, as well as the effects 

of habitat restoration on threats such as mosquitoes, 

predators, and competitors. (Priority 2) 

Responses include stage of restoration at which species 

first appear (if not present at time restoration work 

commences), the resources used for feeding and nesting, 

the stage at which species become permanently resident, 

and population growth in relation to change in habitat. 

4.4 Determine safety of threat management to non-target species 

and address public health and other concerns regarding 

threats management. 

4.4.1 Address public health concerns regarding aerial 

broadcast of rodenticide and its effects on both game and 

non-game non-target species, and its persistence in 

watershed and sediments. (Priority 1) 

4.5 Investigate the role of natural selection in dealing with threats. 

Threats represent natural selection pressures on endangered birds, 

and because natural selection can lead to adaptation, it is 

appropriate to view natural selection as a means of threat 

management. Evolutionary responses to selection are expected 

when there is time for appropriate genetic variation to arise and the 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-102 

surviving individuals are capable of maintaining a viable 

population. 

4.5.1 Identify geographical variation in behavior and 

reproduction of forest birds that may make them less 

susceptible to threats. 

4.5.1.1 Determine if roost site selection and specific 

mosquito avoidance behaviors (e.g., nocturnal 

roosting posture) reduce exposure to mosquitoes 

and predators. (Priority 2) 

4.5.1.2 Determine if nest structure and location may 

provide protection from high winds, rain and 

cold, and predators. (Priority 2) 

4.5.2 Identify individuals and genotypes that are tolerant or 

resistant to disease. 

In the absence of continual introductions of new strains or 

genetic variants of avian pox and malaria to Hawai`i, the 

disease system (vector, parasite, and avian hosts) will begin 

to evolve new relationships through processes of natural 

selection. Current evolutionary theory predicts that the 

virulence of the disease agents will decrease and resistance 

of highly susceptible forest birds to these introduced 

diseases will increase (van Riper et al. 1986, Atkinson et 

al. 1995, Cann and Douglas 1999, Jarvi et al. 2001, 

Shehata et al. 2001). Direct evidence for this process is 

still limited and based primarily on observations of 

breeding populations of O`ahu `amakihi, O`ahu `elepaio, 

`apapane, and Hawai`i `amakihi at elevations where 

transmission of pox and malaria is stable and endemic. The 

genetic and physiological characteristics that allow some 

individuals to survive malaria and pox infection while 

others die are still poorly understood. Whether an 

individual survives infection is related to sex, age, and 

overall pre-infection body condition (Atkinson et al. 1995, 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-103 

2000; Yorinks and Atkinson 2000). Other genetic factors 

probably are involved (Cann and Douglas 1999, Jarvi et al.

2001, Shehata et al. 2001) and may explain why some 

honeycreeper species (e.g., `i`iwi) are more susceptible to 

disease than others (e.g., Hawai`i `amakihi and `apapane). 

 

4.5.2.1 Develop molecular methods for identifying 

individuals that are more likely to resist or 

survive pox and malaria infections. (Priority 1) 

 Research that identifies specific genetic markers for 

disease resistance should be supported so that 

informed decisions about maintaining genetic 

diversity in isolated populations can be made. For 

example, failure to identify specific haplotypes 

associated with disease resistance might eventually 

lead to their loss from a small population if other, 

more easily identified markers are used as the 

measure of genetic variability. This is especially 

important for native species that are extremely 

susceptible to disease. 

 

4.5.2.2 Refine diagnostic methods for identifying 

individuals that have survived diseases and have 

acquired immunity to reinfection. (Priority 1) 

 Recently developed polymerase chain reaction 

(PCR) (Feldman et al. 1995) and serological 

(Atkinson et al. 2001b) tests for avian malaria 

should be refined to adapt them for use under field 

conditions. In particular, quantitative competitive 

PCR tests should be refined to detect low level 

chronic infections of malaria and fluctuations in 

parasitemia that may occur over time. New 

diagnostic tests for avian pox are urgently needed 

both to easily identify active pox infections and to 

identify survivors of past infections. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-104 

4.6 Conduct research that may lead to new tools for managing 

forest birds or their habitat, or to identification of emerging or 

unrecognized threats. 

4.6.1 Investigate ways to enhance resource availability for 

particular species within existing habitat. (Priority 2) 

4.6.1.1 Determine if additional nesting sites, including 

artificial devices, can be provided and used. 

4.6.1.1.1 Determine if experimental artificial 

cavities increase the density of 

breeding pairs of Hawai`i `ākepa or 

expand the range of the birds through 

colonization of habitat without 

natural cavities. (Priority 2) 

4.6.1.1.2 Test the design and efficacy of ratproof artificial nest structures for 

puaiohi on Kaua`i. (Priority 2) 

4.6.1.2 Determine if application of fertilizer to host 

plants increases growth, flowering, and 

abundance of arthropods as a means of 

increasing the prey base for insectivorous birds. 

(Priority 2) 

4.6.1.3 Develop effective techniques for restoration of 

degraded and deforested lands. (Priority 2) 

See Recovery Action 4.2.11. 

4.6.2 Document population structure. 

A population is not a static entity either in space or time. 

Individuals may move within a year to track food 

resources, or engage in natal or breeding dispersal. In 

addition, source/sink dynamics are expected between 

populations at carrying capacity and those below carrying 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-105 

capacity. Isolated small populations may suffer from 

inbreeding depression. Research on population structure 

extends the results of research on a single population or a 

limited number of populations. In addition, knowledge of 

population structure is essential for translocation and 

reintroduction programs that seek to establish new 

populations or to augment small populations. 

4.6.2.1 Develop a comprehensive library of 

informative microsatellite loci for all species. 

(Priority 2) Such loci, when neutral, are useful 

identifying geographic patterns, alternative 

patterns of gene flow (dispersal), and state-based 

dispersal. They can also be used for estimating 

effective population size and levels of inbreeding, 

as well as population assignment of individuals 

for identifying immigrants. Eventually, 

microsatellites under natural selection can be used 

for quantitative trait mapping, a procedure 

involving linkage analysis with functional loci 

that may be useful in identifying individuals 

tolerant or resistant to disease. 

4.6.2.2 Document genetic population structure of 

species with single populations. (Priority 2) 

4.6.2.3 Document source/sink metapopulation 

structure along gradients in density, 

particularly elevational gradients. (Priority 2) 

 If disease is truly a major threat, then populations 

at upper elevations may be sources and 

populations at lower elevations may be sinks. 

There is an expectation that dispersal rates will be 

biased: more birds will disperse from upper 

elevations to lower elevations. One consequence 

of this is that tolerant or resistant genotypes of 

birds from lower elevations will not be present at 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-106 

upper elevations. Management for disease, 

especially in light of climate change, requires 

knowledge of metapopulation structure. 

4.6.2.4 Document genetic relationships among 

individuals in isolated populations such as may 

be found on different volcanoes or in different 

areas of a fragmented population. Such 

populations may exhibit a different type of 

metapopulation structure than found along a 

gradient. (Priority 2) 

4.6.2.5 Determine patterns of dispersal by age and sex. 

(Priority 2) 

4.6.2.6 Determine seasonal patterns of movement by 

age and sex. (Priority 2) 

4.6.3 Conduct population and metapopulation viability 

analyses. (Priority 2) 

Recovery criteria specify the calculation of the population 

growth rate, or lambda (λ), as an indicator of stable or 

increasing populations. The Nature Conservancy’s 

Population Viability Handbook specifies additional 

analyses that can be used to assess population viability 

within a single population or a metapopulation (Morris et 

al. 1999). 

4.6.3.1 Conduct trend analysis using count data. 

(Priority 2) 

4.6.3.2 Use demographic data for estimating lambda. 

(Priority 2) 

4.6.4 Investigate natural and alien species-induced native 

plant species die-back phenomena affecting forest bird 

habitats. (Priority 2) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-107 

Recent die-back of over 60 percent of the koa (Acacia koa) 

tree canopy in Kīpahulu Valley, Maui, possibly caused by 

the native moth Scotorythra paludicola and the wiltcausing fungus Fusarium oxysporum f.sp koae, for 

example, raises concerns regarding the effects of local dieback of key plant species in forest bird habitats and the 

impacts of plant species die-back phenomena on listed 

species distributions and population numbers. 

4.7 Special research considerations for translocations and 

reintroduction programs. 

Translocations and reintroductions of captive-bred birds are 

recognized as important managerial tools for expanding the range 

of a species, for supplementing a small population, or for genetic 

management. 

 

4.7.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of translocations of both 

disease survivors and disease resistant forest birds for 

restoration of populations in areas with active disease 

transmission. (Priority 1) 

In the absence of specific genetic markers for disease 

resistance, applied research should be supported to 

determine whether translocation of survivors of past pox 

and malaria infections can be used to establish selfsustaining populations in native forests where disease 

transmission is now endemic, and whether such individuals 

can be incorporated into a captive breeding population for 

reintroduction programs. 

 

4.7.2 Determine optimal parameters for translocation and 

reintroduction efforts. (Priority 2) 

Translocation efforts require estimates of carrying capacity 

in alternative translocation sites, determination of the 

number of individuals and timing to achieve establishment 

of the new population, and assessment of the translocation 

on population structure. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-108 

4.7.3 Evaluate the relative costs of habitat suitability analysis 

versus experimental translocation or reintroduction. 

(Priority 3) 

Translocation or reintroduction of individuals requires an 

assessment of the likelihood of success. This may take the 

form of assessments of habitat suitability prior to the 

releases, or alternatively, of experimental releases followed 

by careful monitoring of the released birds. The relative 

cost-effectiveness of these alternatives will vary among 

species and sites. Thus, evaluation of the relative costs of 

the alternatives will provide guidance for the effective use 

of funds. 

4.8 Special research considerations for disease and parasitism. 

Disease is the most complex threat to Hawaiian forest birds 

because characteristics of the hosts, vector, and pathogens are all 

involved. In addition, this is the one threat for which the birds can 

evolve tolerance or resistance. The numerous topics in this section 

reflect these issues and possibilities. 

 

4.8.1 Determine the effects of land use changes on disease 

transmission. (Priority 2) 

Changing patterns of land use and their effects on mosquito 

populations and movement may be one of the most 

important factors affecting stability of disease transmission, 

particularly in regions where residential and agricultural 

use occurs near recovery areas. Land use changes that 

affect mosquito productivity and movements should be 

identified so that mosquito free reserves and conservation 

easements can be located around forest bird recovery areas. 

These factors may be particularly important for the design 

of safe, disease-free corridors to link recovery areas at 

different elevations or geographic locations of the same 

island. 

4.8.2 Determine effects of long-term climate change on 

disease transmission. (Priority 2) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-109 

The key role that environmental temperature plays in 

limiting the development of malarial parasites in the 

mosquito vector and increasing the duration of the 

gonotrophic cycle∗ of Culex makes it likely that climate 

chang could shift patterns of disease transmission from 

mid-elevation habitats into the last high elevation refugia 

on Hawai`i, Maui and Kaua`i. Research that predicts the 

magnitude of possible warming, its effects at fine spatial 

scales on precipitation patterns, and its effects on mean 

daily temperatures should be supported. This information 

should be used to develop disease risk maps for recovery 

areas under different scenarios of climatic change. 

 

4.8.3 Conduct research on the feasibility of vaccines for avian 

pox and malaria, methods for their delivery, and 

possible effects on host-parasite coevolutionary 

adaptations. (Priority 2) 

Research on experimental vaccines for control of pox and 

malaria transmission, methods for their delivery to wild 

free-ranging birds, and their effects on host-parasite 

coevolutionary adaptations should be supported. The use 

of vaccines for control of both malaria and viral infections 

is an active field of investigation concerning human and 

domestic animal health that may have direct application to 

Hawai`i. Developments in this field should be followed 

closely, even though practical application of these 

technologies to disease control may be years away. 

Modeling methods should also be used to examine the 

potential effects of vaccine use on the stability of disease 

transmission and overall effects on selection for parasite 

virulence and host resistance. 

 

∗ the cycle of egg maturation and oviposition (egg laying) following a blood meal in 

female mosquitoes; the length of the cycle depends on external temperature 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-110 

4.8.4 Conduct research on genetic variability, virulence, and 

interactions between avian pox virus and malarial 

parasites and how these variants interact with 

susceptible and resistant host genotypes. (Priority 2) 

It is possible that concurrent pox and malaria infections 

interact in susceptible and resistant hosts in ways that are 

not immediately predictable, with effects on disease 

transmissibility and selection for parasite and viral variants 

that are either more or less virulent than predicted. The 

role that these interactions play in how the disease system 

is evolving and how interventions in the disease cycle, e.g.,

use of a pox vaccine or reduction in mosquito densities, 

may affect stability of the system are unknown. 

4.8.4.1 Use molecular methods to identify specific 

markers that correlate with phenotypic 

differences in virulence. (Priority 2) 

 Research that identifies specific molecular 

markers that correlate with parasite phenotypic 

traits should be supported. These can be used to 

identify specific strains of the disease organisms 

for incorporation into plans to prevent further 

spread of pox and malaria variants between and 

within islands. This information will be 

particularly useful in translocation studies 

involving individuals that have survived acute 

malarial infections and that now carry the parasite 

at chronic levels. These individuals should not be 

introduced into areas where their parasite variants 

do not occur to prevent further spread of the 

disease organisms. 

 

4.8.4.2 Determine whether concomitant infections 

with pox and malaria affect virulence and 

transmissibility. (Priority 2) 

 Experimental studies that document the 

interactions of concurrent pox and malarial 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-111 

infections on host survivorship are needed. This 

information is important for understanding the 

epidemiology of the diseases and for being able to 

identify and possibly manage conditions that 

might affect the severity of future disease 

outbreaks. 

4.8.5 Determine dispersal distances of adult mosquitoes from 

point sources outside of recovery areas. (Priority 1) 

Dispersal of adult Culex mosquitoes along natural and 

man-made corridors from low elevation source areas may 

be the primary factor supporting transmission of avian pox 

and malaria in some habitats. A good example of this is the 

Alaka`i Plateau, where adult mosquitoes and disease 

transmission have been documented (D. LaPointe and C. 

Atkinson U.S. Geological Survey, unpubl. data), but where 

larval Culex have rarely been found. In these situations, 

the identification of source areas and primary routes of 

dispersal will be essential for determining feasibility and 

methods for vector control. 

4.8.6 Determine the feasibility of decreasing malarial 

transmission through genetic manipulation of vector 

populations. (Priority 2) 

Research on the control of malarial transmission through 

genetic manipulation of vector populations is an active 

field of investigation concerning human and domestic 

animal health that may have direct application to Hawai`i. 

Practical application of these technologies to disease 

control may be years away, but this research should be 

supported since Hawai`i’s isolation and absence of an 

endemic mosquito fauna make the islands an exceptional 

location for testing new technologies. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-112 

4.8.7 Determine the role that ectoparasites such as ticks and 

lice play in transmission of avian pox, particularly during 

the nesting cycle when adults may pass infections to 

offspring. (Priority 2) 

Studies that document the affects of ectoparasites on 

transmission of avian pox are needed to help in the design 

of disease control strategies at the nest for critically 

endangered species where intensive management may be 

desirable. Treatment of nests, nestlings, and adult birds 

with insecticides may be practical in some situations and 

might prevent the transfer of virus to offspring in situations 

where one or both parents carry active infections. 

4.8.8 Determine the role that endoparasites such as Coccidea 

play in demography of birds. (Priority 2) 

4.8.9 Monitor long-term changes in the prevalence and 

transmission of avian diseases in forest bird recovery 

areas. (Priority 2) 

Research and monitoring that documents the long-term 

patterns of change in the epidemiology and pathogenicity 

of introduced avian diseases will be important for 

measuring the effectiveness of management actions and for 

determining how complex interactions between abiotic and 

biotic environmental factors, anthropogenic factors, native 

and nonnative hosts, vectors and diseases are evolving. 

4.9 Special research considerations for monitoring. (Priority 2) 

Develop and test improved survey and monitoring techniques for 

extremely rare species and species that are difficult to monitor 

using standard methods. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-113 

4.10 Research needs and priorities by species. 

Species differ in their threats and research needs. Table 14 

identifies priority research needs for each species, with special 

reference to populations and locations that provide opportunities 

conducive to research or in which research needs are especially 

pressing. In a few instances priorities for individual species may 

differ from the priorities assigned to the general research 

categories of the research needs section of the recovery action 

narrative. 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species. Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = 

Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. Species Codes: AKEP = 

Hawai`i `ākepa; AKIP = `akiapōlā`au; AKOH = `ākohekohe; HCRE = 

Hawai`i creeper; KAAK = Kaua`i `akialoa; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO 

= kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nukupu`u; MAPA = Maui parrotbill; OAEL = 

O`ahu `elepaio; OO = Kaua`i `ō`ō; OU = `ō`ū; PALI = palila; POOU = 

po`ouli; PUAI = puaiohi. 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species 

Category of Research 

(Recovery Action 

Narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

4.10.1 Identify the threats 

that cause 

geographical 

variation in density 

(4.1) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Hawai`i Determine the basis for 

variation in density of 

birds and termination of 

range. 

2 

4.10.2 Identify the threats 

that cause 

geographical 

variation in density 

(4.1) 

HCRE H Hakalau 

Forest 

NWR, 

Honohina 

Tract 

Determine the basis for 

low nesting success 

documented at 

Honohina Tract (wet 

habitat) using cameras 

on nests while 

documenting rainfall. 

2 

4.10.3 Identify the threats 

that cause 

geographical 

variation in density 

(4.1) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Hawai`i Determine the role of 

food in timing of 

breeding, attempts to 

breed, and breeding 

success. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-114 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species 

Category of Research 

(Recovery Action 

Narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

4.10.4 Identify the threats 

that cause 

geographical 

variation in density 

(4.1) 

AKOH 

MAPA 

MA Maui Determine why these 

birds are limited to high 

elevations. 

2 

4.10.5 Identify the threats 

that cause 

geographical 

variation in density 

(4.1) 

KACR 

PUAI 

K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Area 

Examine factors that 

determine abundance 

and distribution, 

including elevational 

range. 

2 

4.10.6 Identify the threats 

that cause 

geographical 

variation in density 

(4.1) 

KACR K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Area 

Determine the role of 

food as the basis for 

different densities of 

the bird in continuous 

habitat. 

2 

4.10.7 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; determine 

response of bird 

population to 

removal or reduction 

of a threat (4.3) 

PALI H Mauna Kea 

and Mauna 

Loa 

Determine population 

response to predator 

control efforts. 

2 

4.10.8 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; determine 

response of bird 

population to 

removal or reduction 

of a threat (4.3) 

MAPA 

AKOH 

POOU 

MA Maui Determine population 

response to predator 

control efforts. 

1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-115 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species 

Category of Research 

(Recovery Action 

Narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

4.10.9 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; determine 

response of bird 

population to 

removal or reduction 

of a threat (4.3) 

OAEL O O`ahu Determine the effect of 

predator control on 

survival of female 

O`ahu `elepaio. 

2 

4.10.10 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions: determine 

response of bird 

population to 

removal or reduction 

of a threat (4.3) 

KACR 

PUAI 

K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Area 

Measure effect of 

experimental test of 

broad-scale predator 

control on nest success, 

adult and post-fledging 

survival, and 

population trends. 

1 

4.10.11 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; examine 

response of 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3) 

PALI H Mauna Kea 

and Mauna 

Loa 

Determine population 

response to forest 

regeneration and 

restoration efforts. 

2 

4.10.12 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; examine 

response of 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Hawai`i Determine use of 

regenerating/restored 

canopy trees as 

substrates for feeding. 

2 

4.10.13 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; examine 

response of 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3) 

MAPA 

AKOH 

MA Maui Determine population 

response to forest 

regeneration and 

restoration efforts. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-116 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species 

Category of Research 

(Recovery Action 

Narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

4.10.14 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; examine 

response of 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3) 

KACR 

PUAI 

K Kaua`i Determine population 

response to 

experimental control of 

weeds (e.g., ginger). 

2 

4.10.15 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of 

threat management 

actions; develop 

molecular methods 

for identifying 

individuals that are 

more likely to survive 

pox and malaria 

infections or to resist 

them (4.5.2.1) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Hawai`i Determine if tolerance 

or resistance to malaria 

and pox virus is 

evolving at the lower 

portion of the 

elevational range of 

these birds. 

1 

4.10.16 Investigate role of 

natural selection in 

dealing with threats; 

develop molecular 

methods for 

identifying 

individuals that are 

more likely to survive 

pox and malaria 

infections or to resist 

them (4.5.2.1) 

OAEL O O`ahu Determine if tolerance 

or resistance to malaria 

and pox virus is 

evolving in any of the 

fragmented 

populations. 

2 

4.10.17 Document population 

structure; document 

genetic population 

structure of species 

with single 

populations (4.6.2.2) 

POOU 

MAPA 

AKOH 

MA Maui Document genetic 

population structure. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-117 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species 

Category of Research 

(Recovery Action 

Narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

4.10.18 Document population 

structure; document 

source/sink 

metapopulation 

structure along 

gradients in density, 

particularly 

elevational gradients 

(4.6.2.3) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Hawai`i Document dispersal 

characteristics in 

populations along 

lateral and elevational 

gradients of density. 

2 

4.10.19 Document population 

structure; document 

source/sink 

metapopulation 

structure along 

gradients in density, 

particularly 

elevational gradients 

(4.6.2.3) 

AKIP H Hawai`i Determine the basis of 

variation in size of 

home range in areas of 

different density of the 

bird and in areas with 

different forest 

structure. 

2 

4.10.20 Document population 

structure; determine 

genetic as well as 

morphological, 

behavioral, 

ecological, and vocal 

variation among core 

populations (4.6.2.4) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Mauna 

Kea, 

Mauna 

Loa, and 

Hualālai 

Determine genetic as 

well as morphological, 

behavioral, ecological, 

and vocal variation 

among core 

populations. 

2 

4.10.21 Document population 

structure; determine 

genetic, 

morphological, 

behavioral, 

ecological, and vocal 

variation among core 

populations (4.6.2.4) 

OAEL O O`ahu Determine 

morphological, genetic, 

behavioral, ecological, 

and vocal variation 

among core 

populations. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-118 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities by species 

Category of Research 

(Recovery Action 

Narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

4.10.22 Document population 

structure; determine 

patterns of dispersal 

by age and sex 

(4.6.2.5) 

OAEL O O`ahu Determine patterns of 

dispersal by age and 

sex. 

2 

4.10.23 Conduct population 

and metapopulation 

viability analyses 

(4.6.3) 

OAEL O O`ahu Determine survival of 

juveniles, calculate 

lambda in different 

populations, and 

conduct sensitivity 

analysis to help 

prioritize recovery 

actions. 

2 

4.10.24 Conduct population 

and metapopulation 

viability analyses 

(4.6.3) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Hawai`i Calculate lambda in 

populations in different 

portions of the recovery 

area. 

2 

4.10.25 Special research 

considerations for 

monitoring (4.9) 

KACR 

PUAI 

K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Area 

Conduct development 

and testing of improved 

survey and monitoring 

techniques. 

2 

5. Monitor Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Forest Birds. 

5.1 Conduct systematic surveys of all forest bird habitat on 

Kaua`i, O`ahu, Moloka`i, Lāna`i, Maui, and Hawai`i at least 

once every 5 years to determine changes in distribution and 

population size of all native and nonnative forest birds. At a 

minimum, surveys should include all transects surveyed during 

the Hawai`i Forest Bird Surveys in 1976 to 1981, and 

additional transects should be established on O`ahu to 

adequately survey all recovery area on that island. (Priority 1) 

Recovery of any of the species included in this plan requires 

documentation of stable or increasing populations by either 

periodic surveys or calculation of the population growth rate 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-119 

(lambda, λ) in cases where more detailed population parameters 

have been estimated. Populations of all forest birds must be 

monitored at regular intervals using standardized methods to 

determine trends in population size, changes in distribution, and 

whether management practices are sustaining bird populations. 

Since the late 1970s, various agencies have cooperated in an 

attempt to resurvey at 5-year intervals each of the transects first 

surveyed during the Hawai`i Forest Bird Surveys. Surveys of all 

forest bird habitat on the major islands at 5-year intervals through 

an interagency effort should continue. The Island of O`ahu was 

not surveyed by the Hawai`i Forest Bird Surveys, and it will be 

necessary to establish transects on that island that adequately 

survey all recovery area. 

5.2 Conduct systematic annual surveys of selected forest areas to 

more carefully monitor changes in distribution and population 

size and efficacy of management actions. 

Areas supporting core populations of endangered species and areas 

where management actions are being carried out should be 

surveyed at more frequent intervals to more carefully monitor 

variation in populations and provide for adaptive modification of 

management actions, as described in Table 15. 

5.3 Establish and support an interagency Forest Bird Monitoring 

Coordinator position to coordinate monitoring and provide 

regular reports on the status and trend of forest bird 

populations. (Priority 1)

A permanent interagency coordinator is needed to serve as the 

“resident expert” on forest bird monitoring in Hawai`i. This 

person would coordinate all aspects of forest bird monitoring in 

Hawai`i, including scheduling and organizing field surveys, 

conducting training sessions, ensuring that data collected during 

each survey are entered into a standardized database that is 

available to all agencies, analyzing data from each survey and 

producing status and trend reports at regular intervals, and 

producing updated GIS maps of current distributions of each 

species. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-120 

Table 15. Recovery areas requiring avian monitoring more frequently than every 5 

years. Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; 

O = O`ahu. 

Table 15. Recovery areas requiring avian monitoring more frequently 

than every 5 years 

Recovery 

Action # Island Study Area Survey Need/ Comments Priority 

5.2.1 H Mauna Kea, māmane forest Annual survey 2 

5.2.2 H Hakalau Forest NWR Annual survey 2 

5.2.3 H Kona Unit, Hakalau Forest NWR Annual survey 2 

5.2.4 H Ka`ū Forest Every 2 years 2 

5.2.5 H Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird 

Sanctuary 

Every 2 years 2 

5.2.6 H Kūlani Annual survey 2 

5.2.7 H Keauhou Ranch/Kīlauea Forest Annual survey 2 

5.2.8 H Mauna Loa Strip Biannual survey 2 

5.2.9 MA Hanawī NAR Annual survey 2 

5.2.10 MA Waikamoi Preserve Annual survey 2 

5.2.11 MA Kīpahulu Valley Annual survey 2 

5.2.12 O Wailupe Valley, to monitor 

efficacy of predator control 

Annual survey 2 

5.2.13 O Pia Valley, to monitor efficacy of 

predator control 

Annual survey 2 

5.2.14 O Honouliuli Preserve, to monitor 

efficacy of predator control 

Annual survey 2 

5.2.15 O Schofield Barracks West Range, 

to monitor efficacy of predator 

control 

Annual survey 2 

5.2.16 O Any other areas where active 

management is undertaken 

Annual survey 2 

5.2.17 K Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve 

puaiohi “core” habitat 

Annual survey 2 

6. Public Awareness and Information. 

Inform and educate the general public and lawmakers about Hawai`i’s 

native and endemic species, and their habitats, to create a Statewide 

conservation ethic and to build alliances for conservation within the State 

of Hawai`i. Public information plays an important role in all recovery 

programs. Without public and lawmaker support, recovery actions may be 

impossible to attain. An informed public will support recovery actions, 

reduce time and budget costs, reduce controversy, and even persuade 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-121 

lawmakers to support changes necessary to preserve and protect 

endangered species and their habitat. 

6.1 Build alliances with the public through outdoor experience 

with native forest birds and their forest habitats. 

People are more likely to support programs for native species that 

they have observed first hand, rather than those with which they 

have had no experience. Hawaii’s native forest birds are generally 

only found on private lands or in remote places where the public is 

unlikely to visit. Providing roadside stops, trails, and better visitor 

access within native forest habitat will increase public experience 

with native bird species and their habits. This will expand 

community knowledge and create alliances between the public and 

conservation agencies, leading to more public support for 

protection of natural places and species. 

6.1.1 Promote and support public native species awareness 

and environmental education through increased visitor 

access on trails with interpretive and educational 

displays. The first line of action in promoting public 

environmental education is bringing the public in direct 

contact with native species and habitats. The development 

of new trails and enhancement of existing trails with 

interpretive displays will increase public access and 

exposure to native species, bringing about awareness and 

support for these species and their native habitats (see 

Table 16). 

6.1.2 Promote increased access and interpretation programs 

on Federal, State, County, and private refuges, parks, 

preserves, and other lands where native species are 

found (see Table 17). 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-122 

Table 16. Sites where interpretive information is needed (scenic overlooks and 

trails where interpretive information should be developed or where 

existing trails need enhancement). Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = 

Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. NWR = National 

Wildlife Refuge, NAR = Natural Area Reserve.

Table 16. Sites where interpretive information is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.1.1 H Saddle Road 

21 mile marker 

overlook and trail 

Develop a scenic overlook with parking, a 

nature trail, and interpretive signage that 

discusses native forest birds and their 

habitat. 

3 

6.1.1.2 H Saddle Road, 

Pu`u `ō`ō Trail 

Trailhead access and parking area need 

improvement, interpretive displays should 

be installed to bring attention to native 

forest birds. 

3 

6.1.1.3 H Hawai`i 

Volcanoes 

National Park, 

Mauna Loa Strip 

Road. 

Develop short loop trails, pullouts, and 

interpretive displays along the Mauna Loa 

Strip Road. 

3 

6.1.1.4 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR 

Expand visitor use with a loop trail and 

interpretive displays. 

2 

6.1.1.5 H Mauna Kea 

Pu`u Lā`au 

Establish a loop trail within palila habitat 

and provide interpretive signs about the 

bird and its habitat. This would 

concentrate visitor usage and minimize 

disturbance, spread of weeds, and 

potential for fires. 

2 

6.1.1.6 H `Ainapō Trail Work with Nā Ala Hele to add a bird 

component to their brochure and 

interpretive signs at parking areas. 

3 

6.1.1.7 H Pu`u Wa`awa`a 

Forest Bird 

Sanctuary 

Develop a system of trails with 

interpretive signs. 

3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-123 

Table 16. Sites where interpretive information is needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.1.8 H Pu`u Maka`ala, 

Laupāhoehoe, 

Kīpāhoehoe, 

Manukā, and 

Pu`u O`umi NAR 

Develop a system of trails with 

interpretive signs. 

3 

6.1.1.9 MA Haleakalā

National Park, 

Hosmer Grove 

Develop interpretive signs for the nature 

trail. 

3 

6.1.1.10 MA Polipoli State 

Park 

Develop an interpretive kiosk for the 

parking area and signs and brochures for 

the Waiakoa Loop Trail that include bird 

information. 

3 

6.1.1.11 MA Pu`u Kukui, 

Maui Land and 

Pineapple 

Develop access, trails, and interpretive 

signs for the Pu`u Kukui Trail. 

3 

6.1.1.12 MA Waihe`e Ridge 

Trail 

Develop an interpretive display at the top 

of the trail. 

3 

6.1.1.13 MA Kahakuloa NAR Po`elua Road, develop trail and 

interpretation on birds and other native 

biota. 

3 

6.1.1.14 MO Hanalilolilo Trail Develop an interpretive trail to rim of 

Pēpē`ōpae Bog. 

3 

6.1.1.15 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve 

Pu`u Ali`i NAR 

Develop an interpretive kiosk at the 

Waikolu Lookout describing native forest 

birds and their habitat. 

3 

6.1.1.16 O Kuli`ou`ou Trail, 

`Aiea Loop Trail 

Develop interpretive signs and brochures 

for trails focusing on common native 

forest birds and the endangered O`ahu 

`elepaio. 

2 

6.1.1.17 K Kōke`e State 

Park 

Develop interpretive signs at Kalalau and 

Pu`u O Kila lookouts and educational 

brochures for all Kōke`e State Park trails 

that include native forest birds. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-124 

Table 17. Sites where increased access and interpretation are needed. Island codes: H = 

Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. NAR = 

Natural Area Reserve. 

Table 17. Sites where increased access and interpretation are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.2.1 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, Hakalau 

and Kona Forest 

Units 

Conduct open houses on a basis regular 

basis and develop open public access 

opportunities. 

3 

6.1.2.2 H Pu`u Wa`a Wa`a 

Wildlife 

Sanctuary 

Improve public access and interpretation. 

 

3 

6.1.2.3 MA Waikamoi 

Preserve 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Expand public access opportunities into 

areas with native forest birds. 

3 

6.1.2.4 MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve 

Develop public access and interpretation 

of the Idyllwild entrance to the reservoir 

on the 4,300 foot contour road. 

3 

6.1.2.5 MA Hanawī NAR Increase limited public access for bird 

study and permitted public access. 

3 

6.1.2.6 MA Haleakalā

National Park 

Increase public access opportunities for 

bird viewing in consultation with park 

staff. 

3 

6.1.2.7 MO Kamakou 

Preserve, The 

Nature 

Conservancy 

Improve public access by connecting the 

preserve with Hanalilolilo trail. 

3 

6.1.2.8 O Barber’s Point Develop interpretive displays and sponsor 

regular trips to sinkholes at Barber’s Point 

to see fossil bird bones. 

3 

6.1.2.9 O Honouliuli 

Preserve, The 

Nature 

Conservancy 

Support public education through the 

Project Stewardship program run by The 

Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-125 

6.1.3 Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor 

centers, displays, facilities, and public interpretive 

programs (see Table 18). 

Table 18. Sites where visitor centers, displays, and interpretive programs are needed. 

Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = 

O`ahu. 

Table 18. Sites where visitor centers, displays, and interpretive programs are needed 

Recovery 

Action # 

Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.3.1 H Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Develop a visitor center with interpretive 

displays and docents promoting refuge 

programs to protect Hawaii’s endangered 

flora, fauna, and ecosystems. 

2 

6.1.3.2 MA Haleakalā

National Park 

Construct an interpretive display in the 

campground at Palikū providing 

information on programs by the NP and 

State for Maui parrotbill, `ākohekohe 

and other native forest birds, and create a 

bird identification brochure for visitors 

park-wide. 

2 

6.1.3.3 O Honolulu Zoo Provide support for developing a 

Hawai`i forest bird display at Honolulu 

Zoo. 

2 

6.1.4 Promote the opening of State Forest Reserve trails to 

the general public for nature walks and birding on all 

islands. (Priority 2) 

6.1.5 Support the Nā Ala Hele Trail System. (Priority 3) 

6.2 Fund, support, and promote programs that inform teachers 

and educate children, lawmakers, local public, and visitors 

about Hawaii’s native and endangered flora and fauna. 

Most people in Hawai`i are unfamiliar with Hawaii’s native 

species and the problems associated with their decline. Raising the 

level of awareness on endangered species issues at the community 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-126 

level is the key to the success of the recovery of these species. 

Informed teachers will aid in educating the community and 

lawmakers, and with public backing, will support habitat 

protection and endangered species recovery. 

6.2.1 Fund and support teacher education programs that 

promote native species issues. 

Teachers provide the basis for educating a large segment of 

the population, therefore educating teachers about 

endangered species issues should be paramount. Providing 

teachers with interesting, appropriate, and up to date 

teaching materials for classroom use is an important part of 

this educational program. 

6.2.1.1 Institute core curriculum programs at the 

university level emphasizing Hawaii’s native 

species for elementary and high school teacher 

education programs. (Priority 2) 

6.2.1.2 Develop an interpretation internship program 

for university students specializing in the field of 

forest bird information and education. (Priority 

2) 

6.2.1.3 Provide permanent funding for programs such 

as Imi Pono No Ka Aina, an Environmental 

Educator program at Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park that educates teachers through 

accredited workshops in environmental and 

native species issues. 

(Priority 2) 

 

6.2.1.4 Fund the development and distribution of 

educational materials that provides teachers 

with “student friendly” information about native 

and endangered species. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-127 

6.2.1.4.1 Develop forest bird posters for schools, 

emphasizing each of the native forest 

birds and keyed to each island’s 

endemic species. (Priority 3) 

6.2.1.4.2 Keauhou Ranch/Kīlauea Forest 

Reserve. Assist Kamehameha Schools 

with ongoing development of 

environmental learning opportunities. 

(Priority 3) 

6.2.2 Support and fund programs that educate children 

about Hawai`i’s natural environments and that inform 

the public through non-traditional partnerships. 

Classroom learning is only one facet of the learning 

process. Outdoor programs at organized learning centers 

give students the opportunity to relate to the natural 

environment that they might not ordinarily experience. 

Intimate knowledge of native environments and species 

through the outdoor experience likely will produce future 

supporters for these environments. The use of nontraditional partnerships also can help children attain 

experience from members of the community in 

environmental education programs. 

6.2.2.1 Fund and support programs at nature centers on 

all islands that provide school children with a 

“hands on” approach to learning about 

Hawai`i’s native species: Keokeolani Outdoor 

Education Program on the Big Island; Maui 

Outdoor Education Center on Maui; Hawai`i Nature 

Center on O`ahu; The Discovery Outdoor 

Education Center on Kaua`i; and funding for the 

establishment of a Moloka`i Outdoor Education 

Center. (Priority 2) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-128 

6.2.2.2 Fund and support organizations such as `Ōhi`a 

Productions and Keauhou Bird Conservation 

Center that provide environmental educational 

programs to Hawaii’s school children. (Priority 

2) 

6.2.2.2.1 Provide funding for `Ōhi`a 

Productions to perform on other 

islands and to produce videos of 

previous performances for distribution 

to schools throughout Hawai`i. 

(Priority 2) 

6.2.2.3 Develop and support programs such as Mālama 

Hawai`i that encourage widespread awareness of 

conservation goals through a diverse coalition of 

traditional and non-traditional partnerships. 

(Priority 2) 

 

6.2.3 Create a clearinghouse, such as a website or “hotline,” 

for information and educational materials about 

Hawai`i’s native species. 

Teachers, students, lawmakers, businesses, conservation 

groups, and the general public should have the most current 

information available to them. Scientists from Federal and 

State agencies have the current information. 

6.2.3.1 Fund, create, and support continuous 

maintenance of an informational website focused 

on native species and their habitats, as well as 

alien species and their effects on native species, 

and provide up to date information that can be 

utilized and copied onto other web sites to 

spread the information. (Priority 2) 

 

6.2.3.1.1 Obtain funding to develop technology 

for remote digital broadcast from an 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-129 

O`ahu `elepaio “nest cam” to local 

schools through a web site. (Priority 3) 

6.2.4 Provide information and promote awareness of the 

harmful effects of some alien species to public health, 

native species, and native ecosystems. 

Alien species are the leading cause endangerment and 

extinction of native species in Hawai`i. Harmful effects 

include habitat degradation caused by alien ungulates and 

weeds; native bird extinctions caused by exotic mosquitoborne diseases; predation from introduced rats, cats, and 

mongooses; and possible impacts to Hawaii’s ecosystems 

and economy. 

 

6.2.4.1 Initiate and support public outreach efforts 

about the effect of rats and cats as vectors for 

human disease, agricultural pests, and predation 

on native species, such as the Cats Indoors program 

of the American Bird Conservancy. Provide film 

and video footage of the harmful effects rats and 

cats have on native species and humans. (Priority 

1) 

6.2.4.2 Initiate public outreach efforts to inform the 

public about potential human and animal 

diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and how 

source reduction can reduce those threats. 

Provide film and video footage of the harmful 

effects alien mosquitoes and disease have on native 

species and humans. (Priority 1) 

6.2.4.3 Inform the public on the value of feral ungulate 

control and weed control in native forests by 

providing film and video footage of the harmful 

effects alien weeds and ungulates have on native 

species and agriculture. (Priority 2) 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-130 

6.3 Use a professional marketing agency and business marketing 

techniques (television, radio, internet, newspapers, advertising, 

and magazines) to promote awareness of the uniqueness of 

Hawai`i’s native species and gain local support for endangered 

species and related conservation issues. Radio, television, 

contests, and promotions featuring local entertainers, celebrities, 

and heroes to promote public information and awareness of 

environmental issues and other mass marketing techniques are 

effective and should be used to increase the public’s awareness of 

native and endangered species and their associated problems. 

6.3.1 Conduct market research on the public’s knowledge of 

native species and attitudes towards conservation in 

order to provide information on the most direct ways to 

inform the public and gain support for native species. 

(Priority 2) 

6.3.2 Promote and fund the development of Public Service 

Announcements for television and radio about native 

species and their habitat. 

6.3.2.1 Assist in the development of public service 

announcements about native species by providing 

local television stations with footage of native 

species with natural sounds and suggest their use as 

background visuals or sounds during credits for 

local or other programming. (Priority 2) 

6.3.2.2 Use local heroes, entertainers, sports figures, or 

other role models to promote local pride in 

native common and endangered species. (Priority 

2) 

6.3.2.3 Promote the use of sponsored prize-winning 

contests on local radio, television stations, and 

newspapers to promote native species awareness. 

(Priority 3)
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-131 

6.3.2.3.1 Sponsor and support contests, such as a 

forest bird website contest among high 

school students, a forest bird essay contest 

in schools with prizes for different grade 

levels, a forest bird photo contest, or a 

song writing contest with the song to be 

used for as a theme for a locally produced 

nature program. (Priority 3) 

6.3.2.4 Fund daily, weekly, or monthly programs in 

newspapers, radio, and television stations that 

provide a short informative environmental 

education story. (Priority 3) 

6.3.2.4.1 Develop a weekly column provided to 

all newspapers in Hawai`i with 

information on native species and 

ecosystem issues, and the writing shared 

by conservation organizations throughout 

the State. (Priority 3) 

6.3.2.4.2 Develop a weekly program for radio 

stations on all islands providing 

information on native species and 

ecosystem issues, with the writing shared 

by conservation organizations throughout 

the State. (Priority 3)

6.3.2.4.3 Develop a half-hour weekly or monthly 

television program about Hawaii’s 

native species and their habitat. 

(Priority 3)

6.3.3 Promote private business use of native species 

likenesses, images, and names on old and new products 

and use them in advertising and logos. 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-132 

6.3.3.1 Promote the use of the `i`iwi or a caricature of 

`i`iwi as the “poster child” for native species in 

advertising and in education. (Priority 3) 

6.3.3.2 Provide native species images and promote the 

use of these images in advertising by marketing 

agencies, local and national fast food corporations, 

and advertising on tray-liners, milk cartons, and 

other heavily-used advertising media. (Priority 3) 

 

6.3.4 Promote fund raisers and solicit corporate funding and 

promotion to expand the economic base for public 

awareness and information campaigns. 

6.3.4.1 Promote the hosting of special events in 

cooperation with major local hotels and 

corporations as funding partners to champion 

native species and ecosystem awareness. (Priority 

3) 

 

6.4 Promote the creation of and support “Friends” groups, 

partnerships, environmental outreach programs, and other 

groups to provide support for parks, refuges, reserves, and 

natural areas to cultivate understanding and conservation of 

Hawaii’s natural and cultural resources. Funding and labor 

support for environmental education is often in short supply. The 

establishment of Friends groups and partnerships helps fill the 

need by supplying volunteers and funds to maintain these 

important programs. Many refuges and parks rely greatly on these 

resources to champion new programs and maintain old ones at 

little or no cost. 

6.4.1 Recruit, train, and support volunteer community 

leaders to organize native species outreach and 

awareness programs at the community level. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 4-133 

6.4.1.1 Support conservation outreach organizations to 

promote conservation at a “grass roots” level. 

(Priority 2) 

 

6.4.1.2 Develop a “mentor” program in which natural 

science professionals provide field opportunities 

for young people to learn about Hawaii’s native 

species. (Priority 3) 

6.4.1.3 Support the use of volunteers in projects on 

State, Federal, and private lands that will contribute 

to the enhancement of native habitat and increase 

the level of awareness and pride in native species 

within the local populace. (Priority 2) 

6.4.1.4 Support the development of a volunteer 

“clearinghouse” to provide volunteers for resource 

management, education, and outreach. (Priority 3) 

6.4.2 Develop and support partnership and outreach 

programs with other conservation agencies, native 

Hawaiian groups, hunter groups, and private 

landowners. (Priority 2) 

6.4.2.1 Develop and maintain partnerships with 

Kamehameha Schools, The Nature Conservancy 

of Hawai`i, Hawai`i Audubon Society, Pig 

Hunters of Hawai`i, Hawai`i Conservation 

Alliance, and other non-governmental 

organizations to promote environmental 

awareness. (Priority 2)
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-1 

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Recovery actions in the Implementation Schedule are prioritized in a twopart ranking system. First, each action is assigned a “priority number” from 1 

(highest priority) to 3 (lowest priority) (see Definition of Action Priorities, 

below). Second, within each priority number, actions are broken down into 

“priority tiers” from 1 (highest priority) to 3 (lowest priority). For example, an 

action with a priority number of 1 and a priority tier of 1 has higher priority than 

an action with a priority number of 1 and a priority tier of 2. The recovery tier 

rankings are based on several criteria, including whether the land in question is 

currently occupied by the species, the current suitability of the habitat for the 

species, the number of existing populations, and the probability of species 

extinction. Higher tier rankings are assigned to actions for species with only one 

population, actions for species that could go extinct more rapidly, and actions for 

habitat that is currently occupied. Numbers in the Action Number column 

correspond to descriptions of recovery actions in the recovery action narrative 

(Section IV) of this recovery plan. This implementation schedule is provided to 

assist in selecting the most important (highest priority) recovery actions for 

implementation. Appendix A provides a list of land parcels and recovery actions 

as an aid to landowners and land managers who may wish to see a complete list 

by parcel of habitat-based recovery actions for their lands. Recovery actions in 

Appendix A are from Tables 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the Recovery Actions Narrative. 

Many recovery actions benefit multiple species, including habitat-based actions. 

During the writing of this plan, the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

suggested developing “Five-year Recovery Work Plans” to make the larger 

recovery plan more accessible to landowners and resource managers. These 

Work Plans include key near-term recovery actions for each species. The Pacific 

Islands Fish and Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed 

these Work Plans in 2003. Each Work Plan provides a brief species summary, a 

description of the primary threats to the species, and lists 10 to 15 key recovery 

actions to be completed in the next 5 years. Species Five-year Recovery Work 

Plans are available from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, 

Hawai`i, and are also provided here as Appendices F through L to this plan. 

 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-2 

1. Definition of Action Priorities. 

Priority 1 – An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent a 

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

Priority 2 – An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in 

species population or habitat quality or some other significant 

negative impact short of extinction. 

Priority 3 – All other actions necessary to meet recovery objectives. 

2. Threat Categories. 

We consider five major categories of threats to species in order to list, delist, or 

reclassify a species: 

A – The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; 

B – Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

C – Disease or predation; 

D – The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

E – Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

The Listing Factor column in the Implementation Schedule indicates 

which of the five threat categories each recovery action is meant to address in 

order to meet the recovery criteria of creating viable populations or 

metapopulations and management of recovery areas (see Recovery Criteria, page 

3-2). The majority of recovery actions in this plan address threats to habitat 

(factor A) and disease or predation (factor C). The overutilization of Hawaiian 

forest birds for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes 

(factor B) and inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms (factor D) are not 

considered to be significant current threats. Population monitoring does not fit 

under the above threat categories, but in order to determine whether recovery 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-3 

criteria have been met, it is essential to evaluate population trends, the effects of 

threats on populations, and measure population responses to management. 

3. Definitions of Action Durations. 

Continual – An action that will be implemented on a routine basis once begun 

and will continue until recovery has been achieved (estimated at 

30 years). 

Ongoing – An action that has already been initiated and will continue until the 

action is no longer necessary. If no discrete time frame is 

provided, it is assumed that the action will continue until recovery 

has been achieved (estimated at 30 years). 

Unknown – Action duration is not known at this time or action is not being 

implemented currently. 

Complete – Action has been completed. 

4. Responsible Parties for Action Implementation. 

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have the statutory responsibility 

for implementing this recovery plan. Only Federal agencies are mandated to take 

part in the effort. The recovery actions identified here are intended as a guide for 

meeting the recovery goals in this plan, and imply no legal obligations of State 

and local government agencies or private landowners to implement them. 

However, in most cases the recovery of the listed species included in this plan 

will require the involvement and cooperation of Federal, State, local, and private 

interests. For each recovery action described in the Implementation Schedule, the 

column titled “Responsible Parties” lists the primary Federal and State agencies 

with the authority or responsibility for implementing or funding recovery actions 

and conservation groups, partnerships, and private landowners that may also wish 

to be involved in recovery implementation. An asterisk (*) identifies the logical 

lead partner(s) for implementing recovery actions. The listing of a party in the 

Implementation Schedule does not require the identified party to implement the 

action(s) or to secure funding for implementing the action(s). Access to private 

lands and implementation of recovery actions on land parcels that are privately 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-4 

owned will be by mutual agreement with the landowner in cooperation with the 

Service and any other appropriate parties. 

5. Cost Estimates for Recovery Actions. 

In addition to providing a prioritized list of recovery actions, the 

Implementation Schedule provides estimated costs of implementing recovery 

actions. The method used to estimate costs of different types of recovery actions 

are described below. Estimates for these actions are based on average costs of 

similar actions implemented to date. Differences in local conditions likely will 

result in variation from estimates for some of these actions in some areas. Slight 

differences between total costs and annual costs for some continual and ongoing 

actions are due to rounding of annual costs. In these instances, total cost is the 

most accurate approximation of funding needed to complete a recovery action. In 

some cases, as described below, although we were able to estimate the total cost 

of an action, it was not possible to accurately break that cost down into annual 

estimates, because those costs varied widely between years depending on the 

stage of work or because the point at which funding would become available to 

carry out the action was highly uncertain. 

Secure Recovery Areas: Costs to secure recovery areas cannot be 

determined at this time because numerous methods are available (conservation 

easement, partnership agreement, safe harbor agreement, change in land use 

designation, change of jurisdiction, lease, or purchase from willing seller) that 

vary widely in their potential cost, and it is not possible to speculate which 

method might be most appropriate or effective in the future. Many land parcels in 

question are owned by State or local governments or private interests, and the 

most appropriate method of securing habitat will depend on the disposition and 

willingness of the landowner. 

 

Reforestation and Restoration: Cost for each action number equals total 

acreage in the recovery area parcel(s) to be reforested or restored multiplied by 

cost per acre for reforestation or restoration. The current cost per acre for 

reforestation is estimated at $600/acre for high intensity effort, $400/acre for 

moderate intensity effort, and $200/acre for low intensity effort; $200/acre is used 

for areas that only require management to assist natural forest regeneration. Costs 

for forest restoration at Kōke`e State Park on Kaua`i are by expert opinion. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-5 

Fencing and Feral Ungulate Removal: Cost for each action number equals 

total acreage in the recovery area parcel(s) requiring fencing multiplied by cost 

per acre for fencing added to the total acreage in the recovery area parcel(s) 

requiring ungulate removal multiplied by cost/acre for ungulate removal. 

Cost/acre for fencing = $312.50 for Hawai`i, $570.50 for Maui and Kaua`i, and 

$891 for deer fencing. Because populations of Axis deer on Maui and Moloka`i 

are expanding their range and growing rapidly, it is anticipated that deer-proof 

fencing will be required for these two islands. Costs are based on the cost of 

fencing to enclose 1 square mile of area (4 linear miles of fence) or 640 acres. 

Detailed plans for fencing were not available for most areas. For larger units 

fencing costs may be somewhat less than estimated, and it may be possible to 

reduce costs in some cases by strategic placement of fencing segments. 

 

Hunting to reduce feral ungulates in unfenced areas is beneficial to forest 

bird habitat and will contribute to forest bird recovery. However, fencing and 

complete removal of feral ungulates will provide the most benefit to forest bird 

habitats and is most cost effective over the long-term. Hunting alone in fenced 

areas may reduce feral ungulate numbers, but is unlikely to result in complete 

removal. Cost per acre for ungulate removal ($22.00/acre/3-year period) 

therefore is based on snaring within fenced areas to reduce ungulates to zero. 

One-way gates and other means of reducing numbers of ungulates in fenced areas 

are included in the cost for fencing designs. 

There will be costs to maintain fences and to monitor for and remove 

ungulates from ungulate free fenced areas should a breach in exclosures occur. It 

is difficult to predict these costs because it is not possible to know when damage 

to fencing might occur or how extensive this might be, whether or if ungulates 

entered into the fenced area and when, and because fence maintenance 

requirements will likely differ depending upon climate, terrain, vegetation overstory and other factors. We have estimated these costs to be on average 

$6.25/acre/year to monitor and repair fencing and $3.57/acre/year to monitor for 

ungulate presence inside fenced areas. We have added fence maintenance and 

ungulate monitoring costs on a per acre basis multiplied by 30 (the number of 

years estimated to recovery) to the cost for fence construction and ungulate 

removal. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-6 

Funding is not currently available for most reforestation, restoration, 

fencing, and feral ungulate removal, and opportunities to implement these actions 

are often determined by availability of funds and personnel, access to lands, and 

cooperation of parties involved. Therefore, cost estimates for these recovery 

actions are presented only under total costs and are not broken down by year. 

Highest priority projects should be implemented first as funding becomes 

available. 

Predator Control: The cost for each action number equals total acreage in 

the recovery area parcel where predators (primarily cats, mongoose, and rats) are 

to be controlled, multiplied by cost/acre/year for control. The cost per year for 

ground-based rodent baiting and cat/mongoose removal combined = $40/acre/trip, 

or $160/acre/year for four trips. Recovery of most species included in this plan 

will require large-scale predator control, and many of the land parcels involved 

are too large and the terrain is too rugged for ground-based methods to be 

effective. Adequate predator control in many areas will require aerial broadcast 

application of toxicants, and approval of this method is still pending from the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Costs for predator control for many parcels at 

this time may change and could be substantially lower depending on the 

methodology approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for aerial 

broadcast application of diphacinone rodenticide for conservation purposes in 

Hawai`i. 

Captive Propagation: Currently, captive propagation and reintroduction 

programs for Hawaiian forest birds receive approximately $1 million each year. 

As more species and larger numbers of captive-reared birds are released into the 

wild, costs are expected to increase because of greater demands for space in 

propagation facilities, increased facilities maintenance costs, larger releases, and 

more post-release monitoring. Total costs for captive propagation and 

reintroduction programs can reasonably be expected to increase to approximately 

$1.5 to $2 million per year. Because program priorities will of necessity shift 

over time, specific costs for captive propagation and related recovery strategies 

have not been assigned by year. We have estimated total costs of $60 million for 

all activities under the general heading of captive propagation and related 

recovery strategies, or $2 million per year for a 30-year period. 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-7 

Total Costs: Cost totals for each recovery action in the Total Costs 

column of the Implementation Table are the total costs for the completion of a 

recovery action over the time it will take until a species has been recovered. 

Some species with larger current populations and wider distribution may be 

recovered in less than 30 years, whereas recovery of other species will require 

substantial habitat restoration, which could take more than 30 years. For the 

purposes of this recovery plan, we have estimated that we can expect all the 

species in this plan with current populations of greater than 300 individuals to be 

recovered in 30 years. For actions that are continual or ongoing, the total cost is 

based on the annual costs summed over 30 years, unless otherwise noted. 

6. Key to Acronyms and Responsible Parties (not all are mentioned in the 

Implementation Schedule): 

ADWG – Avian Disease Working Group 

APHIS-WS-NWRC – (USDA) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center 

AZA – American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums 

BIGHA – Big Island Gamebird Hunters Association 

BIISC – Big Island Invasive Species Committee 

CPWG – Captive Propagation Working Group 

DHHL – Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

DOI – U.S. Department of Interior 

DLNR – Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DOD – Department of Defense 

DOFAW – Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

EMOWP – East Moloka`i Watershed Partnership 

EMWP – East Maui Watershed Partnership 

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration 

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration 

HDOA – Hawai`i Department of Agriculture 

HDOE – Hawai`i Department of Education 

HDPH – Hawai`i Department of Public Health 

HFBRT – Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Team 

HVNP – Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 

HZ – Honolulu Zoo 

KMWP – Ko`olau Mountains Watershed Partnership 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-8 

KS – Kamehameha Schools 

LHWRP – Leeward Haleakala Watershed Restoration Partnership 

MFBRP – Maui Forest Bird Recovery Program 

MWP – Maui Watershed Partnership 

NAPS – Natural Areas Partnership 

NAR – Natural Area Reserve 

NGO – Nongovernmental Organization 

NHPS – Native Hawaiian Plant Society 

NPS – National Park Service 

NWR – National Wildlife Refuge 

OKP –` Ōla`a/Kīlauea Partnership 

TBD – To Be Determined 

TMK – Tax Map Key 

TNCH – The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i 

TPF – The Peregrine Fund 

UH – University of Hawai`i 

UNK – Unknown 

USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFS – U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS – U.S. Geological Survey 

VC – Veterinary Consortium 

WDTF – Wildlife Disease Task Force 

WMWP – West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership

ZSSD – Zoological Society of San Diego
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-9 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 1.1 A Describe and delineate recovery areas Complete *USFWS, *HFBRT 2 1 1.2.1 A Continue existing and develop new partnerships: 

`Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, Hawai`i 

Ongoing 

*All 

Landowners, 

Land Managers, 

and Other Parties 

TBD1

2 1 1.2.2 A 

Continue existing and develop new partnerships: Kahikinui Forest Partnership Working Group, Maui 

Ongoing 

*All 

Landowners, 

Land Managers, 

and Other Parties 

TBD1

2 1 1.2.3 A 

Continue existing and develop new partnerships: East Maui Watershed Partnership 

Ongoing 

*All 

Landowners, 

Land Managers, 

and Other Parties 

TBD1

2 1 1.2.4 A 

Continue existing and develop new partnerships: Leeward Haleakalā Watershed 

Restoration Partnership, Maui 

Ongoing 

*All 

Landowners, 

Land Managers, 

and Other Parties 

TBD1

2 1 1.2.5 A 

Continue existing and develop new partnerships: West Maui Mountains Watershed Partnership 

Ongoing 

*All 

Landowners, 

Land Managers, 

and Other Parties 

TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-10 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 1.2.6 A Continue existing and develop new partnerships: East Moloka`i Watershed Partnership Ongoing *All Landowners, Land Managers, and Other Parties TBD1 2 1 1.2.7 A Continue existing and develop new partnerships: Ko`olau Mountains Watershed Partnership, O`ahu Ongoing *All Landowners, Land Managers, and Other Parties TBD1 2 1 1.3.1 A Secure recovery area: Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1 1 2 1.3.2 A Secure recovery area: Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 Ongoing *DHHL TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-11 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 1.3.3 A Secure recovery area: Hilo Forest Reserve, Laupāhoehoe Section, TMK 337001004 Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW TBD1 2 1 1.3.4 A Secure recovery area: Hilo Forest Reserve, Pīhā Section, TMK 333001004 Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-12 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 1.3.5 A Secure recovery area: 

Kīpuka `

Āinahou Nēnē

Sanctuary, TMK 338001008 

Unknown *DHHL, *DOFAW TBD1

1 3 1.3.6 A 

Secure recovery area: Humu`ula, TMK 338001002 

Unknown *DHHL TBD1

2 2 1.3.7 A 

Secure recovery area: Humu`ula, Portions of TMK 338001007 

Unknown *DHHL TBD1

1 3 1.3.8 A Secure recovery area: TMK 326018002 Unknown *DHHL TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-13 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 3 1.3.9 A Secure recovery area: TMK 326018001 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1 1 2 1.3.10 A Secure recovery area: TMK 344015002 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1 2 2 1.3.11 A Secure recovery area: Keauhou Ranch, TMK 399001004 Unknown *KS TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-14 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 1.3.12 A Secure recovery area: Kapāpala Ranch, Portions of TMK 398001010 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division, Kapāpala Ranch TBD1 2 2 1.3.13 A Secure recovery area: Ka`

ū Forest Reserve, 

TMK 397001007 

Unknown *Mauna Kea Agribusiness TBD1

2 2 1.3.14 A 

Secure recovery area: Ka`

ū Forest Reserve, 

Portions of TMKs 397001006 and 397001005 

Unknown *KS TBD1

1 1 1.3.15 A 

Secure recovery area: Kahuku Ranch, Portions of TMK 392001002 

Unknown 

*Samuel M. 

Damon Trust, 

Kahuku Ranch 

TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-15 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 1.3.16 A Secure recovery area: Honomalino, TMKs 389006004 and 389006029 Unknown *Scott C. Rolles Trust TBD1 2 3 1.3.17 A Secure recovery area: 

Pāpā, TMK 388001001 Complete *The Nature Conservancy UNK 

2 2 1.3.18 A 

Secure recovery area: Portions of TMKs 388001003 388001004 387012001 392001005 387012003 387012004 387001007 387001006 387001011 387001004 

Unknown *Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-16 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 1.3.19 A Secure recovery area: `Alae Ranch, Portions of TMK 387001014 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1 2 1 1.3.20 A Secure recovery area: McCandless Ranch, Portions of TMKs 392001003 and 386001001 Unknown *McCandless Ranch TBD1 2 1 1.3.21 A Secure recovery area: Waiea Tract, TMK 386001003 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-17 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 1.3.22 A Secure recovery area: Keālia Ranch, TMK 385001001 Unknown *KS TBD1 2 1 1.3.23 A Secure recovery area: 

Hōnaunau Forest, TMKs 

384001001 384001002 383001001 383001002 

Unknown *KS TBD1

2 1 1.3.24 A 

Secure recovery area: Keālia Ranch, Portions 

of TMK 385001002

Unknown *Elizabeth Stack et al. TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-18 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 1 1.3.25 A Secure recovery area: Portions of TMK 382001001 Unknown *Kealakekua Development Corp. TBD1 2 1 1.3.26 A Secure recovery area: Pu`u Lehua, Portions of TMKs 378001003 378001007 372002001 378001001 Unknown *KS TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-19 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 1.3.27 A Secure recovery area: Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016003 224016004 228008001 228008007 Unknown *Alexander and Baldwin, *East Maui Irrigation, *EMWP TBD1 3 3 1.3.28 A Secure recovery area: 

Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, TMK 216001007 

Unknown *J. Haili, *EMWP TBD1

3 3 1.3.29 A 

Secure recovery area: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, TMK 216001006 

Unknown 

*Kalalau, 

Cleveland, 

*EMWP 

TBD1

1 3 1.3.30 A 

Secure recovery area: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

TMKs 216001005 217001033 217002035 217004006 218001007 

Unknown 

*DLNR, 

*EMWP, 

*NPS 

TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-20 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 1.3.31 A Secure recovery area: 

Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

TMK 217001032 

Unknown *A. Kaapana et al., *EMWP TBD1

2 2 1.3.32 A 

Secure recovery area: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

TMK 217001024 

Unknown *Kaupō Ranch Ltd., *EMWP TBD1

3 1 1.3.33 A Secure recovery area: Nu`u, TMK 218001001 Unknown *Kaupō Ranch Ltd., *EMWP, *NPS TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-21 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 1.3.34 A Secure recovery area: Nu`u, TMK 218001002 Unknown *James Campbell Est., *EMWP TBD1 1 2 1.3.35 A Secure recovery area: Kahikinui Forest Reserve, TMKs 218001006 218001005 218001009 Unknown *DLNR, *EMWP TBD1 1 2 1.3.36 A Secure recovery area: Kahikinui Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 Unknown *DHHL, USFWS, *EMWP TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-22 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 1.3.37 A Secure recovery area: Upper Auwahi, TMKs 219001006 221009001 222001001 222001034 Unknown *`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc., DOI, NHPS, *EMWP TBD1 2 2 1.3.38 A Secure recovery area: Kula Forest Reserve, TMK 222007001 Unknown *DLNR, *EMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.39 A Secure recovery area: 

Kēōkea, TMK 

222004033 

Unknown 

*James 

Campbell Est., 

*EMWP 

TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-23 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 1.3.40 A Secure recovery area: Waiohuli, TMK 222005052 Unknown *James Campbell Est., *EMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.41 A Secure recovery area: Ka`ono`ulu, TMKs 222007002 222006009 222006032 222007010 Unknown *Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd., *EMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.42 A Secure recovery area: Waiakoa, TMK 222008001 Unknown *Lucky Shoji USA Inc., *EMWP TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-24 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 1.3.43 A Secure recovery area: Kamehame Nui/Kealahou, TMK 223005002 Unknown *John Zwaanstra, *EMWP TBD1 1 2 1.3.44 A Secure recovery area: Haleakalā Ranch (P

ūlehu 

Nui /Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

Unknown 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*EMWP 

TBD1

1 1 1.3.45 A 

Secure recovery area: Waikamoi Preserve, TMK 223005004 

Unknown 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*TNCH, 

*EMWP 

TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-25 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 1.3.46 A Secure recovery area: West Maui Forest Reserve, Wailuku, TMKs 233003003 235003001 236003001 Unknown *Wailuku Agriculture, *WMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.47 A Secure recovery area: West Maui Forest Reserve, Launiupoko, TMK 247001002 Unknown *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co., *WMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.48 A Secure recovery area: West Maui Forest Reserve, Kaua`ula, TMK 246025001 Unknown *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co., *WMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.49 A Secure recovery area: West Maui Forest Reserve, Kahoma, TMK 245022001 Unknown *KS, *WMWP TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-26 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 1.3.50 A Secure recovery area: West Maui Forest Reserve, Pu` u 

Kī/Haakea, TMKs 

245022002 245022004 

Unknown 

*Amfac/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., 

*WMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.51 A 

Secure recovery area: Kapunakea Preserve, Amfac/ JMB Hawai`i Co., TNCH, TMK 244007001 

Unknown 

*Amfac/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., 

*TNCH, 

*WMWP, NAPS 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.52 A 

Secure recovery area: West Maui Forest Reserve, Kapāloa, TMK 

244007007 

Unknown *WMWP TBD1

2 1 1.3.53 A 

Secure recovery area: Pu`u Kukui Watershed Management Area, TMKs 242001001 241001017 

Unknown 

*Maui Land and 

Pineapple, 

*WMWP, NAPS 

TBD1

2 2 1.3.54 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 252014001 

Unknown *R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-27 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 1.3.55 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 259006011 Unknown *TNCH TBD1 2 3 1.3.56 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, Wawaeolepe, TMK 259008017 Unknown *William Hitchcock, et al. TBD1 2 2 1.3.57 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 254003032 Unknown *TNCH TBD1 2 1 1.3.58 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Wailau Valley and Oloku`i, TMK 259006004 Unknown *G. Brown III, et al. TBD1 2 3 1.3.59 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Laeokapuna, TMK 257005027 Unknown *P. Hodgins TBD1 2 3 1.3.60 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Keanakoholua, TMK 257005001 Unknown *M. Hustice Trust TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-28 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 1.3.61 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Manawai, TMK 256006013 Unknown *P. Petro Trust TBD1 2 3 1.3.62 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, West `

Ōhi`a Gulch, 

TMK 256006010 

Unknown *E. Wond Trust TBD1

2 3 1.3.63 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Keawa Nui, TMK 256006007 

Unknown *KS TBD1

2 3 1.3.64 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pua`ahala, TMK 256006002 

Unknown *K&H Horizons Hawai`i TBD1

2 3 1.3.65 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kumu`eli, TMK 256006001 

Unknown *D. Fairbanks III Trust TBD1

2 3 1.3.66 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamalō, TMKs 255001016 255001006 255001017 

Unknown *KS TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-29 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 1.3.67 A Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Mākolelau, TMK 

255001015 

Unknown *Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust TBD1

2 2 1.3.68 A 

Secure recovery area: Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 

Unknown 

*Moloka`i 

Ranch Ltd., 

TNCH 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.69 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kawela, TMKs 254003001 254003028 

Unknown 

*Kawela 

Plantation 

Homes 

Association 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.70 A 

Secure recovery area: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kaunakakai, TMK 253003005 

Unknown *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-30 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 1.3.71 A Secure recovery area: Pia Valley, TMKs 37003073 37003033 Unknown *Benjamin Cassiday, *James Pflueger, *KMWP TBD1 1 3 1.3.72 A Secure recovery area: Lower Wailupe Valley, TMK 36004001 Unknown *City and County of Honolulu TBD1 1 2 1.3.73 A Secure recovery area: 

Kūpaua Valley, TMKs 

37004001 and 37004002 

Unknown 

*Hawai`i 

Humane Society, 

*KMWP 

TBD1
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-31 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 1.3.74 A Secure recovery area: Kuli`ou`ou Valley, TMK 38013001 Unknown *Joseph Paiko Trust, *KMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.75 A Secure recovery area: Ka`alākei Valley, TMK 39009001 Unknown *Hawai`i Kai Development Co., *KMWP TBD1 3 3 1.3.76 A Secure recovery area: Kapālama, TMK 14015009 Unknown *Julius Chung Trust, *KMWP TBD1 1 1 1.3.77 A Secure recovery area: Moanalua Valley, TMK 11013001 Unknown *Amon Estate, *KMWP TBD1 1 1 1.3.78 A Secure recovery area: South Hālawa Valley, Tripler Ridge, TMK 99011001 Unknown *Queen’s Medical Center, *KMWP TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-32 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 1.3.79 A Secure recovery area: Waikāne Valley, TMK 48014005 Unknown *SMF Enterprises, *KMWP TBD1 2 3 1.3.80 A Secure recovery area: Waianu Valley, TMKs 48014003 and 48013014 Unknown *Waiāhole Irrigation Co. Ltd., *KMWP TBD1 1 2 1.3.81 A Secure recovery area: Southern Alaka`i Plateau, Portion of TMK 417001001 Unknown *Robinson Family Partners TBD1 2 1 1.3.82 A Secure recovery area: Upper Wainiha Pali, Portion of TMK 458001001 Unknown *Alexander and Baldwin, Hawai`i Inc., *DLNR TBD1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-33 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.1.1 A Reforest areas on the Northeast slope of Mauna Kea, Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 31.5 1 3 2.1.2 A 

Reforest areas of the Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 

Unknown *DHHL 15.1 

3 1 2.1.3 A 

Reforest areas of the Hilo Forest Reserve, Laupāhoehoe Section, 

TMK 337001004 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 0.9 

3 2 2.1.4 A 

Reforest areas of the Hilo Forest Reserve, Pīhā

Section, TMK 333001004 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 1.4 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-34 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.1.5 A Reforest areas of Hakalau Forest NWR, TMKs 337001010 329005005 333001007 329005003 Ongoing *USFWS 33.7 3 2 2.1.6 A Reforest areas of Kīpuka 

`Āinahou NēnēSanctuary, TMK 

338001008 

Unknown *DHHL, *DOFAW 17.8 

2 3 2.1.7 A 

Reforest areas of Humu`ula, TMK 338001002 

Unknown *DHHL 29.8 

2 2 2.1.8 A 

Reforest areas of Humu`ula, Portions of TMK 338001007 

Unknown *DHHL, Parker Ranch 71.6 

2 2 2.1.9 A 

Reforest areas of Lama`ia Section, TMK 326018002 

Unknown *DHHL 14.3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-35 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.1.10 A Reforest areas of Pu`u 

`Ō`ō Ranch, TMK 

326018001 

Unknown 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Pu`u `

Ō`ō Ranch 

17.8 

2 2 2.1.11 A Reforest areas of Ka`ohe, TMK 344015002 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 0.9 1 3 2.1.12 A 

Reforest areas of Mauna Kea Forest Reserve, TMK 344015002 

Unknown *DLNR 3.9 

3 1 2.1.13 A 

Reforest areas of Keauhou Ranch, TMK 399001004 

Unknown *KS, Keauhou Ranch 108.7 

3 1 2.1.14 A Reforest areas of HVNP, TMK 399001002 Unknown *HVNP 13.1 2 2 2.1.15 A 

Reforest areas of Kapāpala Ranch, 

Portions of TMK 398001004 

Unknown 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Kapāpala Ranch 

11.9 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-36 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 1 2.1.16 A Reforest areas of Ka`

ū

Forest Reserve, TMK 397001007 

Unknown *Mauna Kea Agribusiness 1.1 

2 1 2.1.17 A 

Reforest areas of Ka`

ū

Forest Reserve, Portions of TMKs 397001006 and 397001005 

Unknown *KS 5.3 

2 1 2.1.18 A Reforest portions of TMK 392001002 Unknown *Samuel M. Damon Trust 11.2 3 1 2.1.19 A 

Reforest areas of Honomalino, TMKs 389006004 389006029 

Unknown *Scott C. Rolles Trust 0.5 

3 1 2.1.20 A Reforest areas of Papa, TMK 388001001 Unknown *Koa Aina Ventures 8.2 3 1 2.1.21 A 

Reforest areas of Honomalino, TMK 389001001 

Unknown *TNCH 12.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-37 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.1.22 A Reforest areas of Honomalino Forest Reserve, TMK 389001002 Unknown *DLNR 1.3 2 3 2.1.23 A 

Reforest areas of Yee Hop Ranch, Portions of TMKs 388001003 388001004 387012001 392001005 387012003 387012004 387001007 387001006 387001011 387001004 

Unknown *Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 27.9 

1 3 2.1.24 A 

Reforest areas of Kona Forest NWR, TMK 386001001 

Unknown *USFWS 2.0 

3 2 2.1.25 A 

Reforest areas of `Alae Ranch, Portions of TMK 387001014 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 0.9 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-38 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.1.26 A Reforest areas of McCandless Ranch and E. Stack et al., Portions of TMKs 392001003 386001001 385001002 Unknown *McCandless Ranch 12.9 2 1 2.1.27 A 

Reforest areas of Waiea Tract, TMK 386001003 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 1.9 

2 1 2.1.28 A 

Reforest areas of Keālia 

Ranch, TMK 385001001 and Portions of TMKs 384001001 and 383001001 

Unknown *KS 4.2 

3 2 2.1.29 A Reforest areas of TMK 382012001 Unknown *Kealakekua Development Corp. 31.9 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-39 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.1.30 A Reforest areas of Pu`u Lehua, Portions of TMKs 378001003 378001007 378001002 378001001 Unknown *KS 145.8 2 1 2.1.31 A 

Reforest areas of Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary, TMKs 371001001 371001006 

Unknown *DOFAW 34.3 

2 3 2.1.32 A 

Reforest areas of Hualālai Ranch, TMK 

372002001 

Unknown *KS 11.8 

1 3 2.1.33 A 

Reforest areas of Haleakalā National Park, 

TMK 218001007 

Unknown *NPS 8.8 

2 2 2.1.34 A 

Reforest areas of Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

TMK 217004006 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 0.2 

3 2 2.1.35 A Reforest areas of Nu`u, TMK 218001001 Unknown *Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 2.7 3 1 2.1.36 A Reforest areas of Nu`u, TMK 218001002 Unknown *James Campbell Est. 4.3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-40 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 3 2.1.37 A Reforest areas of Kahikinui Forest Reserve, TMKs 218001006 218001005 218001009 Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 2.8 1 3 2.1.38 A Reforest areas of Kahikinui Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 Unknown *DHHL 21.1 2 2 2.1.39 A Reforest areas of Upper Auwahi, TMKs 219001006 221009001 222001001 222001034 Unknown *`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. 8.1 2 3 2.1.40 A Reforest areas of Kula Forest Reserve, TMK 222007001 Unknown *DLNR 11.7 2 3 2.1.41 A Reforest areas of 

Kēōkea, TMK 

222004033 

Unknown *James Campbell Est. 0.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-41 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.1.42 A Reforest areas of Waiohuli, TMK 222005052 Unknown *James Campbell Est. 1.7 3 3 2.1.43 A Reforest areas of Ka`ono`ulu, TMKs 222007002 222006009 222007010 222006032 Unknown *Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd. 3.5 3 1 2.1.44 A Reforest areas of Waiakoa, TMK 222008001 Unknown *Lucky Shoji USA Inc. 0.7 3 2 2.1.45 A Reforest areas of Kamehame Nui/Kealahou, TMK 223005002 Unknown *John Zwaanstra 3.3 1 3 2.1.46 A Reforest areas of Haleakalā Ranch (P

ūlehu 

Nui/Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

Unknown *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 4.1 

1 3 2.1.47 A 

Reforest areas of Waikamoi Preserve, TMK 223005004 

Unknown 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*TNCH 

29.8 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-42 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.1.48 A Reforest areas of Makawao Forest Reserve, TMK 224016001 224016002 Unknown *DLNR 6.9 2 3 2.1.49 A Reforest areas of West Maui NAR, Kahakuloa, TMK 231006001 Unknown *DLNR 5.8 2 3 2.1.50 A Reforest areas of West Maui Forest Reserve, Kaheawa, TMK 248001001 Unknown *DLNR 0.6 2 2 2.1.51 A Reforest areas of West Maui Forest Reserve, Ukumehame/ Olowalu, West Maui NAR, Līhau, TMK 248001002 Unknown *DLNR 18.4 2 1 2.1.52 A Reforest areas of Pu`u Kukui Watershed Management Area, TMK 241001017 Unknown *Maui Land and Pineapple 11.6 2 2 2.1.53 A Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kalamāula, TMK 252014003 Unknown *DLNR 1.6 2 3 2.1.54 A Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 

252014001 

Unknown *R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. 3.4 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-43 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.1.55 A Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 261001004 Unknown *DLNR 0.05 2 3 2.1.56 A Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamalō, TMKs 255001016 255001006 255001017 Unknown *KS 6.0 3 3 2.1.57 A Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Mākolelau, TMK 

255001015 

Unknown *Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust 1.0 

2 2 2.1.58 A 

Reforest areas of Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 

Unknown 

*Moloka`i 

Ranch Ltd., 

*TNCH 

11.1 

3 2 2.1.59 A 

Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kawela, TMK 254003001 

Unknown 

*Kawela 

Plantation 

Homes 

Association 

3.7 

2 2 2.1.60 A 

Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamiloloa/Makakupaīa, 

TMK 254003025 

Unknown *DLNR 5.3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-44 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 2.1.61 A Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kaunakakai, TMK 253003005 Unknown *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. 2.5 3 3 2.1.62 A Reforest areas of Mākua Military Reservation Unknown *U.S. Army 6.0 3 2 2.1.63 A Reforest areas of Kōke`e State Park, TMKs 414001013 459001016 414001020 414001014 414001002 and numerous small parcels within Unknown *DLNR, Division of State Parks 20.0 2 1 2.2.1 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation on the northeast slopes of Mauna Kea, Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 48.7 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-45 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 2.2.2 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 Continual *DHHL 33.4 2 2 2.2.3 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Hilo Forest Reserve, Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā Sections, TMKs 337001004 333001004 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 63.1 1 1 2.2.4 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Hakalau Forest NWR, TMKs 337001010 329005005 333001007 329005005 329005003 Continual *USFWS 114.4 2 1 2.2.5 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Lama`ia Section, TMK 326018002 Continual *DHHL 44.3 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-46 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.6 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Pu`u `

Ō`ō Ranch, 

TMK 326018001 

Continual 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Pu`u `

Ō`ō Ranch 

36.7 

2 1 2.2.7 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpuka `

Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, TMK 338001008 

Continual *DHHL 55.0 

2 2 2.2.8 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ka`ohe, TMK 344015002 

Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 2.8 

1 1 2.2.9 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Mauna Kea Forest Reserve, TMKs 344015001 344016003 338001004 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 127.7 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-47 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 3 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiākea Forest Reserve, TMK 324008001 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 229.8 1 2 2.2.12 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within `

Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, TMKs 324008009 399001007 399001004 324008025 319001001 319001007 

Continual 

*KS, Keauhou 

Ranch, Kūlani 

Correctional 

Facility, 

*Maka`ala NAR, 

*HVNP 

218.7 

2 1 2.2.13 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kapāpala Forest 

Reserve, Portions of TMK 398001004 

Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 92.0 

1 1 2.2.14 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ka`

ū Forest 

Reserve, TMK 397001001 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 306.7 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-48 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 2.2.15 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahuku Ranch, Portions of TMK 392001002 Continual *NPS 231.6 2 2 2.2.16 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Manukā NAR, Upper Portions of TMK 391001002 Continual DLNR, DOFAW 21.3 3 1 2.2.17 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Honomalino, TMK 389001001 Continual *TNCH 0.9 3 1 2.2.18 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Yee Hop Ranch, TMK 392001005 Continual *Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 38.0 2 1 2.2.19 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kona Forest NWR, TMK 386001001 Continual *USFWS 24.6 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-49 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.2.20 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within McCandless Ranch, Portions of TMKs 392001003 386001001 385001002 Continual *McCandless Ranch and E. Stack et al. 92.2 2 2 2.2.21 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiea Tract, TMK 386001003 Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 5.8 2 2 2.2.22 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Hōnaunau Forest, TMKs 384001001 384001002 383001001 383001002 Continual *KS 502 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-50 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.2.23 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Pu`u Lehua, Portions of TMKs 378001003 378001007 372002001 378001001 Continual *KS 135.2 1 1 2.2.24 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016003 224016004 228008001 228008007 Continual *Alexander and Baldwin, *East Maui Irrigation, EMWP, TNCH 502 1 1 2.2.25 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMKs 211002002 212004005 229014001 211001050 211001044 Continual *DLNR, *EMWP 502 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-51 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.2.26 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Hanawī NAR and Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMK 212004007 Continual *DLNR 1002 1 3 2.2.27 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Hāna Forest Reserve, TMK 210001001 214001001 215001001 Continual *DLNR 106.9 1 1 2.2.28 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Haleakalā National Park, TMK 213001003 216001002 216001001 216001003 217004016 216010001 Continual *NPS 502 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-52 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 2.2.29 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, Kukui`ula, TMK 216001007 Continual *J. Haili 0.2 3 2 2.2.30 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, Kukui`ula, TMK 216001006 Continual *Kalalau, Cleveland 0.6 1 3 2.2.31 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMKs 216001005 217001033 217002035 217004006 Continual *DLNR 20.3 3 2 2.2.32 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMK 217001032 Continual *A. Ka`apana et al. 0.1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-53 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.33 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMK 217001024 Continual *Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 0.2 3 3 2.2.34 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Nu`u, TMK 218001001 Continual *Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 8.1 3 3 2.2.35 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Nu`u, TMK 218001002 Continual *James Campbell Estate 13.0 1 2 2.2.36 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahikinui Forest Reserve, TMKs 218001006 218001005 218001009 Continual *DLNR 502 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-54 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 2.2.37 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahikinui Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 Continual *DHHL 502 1 2 2.2.38 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Upper Auwahi, TMKs 219001006 221009001 222001001 222001034 Continual *`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. 502 2 1 2.2.39 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kula Forest Reserve, TMK 222007001 Continual *DLNR 35.1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-55 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.40 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kēōkea, TMK 222004033 Continual *James Campbell Est. 1.6 2 2 2.2.41 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiohuli, TMK 222005052 Continual *James Campbell Est. 5.2 2 2 2.2.42 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ka`ono`ulu, TMKs 222007002 222006009 222007010 222006032 Continual *Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd. 10.6 2 3 2.2.43 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiakoa, TMK 222008001 Continual *Lucky Shoji USA Inc. et al. 2.2 2 2 2.2.44 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kamehame Nui/Kealahou, TMK 223005002 Continual * John Zwaanstra 10.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-56 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.45 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Haleakalā Ranch (P

ūlehu Nui/Kalialinui), 

TMK 223005003 

Continual *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 12.2 

1 1 2.2.46 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waikamoi Preserve, TMK 223005004 

Complete *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 202

1 3 2.2.47 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Makawao Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016001 224016002 

Continual *DLNR 20.5 

2 2 2.2.48 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui NAR, Kahakuloa, TMK 231006001 

Continual *DLNR 17.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-57 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.49 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Waihe`e, TMK 232014001 Continual *Maui Board of Water Supply 31.8 2 2 2.2.50 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kou, TMK 232014002 Continual *DLNR 0.8 2 2 2.2.51 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Wailuku, TMKs 233003003 235003001 236003001 Continual *Wailuku Agriculture 59.7 2 3 2.2.52 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, `Īao, TMK 233003004 Continual *DLNR 0.8 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-58 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.53 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kealaloloa, TMK 236001014 Continual *DLNR 4.1 2 2 2.2.54 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Manawainui Plant Reserve, TMKs 236001052 248001010 Continual *DLNR 0.7 2 3 2.2.55 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kaheawa, TMK 248001001 Continual *DLNR 1.7 2 3 2.2.56 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Ukumehame/Olowalu, West Maui NAR, Līhau, TMK 248001002 Continual *DLNR 55.1 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-59 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.57 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Launiupoko, TMK 247001002 Continual *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co. 14.1 2 3 2.2.58 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, P

ūehuehu, 

TMK 247001004 

Continual *DLNR 2.6 

2 3 2.2.59 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kaua`ula, TMK 246025001 

3 years *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co. 2.7 

2 3 2.2.60 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Pana`ewa, TMK 246025002 

Continual *DLNR 12.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-60 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.61 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kahoma, TMK 245022001 Continual *KS 10.5 2 3 2.2.62 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kahoma, TMK 245022005 Continual *DLNR 0.3 2 2 2.2.63 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kaua`ula/Haakea, TMKs 245022002 245022004 Continual *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co. 2.5 2 3 2.2.64 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Wahikuli, TMK 245022003 Continual *DLNR 2.9 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-61 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.65 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kapunakea Preserve, Amfac/JMB, TNCH, TMK 244007001 Continual *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co., *TNCH 9.1 2 3 2.2.66 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kapāloa, TMK 244007007 Continual UNK 2.1 2 3 2.2.67 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui NAR, Honokōwai, TMK 244007004 Continual *DLNR 11.0 2 3 2.2.68 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Pu`u Kukui Watershed Management Area, TMKs 242001001 241001017 Continual *Maui Land and Pineapple 48.8 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-62 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.69 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kalamāula, TMK 252014003 Continual *DLNR 4.8 2 2 2.2.70 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 252014001 Continual *R. W. Myer, et al. 10.3 2 3 2.2.71 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 261001004 Continual *DLNR 0.2 2 2 2.2.72 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Waikolu and Pu`u Ali`i NAR, TMK 261001002 Continual *DLNR 21.6 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-63 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.2.73 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 259006011 Continual *TNCH 15.7 2 3 2.2.74 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, Wawaeolepe, TMK 259008017 Continual *William Hitchcock, et al. 0.2 2 2 2.2.75 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 254003032 Continual *TNCH 1.4 2 3 2.2.76 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Wailau Valley, TMK 259006002 Continual *DLNR 25.6 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-64 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.77 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Wailau Valley and Oloku`i, TMK 259006004 Continual *G. Brown III, et al. 0.5 2 3 2.2.78 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Laeokapuna, TMK 257005027 Continual *P. Hodgins 1.4 2 3 2.2.79 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Keanakoholua, TMK 257005001 Continual *M. Hustice Trust 4.3 2 3 2.2.80 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, `Uala`pue, TMK 256006026 Continual *DLNR 1.2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-65 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.81 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahananui, TMK 256006014 Continual *DLNR 1.1 2 3 2.2.82 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Manawai, TMK 256006013 Continual *P. Petro Trust 1.5 2 3 2.2.83 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, east `

Ōhi`a 

Gulch, TMK 256006011 

Continual *DLNR 2.0 

2 3 2.2.84 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, West `

Ōhi`a 

Gulch, TMK 256006010 

Continual *E. Wond Trust 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-66 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.85 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Keawa Nui, TMK 256006007 Continual *KS 1.1 2 3 2.2.86 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pua`ahala, TMK 256006002 Continual *K&H Horizons Hawai`i 0.8 2 3 2.2.87 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kumu`eli, TMK 256006001 Continual *D. Fairbanks III Trust, EMOWP 502 2 2 2.2.88 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamalō, TMKs 255001016 255001006 255001017 Continual *KS, *EMOWP 502 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-67 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.89 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Mākolelau, TMK 255001015 Continual *Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust 3.1 2 2 2.2.90 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 Continual *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd., *TNCH, EMOWP 33.2 2 3 2.2.91 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kawela, TMKs 254003001 Continual *Kawela Plantation Homes Association 11.2 2 3 2.2.92 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamiloloa/ Makakupaīa, TMK 254003025 Continual *DLNR 15.7 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-68 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.2.93 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kaunakakai, TMK 253003005 Continual *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. 0.7 1 2 2.2.94 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Honouliuli Preserve, TMK 92005013 Continual *James Campbell Est., *TNCH 31.7 2 2 2.2.95 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Lualualei Naval Magazine, TMK 88001001 Continual *U.S. Navy 13.7 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-69 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 3 2.2.96 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Schofield Barracks West Range, TMK 77001001 Continual *U.S. Army 16.2 2 2 2.2.97 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Pahole NAR, TMK 68001002 Continual *DLNR 5.8 2 3 2.2.98 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahanahāiki Valley, TMK 81001012 Continual *U.S. Army 2.2 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-70 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 2.2.99 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within O`ahu Forest NWR, TMKs 95004001 and 76001001 Continual *USFWS 57.6 3 2 2.2.100 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Lower Ka`ala NAR, TMK 67003025 Continual *DLNR 9.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-71 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.2.101 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Halehaha, Halepā`ākai, and Koai`e drainages, Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, Portions of TMK 414001003 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 8.7 2 1 2.2.102 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Upper Mōhihi and upper Waiakoali drainages, Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, Portions of TMK 414001003 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 11.4 2 1 2.2.103 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, TMK 414001003 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 1002 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-72 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.2.104 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Southern Alaka`i Plateau, Portions of TMK 417001001 Continual *Robinson Family Partners 202 

1-3 1-3 2.3 A Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of exotic plants through mechanical, chemical, or biological means, as appropriate Ongoing All Land Managers TBD3 2 2 2.4.1.1 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means on northeastern slopes of Mauna Kea, Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 378.3 12.6 12.6 12.6 12

2 1 2.4.1.2 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 Continual *DHHL 181.3 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-73 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.4.1.3 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Hilo Forest Reserve, Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā Sections, TMKs 337001002 and 333001004 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 32.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 2.4.1.4 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Hakalau Forest NWR, TMKs 337001010 333001007 329005005 329005003 Ongoing *USFWS 404.4 13.5 13.5 13.5 132 1 2.4.1.5 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in TMK 326018002 Continual *DHHL 171.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.2 2 2.4.1.6 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pu`u 

Ō`ō

Ranch, TMK 326018001 

Continual 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Pu`u `

Ō`ō Ranch 

213.7 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-74 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.4.1.7 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kīpuka 

`Āinahou NēnēSanctuary, TMK 338001008 

Continual *DHHL 213.6 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.

2 1 2.4.1.8 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Ka`ohe 344015002 

Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 10.8 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.3

1 1 2.4.1.9 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Mauna Kea Forest Reserve, TMKs 344015001 344016003 338001004 

Continual *DLNR 244.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.

2 1 2.4.1.10 and 2.4.1.11 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, TMK 324008001 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 1783.7 59.5 59.5 59.5 59
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-75 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.4.1.12 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in `

Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, TMKs 324008009 399001007 399001004 324008025 319001001 319001007 

Continual 

*KS, Keauhou 

Ranch, 

*DOFAW, 

*HVNP 

1373.2 45.8 45.8 45.8 45

2 1 2.4.1.13 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kapāpala 

Forest Reserve, Portions of TMK 398001004 

Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 142.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.

1 1 2.4.1.14 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Ka`

ū Forest 

Reserve, TMK 397001001 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 2380.6 79.4 79.4 79.4 79

2 1 2.4.1.15 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kahuku Ranch, portions of TMK 392001002 

Continual *Samuel M. Damon Trust 1348.4 44.9 44.9 44.9 44
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-76 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.4.1.16 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Manukā NAR, Upper portions of TMK 391001002 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 42.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1 2.4.1.17 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in TNCH, Honomalino, TMK 389001001 Continual *TNCH 144.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.2 2 2.4.1.18 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Yee Hop Ranch, TMK 392001005 Continual *Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 147.5 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.1 1 2.4.1.19 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kona Forest NWR, TMK 386001001 Continual *USFWS 85.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-77 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.4.1.20 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in McCandless Ranch, TMKs 392001003 386001001 385001002 Continual *McCandless Ranch 154.5 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.2 1 2.4.1.21 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Waiea Tract, TMK 386001003 Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 45.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1 2.4.1.22 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Hōnaunau Forest, TMKs 384001001 384001002 383001001 383001002 Continual *KS 574.3 19.1 19.1 19.1 192 1 2.4.1.23 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pu`u Lehua, Portion of TMK 378001003 Continual *KS 839.7 28.0 28.0 28.0 28
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-78 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.4.1.24 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pu`u Wa`awa`a Bird Sanctuary, TMKs 371001001 and 371001006 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 411.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 131 1 2.4.1.25 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016003 224016004 228008001 228008007 Continual *Alexander and Baldwin, *East Maui Irrigation 438.2 14.6 14.6 14.6 141 1 2.4.1.26 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMKs 211002002 212004005 229014001 211001050 211001044 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 491.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-79 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.4.1.27 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Hanawī NAR and Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMK 212004007 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 353.2 11.8 11.8 11.8 111 1 2.4.1.28 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Hāna Forest Reserve, TMKs 210001001 214001001 215001001 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 428.7 14.3 14.3 14.3 141 1 2.4.1.29 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Haleakalā National Park, TMKs 213001003 216001002 216001001 216001003 217004016 216010001 218001007 Continual *NPS 498.0 16.6 16.6 16.6 16
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-80 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.4.1.30 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMKs 216001005 217001033 217002035 217004006 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 81.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.2 3 2.4.1.31 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kahikinui Forest Reserve, TMKs 218001006 218001005 218001009 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 106.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.2 3 2.4.1.32 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kahikinui Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 Continual *DHHL 253.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-81 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 2.4.1.33 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kula Forest Reserve, TMK 222007001 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 140.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.3 2 2.4.1.34 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Haleakalā Ranch (P

ūlehu 

Nui/Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

Continual *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 48.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.

1 1 2.4.1.35 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Waikamoi Preserve, TMK 223005004 

Continual 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*TNCH 

357.3 11.9 11.9 11.9 11

2 3 2.4.1.36 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Makawao Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016001 224016002 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 82.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-82 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.4.1.37 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in West Maui NAR, Kahakuloa, TMK 231006001 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 70.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3 2.4.1.38 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in West Maui NAR, Līhau, TMK 248001002 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 221.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3 3 2.4.1.39 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in West Maui Forest Reserve, Pana`ewa, TMK 246025002 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 48.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 3 2.4.1.40 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kapunakea Preserve, Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co., TNCH, TMK 244007001 Continual *TNCH, *American Factors 36.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-83 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 2.4.1.41 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in West Maui NAR, Honokōwai, TMK 244007004 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 43.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 2 2.4.1.42 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pu`u Kukui Watershed Management Area, TMKs 242001001 241001017 Continual *Maui Land and Pineapple 195.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.2 2 2.4.1.43 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Moloka`i Forest Reserve and Pu`u Ali`i NAR, Waikolu, TMK 261001002 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 86.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.2 2 2.4.1.44 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Moloka`i Forest Reserve and Oloku`i NAR, Wailau Valley, TMK 259006002 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 102.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-84 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.4.1.45 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 Continual *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd., *TNCH 133.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.1 1 2.4.1.46 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Honouliuli Preserve, TMK 92005013 Ongoing *James Campbell Estate, *TNCH 173.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.2 2 2.4.1.47 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Lualualei Naval Magazine, TMK 88001001 Ongoing *U.S. Navy 75.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-85 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.4.1.48 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Schofield Barracks West Range, TMK 77001001 Ongoing *U.S. Army 88.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 1 2.4.1.49 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Honolulu Watershed Forest Reserve (Wailupe), TMK 36004004 Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 47.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.1 2 2.4.1.50 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in North Hālawa Valley, TMK 99011002 Continual *KS 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-86 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.4.1.51 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Moanalua Valley, TMKs 11013001 and 11013002 Continual *Damon Estate 13.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 2 2.4.1.52 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Waikāne Valley, TMK 48014005 Unknown *SMF Enterprises 17.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 2 2.4.1.53 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kahana Valley State Park, TMKs 52001001 and 52002001 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 17.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 2 2.4.1.54 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Mākaha Valley, TMKs 84002014 and 84002001 Continual *City and County of Honolulu 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-87 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.4.1.55 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pahole NAR, TMK 68001002 Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 31.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1 2.4.1.56 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kahanahāiki Valley, TMK 81001012 Ongoing *U.S. Army 11.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 2 2.4.1.57 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in O`ahu Forest NWR, TMKs 95004001 and 76001001 Continual *USFWS 315.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 103 2 2.4.1.58 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Lower Ka`ala NAR, TMK 67003025 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 52.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-88 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.4.1.59 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Halehaha, Halepā`ākai, and Koai`e drainages, Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, TMK 414001003 Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 47.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 1 2.4.1.60 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Upper Mōhihi and upper Waiakoali drainages, Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, TMK 414001003 Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 62.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1 2.4.1.61 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Upper Kawaikōī, Alaka`i 

Wilderness Preserve, TMK 459001001 

Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 11.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-89 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.4.1.62 C Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Southern Alaka`i Plateau, portions of TMK 417001001 Continual *Robinson Family Partners 12.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 1 2.4.2 C Continue the public information campaign explaining the need for aerial broadcast of diphacinone for conservation purposes. 3 years *State and Federal Agencies 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 2.4.3 C Examine feasibility/ appropriateness of time/area closure of public use areas when using broadcast application of diphacinone 2 years *State and Federal Agencies 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 2.5.1.1 C Enforce existing quarantine laws for importation of pet birds Ongoing *State and Federal Departments of Agriculture, ADWG 30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-90 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.5.1.2 C Work with Postal Service and the State Department of Agriculture to ban shipments of day-old poultry and game birds to Hawai`i via first class mail 4 years *U.S. Postal Service, *State Dept. of Agriculture, ADWG 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1 2.5.1.3.1 C Develop a list of priority diseases that should be screened for in all imported cage birds and poultry, and establish monitoring program for new diseases Ongoing *ADWG 60.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1 2.5.1.3.2 C Respond to and determine causes of avian disease outbreaks Continual *ADWG 60.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1 2.5.1.4 A, C, E Work to stop global climate change Continual *Research Institutions, *USFWS, DOFAW, HFBRT 15.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-91 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.5.2.1 C Initiate inspection programs for all interisland vessels, including ships, airplanes, and barges and their cargos, to intercept and kill mosquito larvae and adults Continual *State and Federal Departments of Agriculture, ADWG 30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1 2.5.2.2 C Enforce and toughen existing laws that require health certificates for interisland movement of pet birds and poultry Ongoing Research Institutions, *State and Federal Agencies 30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 3 2.5.2.3 C Establish disease monitoring protocols for captive native birds to assess presence of avian disease in captive held populations and risk of transfer of disease strains between avian captive holding facilities Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, ADWG 15.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 3 2.5.2.3.1 C Develop a list of diseases of concern for which captive birds should be routinely tested before they can be transferred between avian captive holding facilities 2 years *ZSSD, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, *ADWG 5.0 2.5 2.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-92 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 1 2.5.3.1.1.1 C Mosquito surveys on Hawai`i between 2,000 and 5,000 ft. on Mauna Loa and Kīlauea that include recovery area 2 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 5.0 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.2 C Mosquito surveys on Hawai`i between 3,400 and 5,000 ft. on Mauna Kea that include recovery area 4 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 3 2.5.3.1.1.3 C Mosquito surveys between 3,400 and 5,000 ft. on Hualālai that include recovery area, portions of TMKs 371001001, 372002001, 374002008, 374001003, 374002007, 374001002 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.4 C Mosquito surveys of windward Hāmākua between 3,400 and 2,000 ft. on Mauna Kea adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery area 4 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2 2.5.3.1.1.5 C Mosquito surveys on 

Kīlauea adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers of recovery area 

2 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

5.0 2.5 2.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-93 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.6 C Mosquito surveys on Hualālai adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery area 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.7 C Mosquito surveys between 2,500 and 5,000 ft. on Haleakalā that include recovery area 4 years *USGS, NPS USFWS, DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2 2.5.3.1.1.8 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 217004006 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.9 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 217004006 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.10 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 215001001 1 year *USGS, NPS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.11 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 216001002 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.12 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 211002002 4 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-94 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 2.5.3.1.1.13 C Mosquito surveys below and within 3 km of the 4,000 ft. contour line on the southern and western slopes of Haleakalā 2 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 5.0 2.5 2.5 1 3 2.5.3.1.1.14 C Mosquito surveys of West Maui in recovery area between 2,500 and 5,000 ft. contour lines 2 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 5.0 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.15 C Mosquito surveys within 

`Īao Valley, West Maui, 

TMKs 233003003, 235003001, 233003004, and multiple smaller parcels 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.16 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMKs 232014001 and 233003003 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.17 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 232014001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.18 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 231006001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.19 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 241001017 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-95 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.20 C Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMKs 236003001 and 235003001 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 1.0 1.0 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.21 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 241001017 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.22 C 

Mosquito surveys, of West Maui, TMK 242001001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.23 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 242001001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.24 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMKs 244007004, 244007011, 244007001, and 244007005 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.25 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 245022001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.26 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 246025002 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.27 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMKs 246025001 and 247001002 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-96 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.28 C Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 248001002 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 1.0 1.0 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.29 C Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 248001002 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 1.0 1.0 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.30 C Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 236003001 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 1.0 1.0 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.31 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 245022003 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.32 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 245022004 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

3 2 2.5.3.1.1.33 C 

Mosquito surveys of multiple parcels in West Maui below and up to 3 km from the 2,500 contour line that do not include major stream valleys listed above 

3 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 3 2.5.3.1.1.34 C 

Mosquito surveys in multiple parcels that include recovery area on Moloka`i 

2 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

5.0 2.5 2.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-97 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.35 C Mosquito surveys in Waihānau, Wai`ale`ia, Waikolu, Pelekunu, and Wailau Valleys on Moloka`i that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery area, TMK’s 261001002, 259006011, 259006002 and smaller windward parcels 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.36 C Mosquito surveys in Kaunakakai Gulch on Moloka`i 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 1.0 1.0 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.37 C Mosquito surveys adjacent to or within 3 km of the southern and eastern boundaries of recovery area on leeward Moloka`i, portions of TMKS 252014003, 253003005, 254003025, 254003001, 255001006 and others 2 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 5.0 2.5 2.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-98 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 3 2.5.3.1.1.38 C Mosquito surveys of parcels on O`ahu that include recovery area 4 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW, DOD 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2 2.5.3.1.1.39 C Mosquito surveys of parcels on O`ahu that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery area 4 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW DOD 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 3 2.5.3.1.1.40 C Mosquito surveys on Kaua`i that include recovery area, TMKs 414001020, 414001014, 414001013, 459001016, 459001001, 414001003, 417001001, 458001001 and others 3 years *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.5.3.1.1.41 C Mosquito surveys on Kaua`i that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery area, portions of TMKs 459001001, 458001001, 458002002, 459001003, 459001002 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-99 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.42 C Mosquito surveys on Kaua`i that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery area, portions of TMKs 414001014, 414001020, 414002040, 414001003, 417001001 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 1 2.5.3.1.2 C Eliminate or treat mosquito breeding sites in recovery area and adjacent areas at elevations below 5,000 ft. with BTI (Dunk®) or other environmentally compatible pesticides that are safe for non- target organisms Ongoing *Land Managers, *State and Federal Agencies 100.0 1 2 2.5.3.1.3 C Eliminate or treat mosquito breeding habitat associated with human development (e.g., residential areas, agricultural sites); coordinate efforts with the State Department of Health Ongoing *Land Managers, *State and Federal Agencies, *State Departments of Health and Education 100.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-100 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.5.3.1.3.1 C Eliminate or treat cattle troughs and stock ponds Ongoing *Land Managers, State Departments of Health and Education 15.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 1 2.5.3.1.3.2 C Eliminate or treat game bird waterers in areas where they might impact native forest birds Ongoing *Land Managers, *State and Federal Agencies 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 2.5.3.1.3.3 C Repair rain gutters, cover catchment tanks, and eliminate containers that catch and hold rainwater around residential and agricultural sites near recovery area Ongoing *Land Managers, *State Departments of Health and Education 20.0 1 2 2.5.3.1.3.4 C Initiate public outreach efforts to inform the public about potential human and animal diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and how source reduction can reduce those threats 3 years Land Managers, *State Departments of Health and Education 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-101 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.5.3.1.4.1 C Identify and fence priority recovery areas at elevations below 5,000 ft. and control feral ungulates to prevent creation of new larval habitats Ongoing *Land Managers, *State and Federal Agencies 100.0 2 1 2.5.3.1.4.2 C Manually drain feral pig- damaged tree ferns that hold water and fill or drain pig wallows in appropriate areas to reduce mosquito breeding sites Ongoing *Land Managers, USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 20.0 2 1 2.5.3.1.5 C Identify natural sites (e.g., stream margins, tree holes) that serve as larval habitat and determine feasibility of treatment or elimination Ongoing Land Managers, *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 10.0 1 1 2.5.4.1 C Insure that existing low elevation native bird populations and habitats within current zones of disease transmission are protected to preserve disease tolerant genotypes Ongoing Research Institutions, UH, *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW, ADWG 100.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-102 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.5.4.2 C Use birds that occur in areas with disease transmission as founders for translocations to establish new populations Ongoing Research Institutions, UH, *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW, ADWG 90.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2 2.5.5 C Monitor long-term changes in the prevalence and transmission of avian diseases in recovery forest bird habitats Ongoing *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, ADWG 75.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2 2.6.1.1 A Encourage HDOA to modify import lists to exclude reptiles and amphibians from commercial sale 1 year *HDOA, *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 0.1 0.1 2 1 2.6.1.2 A Encourage HDOA to modify import lists to decrease the numbers of vertebrate species allowed into the state 1 year *HDOA, *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 0.1 0.1 2 1 2.6.1.3 A Assist HDOA obtain an enforcement branch to pursue smuggling and release violations 4 years *HDOA, *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 20.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-103 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 2.6.1.4 A Encourage USFWS to adopt state injurious species lists as part of federal injurious wildlife list under the Lacey Act 1 year *USFWS, DLNR 0.1 0.1 2 2 2.6.1.5 A Encourage HDOA, DLNR, USFWS, and county police departments to develop a task force to pursue smuggling and release violations 1 year *HDOA, APHIS, *USFWS, *DLNR, *County Police Departments 5.0 5.0 2 2 2.6.1.6 A Provide single point-of- exit at airports Unknown *FAA, *County Airports, HDOA, APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 100.0 2 2 2.6.1.7 A Increase the numbers of HDOA and USDA inspectors to better cover nursery cargo and passenger baggage/hand- carry Unknown County Airports, *HDOA, *USDA 20.0 2 1 2.6.1.8 A Secure congressional approval of USDA quarantine of mainland Unknown *USDA, APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 10.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-104 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 2.6.1.9 A Prevent inter-island expansion of established vertebrates of restricted range, including brown treesnake Ongoing *HDOA, *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 600.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 201 2 2.6.2 A Eradicate all incipient populations of new nonnative vertebrates 4 years *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 80.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 201 2 2.6.2.1 A Prevent spread of Eleutherodactylus frogs to new areas 4 years *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 80.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 201 3 2.6.2.2 A Eradicate/control populations of Eleutherodactylus where possible 4 years *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 80.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 202 1 2.6.3 A Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of vespulid wasps (yellow jackets) on forest birds within forest ecosystems Ongoing *USFWS, DLNR, NPS 75.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 1-3 3 E Develop captive propagation, translocation and related recovery strategies Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW, HFBRT 600.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-105 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 3.1 E Periodically evaluate and identify the target species that will require captive propagation for recovery and the appropriate strategy to be used Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 1 2 3.2 E Develop captive propagation programs for target species, including both endangered and surrogate species Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 1 1 3.2.1 E For species considered nearly extinct, efforts should be made to collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing to establish captive breeding flocks whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into native, managed habitat in the future Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-106 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 3.2.2 E Continue habitat management, attempt to promote pairing and reproduction, in captivity if necessary, and collect eggs for captive propagation and reintroduction into managed habitat Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 1 3.2.3 E Maintain a captive breeding flock of whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 2 3.2.4 E Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing to establish a captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 1 3.2.5.1 E Collect the eggs of Maui parrotbill and maintain a captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat in the future Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-107 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 3.2.5.2 E Develop rear and release methods for managed native habitat on leeward Haleakalā (Kahikinui), West Maui or Moloka`i, when disease is no longer known to be a threat Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 3 3.2.6.1 E Continue program to use translocation to West Maui or Moloka`i as recovery strategy Ongoing ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD43 1 3.2.6.2 E 

Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing. If translocations fail, use “rear and release” technology for birds reared from wild eggs or establish captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4

2 2 3.2.7.1 E 

Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

USGS, NPS, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-108 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 3.2.7.2 E If the genetic diversity of palila in the captive flock drops below acceptable levels (defined as <90%); collect wild eggs Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 1 3.2.7.3 E Maintain a captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 3 3 3.2.8.1 E Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 3 2 3.2.8.2 E Maintain captive flocks of Hawai`i `ākepa and Hawai`i creeper whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat in the future, or rear and release in managed habitat Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-109 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 1 3.2.9 E Collect the eggs of Hawai`i `elepaio to serve as a surrogate to develop the techniques to breed, incubate, rear and release the endangered O`ahu subspecies. Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 1 3.3.1 E Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for release of endangered birds to ensure long-term persistence of birds reintroduced to West Maui and Moloka`i Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW, *HFBRT TBD4 2 1 3.3.2 E Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for release of endangered birds to ensure long-term persistence of palila reintroduced to upland dry forest on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-110 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 3.3.3 E Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for release of endangered birds to ensure long-term persistence of reintroduced puaiohi populations Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW, HFBRT TBD4 2 1 3.3.4 E Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for release of endangered birds to ensure long-term persistence of `akiapōlā`au reintroduced to South Kona, Kapāpala/Ka`

ū, 

and upland forests of Mauna Kea 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, *NPS, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4

1 1 3.4 E 

Acquire funding to build additional facilities to maintain, propagate, incubate and rear endangered species and if necessary, surrogate species 

Ongoing 

*Private sector 

funding, ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-111 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 3.5 E Identify wild populations and/or individuals with potential natural disease resistance on a species by species basis Ongoing USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW TBD4 1 2 3.6.1 E Develop and refine techniques for the release of captive-reared birds into managed habitat: Monitor dispersal, survival, and mortality of released birds to refine propagation and release techniques Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, *USGS, *DOFAW TBD4 2 1 3.6.2 E Develop and refine techniques for the release of captive-reared birds into managed habitat: Develop and refine release (hacking) procedures Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW TBD4
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-112 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 3.7 E For each of the species identified as candidates for captive propagation, it is important to establish demographic goals for captive propagation program, i.e. how many birds to produce using which demographic strategy over what period of time and released into how many sites Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW TBD4 2 3 3.8 E Develop species specific reintroduction guidelines based on risk assessments that consider the behavioral, disease, demographic and genetic needs of the species Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW TBD4 2 3 3.9 E Provide biological material from captive held birds to an agreed holding location or locations determined on a species by species basis Unknown *ZSSD, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW TBD4
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-113 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 3.10 E If egg collections fail, develop methods by which to bring nestling birds, juveniles, and/or adults into captivity with concomitant quarantine procedures Unknown *ZSSD, *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW TBD4 1 3 3.11.1 E Establish a cryogenic cell culture of germplasm of the endangered Hawaiian avifauna at two partner institutions willing to hold the cell line in perpetuity: In the case of the rarest species in the event of death, or if population is below 300 individuals Unknown *ZSSD, ADWG, VC, *USFWS, USGS, DOFAW 5.0 2 2 3.11.2 E Establish a cryogenic cell culture of germplasm of the endangered Hawaiian avifauna at two partner institutions willing to hold the cell line in perpetuity: Obtain and hold cryogenic germplasm for all other endangered forest birds Unknown *ZSSD, ADWG, VC, *USFWS, USGS, DOFAW 5.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-114 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 3.12.1 E Evaluate the Honolulu Zoo or other qualified institutions as repositories for those endangered species and/or individuals that are not contributing to the captive propagation program 1 year *ZSSD, *HZ, *USFWS, DOFAW, VC 0.1 0.1 2 1 4.1.1 E Identify species-specific niche requirements and the role of habitat degradation and competition in reducing carrying capacity 4 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 21.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.1 1 4.2.1.1 C Continue efforts to register hand and aerial broadcast methods for dispersing diphacinone toxicants for controlling predators 4 years (ongoing) Research Institutions, UH, *USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1 4.2.1.2 C Evaluate the efficacy of other toxicants than diphacinone for controlling mammalian predators and take the steps needed for their registration 4 years *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-115 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 4.2.1.3 C Develop and evaluate improved methods for controlling predators such as more efficient traps, contraceptives, and predator-proof fences for critical areas 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 1 4.2.2 C Rat study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 2 4.2.3 C Feral cat study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.1 3 4.2.4 C Mongoose study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.1 2 4.2.5 C Mosquito study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-116 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 4.2.6 A Ungulate exclusion and control study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 12.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 1 4.2.7 E Weed study/control Ongoing *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW TBD3 2 1 4.2.8 E Yellow jacket wasp study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 3 4.2.9 C Barn owl and pueo study 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 3 4.2.10 E Avian competitor study 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-117 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 4.2.10.1 E Investigate red-billed leiothrix as competitor and reservoir for disease for po`ouli and Maui parrotbill 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.2.10.2 E Investigate competition for food and space, and disease relations, between O`ahu `elepaio and introduced birds 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.2.10.3 E Investigate role of Japanese White-eye and newly appeared Japanese Bush-warbler as competitors and reservoirs of disease for Hawai`i `ākepa, Hawai`i creeper, and `akiapōlā`au 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.2.11 A Determine best ways of conducting reforestation efforts 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-118 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 4.2.12 A, C, E Investigate nonnative invertebrates in forest habitats to determine distribution, direct and indirect interactions with native invertebrates, role as a prey base for nonnative birds and mammals, and effects on flora. 10 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 10.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1 4.3.1 A, C Examine response of populations to habitat restoration, including the provisioning of food, foraging substrates, nest- sites, and roost sites, as well as the effects of habitat restoration on threats such as mosquitoes, predators, and competitors Ongoing *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 40.0 1 1 4.4.1 C Address public health concerns regarding aerial broadcast of rodenticide and its effects on both game and non-game non- target species, and its persistence in watershed and sediments 3 years Research Institutions, UH, *USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-119 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 4.5.1.1 C Determine if sleeping habits may reduce exposure to mosquitoes and predators 1 year *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 0.5 0.5 2 3 4.5.1.2 C, E Determine if nest structure and location may provide protection from high winds, rain and cold, and predators 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 4.5.2.1 C Develop molecular methods for identifying individuals who are more likely to survive pox and malaria infections or to resist them 4 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2 4.5.2.2 C Refine diagnostic methods for identifying individuals who have survived acute disease and who have acquired immunity to reinfection 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 3 4.6.1 E Investigate ways to enhance resource availability for particular species within existing habitat. Ongoing *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 10.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-120 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 4.6.1.1.1 E Determine if experimental artificial cavities increase the density of breeding pairs of Hawai`i `ākepa or expand the range of the birds through colonization of habitat without natural cavities 4 years (ongoing) Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, DOFAW 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 1 4.6.1.1.2 C Test the design and efficacy of rat-proof artificial nest structures for puaiohi on Kaua`i Ongoing (ongoing) Research Institutions, UH, USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 3 4.6.1.2 A Determine if application of fertilizer to host plants increases growth, and productivity of flowers and arthropods Complete *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 10.0 2 1 4.6.1.3 A Develop effective techniques for restoration of degraded and deforested lands 4 years *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-121 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 4.6.2.1 E Develop a comprehensive library of microsatellite loci 3 years *Research Institutions, ZSSD, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 3 4.6.2.2 E Document genetic population structure of species with single populations 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 2 4.6.2.3 E Document source/sink metapopulation structure along gradients in density, particularly elevational gradients 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 3 4.6.2.4 E Document genetic relationships among individuals in isolated populations such as may be found on different volcanoes or in different areas of a fragmented population 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 3 4.6.2.5 E Determine patterns of dispersal by age and sex 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-122 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 4.6.2.6 E Determine seasonal patterns of movement by age and sex 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 1 4.6.3 E Conduct population and metapopulation viability analyses 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.6.3.1 E Conduct trend analysis using count data 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.6.3.2 E Use demographic data for estimating lambda 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.6.4 A, E Investigate naturally occurring and alien species induced native plant species die-back phenomena affecting forest bird habitats 10 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 10.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-123 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 4.7.1 C Evaluate effectiveness of translocations of both disease survivors and disease resistant forest birds for restoration of populations in areas with active disease transmission 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1 4.7.2 E Determine optimal parameters for translocation efforts 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, UH, *USFWS, *USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 2 4.7.3 E Evaluate the relative costs of habitat suitability analysis vs. experimental translocation or reintroduction 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.8.1 C Special research considerations for disease and parasitism: Determine the effects of land use changes on disease transmission 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-124 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 4.8.2 C Special research considerations for disease and parasitism: Determine effects of long-term climate change on disease transmission 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.8.3 C Conduct research on the feasibility of vaccines for avian pox and malaria, methods for their delivery, and possible effects on host-parasite coevolutionary adaptations 3 years *Research Institutions, ZSSD, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 4.8.4 C Conduct research on genetic variability, virulence, and interactions between avian pox virus and malarial parasites and how these variants interact with susceptible and resistant host genotypes 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 3 4.8.4.1 C Use molecular methods to identify specific markers that correlate with phenotypic differences in virulence 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-125 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 4.8.4.2 C Determine whether concomitant infections with pox and malaria affect virulence and transmissibility 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 2 4.8.5 C Determine dispersal distances of adult mosquitoes from point sources outside of recovery area. 4 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1 4.8.6 C Determine the feasibility of decreasing malarial transmission through genetic manipulation of vector populations 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 3 4.8.7 C Determine the role that ectoparasites play in transmission of avian pox, particularly during the nesting cycle when adults may pass infections to offspring 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 3 4.8.8 C Determine the role that endoparasites such as Coccidea play in demography of birds 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-126 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 4.8.9 C Monitor long-term changes in the prevalence and transmission of avian diseases in recovery forest bird habitats Unknown *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1 4.9 E Develop and test improved survey and monitoring techniques in recovery area for extremely rare species and species difficult to monitor using standard methods 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 1.0 0.5 0.5 2 1 4.10.1 E Determine the basis for variation in population density and termination of range 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 3 4.10.2 E Determine the basis for low nesting success documented at Honohina Tract (wet habitat) using cameras on nests while documenting rainfall 2 years *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-127 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 4.10.3 E Determine the role of food in timing of breeding, attempts to breed, and breeding success 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, NPS, DOFAW 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.10.4 E 

Determine why these birds are limited to high elevations 

3 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, *NPS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.5 E 

Examine factors that determine abundance and distribution, including elevational range 

2 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, NPS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 2 4.10.6 E 

Determine the role of food as the basis for different densities of the bird in continuous habitat 

2 years 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, NPS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.7 C 

Determine population response of palila to predator control efforts 

2 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, NPS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-128 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 2 4.10.8 C Determine population response of endangered Maui forest birds to predator control efforts 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 4.10.9 C Determine the effect of predator control on survival of female O`ahu `elepaio Complete *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 0.0 1 2 4.10.10 C Measure effect of experimental test of broad-scale predator control on nest success, adult and post-fledging survival, and population trends 3 years *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 4.10.11 A Determine population response of palila to forest regeneration and restoration efforts 3 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 4.10.12 A Determine use of regenerating/restored canopy trees as substrates for feeding 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-129 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 4.10.13 A Determine population response of endangered Maui forest birds to forest regeneration and habitat restoration efforts 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 2 4.10.14 A Determine population response to experimental control of weeds (e.g., ginger) 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 1 3 4.10.15 C Determine if tolerance or resistance to malaria and pox virus is evolving at the lower portion of the elevational range of these birds 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 3.0 1.5 1.5 2 1 4.10.16 C 

Determine if tolerance or resistance to malaria and pox virus is evolving in any of the fragmented populations 

2 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.5 1.5 

2 3 4.10.17 E 

Document genetic population structure of species with single populations 

2 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, *NPS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-130 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 4.10.18 E Document source/sink metapopulation structure and dispersal characteristics in populations along lateral and elevational gradients of density 2 years (ongoing) *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 3 4.10.19 E 

Document the basis of variation in size of home range in areas of different density of the bird and in areas with different forest structure 

2 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, *NPS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 3 4.10.20 E 

Determine genetic as well as morphological, behavioral, ecological, and vocal variation among core populations. 

2 years 

(ongoing) 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, *NPS, 

DOFAW 

4.0 2.0 2.0 

2 3 4.10.21 E 

Determine genetic as well as morphological, behavioral, ecological, and vocal variation among core populations. 

2 years 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, NPS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 3 4.10.22 E Determine patterns of dispersal by age and sex 2 years 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, NPS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-131 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 4.10.23 E Document dispersal and survival of juveniles 2 years *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 2.0 1.0 1.0 2 3 4.10.24 E Conduct population and metapopulation viability analyses and calculate lambda in populations in different portions of the recovery area 4 years *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *NPS, *DOFAW 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1 4.10.25 E 

Conduct development and testing of improved survey and monitoring techniques 

3 years 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, NPS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

1 1 5.1 E 

Conduct systematic surveys of all forest bird habitat on Kaua`i, O`ahu, Moloka`i, Lāna`i, Maui, 

and Hawai`i at least once every five years to determine changes in distribution and population size of all native and nonnative forest birds 

Ongoing 

UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, *NPS, 

*DOFAW 

36.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-132 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 5.2.1 E Conduct systematic surveys of māmane forest on Mauna Kea, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing *USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 5.2.2 E Conduct systematic surveys of Hakalau Forest NWR, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing UH, *USFWS, USGS 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 5.2.3 E Conduct systematic surveys of Kona Unit, Hakalau Forest NWR, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing *USFWS, USGS 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 5.2.4 E Conduct systematic surveys of Ka`

ū Forest, 

Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size 

Ongoing 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

7.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-133 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 5.2.5 E Conduct systematic surveys of Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing *USFWS, *USGS, *DOFAW 3.0 0.2 0 0.2 0 2 1 5.2.6 E Conduct systematic surveys of Kūlani, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing *USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, NPS 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 5.2.7 E Conduct systematic surveys of Keauhou Ranch/Kīlauea Forest, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing *KS, *USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 2 5.2.8 E Conduct systematic surveys of Mauna Loa Strip, Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, *NPS 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-134 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 5.2.9 E Conduct systematic surveys of Hanawī NAR, Maui, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW 7.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 1 5.2.10 E Conduct systematic surveys of Waikamoi Preserve, Maui, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW, *TNCH 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 5.2.11 E Conduct systematic surveys of Kīpahulu Valley, Maui, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing USFWS, *USGS, DOFAW, *NPS 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 5.2.12 E Conduct systematic surveys of Wailupe Valley, O`ahu, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size and to monitor efficacy of predator control Ongoing *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-135 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 5.2.13 E Conduct systematic surveys of Pia Valley, O`ahu, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size and to monitor efficacy of predator control Ongoing *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 2 2 5.2.14 E Conduct systematic surveys of Honouliuli Preserve, O`ahu, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size and to monitor efficacy of predator control Ongoing *USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, *TNCH 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 2 3 5.2.15 E Conduct systematic surveys of Schofield Barracks West Range, O`ahu, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size and to monitor efficacy of predator control Ongoing *USFWS, USGS, DOFAW, *U.S. Army 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-136 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 5.2.16 E Conduct systematic surveys of any other areas on O`ahu where active management is undertaken to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and efficacy of actions Ongoing *USFWS, USGS, *DOFAW 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 2 1 5.2.17 E Conduct systematic surveys of “core” puaiohi habitat in Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, Kaua`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size Ongoing *USFWS, *USGS, *DOFAW 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1 5.3 E Establish and support an interagency Forest Bird Monitoring Coordinator position to coordinate monitoring and provide regular reports on the status and trend of forest bird populations Ongoing *USFWS, USGS, NPS, *DOFAW 21.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-137 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 1 6.1.1.1 E Develop scenic overlook and trail with interpretive displays depicting native forest birds at Saddle Road 21 mile marker, Hawai`i 2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 3 3 6.1.1.2 E Improve parking area and interpretive displays at Pu`u `

Ō`ō Trail, 

Saddle Road, Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 1 6.1.1.3 E 

Develop several short loop trails at Mauna Loa Strip Road, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 

2 years *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 2 6.1.1.4 E 

Expand visitor use with a loop trail and interpretive displays at Hakalau Forest NWR, Hawai`i 

2 years *USFWS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 3 6.1.1.5 E 

Establish a loop trail in palila habitat and provide interpretive signs at Pu`u Lā`au, Mauna Kea, 

Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR, *USGS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 3 6.1.1.6 E 

Work with Nā Ala Hele to add material on birds to their interpretive displays and brochure at Ainapō Trail, Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR, *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-138 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 6.1.1.7 E Develop a system of trails with interpretive displays at Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary, Hawai`i 2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 3 3 6.1.1.8 E Develop a system of trails with interpretive displays at Pu`u Maka`ala, Laupāhoehoe, 

Kīpāhoehoe, Manukā, and Pu`u O`umi NARs, Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR 3.0 1.5 1.5 

3 2 6.1.1.9 E 

Develop interpretive signs for the nature trail at Hosmer Grove Haleakalā National Park, 

Maui 

2 years *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 2 6.1.1.10 E 

Develop interpretive kiosk in parking area and brochures and signs for the Waiakoa Loop Trail at Polipoli State Park, Maui 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 3 6.1.1.11 E 

Develop access, trails, and interpretive displays at Pu`u Kukui, Maui 

2 years *Maui Land and Pineapple Co. 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 3 6.1.1.12 E 

Develop an interpretive display at Waihe`e Ridge Trail, Maui 

2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-139 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 3 6.1.1.13 E Develop an interpretive display at Kahakuloa NAR, Maui 2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 3 3 6.1.1.14 E Develop an interpretive trail to the rim of 

Pēpē`ōpae Bog at 

Hanalilolilo Trail, Moloka`i 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 3 6.1.1.15 E 

Develop scenic overlook and interpretive displays at Pu`u Ali`i NAR, Moloka`i 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

2 3 6.1.1.16 E 

Develop interpretive signs and brochures at Kuli`ou`ou Trail and `Aiea Loop Trail, O`ahu 

2 years *DLNR, *USFWS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 2 6.1.1.17 E 

Develop interpretive kiosks and signs at Kalalau and Pu`u O Kila lookouts,

Kōke`e State 

Park, Kaua`i 

2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 2 6.1.2.1 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Hawai`i, Hakalau Forest NWR, Hakalau and Kona Forest Units 

Ongoing *USFWS 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-140 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.1.2.2 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Hawai`i, Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2 6.1.2.3 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Waikamoi Preserve, The Nature Conservancy Ongoing * TNCH 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 3 6.1.2.4 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Makawao Forest Reserve Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2 6.1.2.5 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Hanawī NAR Ongoing *NAR 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-141 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.1.2.6 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Haleakalā National Park Ongoing *NPS 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 3 6.1.2.7 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Moloka`i, Kamakou Preserve, The Nature Conservancy Ongoing *TNCH 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2 6.1.2.8 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: O`ahu, Barber’s Point Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 6.1.2.9 E Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Honouliuli Preserve, The Nature Conservancy Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-142 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 6.1.3.1 E Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor centers, displays and facilities, and public services interpretive programs: Hawai`i, Hakalau Forest NWR Ongoing *USFWS 34.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 0.2 3 6.1.3.2 E Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor centers, displays and facilities, and public services interpretive programs: Maui, Haleakalā National Park Ongoing *NPS 34.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 0.2 3 6.1.3.3 E Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor centers, displays and facilities, and public services interpretive programs: O`ahu, Honolulu Zoo Ongoing *HZ 34.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 0.2 3 6.1.4 E Promote the opening of State Forest reserve trails to the general public for nature walks and birding on all islands Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 2 6.1.5 E Support the Nā Ala Hele Trail System Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-143 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 6.2.1.1 E Institute core curriculum programs at the university level emphasizing Hawaii’s native species for elementary and high school education programs Ongoing *UH 60.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1 6.2.1.2 E Develop an interpretation internship program for university students specializing in the field of forest bird information and education Ongoing *UH 60.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1 6.2.1.3 E Provide permanent funding for programs such as Imi Pono No Ka Aina, an Environmental Educator program at Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park that educates teachers through accredited workshops in environmental and native species issues Ongoing TBD 60.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-144 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.2.1.4.1 E Fund the development and distribution of educational materials: Develop forest bird posters for schools, emphasizing each of the native forest birds and keyed to each islands endemic species 2 years TBD 2.0 1.0 1.0 3 2 6.2.1.4.2 E Fund the development and distribution of educational materials: Keauhou Ranch/Kīlauea Forest Reserve. Assist Kamehameha Schools with ongoing development of environmental learning opportunities 2 years KS*, USFWS 0.5 0.25 0.25 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-145 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 1 6.2.2.1 E Fund and support programs for school children on each island that provide a “hands on” approach to learning about Hawaii’s native species: Keokeolani Outdoor Education Program on the Big Island; Maui Outdoor Education Center on Maui; Hawai`i Nature Center on O`ahu; The Discovery Outdoor Education Center on Kaua`i; and funding for the establishment of a Moloka`i Outdoor Education Center Ongoing *Hawai`i Outdoor Education Centers 90.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 2 6.2.2.2 E Fund and support organizations such as 

`Ōhi`a Productions and 

Keauhou Bird Conservation Center that provide environmental educational programs to Hawaii’s school children 

Ongoing TBD 30.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-146 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 6.2.2.2.1 E Provide funding for 

`Ōhi`a Productions to 

perform on other islands and to produce videos of previous performances for distribution to schools throughout Hawai`i 

Ongoing 

*`

Ōhi`a 

Productions 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.

2 3 6.2.2.3 E 

Develop and support programs such as Mālama Hawai`i, that 

encourage widespread awareness of conservation goals through a diverse coalition of traditional and non-traditional partnerships 

Ongoing TBD 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-147 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 6.2.3.1 E Fund, create and support continuous maintenance of an informational website focused on native species, their habitats, as well as alien species and their effects on native species, and provide up to date information that can be utilized and copied onto other web sites to spread the information Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 3 6.2.3.1.1 E Obtain funding from Gates Foundation for remote digital broadcast from O`ahu `elepaio “nest cam” to local schools through a web site 4 years TBD 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1 6.2.4.1 E Initiate and fund public outreach and information about the effect of rats and cats as vectors for human disease, agricultural pests, and their threats to native species as predators 4 years *USFWS, *HDPH 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-148 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

1 1 6.2.4.2 E Initiate public outreach efforts to inform the public about potential human and animal diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and how source reduction can reduce those threats 4 years *USFWS, *HDPH 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.2 1 6.2.4.3 E Inform the public as to the value of feral ungulate and weed control in native forests by providing film and video footage of the harmful effects of alien weeds and ungulates on native species and agriculture 4 years *USFWS, *HDPH 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.2 3 6.3.1 E Conduct market research on the public’s knowledge of native species and attitudes towards conservation, to provide the information to develop the most direct ways to educate the public and gain support for native species 2 years TBD 4.0 2.0 2.0 
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-149 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 3 6.3.2.1 E Assist in the development of public service announcements about native species by providing local television stations with footage of native species with natural sounds and suggest their use as background visuals or sounds during credits for local or other programming Ongoing TBD 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 3 6.3.2.2 E Use local "heroes", entertainers, sports figures, or other role models, to promote local pride in common native and endangered species Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 3 6.3.2.3 E Promote the use of prize- winning contests, with sponsors, on local radio, television stations and newspapers to promote native species awareness Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-150 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.3.2.3.1 E Sponsor and support contests such as: Forest bird website contest among high school students, forest bird essay contest in Hawaii’s schools with prizes for different grade levels, forest bird photo contest, or a song writing contest with the song to be used for a theme song for a locally produced nature program Ongoing *HDOE 1.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 2 6.3.2.4.1 E Develop a weekly column provided to all newspapers in Hawai`i providing information on native species and ecosystem issues, with the writing shared by conservation organizations throughout the state Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-151 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.3.2.4.2 E Develop a weekly program for radio stations on all islands providing information on native species and ecosystem issues, with the writing shared by conservation organizations throughout the State. Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2 6.3.2.4.3 E Develop a half hour weekly or monthly television nature program about Hawaii’s native species and their habitat Ongoing TBD 12.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 2 6.3.3.1 E Promote the use of the `i`iwi or a caricature of `i`iwi as the “Poster Child” for native species in advertising and in education 4 years TBD 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-152 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.3.3.2 E Provide native species images and promote the use of these images in advertising by advertising agencies, local and national fast food corporations for use in advertising on tray- liners, milk cartons, and other heavily used advertising media Ongoing TBD 1.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 2 6.3.4.1 E Promote the hosting of special events in cooperation with major local hotels and corporations as partners for funding, and to champion native species and ecosystem awareness Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 2 6.4.1.1 E Support conservation outreach organizations to promote conservation at a “grass roots” level Ongoing TBD 15.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-153 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

3 2 6.4.1.2 E Develop a “mentor” program, where natural science based professionals provide field opportunities for young people in learning about Hawaii’s native species Unknown *UH, *USFWS, *USGS, *DLNR, *DOFAW 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 6.4.1.3 E Support the use of volunteers in projects on State, Federal and private lands that will contribute to the enhancement of native habitat and increase the level of awareness and pride in native species within the local populace Ongoing *USFWS, *USGS, *DLNR, *DOFAW, *NAR, *NPS 12.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 2 6.4.1.4 E Support the development of a volunteer “clearinghouse” to provide volunteers for resource management, education, and outreach Ongoing TBD 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.
Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 5-154 Table 19. Implementation Schedule for the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest B

Priority Cost Estimate (in $100,000 units) 

# Tier Action Number Listing Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 1

2 2 6.4.2.1 E Develop and maintain partnerships with Kamehameha Schools, The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, Hawai`i Audubon Society, Pig Hunters of Hawai`i, Hawai`i Conservation Association and other NGO’s to promote environmental awareness and broaden the spectrum of a local environmentally educated populace Ongoing TBD 15.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.

TOTAL 24,774 947 895 806 75

1Costs to secure recovery area cannot be determined at this time because numerous methods are available (conservation easement, partnership a

change in land use designation, change of jurisdiction, lease, or purchase from willing seller) that vary widely in their potential cost, and it is nmethod might be most appropriate or effective in the future. Many land parcels in question are owned by State or local governments or private 

method of securing habitat will depend on the disposition and willingness of the landowner. 2Costs to reduce or eliminate detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation are approximations because locations and extent of strategic fencing 

total acreage to be fenced has not been determined. 3Costs to reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of exotic plants through mechanical, chemical, or biological means and research can not be 

distributions of exotic plants are only partly known, and in many cases the most effective means for their control have yet to be determined. 4Costs for this captive propagation, translocation, or related recovery action are included under recovery action number 3, and are part of the co

Hawaiian forest birds. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-1 

VI. REFERENCES 

A. References Cited 

Amarasekare, P. 1993. Potential impact of mammalian nest predators on 

endemic forest birds of western Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Conservation 

Biology 7:316-324. 

Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian honeycreepers (Aves, Drepaniidae). Bulletin 

of the American Museum of Natural History 95:151-262. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th 

edition. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1985. Thirty-fifth supplement to the American 

Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American birds. Auk 102:680-

686. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th

edition. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AZA), Small 

Population Management Group. 2000. Artificial Selection in Captive 

Wildlife Populations. AZA Communique (September, 2000). 

Ashman, P.R., P. Pyle, and J. Jeffrey. 1984. A second nest of the small Kauai 

thrush. `Elepaio 45:33-34. 

Atkinson, C. T., R. J. Dusack, and J. K. Lease. 2001b. Serological responses and 

immunity to superinfection with avian malaria in experimentally-infected 

Hawaiian Amakihi. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37:20-27. 

Atkinson, C. T., R. J. Dusack, K. L. Woods, and W. L. Iko. 2000. Pathogenicity 

of avian malaria in experimentally-infected Hawaii Amakihi. Journal of 

Wildlife Diseases. 36:197-204. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-2 

Atkinson, C. T., J. K. Lease, B. M. Drake, and N.P. Shema. 2001a. 

Pathogenicity, serological responses, and diagnosis of experimental and 

natural malarial infections in native Hawaiian thrushes. Condor 103:209-

218. 

Atkinson, C. T., K. L. Woods, R. J. Dusek, L. S. Sileo, and W. M. Iko. 1995. 

Wildlife disease and conservation in Hawaii: Pathogenicity of avian 

malaria (Plasmodium relictum) in experimentally infected Iiwi (Vestiaria 

coccinea). Parasitology 111:S59-S69. 

Atkinson, I. A. E. 1977. A reassessment of factors, particularly Rattus rattus L., 

that influenced the decline of the Endemic forest birds in the Hawaiian 

Islands. Pacific Science 31: 109-133. 

Baker, H., and P. E. Baker. 2000. `Alauahio (Paroreomyza montana). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 504 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds 

of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Baker, P. E. 1998. A description of the first live Poouli captured. Wilson 

Bulletin 110:307-310. 

Baker, P. E. 2001. Status and distribution of the Po`ouli in the Hanawī Natural 

Area Reserve between December 1995 and June 1997. Studies in Avian 

Biology 22:144-150. 

Baker, P. E., and H. Baker. 2000. Kākāwahie (Paroreomyza flammea) and 

O`ahu `Alauahio (Paroreomyza maculata). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 503 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Baldwin, P. H. 1953. Annual cycle, environment and evolution in the Hawaiian 

honeycreepers (Aves: Drepaniidae). University of California 

Publications in Zoology 52:285-398. 

Baldwin, P. H. and T. L. C. Casey. 1983. A preliminary list of foods of the Po`ouli. `Elepaio 43:53-56. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-3 

Banko, P. C. and W. E. Banko. 1980. Historical trends of passerine populations 

in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Pages 108-125 in Proceedings of the 

Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. Vol. 8. 

U.S. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Banko, P. C., R. E. David, J. D. Jacobi, and W. E. Banko. 2001. Conservation 

status and recovery strategies for endemic Hawaiian birds. Studies in 

Avian Biology 22:359-376. 

Banko, P. C., S. C. Hess, L. Johnson, and S. J. Dougill. 1998. Palila population 

estimate for 1997. `Elepaio 58:11-15. 

Banko, P. C., L. Johnson, G. D. Lindsey, S. G. Fancy, T. K. Pratt, J. D. Jacobi, 

and W. E. Banko. 2002. Palila (Loxioides bailleui). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 679 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Banko, P. C. and J. Williams. 1993. Eggs, nests, and nesting behavior of 

Akiapolaau (Drepanidinae). Wilson Bulletin 105:427-435. 

Banko, W. E. 1968. Rediscovery of Maui Nukupuu, Hemignathus lucidus 

affinis, and sighting of Maui Parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys, 

Kipahulu Valley, Maui, Hawaii. Condor 70:265-266. 

Banko, W. E. 1980-1984. History of endemic Hawaiian birds. Part 1. 

Population histories -- species accounts. Avian History Reports 4-8. 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Banko, W. E. 1984a. History of endemic Hawaiian birds. Part 1. Population 

histories -- species accounts. Forest birds: Akepa and Poo-uli. Avian 

History Report 8C:167-256. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies 

Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Banko, W. E. 1984b. History of endemic Hawaiian birds. Part 1. Population 

histories -- species accounts. Forest birds: Akialoa, Nukupuu, and 

Akiapolaau. Avian History Report 9:1-143. Cooperative National Park 

Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-4 

Banko, W. E. 1986. History of endemic Hawaiian birds. Part 1. Population 

histories -- species accounts. Forest Birds: Maui parrotbill, Ou, Palila, 

Greater Koa Finch, Lesser Koa Finch, and Grosbeak Finch. Avian 

History Report 10. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Banko, W. E. 1987. History of the endemic Hawaiian birds. Part 1. Population 

histories—species accounts. Avian History Report 11a. Cooperative 

National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 

HI. 

Banko, W. E. and P. Banko. 1976. Role of food depletion by foreign organisms 

in historical decline of Hawaiian Forest Birds. Pages 29-34 in C. W. 

Smith (editor). Proceedings of the First Conference in Natural Sciences in 

Hawaii. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of 

Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Beck, B. 1992. Guidelines for reintroduction of animals born or held in captivity. 

AZA Reintroduction Advisory Group (3 June, 1992). 

Benning, T. L., D. LaPointe, C. T. Atkinson, and P. M. Vitousek. 2002. 

Interactions of climate change with biological invasions and land use in 

the Hawaiian islands: Modeling the fate of endemic birds using a 

geographic information system. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 99:14246-14249. 

Berger, A. J. 1970. The eggs and young of the Palila, an endangered species. 

Condor 72:238-240. 

Berger, A. J. 1972. Hawaiian birdlife. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 

HI. 

Berger, A. J. 1981. Hawaiian birdlife. 2nd edition. University Press of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-5 

Berlin, K. E., J. C. Simon, P. E. Baker, T. K. Pratt, and J. R. Kowalsky. 2001. 

Sex and age determination of Maui Parrotbill (Pseudonestor xanthophrys). 

Journal of Field Ornithology 72:12-21. 

Berlin, K. E., T. K. Pratt, J. C. Simon, J. R. Kowalsky, and J. S. Hatfield. 2000. 

Plant phenology in the cloud forest on the island of Maui, Hawaii. 

Biotropica 32:90-99. 

Berlin, K. E., J. C. Simon, T. K. Pratt, J. R. Kowalsky, and J. S. Hatfield. 2001. 

`Ākohekohe response to flower availability: seasonal abundance, foraging, 

breeding, and molt. Studies in Avian Biology 22:202-212. 

Berlin, K. E. and E. M. VanGelder. 1999. `Ākohekohe (Palmeria dolei). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 400 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds 

of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Bernard, K. A., J. G. Maffei, S. A. Jones, E. B. Kauffman, G. D. Ebel, A. P. 

Dupuis II, K. A. Ngo, D. C. Nicholas, D. M. Young, P. -Y. Shi, V. L. 

Kulasekera, M. Eidson, D. J. White, W. B. Stone, NY State West Nile 

Virus Surveillance Team, and D. L. Kramer. 2000. Emerging Infectious 

Diseases 7:679-685. 

Bremer, D. 1986. Waipio, Oahu, Christmas Bird Count–1985. `Elepaio 46:132-

135. 

Bryan, E. H., Jr. and J. C. Greenway, Jr. 1944. Contribution to the ornithology of 

the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 

44:77-142. 

Bryan, L. W. 1937. Wild sheep in Hawaii. Paradise of the Pacific 49:19-31. 

Bryan, L. W. 1947. Twenty-five years of forestry work on the island of Hawaii. 

Hawaiian Planter’s Record 51:1-80. 

Bryan, W. A. 1905. Notes on the birds of the Waianae Mountains. Occasional 

Papers of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 2:37-49. 

Bryan, W. A. 1908. Some birds of Molokai. Occasional Papers of the Bernice P. 

Bishop Museum 4:133-176. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-6 

Burgess, S. L. 2005. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the Elepaio. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai`i, Manoa. 

Cabin, R. J., S. G. Weller, D. H. Lorence, T. W. Flynn, A. K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, 

and L. J. Hadway. 2000. Effects of long-term ungulate exclusion and 

recent alien species control on the preservation and restoration of a 

Hawaiian tropical dry forest. Conservation Biology 14:439-453. 

Cann, R. L. and L. J. Douglas. 1999. Parasites and conservation of Hawaiian 

birds. Pages 121-136 in L. F. Landweber and A. P. Dobson (editors). 

Genetics and the extinction of species. Princeton University Press, 

Princeton, NJ. 

Carothers, J. H. 1986. Behavioral and ecological correlates of interference 

competition among some Hawaiian Drepanidinae. Auk 103:564-573. 

Casey, T. L. C. and J. D. Jacobi. 1974. A new genus and species of bird from the 

Island of Maui, Hawaii (Passeriformes: Drepanididae). Occasional Papers 

of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 24:216-226. 

Caswell, H. 1989. Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and 

interpretation. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 

Conant, S. 1975. Spatial distribution of bird species on the eastern flank of 

Mauna Loa. Technical Report 74. Island Ecosystems International 

Research Program, U.S. International Biological Program, University of 

Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Conant, S. 1977. The breeding biology of the Oahu `Elepaio. Wilson Bulletin 

89:193-210. 

Conant, S. 1981a. Niche differentiation in the avian community. Pages 291-300 

in D. Mueller-Dombois, K. W. Bridges and H. L. Carson (editors). Island 

ecosystems biological organization in selected Hawaiian communities. 

Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, PN. 

Conant, S. 1981b. Recent observations of endangered birds in Hawaii’s national 

parks. `Elepaio 41: 55-61. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-7 

Conant, S., H.D. Pratt, and R.J. Shallenberger. 1998. Reflections on a 1975 

expedition to the lost world of the alaka`i and other notes on the natural 

history, systematics, and conservation of Kaua`i birds. Wilson Bulletin 

110:1-22. 

Donaghho, W. 1941. A report of ornithological observations made on Kauai. 

`Elepaio 2:52. 

Dunmire, W. W. 1961. Birds of the national parks in Hawaii. Hawaii Natural 

History Association, Honolulu, HI. 

Ebenhard, T. 1988. Introduced birds and mammals and their ecological effects. 

Swedish Wildlife Research 13:5-107. 

Eddinger, C. R. 1972. Discovery of the nest of the Kauai Creeper. Auk 89:673-

674. 

Ellis, S., C. Kuehler, R. Lacy, K. Hughes, and U. S. Seal. 1992. Hawaiian forest 

birds: conservation assessment and management plan. Captive Breeding 

Specialist Group, IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Species Survival 

Commission. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Engilis, A., Jr. 1990. Field notes on native forest birds in the Hanawi Natural 

Area Reserve, Maui. `Elepaio 50:67-72. 

Engilis, A., Jr. and T. K. Pratt. 1989. Kauai forest bird survey yields surprises 

and disappointments. Hawaii Wildlife Newsletter. 4:1-10. 

Engilis, A., Jr., T. K. Pratt, C. B. Kepler, A. M. Ecton, and K. M. Fluetsch. 1996. 

Description of adults, eggshells, nestling, fledgling, and nest of the 

Po`ouli. Wilson Bulletin 108:607-619. 

Fancy, S. G., J. D. Jacobi, T. K. Pratt, and C. J. Ralph. 1994. Determining age 

and sex of `Oma`o (Myadestes obscurus). `Elepaio 54:25-27. 

Fancy, S. G., J. T. Nelson, P. Harrity, J. Kuhn, M. Kuhn, C. Kuehler, and J. G. 

Giffin. 2001. Reintroduction and translocation of `Ōma`o: a comparison 

of methods. Studies in Avian Biology 22:347-353. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-8 

Fancy, S. G., S. A. Sandin, M. H. Reynolds, and J. D. Jacobi. 1995. Distribution 

and population status of the endangered `Akiapōlāa`u. Pacific Science 

50:355-362. 

Fancy, S. G., T. J. Snetsinger, and J. D. Jacobi. 1997. Translocation of the palila, 

an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper. Pacific Conservation Biology 

3:39-46. 

Fancy, S. G., R. T. Sugihara, J. J. Jeffrey, J. D. Jacobi. 1993. Site tenacity of the 

endangered palila. Wilson Bulletin 105:587-596. 

Feldman, R. A., L. A. Freed, and R. L. Cann. 1995. A PCR test for avian malaria 

in Hawaiian birds. Molecular Ecology 4:663-673. 

Filardi, C. E., and R. G. Moyle. 2005. Single origin of a pan-Pacific bird group 

and upstream colonization of Australasia. Nature 438:216-219. 

Finsch, O. 1880. Ornithological letters from the Pacific, 1879-1881. Ibis 4:75-

81, 218-220. 

Fleischer, R. C., C. E. McIntosh, and C. L. Tarr. 1998. Evolution on a volcanic 

conveyor belt: using phylogeographic reconstructions and K-Ar-based 

ages of the Hawaiian Islands to estimate molecular evolution rates. 

Molecular Ecology 7:533-545. 

Fleischer, R. C., and C. E. MacIntosh. 2001. Molecular systematics and 

biogeography of the Hawaiian avifauna. Studies in Avian Biology 22:51-

60. 

Fleischer, R. C., C. L. Tarr, H. F. James, B. Slikas, and C. E. McIntosh. 2001. 

Phylogenetic placement of the Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, based 

on mitochondrial DNA sequence and osteological characters. Studies in 

Avian Biology 22:98-103. 

Fleischer, R. C., C. L. Tarr, and T. K. Pratt. 1994. Genetic structure and mating 

system in the palila, an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper, as assessed 

by DNA fingerprinting. Molecular Ecology 3:383-392. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-9 

Foose, T. J. and J. D. Ballou. 1988. Management of small populations. 

International Zoo Yearbook 27:26-41. 

Foster, J. T., J. M. Scott, and P. W. Sykes, Jr. 2000. `Akikiki (Oreomystis 

bairdi). In The Birds of North America, No. 552 (A. Poole and F. Gill, 

eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Foster, J.T., E.J. Tweed, R.J. Camp, B.L. Woodworth, C.D. Adler, and T. Telfer. 

2004. Long-term population changes of native and introduced birds in the 

Alaka`i Swamp, Kaua`i. Conservation Biology 18:716-725. 

Freed, L. A. 1999. Extinction and endangerment of Hawaiian honeycreepers: a 

comparative approach. Pages 137-162 in L. F. Landweber, and A. P. 

Dobson (editors). Genetics and the extinction of species. Princeton 

University Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Freed, L. A. 2001. Significance of old-growth forest to the Hawai`i `Ākepa. 

Studies in Avian Biology 22:173-184. 

Freed, L. A., S. C. Conant, and R. C. Fleischer. 1987. Evolutionary ecology and 

radiation of Hawaiian passerine birds. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

2:196-203. 

Fretz, J. S. 2000. Relationship of canopy arthropod prey to distribution and life 

history of the Hawaii Akepa. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii at 

Mānoa. 

Fretz, J. S. 2002. Scales of food availability for an endangered insectivore, the 

Hawaii Akepa. Auk 119:166-174. 

Fretz, J. S., E. A. VanderWerf, P. J. Hart, and L. A. Freed. In press. Association 

of food availability with reproductive success in the Hawai`i `Ākepa and 

Hawai`i `Elepaio. Condor. 

Gadow, H. 1891. Remarks on the structure of certain Hawaiian birds, with 

reference to their systematic position and further remarks on the 

relationships of the Drepanididae. Pages 219-241 in Wilson and Evans 

(1890-1899) q. v. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-10 

Goff, M.L., and C. van Riper III. 1980. Distribution of mosquitoes (Diptera: 

Culicidae) on east flank of Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawai`i. Pacific Insects 

22:178-188. 

Grant, P. R. and B. R. Grant. 1992. Demography and the genetically effective 

sizes of two populations of Darwin’s finches. Ecology 73:766-784. 

Gray, E. M., P. C. Banko, S. J. Dougill, D. Goltz, L. Johnson, M. E. Laut, J. D. 

Semones, and M. R. Wiley. 1999. 1998 Palila population census. 

`Elepaio 59:33-39. 

Groombridge, J.J., J.G. Massey, J.C. Bruch, T.R. Malcolm, C.N. Brosius, M.M. 

Okada, and B.D. Sparklin. 2004a. Evaluating stress in a Hawaiian 

honeycreeper (Paroreomyza montana) following translocation. Journal of 

Field Ornithology 75:183-187. 

Groombridge, J.J., J.G. Massey, J.C. Bruch, T. Malcolm, C.N. Brosius, M.M. 

Okada, B. Sparklin, J.S. Fretz, and E.A. VanderWerf. 2004b. An attempt 

to recover the Po`ouli by translocation and an appraisal of recovery 

strategy for bird species of extreme rarity. Biological Conservation 

118:365-375. 

Hadfield, M. G., S. E. Miller, and A. H. Carwile. 1993. The decimation of 

endemic Hawaiian tree snails by alien predators. American Zoologist 

33:610-622. 

Hanski, I. A. and M. E. Gilpin. 1997. Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, 

San Diego, CA. 

Hardy, D. E. 1960. Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 10. University of Hawaii Press, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Hart, P. J. 2000. Causes and correlates of rarity in the endangered Hawai`i 

Akepa. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Hart, P. J. 2001. Demographic comparisons between high and low density 

populations of Hawai`i `Ākepa. Studies in Avian Biology 22:185-193. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-11 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1981. Statewide non-game and 

endangered species program, limited surveys of forest birds and their 

habitats in the State of Hawaii. Pittman-Robertson Project W-18-R-6, Job 

R-11-D. 9 pp. Unpublished report. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1985. Statewide non-game and 

endangered species program, limited surveys of forest birds and their 

habitats in the State of Hawaii. Pittman-Robertson Project W-18-R-9, Job 

R-11-D. 11 pp. Unpublished report. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1986. (W-18-R-10: RII-D) Limited 

surveys of forest birds and their habitats in the State of Hawai`i. Job 

Progress Report, DLNR, Hawai`i. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1988. State-wide Forest Bird 

Surveys. Unpublished summaries. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1989. T. Pratt, Job Progress Report 

Forest Bird Surveys. Unpubl. data. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1993. T. Telfer, Post Hurricane Iniki 

Survey. Unpubl. data. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1994. P. Conry, Forest Bird Survey 

Job Progress Report. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1995. State-wide Forest Bird 

Surveys. Unpubl. summaries. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1997-2000. Maui Forest Bird 

Recovery Project Reports. Unpublished quarterly and annual summaries. 

Hawai`i Heritage Program. 1991. Ecosystem loss in Hawai`i: maps depicting 

native ecosystems before and after 1500 years of human habitation. 

Unpublished map series. The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i, Honolulu. 

Henneman, M. L. and J. Memmott. 2001. Infiltration of a Hawaiian community 

by introduced biological control agents. Science 293:1314-1316. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-12 

Henshaw, H. W. 1902. Birds of the Hawaiian Islands, being a complete list of 

the birds of The Hawaiian possessions with notes on their habits. Thos. G. 

Thrum, Honolulu, HI. 

Hess, S. C., P. C. Banko, G. J. Brenner, and J. D. Jacobi. 1999. Factors related to 

the recovery of subalpine woodland on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Biotropica 

31:212-219. 

Hess, S. C., P. C. Banko, M. H. Reynolds, G. J. Brenner, L. P. Laniawe, and J. D. 

Jacobi. 2001. Drepanidine movements in relation to food availability in 

subalpine woodland on Mauna Kea, Hawai`i. Studies in Avian Biology 

22:154-163. 

Hodges, C. S. and R. J. Nagata. 2001. Effects of predator control on the survival 

and breeding success of the endangered Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel. 

Studies in Avian Biology 22:308-318. 

Hu, D., C. Glidden, J. S. Lippert, L. Schnell, J. S. MacIvor, and J. Meisler. 2001. 

Habitat use and limiting factors in a population of Hawaiian Dark-rumped 

Petrels on Mauna Loa, Hawai`i. Studies in Avian Biology 22:234-242. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate change 

2001: Synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1987. Guidelines for 

Captive Breeding. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding 

Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1994. Red list 

categories. As approved by the 40th meeting of the IUCN Council. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1998. Guidelines 

for Reintroductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction 

Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2000. Guidelines for 

Captive Breeding. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding 

Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-13 

Jacobi, J. D. 1978. Vegetation map of the Kau Forest Reserve and adjacent lands 

of Hawaii. U.S. Forest Service Research Bulletin PSW-16. Honolulu, HI. 

Jacobi, J. D. 1985. Vegetation maps of the upland plant communities on the 

islands of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai. Technical Report, No. 68. 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Jacobi, J. D., S. G. Fancy, J. G. Giffin, J. G. and J. M. Scott. 1996. Long-term 

population variability in the Palila, an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper. 

Pacific Science 50:363-370. 

James, H. F. and S. L. Olson. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of 

birds from the Hawaiian Islands. Part II. Passeriformes. Ornithological 

Monographs 46:1-88. 

James, H. F., R. L. Zusi, and S. L. Olson. 1989. Dysmorodrepanis munroi

(Fringillidae: drepanidini), a valid genus and species of Hawaiian finch. 

Wilson Bulletin 101:159-179. 

Jarvi, S. I., C. T. Atkinson, and R. C. Fleischer. 2001. Immunogenetics and 

resistance to avian malaria in Hawaiian honeycreepers (Drepanidinae). 

Studies in Avian Biology 22:254-263. 

Jeffrey, J. J., S. G. Fancy, G. D. Lindsey, P. C. Banko, T. K. Pratt, and J. D. 

Jacobi. 1993. Sex and age identification of Palila. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 64:490-499. 

Johnson, N. K., J. A. Marten, and C. J. Ralph. 1989. Genetic evidence for the 

origin and relationships of the Hawaiian honeycreepers (Aves: 

Fringillidae). Condor 91:379-396. 

Juvik, J. O., D. Nullett, P. Banko, and K. Hughes. 1993. Forest climatology near 

the tree line in Hawai`i. Agricultural Forest Meteorology 66:159-172. 

Kaho`olawe Island Reserve Commission. 2004. Report to the legislature on the 

management of the Kaho`olawe Island Reserve. State of Hawai`i, 

Kaho`olawe Island Reserve Commission. March 2004. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-14 

Katahira, L. K., P. Finnegan, and C. P. Stone. 1993. Eradicating pigs in montane 

mesic habitat at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 21:269-274. 

Keith, J. O., D. N. Hirata, D. L. Espy, S. Greiner, and D. Griffin. 1989. Field 

evaluation of 0.00025 percent diphacinone bait for mongoose control in 

Hawai`i. Job completion report for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Denver, Colorado. 

Kepler, C. B. and A. K. Kepler. 1983. A first record of the nest and chicks of the 

small Kauai Thrush. Condor 85:497-499. 

Kepler, C. B., T. K. Pratt, A. M. Ecton, A. Engilis, Jr., and K. M. Fluetsch. 1996. 

Nesting behavior of the Poo-uli. Wilson Bulletin 108:620-638. 

Kilpatrick, A. M. 2006. Facilitating the evolution of resistance to avian malaria 

in Hawaiian birds. Biological Conservation 128:475-485. 

Kirch, P. V. 1982. The impact of prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian 

ecosystem. Pacific Science 36:1-14. 

Knox, A. G. 1983. Handedness in crossbills Loxia and the Akepa Loxops 

coccinea. Bulletin of the British Ornithological Club 103:114-118. 

Kowalsky, J. R., T. K. Pratt, and J. C. Simon. 2002. Prey taken by cats (Felis 

catus) and Barn Owls (Tyto alba) in Hanawi Natural Area Reserve, Maui, 

Hawai`i. `Elepaio 62:127-131. 

Kuehler, C. M., M. Kuhn, J. E. Kuhn, A. Lieberman, N. Harvey, and B. Rideout. 

1996. Artificial incubation hand-rearing, behavior, and release of 

Common `Amakihi (Hemignathus virens virens): surrogate research for 

restoration of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Zoo Biology 15:541-

553. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-15 

Kuehler, C., A. Lieberman, P. Harrity, M. Kuhn, J. Kuhn, B. McIlraith, and J. 

Turner. 2001. Restoration techniques for Hawaiian forest birds: collection 

of eggs, artificial incubation and hand-rearing of chicks, and release to the 

wild. Studies in Avian Biology 22:354-358. 

Kuehler, C., A. Lieberman, P. Oesterle, T. Powers, M. Kuhn, J. Kuhn, J. Nelson, 

T. Snetsinger, C. Herrmann, P. Harrity, E. Tweed, S. Fancy, B. 

Woodworth, and T. Telfer. 2000. Development of restoration techniques 

for Hawaiian thrushes: collection of wild eggs, artificial incubation, handrearing, captive-breeding, and re-introduction to the wild. Zoo Biology 

19:263-277. 

Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 

241:1455-1460. 

Lack, D. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Chapman and Hall, 

London. 

LaPointe, D. 2000. Avian malaria in Hawaii: the distribution, ecology, and 

vector potential of forest dwelling mosquitoes. Unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of Hawaii at Mānoa. 

Lepson, J. K. and L. A. Freed. 1995. Variation in male plumage and behavior of 

the Hawaii Akepa. Auk 112: 402-414. 

Lepson, J. K. and L. A. Freed. 1997. `Ākepa (Loxops coccineus). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 294 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Lepson, J. K., and B. L. Woodworth. 2001. Hawai`i Creeper (Oreomystis mana). 

In The Birds of North America, No. 680 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Lindsey, G. D., S. G. Fancy, M. H. Reynolds, T. K. Pratt, K. A. Wilson, P. C. 

Banko, and J. D. Jacobi. 1995. Population structure and survival of 

Palila. Condor 97:528-535. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-16 

Lindsey, G. D., T. K. Pratt, M. H. Reynolds, and J. D. Jacobi. 1997. Response of 

six species of Hawaiian forest birds to a 1991-1992 El Niño drought. 

Wilson Bulletin 109:339-343. 

Lockwood, J. L., J. E. Green, K. Wakelee, E. VanGelder, S. Ashe, and R. 

Aburomia. 1994. A description of Maui Parrotbill (Pseudonestor 

xanthophrys) nests and nesting behavior. `Elepaio 54:61-64. 

Loh, R. K. and J. T. Tunison. 1999. Vegetation recovery following pig removal 

in Olaa-Koa Rain Forest Unit, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 

Technical Report #123. Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit. University of 

Hawai`i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI. 

Loope, L. L. and P. G. Scowcroft. 1985. Vegetation response within exclosures 

in Hawaii: a review. Pages 377-402 in C. P. Stone and J. M. Scott (eds.), 

Hawaii’s terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. 

University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 

MacCaughey, V. 1919. The Hawaiian Elepaio. Auk 36:22-35. 

Malcolm, T. R., J. J. Groombridge, C. N. Brosius, and B. D. Sparklin. 2002. The 

effectiveness of ground-based rodenticide application in a remote cloud 

forest on Maui. Poster presentation, Hawaii Conservation Conference, 

Honolulu. 

Medway, D. G. 1981. The contribution of Cook’s third voyage to the 

Ornithology of the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 35:105-175. 

Miller, L. J. 1998. Behavioral ecology of juvenile palila (Loxioides bailleui): 

foraging development, social dynamics, and helping behavior. M.S. 

thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 

Monahan, W. B, J. L. Kellerman, and B. L. Woodworth. 2001. Initiating 

recovery of the critically endangered Hawaiian solitaire, the Puaiohi, in 

the Alakai Wilderness Preserve of northwestern Kauai. Annual Report to 

Cooperators. Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Biological 

Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-17 

Morris, W., D. Doak, M. Groom, P. Kareiva, J. Fieberg, L. Gerber, P. Murphy, 

and D. Thomson. 1999. A practical handbook for population viability 

analysis. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 

Mostello, C. S. 1996. Diets of the Pueo, the Barn Owl, the cat, and the 

mongoose in Hawai`i; evidence for competition. Master’s thesis, 

University of Hawaii at Mānoa. 

Moulton, M. P. and S. L. Pimm. 1983. The introduced Hawaiian avifauna: 

biogeographic evidence for competition. American Naturalist 121:669-

690. 

Mountainspring, S. 1987. Ecology, behavior, and conservation of the Maui 

Parrotbill. Condor 89:24-39. 

Mountainspring, S., and J. M. Scott. 1985. Interspecific competition among 

Hawaiian forest birds. Ecological Monographs 55:219-239. 

Mountainspring, S., T. L. C. Casey, C. B. Kepler, and J. M. Scott. 1990. 

Ecology, behavior, and conservation of the Poo-uli (Melamprosops 

phaeosoma). Wilson Bulletin 102:109-122. 

Munro, G. C. 1944. Birds of Hawaii. Tongg Publishing Company, Honolulu, HI. 

Munro, G. C. 1960. Birds of Hawaii. Revised Edition. Charles E. Tuttle Co. 

Inc., Rutland, VT, and Tokyo, Japan. 

National Research Council. 1992. The scientific bases for the preservation of the 

Hawaiian Crow. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nelson, J. R. 1982. Palila v. Hawaii Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources: State government falls prey to the endangered species act of 

1973. Ecology Law Quarterly 10:281-310. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-18 

Nelson, J. T., B. L. Woodworth, S. G. Fancy, G. D. Lindsey, E. J. Tweed, and M. 

P. Moore. 2002. Effectiveness of rodent control and monitoring 

techniques for a montane rainforest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:82-92. 

Nilsson, S.G. 1986. Evolution of hole-nesting in birds: on balancing selection 

pressures. Auk 103:432-435. 

Olson, S. L. 1989. Two overlooked holotypes of the Hawaiian Flycatcher 

Chasiempis described by Leonhard Stejneger (Aves: Myiagrinae). 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 102:555-558. 

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1982a. Fossil birds from the Hawaiian Islands: 

evidence for wholesale extinction by man before Western contact. 

Science 217:633-635. 

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1982b. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of 

Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions in Zoology No. 365. 

Washington, D.C. 

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1994. A specimen of Nukupu`u (Aves: 

Drepanidini: Hemignathus lucidus) from the Island of Hawai`i. Pacific 

Science 48:331-338. 

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1995. Nomenclature of the Hawaiian `akialoas and 

nukupu`us (Aves: Drepanidini). Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington 108:373-387. 

Pease, C. M. and J. A. Grzybowski. 1995. Assessing the consequences of brood 

parasitism and nest predation on seasonal fecundity in passerine birds. 

Auk 112:343-363. 

Pejchar, L. 2004. Ecology of an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper and 

implications for conservation on private land. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Pejchar, L., and J. Jeffrey. 2004. Sap-feeding behavior and tree selection in the 

endangered Akiapolaau (Hemignathus munroi) in Hawaii. Auk 121:548-

556. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-19 

Pekelo, N., Jr. 1963. Nature notes from Molokai. `Elepaio 24:17-18. 

Perkins, R. C. L. 1893. Notes on collection in Kona. Ibis 1893:101-114. 

Perkins, R. C. L. 1903. Vertebrata. Pages 365-466 in D. Sharp (editor). Fauna 

Hawaiiensis. Vol. 1, part IV. The University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Pimm, S. G. and J. W. Pimm. 1982. Resource use, competition, and resource 

availability in Hawaiian honeycreepers. Ecology 63:1468-1480. 

Pletschet, S. M., and J. F. Kelly. 1990. Breeding biology and nesting success of 

Palila. Condor 92:1012-1021. 

Pounds, A.J., M.P. Fogden, and J.H. Campbell. 1999. Biological response to 

climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398:611-614. 

Pratt, H. D. 1979. A systematic analysis of the endemic avifauna of the 

Hawaiian Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton 

Rouge, LA. 

Pratt, H. D. 1980. Intra-island variation in the `Elepaio on the island of Hawaii. 

Condor 82:449-458. 

Pratt, H. D. 1982. Relationships and speciation of the Hawaiian thrushes. Living 

Bird 19:73-90. 

Pratt, H. D. 1989. Species limits in akepas (Drepanidinae: Loxops). Condor 

91:933-940. 

Pratt, H. D. 1992a. Is the Poo-uli a Hawaiian honeycreeper (Drepanidinae)? 

Condor 94:172-180. 

Pratt, H. D. 1992b. Systematics of the Hawaiian "creepers" Oreomystis and 

Paroreomyza. Condor 94:836-846. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-20 

Pratt, H. D. 2001. Why the Hawai`i Creeper is an Oreomystis: what phenotypic 

characters reveal about the phylogeny of Hawaiian honeycreepers. 

Studies in Avian Biology 22:81-97. 

Pratt, H. D. 2005. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers. Oxford University Press, 

Oxford, U.K. 

Pratt, T. K. and R. L. Pyle. 2000. Nukupu`u in the Twentieth Century, 

endangered species or phantom presence? `Elepaio 60:35-41. 

Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner, and D. G. Berrett. 1987. A field guide to the birds of 

Hawaii and the tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 

NJ. 

Pratt, R., E. Rose, and B. Woodworth. 2002. Puaiohi recovery project progress 

report 2002. Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, USGSBiological Resources Discipline. 

Pratt, T. K., P. C. Banko, S. G. Fancy, G. D. Lindsey, and J. D. Jacobi. 1997a. 

Status and management of the Palila, an endangered Hawaiian 

honeycreeper, 1987-1996. Pacific Conservation Biology 3:330-340. 

Pratt, T. K., S. G. Fancy, C. K. Harada, G. D. Lindsey, and J. D. Jacobi. 1994. 

Identifying sex and age of Akiapolaau. Wilson Bulletin 106:421-430. 

Pratt, T. K., S. G. Fancy, and C. J. Ralph. 2001a. `Akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus 

munroi) and Nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 600 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Pratt, T. K., C. B. Kepler, and T. L. C. Casey. 1997b. Po`ouli (Melamprosops 

phaeosoma). In The Birds of North America, No. 272 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Pratt, T. K., J. C. Simon, B. P. Farm, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalski. 2001b. 

Home range and territoriality of two Hawaiian honeycreepers, the 

`Ākohekohe and Maui Parrotbill. Condor 103:745-755. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-21 

Pukui, M. K. and S. H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, 

English-Hawaiian. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Pukui, M. K, Elbert S. H., and E. T. Mookini. 1976. Place Names of Hawaii. 

University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American 

Naturalist 132:652-661. 

Pyle, R. L. 2002. Checklist of the Birds of Hawaii - 2002. `Elepaio 62:137-148. 

Ralph, C. J. and S. G. Fancy. 1994a. Demography and movements of the 

endangered Akepa and Hawaii Creeper. Wilson Bulletin 106: 615-628. 

Ralph, C. J. and S. G. Fancy. 1994b. Demography and movements of the Omao 

(Myadestes obscurus). Condor 96:503-511. 

Ralph, C. J. and S. G. Fancy. 1994c. Timing of breeding and molting in six 

species of Hawaiian honeycreepers. Condor 96:151-161. 

Ralph, C. J. and S. G. Fancy. 1996. Aspects of the life history and foraging 

ecology of the endangered Akiapolaau. Condor 98:312-321. 

Reynolds, M. H. and T. J. Snetsinger. 2001. The Hawai`i Rare Bird Search 

1994-1996. Studies in Avian Biology 22:133-143. 

Richards, L. P. and P. H. Baldwin. 1953. Recent records of some Hawaiian 

honeycreepers. Condor 55:221-222. 

Richards, L. P. and W. J. Bock. 1973. Functional anatomy and adaptive 

evolution of the feeding apparatus in the Hawaiian honeycreeper genus 

Loxops (Drepanididae). Ornithological Monographs 15. 

Richardson, F. and J. Bowles. 1961. Records of the rare native forest birds of 

Kauai, Hawaii. Condor 63:179-180. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-22 

Richardson, F. and J. Bowles. 1964. A survey of the birds of Kauai, Hawaii. B. 

P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 227. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, 

HI. 

Rothschild, W. 1893-1900. The avifauna of Laysan and the neighboring islands. 

3 vol. R. H. Porter, London, UK. 

Sabo, S. 1982. The rediscovery of Bishop’s `Ō`o on Maui. `Elepaio 42:69-70. 

Sakai, H. F. and T. C. Johanos. 1983. The nest, egg, young, and aspects of the 

life history of the endangered Hawaii Creeper. Western Birds 14:73-84. 

Sakai, H. F. and C. J. Ralph. 1980. Nest construction of the Hawaiian Creeper 

near Volcano, Hawaii. `Elepaio 40:117-118. 

Savidge, J. A. 1987. Extinction of an island avifauna by an introduced snake. 

Ecology 68:660-668. 

Scott, J. M., S. Conant, and H. D. Pratt. 1979. Field identification of the 

Hawaiian Creeper on the island of Hawaii. Western Birds 10:71-80. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest 

bird communities of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and 

conservation. Studies in Avian Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological 

Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, C. van Riper, III, C. B. Kepler, J. D. Jacobi, T. A. 

Burr, and J. G. Giffin. 1984. Annual variation in the distribution, 

abundance, and habitat of the Palila (Loxioides bailleui). Auk 101:647-

664. 

Scott, J. M., J. L. Sincock, and A. J. Berger. 1980. Records of nests, eggs, and 

nestlings of endemic passerine birds in Hawaii. `Elepaio 40:163-168. 

Scott, J. M., D. H. Woodside, and T. L. C. Casey. 1977. Observations of birds in 

the Molokai Forest Reserve, July 1975. `Elepaio 38:25-27. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-23 

Scowcroft. P. G. 1983. Tree cover changes in mamane (Sophora chrysophylla) 

forests grazed by sheep and cattle. Pacific Science 37:109-119. 

Scowcroft, P. G. and C. E. Conrad. 1992. Alien and native plant response to 

release from feral sheep browsing on Mauna Kea. Pages 625-665 in C. P. 

Stone, C. W. Smith, and J. T. Tunison (editors). Alien plant invasions in 

native ecosystems of Hawai`i: management and research. Cooperative 

National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 

HI. 

Scowcroft, P. G. and J. G. Giffin. 1983. Feral herbivores suppress mamane and 

other browse species on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Journal of Range 

Management 36:638-645. 

Scowcroft, P. G. and R. Hobdy. 1986. Recovery of montane koa parkland 

vegetation from feral goats. Biotropica 19:208-215. 

Scowcroft, P. G. and H. S. Sakai. 1983. Impact of feral herbivores on mamane 

forests of Mauna Kea, Hawaii: bark stripping and diameter class 

structure. Journal of Range Management 36:495-498l. 

Seale, A. 1900. Field notes on the birds of Oahu, HI. Occasional Papers of the 

Bernice P. Bishop Museum 1:33-46. 

Serena, M. 1995. Reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand fauna. 

Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. 

Shallenberger, R. J. 1977. Bird and mammal study of Army lands in Hawaii. 

Ahuimanu Productions, Kailua, Hawai`i. 

Shallenberger, R. J. and H. D. Pratt. 1978. Recent observations and field 

identification of the Oahu Creeper (Loxops maculata maculata). `Elepaio 

38:135-140. 

Shallenberger, R. J. and G. K. Vaughn. 1978. Avifaunal survey in the central 

Ko`olau Range, Oahu. Ahuimanu Productions, Honolulu, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-24 

Shehata, C., L. Freed, and R. L. Cann. 2001. Changes in native and introduced 

bird populations on O`ahu: infectious diseases and species replacement. 

Studies in Avian Biology 22:264-273. 

Simon, J. C., P. E. Baker, and H. Baker. 1997. Maui Parrotbill (Pseudonestor 

xanthophrys). In The Birds of North America, No. 311 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Simon, J. C., T. K. Pratt, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 1998. Age and sex 

identification of Akohekohe. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 654-660. 

Simon, J. C., T. K. Pratt, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 2000. Reproductive 

ecology of the Maui Parrotbill. Wilson Bulletin 112:482-490. 

Simon, J. C., T. K. Pratt, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 2001. Reproductive 

ecology and demography of the `Akohekohe. Condor 103:736-745. 

Sincock, J. L. 1982. Status and distribution of the forest birds of Kaua`i, Hawai`i. 

Unpublished Manuscript. 

Smith, D. G., J. T. Polhemus, and E. A. VanderWerf. 2000. Efficacy of fishflavored diphacinone bait blocks for controlling small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus) populations in Hawai`i. `Elepaio 60:48-51. 

Snetsinger, T. J. 1995. Observations of a Hawai`i Creeper in mamane forest. 

`Elepaio 55:55-56. 

Snetsinger, T. J., S. G. Fancy, J. C. Simon, and J. D. Jacobi. 1994. Diets of owls 

and feral cats in Hawai`i. `Elepaio 54:47-50. 

Snetsinger, T. S., C. M. Herrmann, D. E. Holmes, C. D. Hayward, and S. G. 

Fancy. In prep. Breeding ecology of the Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). 

Snetsinger, T. J., M. H. Reynolds, and C. M. Herrmann. 1998. `Ō`ū (Psittirostra 

psittacea) and Lāna`i Hookbill (Dysmorodrepanis munroi). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 335-336 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-25 

Snetsinger, T. S., K. M. Wakelee, and S. G. Fancy. 1999. Puaiohi (Myadestes 

palmeri). In The Birds of North America, No. 461 (A. Poole and F. Gill, 

eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Soulé, M. E. (Editor). 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge 

University Press, London, UK. 

Stejneger, L. 1887. Birds of Kauai Island, collected by Mr. Valdemar Knudsen, 

with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the United States 

National Museum 10:75-102. 

Stejneger, L. 1903. A new name for the Hawaiian bird genus Oreomyza. 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 16:11-12. 

Still, C.J., P.N. Foster, and S. Schneider. 1999. Simulating the effects of climate 

change on tropical montane cloud forests. Nature 398:608-610. 

Stone, C. P. 1985. Alien animals in Hawaii’s native ecosystems: Toward 

controlling the adverse effects of introduced vertebrates. Pages 251-297 

in C.P. Stone and J.M. Scott (editors). Hawaii’s terrestrial ecosystems: 

preservation and management. Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Stone, C. P., L. W. Cuddihy, and J. T. Tunison. 1992. Responses of Hawaiian 

ecosystems to removal of feral pigs and goats. Pages 666-704 in C. P. 

Stone, C. W. Smith, and J. T. Tunison (editors). Alien plant invasions in 

native ecosystems of Hawaii: management and research. Cooperative 

National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii Press, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Stone, C. P., M. Dusek, and M. Aeder. 1994. Use of an anticoagulant to control 

mongooses in Nene breeding habitat. `Elepaio 54:73-78. 

Sugihara, R. T. 1997. Abundance and diets of rats in two Hawaiian forests. 

Pacific Science 51:189-198. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-26 

Sykes, P. W., Jr., A. K. Kepler, C. B. Kepler, and J. M. Scott. 2000. Kaua`i `Ō`ō

(Moho braccatus), O`ahu Ō`ō (Moho apicalis), Bishop`s Ō`ō (Moho 

bishopi), Hawai`i Ō`ō (Moho nobilis), and Kioea (Chaetoptila 

angustipluma). In The Birds of North America, No. 535 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Telfer, T. 1993. No endangered forest birds found in post-Iniki survey. Hawaii’s 

Forests and Wildlife 7:1. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1995. Keauhou Bird Conservation Center. Hawaiian 

Endangered Bird Program. Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

November 16, 1994 – November 14, 1995. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1996. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. Report to: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, November 16, 1995 – November 15 1996. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1997. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. Report to: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November 16, 1996 – November 15, 1997. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1998. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. Report to: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, November 16, 1997 – November 15 1998. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1999. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. Report to: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, November 16, 1998 – November 15 1999. 

The Peregrine Fund and The Zoological Society of San Diego. 2000. Hawaiian 

Endangered Bird Program. Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and State of Hawai`i, Cooperative Agreement No. 14-48-0001-93536, 

Document No. 10120-3-0153, July 1, 1999 –September 30, 2000. 

Tomich, P. G. 1969. Mammals in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI. 

Tomonari-Tuggle, M. J. 1996. Bird catchers and bullock hunters in the upland 

Mauna Kea forest: a cultural resource overview of Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge, Island of Hawaii. International Archeological 

Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-27 

Tweed, E. J., J. Foster, and B. L. Woodworth. 1999. Initiating Recovery of the 

Critically Endangered Hawaiian Solitaire, the puaiohi. Annual Report to 

Cooperators. Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Biological 

Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Tweed, E. J., J. T. Foster, and B. L. Woodworth. 2000. Recommendations for 

controlling introduced rodent populations in the Alakai Wilderness 

Preserve. Special Report to Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 

Tweed, E. J., J. T. Foster, B. L. Woodworth, P. Oesterle, C. Kuehler, A. A. 

Lieberman, A. T. Powers, K. Whitaker, W. B. Monahan, J. Kellerman, and 

T. Telfer. 2003. Survival, dispersal, and home-range establishment of 

reintroduced captive-bred puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri. Biological 

Conservation 111:1-9. 

Tweed, E. J., J. T. Foster, B. L. Woodworth, W. B. Monahan, J. L. Kellerman, 

and A. Lieberman. 2006. Breeding biology and success of a reintroduced 

population of the critically endangered puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). Auk 

123:753-763. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Office of the Secretary, Native Fish and 

Wildlife, Endangered Species. Federal Register 32:4001. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries. Chapter 

1 - Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior; Part 17 - Conservation of Endangered Species 

and other Fish and Wildlife; Appendix D - United States List of 

Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife. Federal Register 35:16047-16048. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975. Title 50 - Wildlife and Fisheries; Chapter 

1 - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; 

Part 17 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Fauna. Federal Register 40:44151-44151. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Determination of critical habitat for six 

endangered species. Federal Register 42:40685-40690. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-28 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Republication of lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Species and Correction of the Technical Errors in Final Rules. 

Federal Register 45:33768-33781. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Hawai`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Kauai Forest Birds Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984a. Maui-Molokai Forest Birds Recovery 

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984b. Hawaiian Hawk Recovery Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Palila Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants, Subpart B - Lists, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 50 CFR 

17.11. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft revised recovery plan for Hawaiian 

waterbirds, second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Environmental assessment of the 

Proposed O`ahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Final rule to list as endangered the O`ahu 

`elepaio from the Hawaiian Islands and determination of whether 

designation of critical habitat is prudent. Federal Register 65:20760-

20769. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-29 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000c. Policy regarding controlled propagation 

of species listed under the endangered species act. Federal Register 

65:56916-56922. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Determination of critical habitat for the 

Oahu Elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis); Final Rule. Federal 

Register 66:63752-63782. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Draft revised recovery plan for Hawaiian 

forest birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Draft revised recovery plan for the 

`Alal~. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003c. Biological Opinion on Routine Military 

Training and Transformation of the 2nd Brigade 25th Infantry Division 

(Light), U.S. Army Installations on the Island of Oahu. Pacific Islands 

Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; Review of native species that are candidates or proposed for listing 

as endangered or threatened; Annual notice of findings on resubmitted 

petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions; Proposed rule. 

Federal Register 70:24870-24934. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources. 1999. Environmental Assessment: Proposed Management 

Actions to Save the Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, 

Honolulu, HI. 

van Riper, C. III. 1977. The use of sheep wool in nest construction by Hawaiian 

birds. Auk 94:646-651. 

van Riper, C. III. 1978. The breeding biology of the Amakihi (Loxops virens) 

and Palila (Psittirostra bailleui) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Ph.D. thesis, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-30 

van Riper, C., III. 1980a. Observations on the breeding of the Palila (Psittirostra 

bailleui) on Hawaii. Ibis 122:462-475. 

van Riper, C., III. 1980b. The phenology of the dryland forest of Mauna Kea, 

Hawaii, and the impact of recent environmental perturbations. Biotropica 

12:282-291. 

van Riper, C., III. 1982. Census and breeding observations of the birds on Koala 

Mountain, Hawaii. Wilson Bulletin 94:463-476. 

van Riper, C., III and J. M. Scott. 1979. Observations on distribution, diet, and 

breeding of the Hawaiian Thrush. Condor 81: 65-71. 

van Riper, C., III and J. M. Scott. 2001. Limiting factors affecting Hawaiian 

native birds. Studies in Avian Biology 22:221-233. 

van Riper, C., III, J. M. Scott, and D. M. Woodside. 1978. Distribution and 

abundance patterns of the Palila on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Auk 95:518-527. 

van Riper, C., III, S. G. van Riper, M. L. Goff, and W. R. Hansen. 2002. 

Epizootiology and effect of avian pox on Hawaiian forest birds. Auk 

119:929-942. 

van Riper, C., III, S. G. van Riper, M. L. Goff, and M. Laird. 1986. The 

epizootiology and ecological significance of malaria in Hawaiian land 

birds. Ecological Monographs 56: 327-344. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 1993. Scales of habitat selection by foraging `Elepaio in 

undisturbed and human-altered forests in Hawaii. Condor 95:980-989. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 1994. Intraspecific variation in Elepaio foraging behavior in 

Hawaiian forests of different structure. Auk 111:917-932. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 1998a. `Elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 344 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-31 

VanderWerf, E. A. 1998b. Breeding biology and territoriality of the Hawai`i 

Creeper. Condor 100:541-545. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 1999. Predator control, disease, and demography of the 

O`ahu `Elepaio. Report submitted to the Hawaii State Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division or Forestry and 

Wildlife. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 2001a. Distribution and potential impacts of avian poxlike 

lesions in `Elepaio at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Studies in 

Avian Biology 22:247-253. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 2001b. Two-year delay in plumage maturation of male and 

female `Elepaio. Condor 103:756-766. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 2001c. Removal of rats decreases predation on artificial nests 

in O`ahu `Elepaio habitat. Journal of Field Ornithology 72:448-457. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 2004. Demography of Hawai`i `Elepaio: variation with 

habitat disturbance and population density. Ecology 85:770-783. 

VanderWerf, E. A. and J. L. Rohrer. 1996. Discovery of an `I`iwi population in 

the Ko`olau Mountains of O`ahu. `Elepaio 56:25-28. 

VanderWerf, E. A., and D. G. Smith. 2002. Effects of alien rodent control on 

demography of the O`ahu `Elepaio, an endangered Hawaiian forest bird. 

Pacific Conservation Biology 8:73-81. 

VanderWerf, E. A., A. Cowell, and J. L. Rohrer. 1997. Distribution, abundance, 

and conservation of O`ahu `Elepaio in the southern leeward Ko`olau 

Range. `Elepaio 57: 99-106. 

VanderWerf, E. A., M. D. Burt, J. L. Rohrer, and S. M. Mosher. In press. 

Distribution and prevalence of mosquito-borne disease in O`ahu `elepaio. 

Condor. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-32 

VanderWerf, E. A., Y. Ebisu and Associates, and Wil Chee- Planning, Inc. 2000. 

A study to determine the effects of noise from military training on the 

endangered Oahu `Elepaio, Schofield Military Reservation, Island of 

Oahu. Prepared for United States Army Engineer District, Honolulu. 

Contract No. DACA83-96-D-0007. 

VanderWerf, E. A, J .J. Groombridge, J. S. Fretz, and K. J. Swinnerton. 2006. 

Decision analysis to guide recovery of the Po`ouli, a critically endangered 

Hawaiian honeycreeper. Biological Conservation 129:383-392. 

VanderWerf, E. A., T. Malcolm, J. S. Fretz, J. G. Massey, A. Lieberman, J. J. 

Groombridge, B. Sparklin, M. M. Okada, and C. N. Brosius. 2003. 

Update on recovery efforts for the Po`ouli. `Elepaio 63: 25-30. 

VanderWerf, E. A., J. L. Rohrer, D. G. Smith, and M. D. Burt. 2001. Current 

distribution and abundance of the O`ahu `Elepaio. Wilson Bulletin 

113:10-16. 

VanGelder, E. M., and T. B. Smith. 2001. Breeding characteristics of the 

`Ākohekohe on east Maui. Studies in Avian Biology 22:194-201. 

Wakelee, K. M., T. J. Snetsinger, and S. G. Fancy. 1999. `Ōma`o (Myadestes 

obscurus), Kāma`o (Myadestes myadestinus), Oloma`o (Myadestes 

lanaiensis), and `Amaui (Myadestes woahensis). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 460 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the flowering 

plants of Hawai`i, Revised Edition. University of Hawai`i Press, 

Honolulu, HI. 

Warner, R. E. 1960. A forest dies on Mauna Kea. Pacific Discovery 13:6-14. 

Warner, R. E. 1968. The role of introduced diseases in the extinction of the 

endemic Hawaiian avifauna. Condor 70:101-120. 

Williams, R. 1987. Alien birds on O`ahu: 1944-1985. `Elepaio 47:87-92. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-33 

Wilson, S. B. 1889. On three undescribed species of the genus Hemignathus, 

Lichtenstein. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 6, 4:400-

402. 

Wilson, S. B. 1891a. Descriptions of two new species of sandwich-island birds. 

Annals of the Magazine of Natural History 7:460. 

Wilson, S. B. 1891b. On the muscicapine genus Chasiempis, with a description 

of a new species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 

1891:164-166. 

Wilson, S. B. and A. H. Evans. 1890-1899. Aves Hawaiienses: the birds of the 

Sandwich Islands. R. H. Porter, London, UK. 

Woodworth, B. L. 2000. Applied research and adaptive management for puaiohi, 

Myadestes palmeri. Report submitted to the Hawai`i Forest Bird 

Recovery Team. 

Woodworth, B. L., C. T. Atkinson, D. A. LaPointe, P. J. Hart, C. S. Spiegel, E. J. 

Tweed, C. Henneman, J. LeBrun, T. Denette, R. DeMots, K. L. Kozar, D. 

Triglia, D. Lease, A. Gregor, T. Smith, and D. Duffy. 2005. Host 

population persistence in the face of introduced vector-borne diseases: 

Hawaii amakihi and avian malaria. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences 102:1531-1536. 

Woodworth, B. L., J. T. Nelson, E. J. Tweed, S. G. Fancy, M. P. Moore, E. B. 

Cohen, and M. S. Collins. 2001. Breeding productivity and survival of 

the endangered Hawai`i creeper in a wet forest refuge on Mauna Kea, 

Hawai`i. Studies in Avian Biology 22:164-172. 

Yorinks, N., and C. T. Atkinson. 2000. Effects of malaria (Plasmodium 

relictum) on activity budgets of experimentally infected juvenile `Apapane 

(Himatione sanguinea). Auk 117:731-738. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2001. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i, 

Cooperative Agreement No. 122001J001, Exempt Purchase Approval No. 

01-9-R, October 1, 2000 – September 30, 2001. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-34 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2004. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i, 

Cooperative Agreement No. 122001J001, Exempt Purchase Approval No. 

01-9-R, October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2004. 

B. Personal Communications and Personal Observations 

Atkinson, C., and D. LaPointe. Wildlife Biologists, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Kīlauea Field Station, Volcano, HI. 

Atkinson, C. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Bruch, J. Wildlife Biologist, Hawai`i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, HI. 

Casey, T. Wildlife Biologist, Kamehameha Schools, HI. 

Denny, J. Volunteer Ornithological Assistant, Hawai`i Dept. of Land and Natural 

Resources, HI. 

Engilis, A. Wildlife Biologist, Ducks Unlimited, HI. 

Fleischer, R. Research Biologist, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, 

Washington DC. 

Foster, J. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Freed, L. Assistant Professor, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa, HI. 

Giffin, J. Wildlife Biologist, Hawai`i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, HI. 

Kuehler, C. Aviculturist, Zoological Society of San Diego, Volcano, HI. 

Krakowski, J. Wildlife Biologist, Hawai`i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, 

HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 6-35 

LaPointe, D. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Luscomb, P. Curator of Avian Collections, Honolulu Zoo, HI. 

Malcolm, T. Wildlife Biologist, Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project, Hawai`i 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Olindo, HI. 

Pratt T. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Reeser, D. Superintendent, National Park Service, Haleakalā National Park, 

Makawao, HI. 

Rideout, B. Associate Director/Division Head, Pathology Division of Zoological 

Society of San Diego’s center for Conservation and Research on 

Endangered Species, San Diego, CA. 

Roberts, P. Wildlife Biologist, Kaua`i Forest Birds Recovery Project, Hawai`i 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Waimea, HI. 

Savre, T. Wildlife Biologist, Kaua`i Forest Birds Recovery Project, Hawai`i 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Waimea, HI. 

Scott, J.M. Wildlife Biologist, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Snetsinger, T. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Swinnerton, K. Project Coordinator, Maui Forest Birds Recovery Project, 

Makawao, HI. 

Telfer, T. Wildlife Biologist, Hawai`i Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, HI. 

Tunison, T. Botanist, U.S. National Park Service, Hawai`i Volcanoes National 

Park, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-1 

VII. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. 

Land Parcels in Recovery Areas and Recovery Actions by Parcel for 

Protection, Reforestation, Fencing and Ungulate Control, and 

Predator Control 

After each recovery action number is the priority number in parentheses. Refer to 

the recovery action narrative for a complete description of recovery actions. The 

general recovery action numbers are: 

1.3. = Parcels in recovery areas in need of protection; 

2.1. = Parcels in recovery areas needing reforestation; 

2.2. = Parcels in recovery areas needing fencing and ungulate control; and 

2.4.1. = Parcels in recovery areas where predator control is needed. 

Island codes: H = Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = 

O`ahu. 

Landowner acronyms: DLNR = Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, DHHL = Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, DOFAW = Hawai`i 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, NARS = Natural Area Reserve System, HVNP 

= Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park. TMK = Tax Map Key. 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Northeastern slopes of 

Mauna Kea, portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

1.3.1 (2); 2.1.1 (2); 

2.2.1 (2); 2.4.1.1 (2) 

H Kanakaleonui Corridor, 

338001009 

Hawai`i DHHL. 1.3.2 (1); 2.1.2 (1); 

2.2.2 (1); 2.4.1.2 (2) 

H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe Section, 

337001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 

Currently the 

Laupāhoehoe Game 

Management Area. 

1.3.3 (2); 2.1.3 (3) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-2 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Hilo Forest Reserve, Pīhā

Section, 

333001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 

Currently the Pīhā

Game Management 

Area. 

1.3.4 (2); 2.1.4 (3) 

H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā

 Sections, 

337001004 

333001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 

Currently the 

Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā

Game Management 

Areas. 

2.2.3 (2) 

H Hilo Forest Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā

 Sections, 

337001002 

333001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 

Currently the 

Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā

Game Management 

Areas. 

2.4.1.3 (2) 

H Hakalau Forest NWR, 

337001010 

329005005 

333001007 

329005003 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

2.1.5 (1); 2.2.4 (1); 

2.4.1.4 (1) 

H Kīpuka `Āinahou Nēnē

Sanctuary, 

338001008 

Hawai`i DHHL. 

Leased by DOFAW 

and currently under 

annual lease. 

1.3.5 (2); 2.1.6 (3); 

2.2.7 (2); 2.4.1.7 (2) 

H Humu`ula, 

338001002 

Hawai`i DHHL. 1.3.6 (1); 2.1.7 (2) 

H Humu`ula, 

Portions of 

338001007 

Hawai`i DHHL. 

Parker Ranch, leased 

for grazing. 

1.3.7 (2); 2.1.8 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-3 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Lama`ia Section and 

Portions of 326018002 

Hawai`i DHHL. 

Adjacent to Hakalau 

Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

1.3.8 (1); 2.1.9 (2) 

2.2.5 (2); 2.4.1.5 (2) 

H Pu`u `Ō`ō Ranch, 

326018001 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. Pu`u 

`Ō`ō Ranch leased for 

cattle grazing. 

1.3.9 (1); 2.1.10 (2) 

2.2.6 (2); 2.4.1.6 (2) 

H Ka`ohe Lease, 

344015002 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

Currently leased for 

cattle grazing to 

various lessees. 

1.3.10 (1); 2.1.11 (2); 

2.2.8 (2); 2.4.1.8 (2) 

H Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve, 

344015001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.12 (1); 

H Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve, 

344015001 

344016003 

338001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.9 (1); 2.4.1.9 (1) 

H Waiākea Forest Reserve, 

Upper 

Portion, 

324008001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.10 (1); 2.4.1.10 (2) 

H Waiākea Forest Reserve, 

Lower Portion, 

324008001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.11 (1); 2.4.1.11 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-4 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, 

324008009 

399001007 

399001004 

324008025 

319001001 

319001007 

Kamehameha Schools, 

Keauhou Ranch. 

Kūlani Correctional 

Facility, Pu`u Maka`ala 

Natural Area Reserve, 

Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park. 

2.2.12 (1); 2.4.1.12 (1) 

H Keauhou Ranch, 

399001004 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.11 (2); 2.1.13 (3) 

H Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park, 

399001002 

Hawai`i Volcanoes 

National Park. 

2.1.14 (3) 

H Kapāpala Ranch, 

Portions of 

398001010 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

Kapāpala Ranch, 

currently leased for 

cattle grazing. 

1.3.12 (2) 

H Kapāpala Ranch, 

Portions of 

398001004 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

Kapāpala Ranch, 

currently leased for 

cattle grazing. 

2.1.15 (2) 

H Kapāpala Forest Reserve, 

Portions of 

398001004 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

2.2.13 (2); 2.4.1.13 (2) 

H Ka`ū Forest Reserve, 

397001001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.14 (1); 2.4.1.14 (1) 

H Ka`ū Forest Reserve, 

397001007 

Mauna Kea 

Agribusiness. 

1.3.13 (2); 2.1.16 (3) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-5 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Ka`ū Forest Reserve, 

Portions of 

397001006 

397001005 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.14 (2); 2.1.17 (2) 

H Kahuku Ranch, Portions 

of 

392001002 

Samuel M. Damon 

Trust. 

1.3.15 (1); 2.1.18 (2); 

2.2.15 (1); 2.4.1.15 (2) 

H Manukā NAR, Upper 

portions of 

391001002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.16 (2); 2.4.1.16 (2) 

H Honomalino, 

389006004 

389006029 

Scott C. Rolles Trust. 1.3.16 (2); 2.1.19 (3) 

H Pāpā, 

388001001 

Koa Aina Ventures. 1.3.17 (2); 2.1.20 (3) 

H TNCH, Honomalino, 

389001001 

The Nature 

Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

2.1.21 (3); 2.2.17 (3); 

2.4.1.17 (2) 

H Honomalino Forest 

Reserve, 

389001002 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.22 (2) 

H Yee Hop Ranch, Portions 

of 

388001003 

388001004 

387012001 

392001005 

387012003 

387012004 

387001007 

387001006 

387001011 

387001004 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 1.3.18 (2); 2.1.23 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-6 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Yee Hop Ranch, 

392001005 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 2.2.18 (3); 2.4.1.18 (2) 

H Kona Forest NWR, 

386001001 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

2.1.24 (1); 2.2.19 (2); 

2.4.1.19 (1) 

H `Alae Ranch, Portions of 

387001014 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

Currently leased for 

cattle grazing. 

1.3.19 (3); 2.1.25 (3) 

H McCandless Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001003 

386001001 

McCandless Ranch. 1.3.20 (2) 

H McCandless Ranch and 

E. Stack et al., 

Portions of 

392001003 

386001001 

385001002 

McCandless Ranch and 

E. Stack et al.

2.1.26 (2); 2.2.20 (2); 

2.4.1.20 (2) 

H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

Hawai`i DLNR, State 

Land Division. 

1.3.21 (2); 2.1.27 (2); 

2.2.21 (2); 2.4.1.21 (2) 

H Keālia Ranch, 

385001001 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.22 (2) 

H Keālia Ranch, 

385001001 

and 

Portions of 

384001001 

383001001 

Kamehameha Schools. 2.1.28 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-7 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Hōnaunau Forest, 

384001001 

384001002 

383001001 

383001002 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.23 (2); 2.2.22 (2); 

2.4.1.22 (2) 

H Keālia Ranch, Portions of 

385001002 

Elizabeth Stack et al. 1.3.24 (2) 

H Kealakekua 

Development Corp., 

Portions of 

382001001 

Kealakekua 

Development Corp. 

1.3.25 (3); 2.1.29 (3) 

H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portions of 

378001003 

378001007 

372002001 

378001001 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.26 (2); 2.1.30 (2) 

H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portion of 

378001003 

Kamehameha Schools. 2.2.23 (2); 2.4.1.23 (2) 

H Pu`u Wa`awa`a, 

371001001 

371001006 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.31 (2); 2.4.1.24 (2) 

H Hualālai Ranch, 

372002001 

Kamehameha Schools. 2.1.32 (2) 

MA Haleakalā National Park, 

218001007 

National Park Service. 2.1.33 (1); 2.4.1.29 (1) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-8 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA Haleakalā National Park, 

213001003 

216001002 

216001001 

216001003 

217004016 

216010001 

National Park Service. 2.2.28 (1); 2.4.1.29 (1) 

MA Ko`olau Forest Reserve, 

224016003 

224016004 

228008001 

228008007 

Alexander and 

Baldwin, East Maui 

Irrigation. 

1.3.27 (1); 2.2.24 (1); 

2.4.1.25 (1) 

MA Ko`olau Forest Reserve, 

211002002 

212004005 

229014001 

211001050 

211001044 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.25 (1); 2.4.1.26 (1) 

MA Hanawī NAR and 

Ko`olau Forest Reserve, 

 212004007 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.26 (1); 2.4.1.27 (1) 

MA Hāna Forest Reserve, 

210001001 

214001001 

215001001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.27 (1); 2.4.1.28 (1) 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, 216001007 

J. Haili. 1.3.28 (3); 2.2.29 (3) 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, 216001006 

Kalalau, Cleveland. 1.3.29 (3); 2.2.30 (3) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-9 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

218001007 

Hawai`i DLNR. 1.3.30 (1) 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.31 (1); 2.4.1.30 (2) 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

217004006 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.34 (2) 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

217001032 

A. Kaapana et al. 

Small parcel at lower 

edge of recovery area. 

1.3.31 (3); 2.2.32 (3) 

MA Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

217001024 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 

Small parcel at lower 

edge of recovery area. 

1.3.32 (2); 2.2.33 (2) 

MA Nu`u, 

218001001 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 1.3.33 (3); 2.1.35 (3); 

2.2.34 (3) 

MA Nu`u, 

218001002 

James Campbell Est. 1.3.34 (3); 2.1.36 (3); 

2.2.35 (3); 

MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

Hawai`i DLNR. 1.3.35 (1); 2.1.37 (1); 

2.2.36 (1); 2.4.1.31 (2) 

MA Kahikinui Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

219001011 

Hawai`i DHHL. 1.3.36 (1); 2.1.38 (1); 

2.2.37 (1); 2.4.1.32 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-10 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA Upper Auwahi, 

219001006 

221009001 

222001001 

222001034 

`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. 1.3.37 (2); 2.1.39 (2); 

2.2.38 (1) 

MA Kula Forest Reserve, 

222007001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 1.3.38 (2); 2.1.40 (2); 

2.2.39 (2); 2.4.1.33 (3) 

MA Kēōkea, 

222004033 

James Campbell Est. 1.3.39 (2); 2.1.41 (2); 

2.2.40 (2) 

MA Waiohuli, 

222005052 

James Campbell Est. 1.3.40 (2); 2.1.42 (2); 

2.2.41 (2) 

MA Ka`ono`ulu, 

222007002 

222006009 

222006032 

222007010 

Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. 

Ltd. 

1.3.41 (2); 2.1.43 (3); 

2.2.42 (2) 

MA Waiakoa, 

222008001 

Lucky Shoji USA Inc. 

et al. 

1.3.42 (2); 2.1.44 (3); 

2.2.43 (2) 

MA Kamehame 

Nui/Kealahou, 

223005002 

John Zwaanstra. 1.3.43 (2); 2.1.45 (3); 

2.2.44 (2); 

MA Haleakalā Ranch (Pūlehu 

Nui/Kalialinui), 

223005003 

Haleakalā Ranch Co. 1.3.44 (1); 2.1.46 (1); 

2.2.45 (2); 2.4.1.34 (3) 

MA Waikamoi Preserve, 

223005004 

Haleakalā Ranch Co., 

The Nature 

Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

1.3.45 (1); 2.1.47 (1); 

2.2.46 (1); 2.4.1.35 (1) 

MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve, 

224016001 

224016002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.48 (2); 2.2.47 (1); 

2.4.1.36 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-11 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA West Maui NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

2231006001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.49 (2); 2.2.48 (2); 

2.4.1.37 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Waihe`e, 

232014001 

Maui Board of Water 

Supply. 

2.2.49 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kou, 

232014002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.50 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Wailuku, 

233003003 

235003001 

236003001 

Wailuku Agriculture. 1.3.46 (2); 2.2.51 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, `Īao, 

233003004, 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.52 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kealaloloa, 

236001014 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.53 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Manawainui 

Plant Reserve, 

236001052 

248001010 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.54 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaheawa, 

248001001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.50 (2); 2.2.55 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Ukumehame/Olowalu, 

West Maui NAR, Līhau, 

248001002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.51 (2); 2.2.56 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-12 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA West Maui NAR, Līhau, 

248001002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.4.1.38 (3) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Launiupoko, 

247001002 

American Factors 

(Amfac)/JMB Hawai`i 

Co. 

1.3.47 (2); 2.2.57 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Pūehuehu, 

247001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.58 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaua`ula, 

246025001 

American Factors 

(Amfac)/JMB Hawai`i 

Co. 

1.3.48 (2); 2.2.59 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Pana`ewa, 

246025002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.60 (2); 2.4.1.39 (3) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kahoma, 

245022001 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.49 (2); 2.2.61 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kahoma, 

245022005 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.62 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Pu`u 

Kī/Haakea, 

245022002 

 245022004 

American Factors 

(Amfac)/JMB Hawai`i 

Co. 

1.3.50 (2); 2.2.63 (2) 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Wahikuli, 

245022003 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.64 (2) 

MA Kapunakea Preserve, 

Amfac/JMB, The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i, 

244007001 

American Factors 

(Amfac)/JMB Hawai`i 

Co., The Nature 

Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

1.3.51 (2); 2.2.65 (2); 

2.4.1.40 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-13 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kapāloa, 

244007007 

Unknown. 1.3.52 (2); 2.2.66 (2) 

MA West Maui NAR, 

Honokōwai, 

244007004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.67 (2); 2.4.1.41 (2) 

MA Pu`u Kukui Watershed 

Management Area, 

242001001 

241001017 

Maui Land and 

Pineapple. 

1.3.53 (2); 2.2.68 (2); 

2.4.1.42 (2) 

MA Pu`u Kukui Watershed 

Management Area, 

241001017 

Maui Land and 

Pineapple. 

2.1.52 (2) 

MA Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Pu`u Ali`i NAR and 

Waikolu, 

261001002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.4.1.43 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kalamāula, 

252014003 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.53 (2); 2.2.69 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kahanui, 252014001 

R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. 1.3.54 (2); 2.1.54 (2); 

2.2.70 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kahanui, 261001004 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.55 (2); 2.2.71 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Waikolu, 261001002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.72 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Pelekunu Valley, 

259006011 

The Nature 

Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

1.3.55 (2); 2.2.73 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Pelekunu Valley, 

Wawaeolepe, 259008017 

Wm. Hitchcock et al. 1.3.56 (2); 2.2.74 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-14 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Pelekunu Valley, 

254003032 

The Nature 

Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

1.3.57 (2); 2.2.75 (2) 

MO Oloku`i NAR, Moloka`i 

Forest Reserve, Wailau 

Valley, 

 259006002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.76 (2); 2.4.1.44 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Wailau Valley and 

Oloku`i, 259006004 

G. Brown III et al. 1.3.58 (2); 2.2.77 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Laeokapuna, 257005027 

P. Hodgins. 1.3.59 (2); 2.2.78 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Keanakoholua, 

257005001 

M. Hustice Trust. 1.3.60 (2); 2.2.79 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

`Uala`pue, 256006026 

Hawai`i DLNR, 

DOFAW. 

2.2.80 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kahananui, 256006014 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.81 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Manawai, 256006013 

P. Petro Trust. 1.3.61 (2); 2.2.82 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

eastern `Ōhi`a Gulch, 

 256006011 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.83 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

West `Ōhi`a Gulch, 

 256006010 

E. Wond Trust. 1.3.62 (2); 2.2.84 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Keawa Nui, 256006007 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.63 (2); 2.2.85 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Pua`ahala, 256006002 

K&H Horizons 

Hawai`i. 

1.3.64 (2); 2.2.86 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kumu`eli, 256006001 

D. Fairbanks III Trust. 1.3.65 (2); 2.2.87 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-15 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kamalō, 255001016 

255001006 

255001017 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.66 (2); 2.1.56 (2); 

2.2.88 (2); 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Mākolelau, 255001015 

Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust. 1.3.67 (2); 2.1.57 (3); 

2.2.89 (2) 

MO Kamakou Preserve, 

Kawela, 

2540003026 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd., 

The Nature 

Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

1.3.68 (2); 2.1.58 (2); 

2.2.90 (2); 2.4.1.45 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kawela, 

254003001 

Kawela Plantation 

Homes Association. 

2.2.91 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kawela, 

254003001 

254003028 

Kawela Plantation 

Homes Association. 

1.3.69 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kawela, 254003001 

Kawela Plantation 

Homes Association. 

2.1.59 (3) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kamiloloa, Makakupaīa, 

254003025 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.1.60 (2); 2.2.92 (2) 

MO Moloka`i Forest Reserve, 

Kaunakakai, 253003005 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. 1.3.70 (2); 2.1.61 (3); 

2.2.93 (2) 

O Honouliuli Preserve, 

92005013 

James Campbell Estate. 

Managed by The 

Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. 

2.2.94 (1); 2.4.1.46 (1) 

O Lualualei Naval 

Magazine, 

88001001 

U.S. Navy. 2.2.95 (2); 2.4.1.47 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-16 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

O Schofield Barracks West 

Range, 

77001001 

U.S. Army. 2.2.96 (1); 2.4.1.48 (1) 

O Kahana Valley State 

Park, 

52001001 

52002001 

Hawai`i State. 2.4.1.53 (1) 

O Mākaha Valley, 

84002014 

84002001 

City and County of 

Honolulu. 

2.4.1.54 (1) 

O Pahole NAR, 

68001002 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.97 (2); 2.4.1.55 (2) 

O Kahanahāiki Valley, 

 81001012 

U.S. Army. 2.2.98 (2); 2.4.1.56 (2) 

O O`ahu Forest NWR, 

95004001 

76001001 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

2.2.99 (3); 2.4.1.57 (2) 

O Lower Ka`ala NAR, 

 67003025 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.100 (3); 2.4.1.58 

(3) 

O Pia Valley, 

37003073 

37003033 

Benjamin Cassiday, 

James Pflueger 

1.3.71 (1) 

O Honolulu Watershed 

Forest Reserve 

(Wailupe), 

36004004 

Hawai`i State. 2.4.1.49 (1) 

O Lower Wailupe Valley, 

36004001 

City and County of 

Honolulu 

1.3.72 (1) 

O Kūpaua Valley, 

 37004001 

 37004002 

Hawai`i Humane 

Society. 

1.3.73 (1) 

O Kuli`ou`ou Valley, 

38013001 

Joseph Paiko Trust. 1.3.74 (1) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-17 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

O Ka`alākei Valley, 

39009001 

Hawai`i Kai 

Development Co. 

1.3.75 (2) 

O Kapālama, 

14015009 

Julius Chung Trust. 1.3.76 (3) 

O Moanalua Valley, 

11013001 

Damon Estate. 1.3.77 (1) 

O Moanalua Valley, 

11013001 

11013002 

Damon Estate. 2.4.1.51 (1) 

O North Hālawa Valley, 

99011002 

Kamehameha Schools. 2.4.1.50 (1) 

O South Hālawa Valley, 

Tripler Ridge, 99011001 

Queen’s Medical 

Center. 

1.3.78 (1) 

O Waikāne Valley, 

48014005 

SMF Enterprises. 1.3.79 (1); 2.4.1.52 (1) 

O Waianu Valley, 

48014003 

48013014 

Waiāhole Irrigation Co. 

Ltd. 

1.3.80 (2) 

O Mākua Military 

Reservation 

U.S. Army. 2.1.62 (3) 

K Halehaha, Halepā`ākai 

and Koai`e drainages, 

Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.101 (1); 2.4.1.59 

(1) 

K Upper Mōhihi and upper 

Waiakoali drainages, 

Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.102 (2); 2.4.1.60 

(2) 

K Alaka`i Wilderness 

Preserve, 

 4414001003 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.2.103 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-18 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

K Upper Kawaikōī, Alaka`i 

Wilderness Preserve, 

459001001 

Hawai`i DLNR. 2.4.1.61 (2) 

K Kōke`e State Park, 

414001013 

459001016 

414001020 

414001014 

414001002 

and numerous small 

parcels within 

Hawai`i State Parks 

Division. 

2.1.63 (3) 

K Southern Alaka`i Plateau, 

Portions of 417001001 

Robinson Family 

Partners 

1.3.81 (1); 2.2.104 (2); 

2.4.1.62 (2) 

K Upper Wainiha Pali, 

Portion of 458001001 

Alexander and Baldwin 

Hawai`i Inc. 

1.3.82 (2) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-19 

APPENDIX B. 

Captive Propagation Program Strategies for the Hawaiian 

Endangered Bird Conservation Program, Keauhou Bird Conservation 

Center/Maui Bird Conservation Center, and Zoological Society of San 

Diego 

A. PROCEDURES FOR RANKING SPECIES 

1. Evaluate Hawaiian avifauna recovery priority and select target species 

based on the following criteria: 

• Taxonomic uniqueness 

• Urgency/degree of threat 

• Cause of decline in the wild 

• Available knowledge of species’ natural history 

• Status of current research/habitat management efforts in the field and 

potential for collaboration 

• Practical considerations (availability of funding and expertise/labor) 

• Population size 

• Population distribution (fragmentation) 

• Avicultural history/difficulty 

• Release history/difficulty 

• Availability of suitable release sites (healthy forest and habitat 

management) 

• Private landowner partnership agreements (habitat conservation plans, 

safe harbors agreements etc.) 

• Species value as basic component of the ecosystem (e.g., significance 

as a seed disperser or pollinator) 

• Cultural value 

• Educational value 

• Recovery priority 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-20 

2. Evaluate whether captive propagation/reintroduction is necessary for 

recovery of the target species: 

• Is a captive propagation/reintroduction program necessary to recover 

the species or can alternative (more cost-effective) recovery strategies 

(e.g., translocation or habitat management) restore and/or protect the 

species in the wild? 

• Does captive propagation/release have a reasonable chance of 

succeeding? 

• Will the program be part of an integrated landscape level recovery 

effort incorporating habitat management, research, and environmental 

education? 

• How much time will be required for habitat 

research/management/restoration before acceptable, secure release 

sites are available? 

3. Define the recovery goals for the target species: 

• Genetic and demographic stability 

• Density 

• Dispersal 

• Distribution 

• Long-term population trends and “monitoring criteria” 

• Survivorship (adult and juvenile) 

• Reproductive success (causes of failure) 

• Habitat requirements (pre-release “site preparation criteria”) 

4. Identify, select, evaluate, prepare, and maintain quality release sites. 

Develop a systematic process to establish pre-release “site preparation 

criteria” for target species: 

 

• Identify and select the release site. The goal is to select/restore habitat 

that fulfills year-round requirements for the species to ensure that birds 

remain in managed habitat (e.g., sufficient seasonal food resources, 

nesting and roosting sites). Preliminary site selection should include 

the evaluation of: 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-21 

 Species natural history information (habitat requirements for 

foraging, nesting and roosting, home range, presence/absence of 

conspecifics, ecosystem type etc.). 

 Vegetative analysis. 

 Physical qualities (size, elevation, elevational gradient, 

topography, edaphics, prevailing weather patterns, corridor 

potential, and proximity to other populations). 

 Biological limiting factors (e.g., mosquito/disease prevalence, 

feral ungulates, predators, alien bird species, etc.). 

 Human-made threats/hazards (e.g., land use in adjacent areas, 

presence of housing developments, hunting levels, etc.). 

 Current level of habitat management (e.g., predator control, alien 

plant control, etc.). 

 Landowner partnership agreements (e.g., habitat conservation 

plans, safe harbor agreements, etc.). 

• Increase the involvement of stakeholders in the negotiations necessary 

for designing successful land management programs in selected 

release sites. Inform the public regarding proposed conservation 

activities through policy documents, conservation education programs, 

public relation activities, etc. Discuss and finalize partnership 

agreements with landowners for potential release sites (e.g., habitat 

conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, etc.). 

• Evaluate the release site and fund landscape level research to develop 

habitat management techniques necessary to decrease limiting factors. 

Develop pre-release “site preparation criteria” that must be met before 

reintroduction begins. 

• Fund, implement, and continue habitat management programs in 

accordance with pre-release “site preparation criteria.” 

5. Select the programmatic strategy necessary to recover targeted species 

(see Section B, below, for detailed definitions of these strategies): 

 

• No captive propagation/reintroduction program necessary 

• Translocation 

• Rear and release 

• Captive-breeding (immediate release) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-22 

• Captive-breeding (self-sustaining population) 

• Captive-breeding (production for restoration) 

• Emergency search and rescue 

• Technology development 

6. Develop programmatic techniques (if necessary). 

7. Begin programmatic activity best suited to recover the target species. 

8. Define recovery “monitoring criteria” for target species: 

• Survivorship (adult and juvenile) 

• Dispersal and distribution 

• Reproductive success (causes of failure) 

• Long-term population trends 

 

9. Evaluate results. 

B. DEFINITION OF PROGRAM STRATEGIES 

Hawaiian Endangered Bird Conservation Program strategies are designed 

to contribute to recovery efforts by providing captive birds for reintroduction to 

reinforce or re-establish populations in the wild. Reinforcement of wild 

populations using captive propagation requires the development of cost-effective 

management programs that are designed to maintain population genetic diversity 

and demographic security considering the resources available. All endangered 

bird programs are managed following the American Association of Zoological 

Parks and Aquariums (AZA) – Small Population Management Advisory Group 

and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – Captive 

Breeding Specialist Group Guidelines (Appendix 6.2 in Foose and Ballou 1988). 

Captive-breeding programs need to be established before species are reduced to 

critically low numbers if they are to have a reasonable chance of preventing a 

species’ extinction. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-23 

Founder Requirements for Wild Population Genetic Diversity 

1 founder = 50 percent 

2 founders = 75 percent 

3 founders = 90 percent 

10 founders = 95 percent 

1. No Captive Propagation/Reintroduction Program Necessary. 

Captive propagation/reintroduction is an expensive recovery 

strategy that is not always necessary to restore or protect endangered 

species. If habitat preservation, protection and/or restoration will ensure 

species recovery, those strategies are preferable to captive propagation and 

reintroduction. 

2. Translocation and/or Cross Fostering. 

This option requires moving wild eggs/birds from one field site to 

another. In general, cross- fostering/translocation is more cost-effective 

than a captive propagation program and should be considered as a 

recovery strategy prior to implementing captive-breeding. However, 

recovery strategies involving translocation/cross-fostering require: a) 

founder populations large enough to support collection of wild adults or 

eggs, b) the availability of surrogate foster species (e.g., Chatham Island 

Tits were used as fosters for robins), and c) site fidelity of translocated 

individuals to the new release area (Serena 1995). For some species, 

although suitable habitat may be available for translocation, some or all 

translocated birds may return to their site of origin, especially if the site is 

on the same island, as in the case of the palila (Fancy et al. 1997). 

 

Example Program: `Ōma`o

In 1995, an experimental program was undertaken by the U.S. 

Geological Survey to evaluate translocation of wild birds vs. 

reintroduction of captive-reared birds as potential recovery options for 

endangered thrushes. The results of this study with `ōma`o demonstrated 

similar survival rates for both groups of birds, but fidelity to the release 

site was higher for captive-reared birds than translocated birds (Fancy et 

al. 2001). 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-24 

3. Rear and Release. 

Collection of wild eggs for artificial incubation/hand-rearing and 

immediate release of juveniles to the wild requires easily located, 

accessible, wild nests and secure habitat for reintroduction. “Rear and 

release” is not always more cost-effective than captive-breeding because 

nest search crews, helicopter time, and the establishment and staffing of 

temporary incubation facilities are expensive, especially if the program 

continues for several years. If the target species breeds readily in 

captivity, it is more cost-effective to develop a short-term “captivebreeding (immediate release)” program ( approximately 50 percent less 

cost). If nests are easily accessible, the species does not breed readily in 

captivity, and enough birds can be hand-reared to provide an acceptable 

release cohort, “rear and release” is a preferable strategy. 

Example Program: Hawai`i `Amakihi

20 viable wild eggs collected (hatchability = 85 percent; 

survivability of hand-reared chicks = 94 percent) 

20 eggs H 85 percent hatchability = 17 chicks hatched 

17 chicks H 94 percent survivability = 16 chicks hand-reared 

16 birds released 

(Kuehler et al. 1996). 

4. Captive-breeding (Immediate Release). 

Collection of wild eggs to establish a small captive flock that 

encompasses some of the genetic diversity of the wild population, and 

immediate release of juveniles to the wild, requires a breeding flock with 

enough founders to establish enough genetic diversity in captivity to 

produce birds for release. Juveniles produced are immediately released to 

the wild. Each year a few offspring would be retained in captivity to 

maintain the necessary genetic/demographic stability of a captive flock 

designed to produce birds for immediate release. This option requires 

maintaining fewer captive animals than a self-sustaining population. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-25 

Example Program: Puaiohi (1996 to 1999)

43 viable wild and captive eggs collected (hatchability =91 

percent; survivability of hand-reared chicks = 93 percent) 

43 eggs H 91 percent hatchability = 39 chicks hatched 

39 chicks H 92 percent survivability = 36 chicks hand-reared 

14 birds released in 1999; 5 birds due for release in 2000. 

5. Captive-breeding (Self-sustaining Population). 

This option should be considered as a hedge against future species 

bankruptcy. Birds would be maintained in captivity but not reintroduced 

until secure habitat was available. Management of self-sustaining captive 

populations would protect the genetic and demographic health of the 

species for many generations (e.g., target = 90 percent genetic diversity 

for 100 years) if further recruitment from the wild is not an option (stable 

population). 

Example Program: Bali Mynahs

There are approximately 691 birds in over 100 institutions; no 

release program exists at this time. Releases failed because limiting 

factors were not controlled (poaching). 

6. Captive-breeding (Production for Restoration). 

This can be considered the “factory” option of captive 

propagation/release (hatch rate greatly exceeds mortality). After the 

avicultural questions have been answered, facilities built, personnel 

trained, and habitat for reintroduction is available, full-scale production of 

birds can be implemented to produce many birds for release into areas that 

are in need of support. This option would only be considered for critically 

endangered species (extinct in the wild) that would justify the expense of 

many cages and maximum labor for production of as many birds as 

possible. 

Example Program: California Condors 

There are 118 captive birds; an ongoing reintroduction program 

exists. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-26 

7. Emergency Search and Rescue. 

The search and rescue, or last-ditch, strategy should only be 

considered if extinction is imminent and the strategy of captive 

propagation has a greater probability of recovering the species than 

translocation or habitat management. Although we may be saving the last 

few eggs/individuals by removing them from their natural habitat, we are 

losing an opportunity to study and protect the species in the wild. There 

are no guarantees that captive propagation will be successful and that 

production will ever outstrip mortality. This strategy is high risk, but may 

be the only option remaining for a few species. Ideally, captive-breeding 

programs need to be established before species are reduced to critically 

low numbers if they are to have a reasonable chance of saving a species 

from extinction. 

 

Example Program: Micronesian Kingfishers

Twenty-nine birds were brought into captivity. For 16 years the 

size of the captive population has fluctuated while husbandry techniques 

were being developed. It currently numbers approximately 60 birds. 

8. Technology Development Program. 

The purpose of this strategy is to develop captive propagation and 

release expertise. Many of the artificial incubation and hand-rearing 

techniques for Hawaiian forest birds have already been developed. In the 

future, this strategy would be chosen primarily for those species that still 

require development of captive-breeding or release techniques. 

Example Program: `Ōma`o as a surrogate for Puaiohi

Non-endangered `ōma`o eggs were collected from the wild to 

develop artificial incubation, hand-rearing, and release techniques for 

Hawaiian thrushes - prior to the implementation of a reintroduction 

program for puaiohi. Twenty-five chicks were hand-reared and released 

into Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary. 

29 viable wild eggs collected (hatchability =93 percent; 

survivability of hand-reared chicks = 93 percent) 

29 eggs H 93 percent hatchability = 27 chicks hatched 

27 chicks H 93 percent survivability = 25 chicks hand-reared 

25 birds released (Fancy et al. 2001, Kuehler et al. 2001). 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-27 

APPENDIX C. 

Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Priority Numbers 

(adapted from Federal Register 48:51985, 15 November 1983) 

Degree of 

Threat 

Recovery 

Potential 

Taxonomy Priority Conflict 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Monotypic genus 

Species 

Subspecies 

Monotypic genus 

Species 

Subspecies 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1C 

1 

2C 

2 

3C 

3 

4C 

4 

5C 

5 

6C 

6 

Moderate 

High 

High 

High 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Monotypic genus 

Species 

Subspecies 

Monotypic genus 

Species 

Subspecies 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

7C 

7 

8C 

8 

9C 

9 

10C 

10 

11C 

11 

12C 

12 

Low 

High 

High 

High 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Monotypic genus 

Species 

Subspecies 

Monotypic genus 

Species 

Subspecies 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

13C 

13 

14C 

14 

15C 

15 

16C 

16 

17C 

17 

18C 

18 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-28 

APPENDIX D. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Listing Priority System 

(adapted from Federal Register 48:43098-43105, 21 September 1983) 

Threat 

Magnitude Immediacy Taxonomy Priority 

Monotypic genus 1 

Imminent Species 2 

Subspecies 3 

Monotypic genus 4 

Species 5 

High 

Non-imminent 

Subspecies 6 

Monotypic genus 7 

Imminent Species 8 

Subspecies 9 

Monotypic genus 10 

Species 11 

Low to 

Moderate 

Non-imminent 

Subspecies 12 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-29 

APPENDIX E. 

Summary of Comments Received on the Draft Revised Recovery 

Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 

In October 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) released the

Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds for review and comment 

by Federal agencies, State and local governments, and members of the public. 

The public comment period was announced in the Federal Register (68 FR 70527) 

on October 16, 2003 and closed on December 15, 2003. Over 250 copies of the 

draft plan were sent out to interested parties for review during the comment 

period, and it was also made available online. Six peer reviewers were contacted 

and agreed to provide comments on the draft plan; comments were received from 

the following four scientific peer reviewers: 

Cathleen Natividad Bailey, Haleakalā National Park 

Dr. Kirsty Swinnerton, Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project 

Ron Walker, Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife (retired) 

Sharon Reilly, Ducks Unlimited 

We received 15 comment letters during the comment period, and some 

additional comments, information, and updates after the comment period ended. 

We carefully considered all comments received in finalizing this recovery plan. 

Many comments suggested additions or changes for clarification. A few 

comments suggested additional recovery actions. We thank all the commenters 

and peer reviewers for their time and interest in this recovery plan, and we feel 

the final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds has been significantly 

improved by the comments we received.
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-30 

Summary of Comments and Service Responses 

Issue 1: Recovery Habitat and Critical Habitat 

Comment: One commenter was concerned that inclusion of their private land 

in recovery habitat might eventually require a greater expenditure 

of time and money to implement recovery actions and that this 

would result in personal financial hardship. The commenter felt 

the inclusion of their private land in recovery habitat was 

unacceptable. 

Response: We recognize that the term “recovery habitat” was similar to the 

term “critical habitat” and that this may have caused confusion. In 

the final plan we have used the term “recovery area” instead of 

“recovery habitat” to make it more clear that identification of 

certain areas as important for recovery of forest birds is different 

from designation of critical habitat. Identification of land as 

“recovery area” does not create or imply any legal requirement of 

the property owner to implement recovery actions, nor does it 

impose any limitation on the types of activities that the landowner 

may choose to engage in. Lands named here as recovery areas are 

those that from a purely biological standpoint have the greatest 

potential to provide habitats important to the recovery of the forest 

birds. The identification of land as recovery area should not be 

confused with designation of land as critical habitat, which is a 

separate process usually conducted during the listing of a species 

as threatened or endangered. Designation of land as critical habitat 

does not require the landowner to implement recovery actions or to 

manage the land in a certain way, but it does require the landowner 

to consult with the Service if they undertake projects that entail 

Federal funding or permitting. This requirement does not apply to 

what we have identified here as recovery areas. 

Comment: One commenter felt that enough protected areas are already 

available for recovery, and that recovery actions should be focused 

on areas that are already managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the National Park Service, the State of Hawai`i, the 

Hawai`i counties, The Nature Conservancy, and other conservation 

agencies or groups. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-31 

Response: We believe the recovery areas described in this plan are necessary 

to recover the species addressed in this plan. We agree that there 

is much work still to do on lands that are managed principally for 

the benefit of native species. However, we feel that to recover all 

the species described here, recovery actions will be needed 

throughout recovery areas, including some lands that are privately 

owned. 

Comment: One commenter said that a portion of a privately owned land 

parcel included in a recovery area is very remote, zoned for 

conservation, pristine in nature, and does not require fencing, 

greater effort to remove ungulates, or predator control. The 

commenter felt the parcel should be excluded from recovery area 

because the area is well managed already, additional management 

is expensive, and some types of management suggested could harm 

the land. 

Response: We are glad to hear that the section of the land parcel described is 

well managed and that the owner intends to continue to maintain 

its pristine condition. However, it is likely that fencing and 

ungulate removal and predator control would further enhance and 

protect this and other recovery areas for the benefit of listed 

species. Although expensive, recovery actions described in this 

plan will contribute significantly to species recovery and can be 

conducted in a manner to minimize damage caused to habitat 

areas, at the same time maximizing habitat benefits. As noted 

above, these actions are recommendations and we believe they are 

necessary to achieve recovery of the forest birds, but they are not 

required. In addition, we recognize that conditions vary from site 

to site, and the actions recommended here are of necessity 

relatively broad in nature. If there is any question as to whether 

the management actions we have suggested would possibly harm 

the land under some circumstance, or if the landowner would like 

to explore possible alternative approaches to management for the 

suggested habitat conditions, we recommend that the landowner 

seek advice specific to their particular situation from either the 

Service or the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-32 

Comment: One commenter felt it should be made clear why critical habitat is 

designated for O`ahu `elepaio and palila and not for the other 19 

species in the plan. 

Response: We clarified on page 3-7 that listing of all species in the plan 

except the O`ahu `elepaio (listed in 2000), palila (listed in 1977) 

and Hawai`i creeper and po`ouli (listed in 1975) preceded the legal 

requirement in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to consider the 

designation of critical habitat at the time of species’ listing. 

Issue 2: Criteria for Downlisting and Delisting 

Comment: One commenter felt that the process for delisting because of 

extinction should be described. 

Response: We have added a description of the types of information needed to 

consider delisting because of extinction to the plan in the Recovery 

Criteria section on page 3-4. This issue is also addressed in 

Section 3-i of the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol on page 3-18.

Comment: One commenter felt that search effort should be considered as a 

factor when determining the designation “potentially extinct” in 

the Rare Bird Search Protocol section of the plan. 

Response: We agree and have included search effort as a factor when 

determining the designation “potentially extinct” in the Rare Bird 

Search Protocol. 

Comment: One commenter thought it was not clear how the 15- and 30-year 

criteria were established, respectively, for downlisting and 

delisting. 

Response: We have tried to clarify in the Recovery section of the plan the 

reasons for the time frames chosen, which are based on biological 

time-frames over which population trends data can be analyzed 

meaningfully, and on our ability to survey forest birds on the five 

main Hawaiian islands on a rotating basis. 

Comment: One commenter suggested the recovery criteria for downlisting 

and delisting include amount of habitat area occupied. 

Response: Although we would have liked to be able to describe more 

precisely the geographic extent and specific habitat areas occupied 

by species for downlisting and delisting, this was not possible, in 

part because our current understanding is limited as to the numbers 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-33 

of individuals that can be supported by different habitat types and 

the areas of habitat needed for viable populations. Therefore the 

approach we have taken in the plan is to base recovery criteria both 

on measurable population and on demographic parameters, such as 

the numbers of individuals, population trends, population stability, 

and intrinsic growth rate, as well as metapopulation, habitat, and 

criteria for threats removal and threats reduction.

Comment: One commenter felt the term “viable” in the Recovery Criteria 

section needed to be defined more explicitly. The commenter 

suggested that modeling results should show the taxon to be viable 

as defined in terms of its ability to sustain itself numerically and 

with no loss of genetic variability for a period of 1,000 years. 

Response: We feel that the definition of viability in the plan, in terms of the 

taxon’s population characteristics as stable or increasing, by 

population trend analysis and/or stable or increasing intrinsic 

growth rate over a 15- and 30-year period, is adequate for 

downlisting and delisting, respectively, in conjunction with other 

metapopulation, habitat, and threats reduction downlisting and 

delisting criteria. 

Comment: One commenter suggested defining recovery accomplishments in 

terms of stabilization and the prevention of species extinction, 

because successes may be better measured in these terms for some 

species. 

Response: Unless and until a formal redefinition of recovery is approved, in 

order to legally downlist or delist a species we must create the 

biological conditions under which a listed species is no longer 

vulnerable to extinction or threatened with becoming vulnerable to 

extinction (in other words, in which the species no longer meets 

the definition of threatened or endangered according to the 

Endangered Species Act). Recovery actions needed to stabilize a 

species or prevent extinction are of key importance to achieving 

the conditions where species can be downlisted or delisted. 

Issue 3: Recovery Plan Utility 

Comment: One commenter felt that the plan would be more useful if 

accompanied by short-range plans for each species describing 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-34 

immediate actions that have a reasonable chance for completion 

given current funding limitations and which can be used as an easy 

guide for resource managers.

Response: During completion of the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for 

Hawaiian Forest Birds in 2002, the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery 

Team recommended that key near-term recovery actions for each 

species be described in “Five-Year Recovery Work Plans.” 

Several of these work plans have been completed and appear at the 

back of this plan as Appendices F through L. Each work plan lists 

10 to 15 key recovery actions that can be completed in the next 5 

years. These work plans are available from the Pacific Islands 

Fish and Wildlife Office in Honolulu, Hawai`i, or from the 

following website maintained by the Hawai`i Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife: http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php. We 

anticipate that work plans for additional species will be completed 

in the near future. 

Comment: One commenter felt that the plan would be more useful if it 

highlighted actions that benefit several species simultaneously.

Response: Tables 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 list individual species benefiting from 

recovery actions. In many cases the actions described in these 

tables are directed at more than one species. Also benefiting 

multiple species are recovery actions for avian disease research 

and monitoring, measures to prevent the introduction of new avian 

diseases to Hawai`i, and actions to prevent the introduction of 

invasive plant and animal species to Hawai`i, among others. 

Comment: In addition to threat, population status, and other biological factors, 

one commenter suggested that the captive propagation recovery 

priority rankings in Appendix B should be based on the 

probabilities of successfully recovering the species, with 

consideration of geopolitical and social and financial realities. 

Response: Although social, financial, and geopolitical factors will likely 

affect the success of recovery actions, we have based our captive 

propagation recovery rankings on biological factors. This is 

because we consider all the listed species in this plan to be 

recoverable and we are required by law to develop recovery 

strategies for all listed species based on their biological needs. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-35 

Comment: One commenter suggested it would be helpful to provide a stepdown outline before the recovery action narrative. 

Response: We have added a simplified Step-down Outline, or overview of the 

major recovery action categories, before the Step-down Narrative 

to assist users of this plan. 

Comment: One commenter felt the Recovery Actions Narrative section was 

too general and failed to describe specific recovery actions. 

Response: Tables 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 describe recovery actions to be carried 

out on specific land parcels and specifically identifies which 

species they are designed to benefit. In some cases a specific 

recommendation was not made for how to conduct the action and 

several possible implementation methods are mentioned. We feel 

this is appropriate because it is important to allow land managers 

and others who will implement recovery actions the latitude to use 

the most effective methods and approaches for individual 

conditions, which may be difficult to determine based on available 

information and may change over time. 

Comment: One commenter felt the link between research results and 

management actions could be improved. 

Response: We have modified the introduction to the research actions section 

of the Step-down Narrative to make clear that research results need 

to be translated into on-the-ground management. 

Issue 4: Feral Ungulate Control 

Comment: One commenter felt that the plan would benefit from a more 

complete discussion of methods to control feral ungulates, and that 

the plan should address conflicts between sustained yield game 

management approaches versus complete removal of ungulates 

from fenced areas, and the relative effectiveness of the two 

approaches for habitat recovery. 

Response: A complete treatment of the approaches and methods of feral 

ungulate control in Hawai`i would be very lengthy and is beyond 

the scope of this plan. There are several approaches to 

management of feral ungulates, ranging from sustained yield game 

management to complete eradication, and several methods of 

removing ungulates from areas, including fencing, public hunting, 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-36 

drives, and snaring. The plan identifies land parcels where control 

of feral ungulates is needed, but does not attempt to provide a 

complete discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the 

various methods available for doing this. In general, and as 

described under Recovery Action 2.2, we feel the most effective 

approach for protecting and restoring habitat for native forest birds 

is fencing and removal of all feral ungulates. However, the most 

appropriate strategy and methods also may depend on land 

ownership and other factors. 

Comment: One commenter felt that costs to maintain ungulate fencing and to 

remove ungulates if a breach in an exclosure fence occurs should 

be included with the costs for fencing and ungulate removal. 

Response: We agree that there will be costs to maintaining fences to ensure 

that areas remain ungulate-free. These costs are discussed in the 

Implementation Schedule and are included in costs for fencing and 

ungulate removal. 

 

Issue 5: New Threats Information 

Comment: One commenter recommended recent information be included in 

the plan concerning “die-back” of over 60 percent of the koa 

(Acacia koa) tree canopy in Kīpahulu Valley, Maui. The 

commenter thought the die-back was likely caused by the native 

moth, Scotorythra paludicola and the wilt-causing fungus, 

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp koae. 

Response: We have included this recent information in the section for 

research needs in Recovery Action 4.6.4 on page 4-106. 

Comment: One commenter felt that the description in the plan was inadequate 

for the potential impacts of alien bird species on native forest 

birds; the commenter provided some new information regarding 

these impacts. 

Response: We have included in the Executive Summary a description of the 

possible impacts of alien birds on native forest birds. Recovery 

Action 4.2.10 on page 4-99 also addresses the need for research 

into the potential impacts of alien birds. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-37 

Comment: One commenter felt the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes 

auropunctatus) is a greater threat to forest birds than was indicated 

in the draft plan. 

Response: Mongooses are often assumed to be a lesser threat to forest birds 

than feral cats or rats because of their limited climbing ability. We 

agree, however, that the small Indian mongoose may be more of a 

threat to forest birds in certain areas than was indicated in the draft 

plan. We have revised Recovery Action 2.4 on page 4-52, which 

deals with control of alien mammalian predators, to reflect this. 

Comment: Two commenters noted that recent research on global warming has 

documented shifts in distribution patterns of flora and fauna to 

higher latitudes and elevations to “escape” increasing 

temperatures, and suggested that a recovery action should be 

included to address global warming and local climate change, 

which threaten Hawaiian forest birds by reducing the amount of 

high elevation habitat area free of mosquito vectors. 

Response: Global warming and local climate change are a significant threat to 

avian species in Hawai`i, as noted in the plan. A complete 

discussion of global warming and local climate changes is beyond 

the scope of this recovery plan, but we have added a recovery 

action to the plan (Action 2.5.1.4) calling for active participation to 

curb global warming and climate change. 

Comment: One commenter felt the priority numbers for Recovery Actions 

4.6.3 - Conduct population and metapopulation viability analyses, 

4.6.3.1 - Conduct trend analysis using count data, and 4.6.3.2 - Use 

demographic data for estimating lambda; should be elevated from 

priority 2 to priority 1, because these actions measure population 

trends, and ultimately, the effectiveness of management actions. 

Response: We agree. In the plan the priority numbers for these recovery 

actions have been elevated from priority 2 to priority 1. 

Comment: One commenter was concerned that direct transmission of disease 

by bird-to-bird contact and handling of multiple birds by 

researchers is not adequately addressed in the plan. 

Response: Researchers follow protocols adequate to prevent transmission of 

avian disease, such as washing hands and disinfecting mist-nets 

and measuring tools, which are required for permits issued for 

research activities. Currently there is no method of preventing 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-38 

possible transmission of avian disease through bird-to-bird contact 

in the wild. 

Issue 6: Captive Propagation and Reintroduction 

Comment: One commenter recommended that a thorough habitat assessment 

be made at release sites, including food availability and disease 

potential, and examination of the reasons for a species not 

occurring at sites, including historical habitat modification and the 

cultural practices of pre-contact Hawaiians, before captive 

introductions are attempted. The commenter also suggested 

establishing species in areas outside the historical range to increase 

forest bird populations. 

Response: Recovery Action 3.3 in the plan calls for the development of 

methods for evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for releases 

and/or translocation of endangered birds. We have revised this 

action to include consideration of habitat modification by historical 

land uses and practices of pre-contact Hawaiians. Although it is 

preferred that species be introduced into their historical range it is 

possible that habitat outside known historical range could be 

suitable or preferable. We have clarified Recovery Action 3.3 to 

reflect that habitat outside historical range will be considered when 

evaluating sites for releases and/or translocations, if necessary. 

Comment: One commenter suggested pursuing the establishment of captive 

propagation programs of nearly extinct species by means other 

than collecting eggs from the wild, particularly when no wild 

breeding pairs are known to exist. 

Response: We agree that methods of establishing captive propagation 

programs under circumstances where egg collection from the wild 

is not an option should be included in the plan, and we have 

revised Recovery Action 3.2.1 to include creating pairs in the wild 

through translocation and bringing wild birds into captivity. 

Comment: One commenter felt captive propagation of the po`ouli is the only 

remaining option to save this species from extinction. 

Response: We agree that bringing the remaining po`ouli into captivity for 

captive propagation is the most effective approach for recovering 

the po`ouli at this time, since field efforts to form a wild breeding 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-39 

pair through translocation recently failed. We have updated 

Recovery Action 3.2.2 accordingly. 

Comment: One commenter suggested that the captive propagation program be 

expanded and that it should include non-listed native Hawaiian 

forest birds that may be declining. The commenter also thought 

greater support should be provided to species in Table 13 that are 

assigned lower captive breeding priority rankings. The commenter 

felt this greater emphasis on captive propagation is necessary 

given the magnitude of the threats Hawaiian forest birds face, the 

low numbers of some species, and patterns of rapid species 

declines in Hawai`i. 

Response: We would like to expand the captive propagation program to 

include additional species, especially for all species listed in Table 

13 with breeding priorities rankings of 1 and 2. Unfortunately, 

such expansion is not possible at this time due to limited funding. 

As stated in Recovery Action 3.1, we periodically evaluate and 

identify species that will require captive propagation for recovery. 

Comment: One commenter suggested when doing translocations that young of 

the year should be used instead of adult pairs with established 

territories, because young of the year have a higher mortality rate 

generally, are the typical dispersers in bird populations, and are 

less likely to return to the locations from which they are taken. 

Response: We agree that these factors are likely true, however, there may be 

some instances where a combination of young birds and nonbreeding adults can create a more normal social dynamic or where 

because of logistical constraints some non-breeding adults may 

need to be translocated. 

Issue 7: Partners Participation in Recovery Planning and Implementation 

Comment: One commenter felt that the National Park Service’s 

responsibilities and accomplishments were not adequately credited 

in the plan. 

Response: We agree that the National Park Service plays a key role in 

conservation of endangered species and has made significant 

achievements in the recovery of Hawaiian forest birds. We have 

attempted to make this more clear by revising the Implementation 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-40 

Schedule to reflect the interest, planning involvement, 

achievements, and implementation responsibility the National Park 

Service has had and will continue to have for recovery of many of 

the species in this plan. 

Comment: One commenter suggested consideration should be given to 

providing incentives for private landowners to participate in forest 

bird habitat protection and enhancement, such as tax breaks, 

partnership financial rewards, and planting assistance. 

Response: We agree those types of incentives can enhance habitat protection, 

and have included these suggestions in the plan under Recovery 

Action 1.3 (secure recovery area) and other recovery action 

categories where these approaches would be useful. 

Comment: One commenter felt the plan suggested governmental agencies 

might exercise control over lands the commenter owns and uses 

and the plan intrudes on private property and landowners’ rights. 

Response: As discussed above in response to the first comment, the 

identification of land as “recovery area” is intended as a biological 

assessment of those lands that have the potential to contribute high 

quality habitat for the recovery of Hawaiian forest birds, and 

implies no legal obligation of the landowner to participate in any 

recovery actions, and does not indicate a desire by the government 

to control the land or impinge upon the landowners’ rights. As 

discussed under Recovery Action 1.3, agreements for access to 

private lands and the implementation of recovery actions are with 

willing partners only, as are any potential acquisitions. We have 

added to the Introduction to the Implementation Schedule a 

statement further describing our wish to work with all willing 

partners towards species recovery. 

Comment: One commenter suggested the Service should more actively 

discuss with the State of Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, Land Division, changes in land use designations as a 

way to provide greater protection to recovery areas. 

Response: Already included in the plan is consideration of change in land use 

designation for parcels owned by the State of Hawai`i as an option 

to secure recovery areas. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-41 

Issue 8: Cost Estimates 

Comment: One commenter felt that the cost for recovery was excessive and 

taxpayers’ dollars should be spent instead on social programs 

directly benefiting the public well-being. A second commenter felt 

that the costs in the plan to protect and/or restore Hawaiian birds 

were excessive considering the many other public needs on which 

money could be spent. 

Response: The estimated minimum time for delisting any of the species 

addressed in this plan is 30 years, so we revised the estimated total 

cost for recovery to encompass this time-frame, which resulted in a 

reduction in the estimated total cost to $2,477,395,000. As 

described in the Introduction to the Implementation Schedule on 

page 5-4, it is difficult to estimate the eventual cost of certain 

actions, such as ungulate removal and predator control, because 

the actual area of each parcel in which the action must be 

conducted cannot be determined at this time, and because we 

anticipate that improved and more cost-effective methods will 

become available in the future. Therefore, the actual costs for 

many of these actions may be lower than the estimates provided in 

this plan. Although substantial, we feel these costs are necessary 

and reasonable over the 30-year time period required to recover the 

species addressed in this plan. 

Comment: One commenter felt that the plan lacked the focus and direction 

needed to justify the planned budget. The commenter suggested 

that the plan should focus on the most cost-effective recovery 

actions and those that will be most beneficial in the near-term. 

Response: The priority ranking system provided in the Implementation 

Schedule is intended to help focus efforts on the most urgent and 

most beneficial actions. One of the criteria for ranking an action as 

high priority was benefit to multiple species and costeffectiveness. We have attempted to clarify the explanation of the 

priority ranking system in the Executive Summary. The Five-year 

Recovery Work Plans, provided as Appendices F through L of this 

plan, provide key recovery actions to focus on in the near-term. 

Comment: One commenter was concerned that because the plan presents a 

total dollar figure for recovery, for all species, including all 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-42 

recovery actions, the public and legislative response will be 

negative to the high total recovery cost. The commenter suggested 

it would be better to perform a cost/benefit analysis for recovery 

actions and to focus only on the most cost effective and highest 

priority recovery actions. 

Response: In the Executive Summary we broke costs down by priority to 

allow the reader to see the costs to implement all priority 1 

recovery actions. Many of these recovery actions benefit multiple 

species, particularly habitat based actions. In Tables 7, 8, 9, and 

11 of the plan, all the species benefiting from habitat-based 

recovery actions are listed. In general, most recovery actions that 

benefit all or most of the species in this plan received a priority 1 

ranking. Therefore, the plan is focused generally on the most cost 

effective actions. However, as required, we also have presented in 

the plan all other recovery actions. We have taken a combined 

approach focusing on those recovery actions that are most costeffective and that will benefit most species, and that need to be 

taken immediately to prevent the extinction or the irreversible 

decline of the species. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-43 

APPENDIX F. 

O`AHU `ELEPAIO FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by O`ahu `Elepaio Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, delisting 

criteria, recovery strategy, and a comprehensive list of 

recovery tasks for the O`ahu `elepaio are provided in 

the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Plan, which 

covers 21 species (USFWS 2005). The purpose of 

this five-year work plan is to identify interim recovery 

objectives for the O`ahu `elepaio that can be realized 

within five years, and to describe succinctly the 

actions needed to reach those interim objectives. 

Identification of interim recovery objectives and 

actions will help ensure that initial conservation 

efforts by different agencies or groups are focused on 

the same ultimate goals, facilitate efficient use of limited recovery resources, and provide 

milestones that can be used to track and evaluate progress toward recovery. Realization of these 

milestones will measure progress toward eventual recovery. Failure in realizing these milestones 

may indicate that additional resources are needed, or that the current recovery strategy is not 

effective. 

Species Summary. The O`ahu `elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis) is a monarch 

flycatcher endemic to O`ahu. Other `elepaio subspecies occur on Kaua`i and Hawai`i but are not 

endangered. `Elepaio are nonmigratory, and pairs defend year-round territories averaging 1.2-2.0 

hectares (3.0-4.9 acres) in size, depending on habitat structure (Conant 1977, VanderWerf and 

Smith 2002, VanderWerf 2003). 

O`ahu `elepaio are adaptable and 

occur in a variety of forest types, 

but they are most common in 

valleys with tall riparian forest 

and a dense understory 

(VanderWerf et al. 1997). Forest 

structure is more important to 

`elepaio than species composition, 

and `elepaio forage and nest in a 

variety of trees, including many 

alien species. `Elepaio are 

versatile foragers and prey on a 

variety of invertebrates, including 

nonnative taxa such as mosquitoes 

and fruit flies. The nest is a 

freestanding cup placed in a fork 

or on a horizontal branch 2-24 meters above the ground (VanderWerf 1998). Clutch size is 1-3, 

usually 2, and eggs hatch in 18 days. The parents share incubation during the day, but only the 

female incubates at night and develops a brood patch. The chicks are fed by both parents and 

fledge in 16 days. Juveniles are fed by their parents for another 1-2 months after leaving the nest, 

and remain on the natal territory for up to 9 months. Usually only one chick is fledged, but in 

good years more pairs fledge two chicks and a few pairs may raise two broods (VanderWerf and 

Smith 2002). The nesting season usually extends from February to May, but active nests have 

been found from November to July (VanderWerf 1998). 

Male O`ahu `Elepaio. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-44 

Table 2. `Elepaio population growth with and 

without predation and disease. Lambda >1.0 

indicates growth. (from VanderWerf 2002). 

Predator 

control? 

Disease 

removed? 

Growth rate 

(lambda) 

Yes Yes 1.04 

Yes No 0.98 ± 0.05 

No Yes 0.83 

No No 0.76 ± 0.04 

`Elepaio were once the most 

abundant forest bird on O`ahu and 

probably occupied much of the 

127,000 hectares of forest that 

existed on the island before 

humans arrived. By 1975 the 

range of O`ahu `elepaio had 

declined to 20,900 hectares, and 

`elepaio currently occupy only 

5800 hectares, or less than 4% of 

their original range (Shallenberger 

1977, VanderWerf et al. 2001). 

The total current population is 

approximately 2000 birds, but the 

breeding population is only about 

1800 birds due to a male-biased 

sex ratio (VanderWerf et al. 2001). The majority of remaining birds is distributed in six large 

subpopulations of 100-500 birds each (Table 1), with the remainder in numerous small fragments, 

some of which contain only males. The current distribution superficially appears to constitute a 

metapopulation, but the amount of dispersal among subpopulations and the genetic population 

structure are unknown. Natal dispersal distances in `elepaio are usually less than one kilometer 

(0.62 miles) and adults have high site fidelity (VanderWerf 2003). There may be some exchange 

among subpopulations within each mountain range, but dispersal across the extensive urban and 

agricultural lands that separate the Wai`anae and Ko`olau mountains seems unlikely, and most 

subpopulations probably are isolated. 

Primary Threats. Much of the historical decline in distribution of the `elepaio was caused by 

clearing of forest for human development and agriculture, but most areas currently occupied by 

`elepaio are zoned conservation, and today habitat loss is a threat only in certain locations, such as 

at Schofield Barracks through fires caused by military training. 

 `Elepaio have continued to decline even in areas of intact forest due to a combination of 

poor reproduction and low adult survival. The primary causes of nest failure and adult mortality 

are introduced nest predators and diseases carried by the introduced southern house mosquito 

(Culex quinquefasciatus), particularly avian pox virus (Poxvirus avium) and possibly avian 

malaria (Plasmodium relictum). Both predation and disease are serious threats, but predation has 

a larger negative effect on `elepaio populations than disease and is a more serious threat (Table 2). 

Cameras placed at artificial nests showed that black rats (Rattus rattus) are the most important 

nest predator in `elepaio habitat (VanderWerf 2001). From 1996-2000 ground-based rodent 

control, using snap traps and diphacinone bait stations resulted in average increases in `elepaio 

reproduction of 112% and in survival of female `elepaio of 66% (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). 

Predation is greater on females because only females attend the nest at night, when rats are most 

active. Rodent control has been conducted 

by the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife in the Honolulu Watershed 

Forest Reserve since 1997, by the U.S. 

Army Environmental Division at Schofield 

Barracks West Range and M~kua Military 

Reservation since 1998, by The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i at Honouliuli 

Preserve since 2000, and by the U.S. Navy 

in Lualualei since 2002. These programs 

have been successful on a small scale, but 

are labor intensive and expensive. 

Recovery of the O`ahu `elepaio will require 

rodent control on a larger scale, and this can 

Table 1. Sizes of `Elepaio core populations. 

Population Total 

Birds 

Breeding birds Occupied 

Area (ha)

Southern Ko`olau 493 450 1132 

Central Ko`olau 226 207 1396 

Waikāne-Kahana 265 242 523 

Southern Wai`anae 464 423 1231 

Schofield West Range 342 312 538 

Mākaha-Wai`anae Kai 123 113 459 

All other populations 95 54 518 

Total 2008 1801 5797 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-45 

be achieved more efficiently through aerial broadcast methods. Registration of aerial broadcast of 

diphacinone for rodent control with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be actively 

pursued and supported, and public outreach and education about the importance and benefits of 

controlling rodents and the safety of diphacinone is needed before aerial broadcast can be applied. 

Reproduction of `elepaio with active pox virus infections birds is 69% lower than reproduction of 

healthy birds, and survival of infected birds is 24% lower than survival of healthy birds, but the 

prevalence of pox varies among years, and on average 14% of birds have active infections each 

year (VanderWerf 2002). Avian malaria is a serious threat to many Hawaiian forest birds, but its 

effect on `elepaio has not been investigated. Currently there is no environmentally safe and 

effective and method of controlling mosquitoes in forested areas, and it is not practical to 

vaccinate wild bird populations because any immunity would not be heritable. Controlling 

rodents also may lessen the threat from disease by providing birds that have greater natural 

immunity a greater chance of reproducing (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). 

Recovery Strategy. The ultimate recovery goal for O`ahu `elepaio is to restore viable 

populations or metapopulations on both the windward and leeward sides of the Ko`olau and 

Wai`anae Mountains (USFWS 2005). The number of birds remaining is sufficiently large that in 

situ habitat management of wild birds currently is the most cost-effective recovery strategy. 

Rodent control is the most effective method of stabilizing `elepaio populations. Recovery efforts 

should focus first on protecting and managing the six large "core" populations, because 

management in these areas will benefit the largest number of birds. These core populations are 

distributed throughout most of the original historical range, have the greatest chance of long-term 

persistence because their larger sizes make them less susceptible to stochastic events, and they 

probably have lost less genetic diversity than smaller populations. All six core populations should 

be conserved to preserve as much genetic, morphological, and behavioral (vocal) variation as 

possible. Smaller populations should be addressed next if there are sufficient resources or 

interested parties. If management actions are effective, the core populations eventually may serve 

as sources of dispersing individuals that can help support smaller populations or recolonize areas 

where `elepaio have disappeared. If habitat management alone proves insufficient to allow 

recovery, captive propagation and/or rear and release of O`ahu `elepaio may become necessary, 

and would be especially valuable if genetically disease-resistant birds can be identified for use as 

breeding stock. 

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-term recovery goals for the O`ahu 

`elepaio, the following short-term goals should be accomplished first: 

• Stabilize numbers of birds in the six remaining core populations through rodent 

control. 

• Prevent any further loss of forest habitat supporting the six remaining core populations. 

If these objectives are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives will be 

identified to continue to guide progress toward full recovery. If these objectives are not met 

within five years, then the causes for failure should be identified and rectified if possible. If it is 

not possible to correct the causes for failure and the current strategy is deemed ineffective, then a 

new strategy will be developed and new actions identified. 

Five-year Recovery Actions (2004-2008). In order to realize the interim recovery objectives 

described above, the following actions are necessary: 

• Ensure/encourage continued support for ongoing rodent control programs and expand 

these programs. 

o Honolulu Watershed State Forest Reserve in Wailupe Valley (Hawai`i 

DOFAW) 

o Honouliuli Preserve (The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii) 

o U.S. Army Schofield Barracks West Range (U.S. Army) 

o Lualualei Naval Magazine (U.S. Navy) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-46 

• Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and safety 

of diphacinone. 

• Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone in at least one 

site and compare efficacy and cost with ground-based methods. Possible sites 

include Honouliuli Preserve, Schofield Barracks West Range, and Mākua Military 

Reservation. 

• Contact landowners and initiate rodent control in unmanaged areas within core 

populations, through safe harbor agreements, partnerships, technical support, and 

collaboration. 

o Moanalua Valley (Damon Estate) 

o North Hālawa Valley (Kamehameha Schools) 

o South Hālawa Valley (Queen Emma Foundation) 

o Wiliwilinui Gulch (Kamehameha Schools) 

o Waikāne Valley (SMF Enterprises) 

o Pia Valley (Hawaii Humane Society and J. Pflueger) 

o Mākaha Valley (City and County of Honolulu) 

• Complete an effective fire management plan at Schofield Barracks West Range, 

ensure that Army provides adequate resources to implement that plan and 

responds to fires in a timely manner (U.S. Army). 

• Ensure access to Honouliuli Preserve for management by The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawaii. May require coordination with U.S. Army over condemnation of lands in 

northern portion of Preserve, and negotiation of lease or conservation easement 

with a new owner if land comprising the remainder of the Preserve is sold by 

Campbell Estate. 

References. 

Conant, S. 1977. The breeding biology of the Oahu `elepaio. Wilson Bulletin 89:193-210. 

Shallenberger, R. J. 1977. Bird and mammal study of Army lands in Hawaii. Ahuimanu 

Productions, Kailua, Hawai`i. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 1998. `Elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 344 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 2001. Rodent control reduces predation on artificial nests in O`ahu `Elepaio 

habitat. Journal of Field Biology 72:448-457. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 2002. Effects of alien rat predation and disease on demography of the O`ahu 

`Elepaio. Poster presentation, North American Ornithological Congress, New Orleans, 

LA. 

VanderWerf, E. A. 2003. Demography of Hawai`i `Elepaio: variation with habitat disturbance and 

population density. Ecology 85:770-783. 

VanderWerf, E.A., A. Cowell, and J.L. Rohrer. 1997. Distribution, abundance, and conservation 

of O`ahu `Elepaio in the southern, leeward Ko`olau Range. `Elepaio 57(4):99-106. 

VanderWerf, E.A., J.L. Rohrer, D.G. Smith, and M.D. Burt. 2001. Current distribution and 

abundance of the O`ahu `Elepaio. Wilson Bulletin 113:10-16. 

VanderWerf, E.A., and D.G. Smith. 2002. Effects of alien rodent control on demography of the 

O`ahu `Elepaio, an endangered Hawaiian forest bird. Pacific Conservation Biology 8:73-

81. 

For further information please contact: 

• Eric VanderWerf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office (eric_vanderwerf@fws.gov, 792-9400) 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-47 

APPENDIX G. 

PUAIOHI FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by Puaiohi Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, 

delisting criteria, recovery strategy, and a 

comprehensive list of recovery tasks for the 

Puaiohi are provided in the Final Revised 

Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Bird, which 

covers 21 species (USFWS 2005). The purpose 

of this five-year work plan is to identify interim 

recovery objectives for the puaiohi that can be 

realized within five years, and to describe 

succinctly the actions needed to reach those 

interim objectives. Identification of interim 

recovery objectives and actions will help ensure that initial conservation efforts by different 

agencies or groups are focused on the same ultimate goals, facilitate efficient use of limited 

recovery resources, and provide milestones that can be used to track and evaluate progress toward 

recovery. Realization of these milestones will measure progress toward eventual recovery. 

Failure in realizing these milestones may indicate that additional resources are needed, or that the 

current recovery strategy is not effective. 

Species Summary. The puaiohi, or small Kauai thrush (Myadestes palmeri), is a medium-sized 

thrush endemic to the island of Kauai. Adult puaiohi are olive-brown above, gray below, with a 

white-eye-ring and pinkish legs. Juveniles have distinctive spots and scalloping on the breast and 

wings. Puaiohi feed on insects and the fruit of several native plants, particularly `ōlapa 

(Cheirodendron trigynum), lapalapa (C. platyphyllum), `ōhi`a ha (Syzygium sandwicensis), 

kanawao (Broussaisia arguta), 

`ōhelo (Vaccinium spp.), pa`iniu 

(Astelia spp.), pūkiawe (Styphelia 

tameiameiae), kāwa`u (Ilex 

anomala), and pilo (Coprosma

spp.). Puaiohi nest in cavities or 

ledges concealed by mosses and 

ferns on cliff faces, or more rarely 

in secondary cavities formed in 

trees (Snetsinger et al. in prep.). 

Nesting occurs from March to midSeptember, with a peak from April 

to June (Snetsinger et al. in prep). 

The female alone builds the nest, 

and incubates and broods the 

young. Clutch size is almost 

always two. Eggs hatch after 13 to 

15 days. Both parents share responsibility for provisioning the chicks, but after fledging the male 

assumes primary responsibility for feeding chicks while the female frequently initiates another 

nesting attempt. Occasionally (8 percent of nests), second-year and hatch-year birds assist in nest 

defense and feeding of nestlings and fledglings. Recently fledged young often remain within 2 

meters of the ground for 2 to 4 days after fledging, where they may be particularly vulnerable to 

predation by introduced mammalian predators. A breeding season of up to 132 days and high nest 

success rates of up to 90% result in productivity in some years of up to 4.9 fledglings/pair. El 

Niño conditions can shorten the breeding season to 51 days and lower nest success to 42 percent, 

Captive Puaiohi with chicks. Photo © Jack Jeffrey. 

Figure 1. Puaiohi Distribution and Recovery Area. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-48 

leading to productivity of only 0.4 young per pair per year. Dispersal frequency and distances 

appear to be small but are poorly known. Adult survival is estimated at 74% and juvenile survival 

at 25% (T. Snetsinger pers. comm.). The total population of puaiohi is estimated to be 300-400 birds, which occur in wet 

(>6,000 mm rain/year) montane forest in stream valleys and associated ridges above 1,050 meters 

(3,450 feet) elevation on the southern and central plateau of the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve 

(Scott et al. 1986, Snetsinger et al. 1999, USGS and DOFAW unpubl. data). The breeding 

population is restricted to an area of < 20 square km, and 75 percent of the breeding population 

occurs in only 10 square kilometers (Figure 1). The puaiohi exists in high densities (up to 11 

breeding pairs per linear kilometer of stream) in three adjacent drainages; the Upper Mōhihi, 

Upper Waiakoali, and the northeastern upper Kawaikōī (the "core" or "Mōhihi/Waiakoali" 

population; Table 1). Densities decline with elevation about 1,050 meters (3,450 feet) in these 

drainages (T. Snetsinger pers. comm.). The upper reaches of the Halehaha and Halepā`ākai 

drainages contain a medium-density population of approximately 5 pairs per linear km, and lowdensity populations exist in the lower Waia`alae/unnamed drainage (1.25 pairs/km; Pratt et al.

2002) and lower Kawaikōī/Kauaikinanā (0.5 pairs/linear km). Two small, low-density 

populations were detected during State forest bird surveys in 1994 on private lands along the 

Halekua and Waiau streams at the southern edge of the species’ range, but neither population was 

detected during surveys in March 2000 (T. Telfer pers. comm.). Surveys in March 2000 

confirmed the existence of a small population along the upper reaches of a tributary to the Koai`e 

Stream, although its size and extent remain to be documented (J. Foster/USGS unpubl. data). 

A captive propagation and release program has been implemented for the puaiohi, and a 

total of 77 birds have been released in 2 sites since 1999 (Kuehler et al. 2000; The Peregrine Fund 

1999; The Peregrine Fund and ZSSD 2000; ZSSD 2001, 2002, 2003; ZSSD unpubl. data). 

Captive-bred released puaiohi readily paired with both captive and wild birds, and bred in the wild 

in the first season following their release. For 

releases conducted from 1999-2002, thirty-six of 

forty-two (85.7%) released birds survived to 30 days 

post-release, and survival during the subsequent 40-

50 day post-independence period ranged from 67% in 

1999 to 71% in 2001 and 83% in 2002. However, 

only 20-43% of released birds established breeding 

territories in the target drainage each year, and the 

majority of released birds dispersed several km away, 

frequently in the direction of high-density 

populations (Tweed et al. 1999, Monahan et al. 2001, 

Pratt et al. 2002). Although released birds have 

survived well and reproduced, the efficacy of captive 

releases at establishing new, disjunct populations has 

yet to be demonstrated. 

Primary Threats. Predation by alien rats (Rattus spp.) may be a serious limiting factor on 

puaiohi populations. Although their habit of nesting on steep cliff faces may provide some 

protection from nest predation, data from 1998 and 1999 showed that 14 percent and 22 percent of 

nests, respectively, failed due to rat predation. Eggs, nestlings, and incubating females all have 

been depredated by rats. Snetsinger et al. (in prep.) demonstrated that nests protected by rat bait 

stations fledged significantly more birds than untreated nests. In addition, the tendency of young 

puaiohi to remain close to the ground for several days after fledging probably makes them 

particularly vulnerable to predation by feral cats. 

 Only five wild puaiohi have been tested for disease, of which one had antibodies to 

malaria but none had active infections, suggesting that at least some puaiohi may survive malaria 

infection (Atkinson et al. 2001). However, disease likely limits puaiohi from inhabiting the lower 

reaches of stream drainages with suitable nesting cliffs. 

 The disruption of seedling regeneration of beneficial plants, the invasion of nonnative 

weeds, and soil erosion are some of the many forest management problems within the remaining 

Table 1. Densities of Puaiohi populations in 

drainages of the Alaka`i region of Kauai. 

Drainage Density 

(pairs/km) 

Mōhihi High 

Waiakoali High 

Kawaikōī High 

Halehaha Medium 

Halepā`ākai Medium 

Kawaikōī/Kauaikinanā Low 

Waia`alae/unnamed Low 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-49 

puaiohi range. Feral pigs and goats have had long-term damaging effects upon native forests by 

opening space for weeds and transporting weed seeds into the forest. Hurricanes in 1982 and 

1992 also severely disturbed areas of native forest and made space for the germination and 

expansion of alien plants. Habitat degradation resulting from the invasion of many nonnative 

weeds has drastically changed the forest structure and integrity. 

 The population size of 300 to 400 birds in several subpopulations falls below the 

effective population size of 500 individuals recommended for long-term maintenance of genetic 

diversity (Soulé 1987). 

Recovery Strategy. Several tools exist that can be used to manage puaiohi populations, including 

captive propagation and release, predator control, use of rat-resistant artificial nest boxes, and 

fencing and ungulate control. All of these tools are likely to be important components of the longterm recovery strategy for puaiohi, but knowing which tool is most effective will allow more 

efficient short-term use of limited conservation resources. In addition, the most appropriate 

conservation strategy and the most urgent management needs of the puaiohi depend on the size, 

distribution, and trend of the population, and these parameters are only partly known. If the 

population is relatively large and stable, then management of wild birds may be most effective and 

releases of small numbers of captive-bred birds are not needed. On the other hand, if unoccupied 

areas of suitable habitat can be identified that are isolated from the existing population, then it 

may be preferable to decrease the threat from local catastrophes by creating additional disjunct 

populations through release of captive birds. If the population is stable, then there is time to 

investigate the efficacy of different tools; if it is declining, then it may be necessary to augment 

simultaneously the population through release of captive birds. Until this information is known, it 

is prudent to continue existing management programs that have shown some degree of success, 

such as captive propagation and release (Kuehler et al. 2001), and ground-based predator control 

around nest sites (Snetsinger et al. 1999).

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-term recovery goals for the puaiohi, the 

following short-term goals should be accomplished first: 

• Investigate management tools for stabilizing/increasing the puaiohi population and 

determine which is most effective. 

• Determine the total current population size and distribution. 

• Determine the puaiohi population trend. 

If these objectives are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives will be 

identified to continue to guide progress toward full recovery. If these objectives are 

not met within five years, then the causes for failure should be identified and rectified 

if possible. If it is not possible to correct the causes for failure and the current strategy 

is deemed ineffective, then a new strategy will be developed. 

Five-year Recovery Actions (2004-2008). In order to realize the interim recovery objectives 

described above, the following actions are necessary: 

• Compile and summarize existing survey data (USGS). 

o Complete surveys in additional areas (State DLNR field crew)

• Identify a new release site that fulfills the criteria of providing high quality habitat, zero or 

low density of wild puaiohi, sites for the erection of release towers, and helicopter 

access (State DLNR field crew). 

• If a release site is identified, relocate the release infrastructure (towers, cages, weatherport, 

etc.) to new release site (ZSSD/USFWS/DOFAW). 

• Use landsat images and geographic and biological data to model puaiohi habitat with GIS 

and identify additional potential habitat (USGS). 

• Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone. Possible treatment 

sites include upper Mōhihi, and Halepā`ākai. Treatment of both a high-density site and 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-50 

a medium-density site might provide valuable comparison. In order to implement and 

fully evaluate the efficacy of an aerial broadcast, the following actions also are needed: 

o Collect baseline data on survival and reproduction of puaiohi for comparison, from a 

spatial control, a temporal control, or both. 

o Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and safety of 

diphacinone. 

o Collect before and after data on water quality and possible contamination of game species 

if these are deemed necessary to obtain public support. 

• Evaluate efficacy of rat-resistant artificial nest boxes at reducing predation. 

o Test different designs of nest boxes, with wild birds, captive birds, or both (graduate 

student and ZSSD). 

o Compare nest success and female survival in natural nests vs. artificial nest boxes 

(graduate student). 

o Fledge captive birds from artificial nest boxes so they recognize and use artificial nest 

boxes after release (ZSSD). 

• Measure survival and dispersal of adult and juvenile puaiohi, through mist-netting, 

banding, resighting, and radio tracking, for use in demographic modeling and 

determination of population trend (graduate student). 

• Model puaiohi population to determine whether it is stable and the effect of management 

tools (graduate student). 

Annual Workplan - 2005. The following tasks are planned for 2005: 

• Release 12 captive-bred hatch year birds at the Halepā`ākai hack site and 6 captive-bred 

hatch year birds at a newly established hack site near Koai`e stream. The release at the 

Koai`e stream is planned to test survival and dispersal of captive-bred birds released 

into suitable habitat in which there are few wild resident birds. 

• Document dispersal and survival of all released birds for the life of the transmitters using 

ground based or helicopter access as needed. 

• Conduct systematic surveys in drainages not yet surveyed using methodology described in 

Pratt et al. 2002. 

• Begin demography studies and prepare for predator control actions by banding as many 

birds as possible in two drainages and monitoring as many nests in the two drainages 

as possible. 

• Perform basic statistical analyses on release data compiled from 1999-2004. 

• Puaiohi Working Group meet in June to discuss results of releases at the two hack sites 

and future hack site locations.

• Report due 30 September 2005.

References. 

Atkinson, C. T., J. K. Lease, B. M. Drake, and N. P. Shema. 2001. Pathogenicity, serological 

responses, and diagnosis of experimental and natural malarial infections in native 

Hawaiian thrushes. Condor 103:209-218. 

Kuehler, C., A. Lieberman, P. Oesterle, T. Powers, M. Kuhn, J. Kuhn, J. Nelson, T. Snetsinger, C. 

Herrman, P. Harrity, E. Tweed, S. Fancy, B. Woodworth, and T. Telfer. 2000. 

Development of restoration techniques for Hawaiian thrushes: collection of wild eggs, 

artificial incubation, hand-rearing, captive-breeding and reintroduction to the wild. Zoo 

Biology 19:263-277. 

Kuehler, C., A. Lieberman, P. Harrity, M. Kuhn, M., J. Kuhn, B. McIlraith, and J. Turner. 2001. 

Restoration techniques for Hawaiian forest birds: collection of eggs, artificial incubation 

and hand-rearing of chicks, and release to the wild. Studies in Avian Biology 22:354-

358. 

Monahan, W. B, J. L. Kellerman, and B. L. Woodworth. 2001. Initiating recovery of the 

critically endangered Hawaiian solitaire, the Puaiohi, in the Alakai Wilderness Preserve 

of northwestern Kauai. Annual Report. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-51 

The Peregrine Fund. 1999. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. Report to: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, November 16, 1998 – November 15, 1999. 

The Peregrine Fund and Zoological Society of San Diego. 2000. Hawai`i Endangered Bird 

Conservation Program. Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i. 

Cooperative Agreement No. 122001J001, Document No. 10120-3-0153, July 1, 1999 - 

September 30, 2000. 

Pratt, R., E. Rose, and B. Woodworth. 2002. Puaiohi recovery project progress report 2002. 

Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, USGS-Biological Resources Discipline. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities 

of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Studies in Avian 

Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

Snetsinger, T. S., C. M. Herrmann, D. E. Holmes, C. D. Hayward, and S. G. Fancy. In prep. 

Breeding ecology of the Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). 

Snetsinger, T. S., K. M. Wakelee, and S. G. Fancy. 1999. Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 461 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Soulé, M. E. (Editor). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, London, 

UK. 

Tweed, E. J., J. Foster, and B. L. Woodworth. 1999. Initiating Recovery of the Critically 

Endangered Hawaiian Solitaire, the Puaiohi. Annual Report to Cooperators. Pacific 

Island Ecosystems Research Center, Biological Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

Region 1, Portland, OR. 502 pp. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2001. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i. Cooperative Agreement 

No. 122001J001, Exempt Purchase Approval No. 01-9-R, October 1, 2000 – September 

30, 2001. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2002. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i. Cooperative Agreement 

No. 122001J001 (FWS), Contract #47865 (DLNR-DOFAW), October 1, 2001 – 

September 30, 2002. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2003. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i, Cooperative Agreement 

No. 122001J001 (FWS), Contract #47865 (DLNR-DOFAW), October 1, 2002 – 

September 30, 2003. 

For further information please contact: 

• Scott Fretz of the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (scott@dofaw.net, 

587-4187); 

• Jay Nelson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 

Office (jay_nelson@fws.gov, 792-9400); or 

• visit http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-52 

APPENDIX H. 

PALILA FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by Palila Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, delisting 

criteria, recovery strategy, and a comprehensive list of 

recovery tasks for the Palila are provided in the 

Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Plan, which covers 21 

species (USFWS 2005). The purpose of this five-year 

work plan is to identify interim recovery objectives for 

the Palila that can be realized within five years, and to 

describe succinctly the actions needed to reach those 

interim objectives. Identification of interim recovery 

objectives will help ensure that initial conservation 

efforts by different agencies or groups are directed 

toward the same ultimate goals, encourage efficient use of limited recovery resources, and provide 

milestones that can be used to track and evaluate progress toward recovery. Realization of these 

milestones will provide evidence that progress is being made toward eventual recovery. Failure in 

realizing these milestones may indicate that additional effort and funding are needed, or that the 

current recovery strategy is not effective. 

Species Summary. The palila (Loxioides bailleui) is a finch-billed Hawaiian honeycreeper 

(subfamily: Drepanidinae) from the island of Hawai`i, and is one of the larger Hawaiian 

honeycreepers with an overall length of 15.0 to 16.5 centimeters (6.0 to 6.5 inches) and an adult 

weight of 38 to 40 grams (1.3 to 1.4 ounces). Adult palila have a yellow head and breast, greenish 

wings and tail, and are gray dorsally and white ventrally (Jeffrey et al. 1993). Fossil remains of 

palila have been found at sea level on O`ahu (Olson and James 1982a, b), suggesting that the 

species once occurred over a much larger range pre-historically. 

Historically, the palila is known only from the island of Hawai`i, were it occurred in māmane 

(Sophora chrysophylla)/naio (Myoporum sandwicense) forests on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea, 

the northwestern slope of Mauna Loa, and probably the southern and eastern slopes of Hualālai 

Volcanoes (Figure 1). In the 1890s, Perkins (1903) found the palila to be "extremely numerous" 

in the māmane belt of the 

Kona region between 

1,210 and 1,830 meters 

(4,000 to 6,000 feet) 

elevation. Palila were still 

locally common in the 

1940’s between 2,360 and 

2,530 meters (7,800 to 

8,350 feet) on the western 

and northeastern slopes of 

Mauna Kea (Richards and 

Baldwin 1953). However, 

the range of palila 

apparently shrank 

relatively quickly in the 

early 1900s to the current 

small area on the upper 

slopes of Mauna Kea, and 

Munro (1944) determined 

that the species was in danger 

Male Palila. Photo © Jack Jeffrey 

Kanakaleonui 

Figure 1. Palila Distribution and Recovery Area 

Pu`u Lehua 

Pu`u Mali 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-53 

0

100 0

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

198 0 19 83 198 6 19 89 19 92 199 5 19 98 20 01

Year

 Figure 2. Palila Population Trend. Data from Paul Banko. 

of extinction. Palila numbers have varied over the last 25 years from approximately 1000 to 5000 

birds (Figure 2), 96% of which population occurs on the southwestern slope of Mauna Kea, where 

the elevation range of the forest and habitat quality is greatest (Scott et al. 1984, 1986; Jacobi et 

al. 1996; Banko et al. 1998; Gray et al. 1999). Highest densities of palila occur in areas of greater 

crown cover, taller trees, and higher proportion of native shrubs near 2,300 meters (7,550 feet) 

elevation (Scott et al. 1984, 1986). Recent releases of captive-reared palila near Pu`u Mali on the 

north slope of Mauna Kea in 2003, and translocation of palila from the western slope to near Pu`u 

Mali in 2004 appear to have resulted in some increase in the numbers of resident palila on the 

north slope of Mauna Kea (ZSSD and USGS unpubl. data). 

The palila is a food specialist, preferring māmane seeds in green pods, but also will eat 

māmane flowers, buds, and leaves, and naio berries, especially when other foods are in short 

supply. Annual and seasonal density of birds is strongly related to māmane pod availability (Scott 

et al. 1984, 1986; Hess et al. 2001). Most nesting occurs in māmane trees (Pletschet and Kelly 

1990), while naio is more frequently selected for roosting (USGS unpubl. data). The elevation 

range of forest was the most important variable in an analysis by Scott et al. (1984) of response of 

palila to available habitat. A wide elevational range of māmane forest results in more consistent 

availability of seeds within the range of daily movements typically made by palila, especially 

during the breeding season. 

 Peak nesting usually occurs in May or June, but may begin in March and May and 

continue through August or midSeptember (van Riper 1980, Pletschet 

and Kelly 1990, Pratt et al. 1997, 

USGS unpubl. data), while the number 

of nesting attempts each year is 

strongly influenced by the availability 

of green māmane pods. Mean length 

of the egg-laying season is 113 ± 25.1 

days (range = 53–205; USGS unpubl. 

data). Nesting density varies with 

habitat composition, averaging 6 ± 2 

nests/100 hectares in māmanedominated forest, and 4 ± 1 nests/100 

hectares in mixed naio/māmane forest 

(USGS unpubl. data). Preferred nest 

sites are in forks near the ends of higher branches in medium to large māmane trees. Modal clutch 

size is 2 eggs (range 1 to 3). Eggs require 16 to 17 days to hatch, and nestlings fledge at 25 days 

(Pletschet and Kelley 1990). Palila may re-nest after failure, and some palila are able to 

successfully raise two broods during the same year. Palila are monogamous, but other adult males 

often help the pair by feeding the female and chicks (Pratt et al. 1997; Miller 1998). 

Primary Threats. Habitat loss and modification, avian disease, and predation by introduced 

mammals are thought to have caused the palila population to become endangered, and these 

factors continue to limit the palila population today (Scott et al. 1984, 1986; Jacobi et al. 1996, 

Pratt et al. 1997). Heavy browsing by feral sheep during the first decades of the 1900s effectively 

lowered tree line and reduced tree density in some areas on Mauna Kea (Bryan 1937, Scowcroft 

and Giffin 1983, Scott et al. 1984), and although the substantial populations of feral sheep were 

greatly reduced, ungulate browsing by feral sheep, goats, mouflon sheep (Ovis musimon), and 

browsing and rooting by feral pigs on Mauna Kea continues to negatively impact māmane trees 

and saplings and reduce habitat quality (USFWS 2005). Habitat modification by introduced 

nonnative plants and grasses and increased fire threat and introduced nonnative invertebrate 

species that eat native insects used as food by palila are also significant threats. 

Recovery Strategy: The recovery strategy for the palila is to better understand and optimize 

management of threats, provide habitat protection within the entire current range, restore habitat, 

and increase the species’ range by establishing additional viable populations on Mauna Kea and 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-54 

Mauna Loa. The tools available for this work are population research, predator control using 

broad-scale methods, fencing and ungulate control, and captive propagation and release and 

translocation to reintroduce palila into areas of former range. 

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-range recovery goals for palila, the 

following short-term goals should be accomplished first: 

• Prevent any habitat loss in the core palila population on the southwest slope of Mauna 

Kea, and restore māmane/naio forest in adjacent areas on Mauna Kea and on Mauna Loa 

to allow expansion of the core population. 

• Reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to the core population. 

• Establish a second population in a disjunct area on Mauna Kea to decrease the risk from 

catastrophes. 

If these objectives are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives should be 

identified that will continue to guide progress toward full recovery. If these objectives are not met 

within five years, then the causes for failure should be examined and rectified if possible. If it is 

not possible to correct the causes for failure and the current strategy is not considered effective, 

then a new strategy should be developed. 

Recovery Actions. In order to realize the interim recovery objectives described above, the 

following actions are necessary: 

• Protect Existing Habitat 

o Develop a comprehensive ungulate management plan for Mauna Kea including 

fencing and ungulate removal from palila critical habitat (DLNR/USFWS). 

o Continue/complete removal of feral ungulates from palila critical habitat on 

Mauna Kea (DLNR). 

o Fence and remove ungulates from māmane/naio forest (>6,000 acres) at Pu`u 

Lehua, North Kona (KS/USFWS). 

o Protect and restore māname/naio forest at Kanakaleonui on the east slope of 

Mauna Kea (DHHL/DLNR/USFWS). 

o Design and implement an effective fire-management plan for the Mauna 

Kea/Saddle Road area (USGS/DLNR/DOD) 

o Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and 

safety of diphacinone and importance of feral cat control 

(USGS/DLNR/USFWS). 

o Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone in at least 

one site and monitor population and individual-level responses. Possible sites 

include Pu`u Mali and Pu`u Lehua (KS/USFWS/DLNR) 

• Continue Research to Document Distribution, Threats, and Habitat Needs. 

o Continue basic research on palila biology and māmane/naio forest ecology 

(USGS). 

o Continue māmane phenology on Mauna Kea (USGS) and Pu`u Lehua area, 

North Kona (KS/USGS). 

• Restore New Habitat. 

o Begin long-term restoration and management at Pu`u Mali (>5,000 acres) on the 

north slope of Mauna Kea for palila habitat (USGS/USFWS/DOFAW/FHWA). 

• Continue to Develop Captive Propagation and Translocation Reintroduction Programs 

o Investigate best methods to re-establish wild palila populations by release of 

captive-raised birds and/or translocation (USGS/ZSSD). 

o Release captive bred or translocated birds into restored habitat. Continue 

releases of captive bred and translocated birds at Pu`u Mali and begin at least 

one additional release at Pu`u Lehua or Kanakaleonui if habitat is ready 

(USGS/ZSSD/USFWS/DLNR). 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-55 

References. 

Banko, P. C., S. C. Hess, L. Johnson, and S. J. Dougill. 1998. Palila population estimate for 

1997. `Elepaio 58:11-15. 

Gray, E. M., P. C. Banko, S. J. Dougill, D. Goltz, L. Johnson, M. E. Laut, J. D. Semones, and M. 

R. Wiley. 1999. 1998 Palila population census. `Elepaio 59:33-39. 

Hess, S. C., P. C. Banko, M. H. Reynolds, G. J. Brenner, L. P. Laniawe, and J. D. Jacobi. 2001. 

Drepanidine movements in relation to food availability in subalpine woodland on Mauna 

Kea, Hawai`i. Studies in Avian Biology 22:154-163. 

Jacobi, J. D., S. G. Fancy, J. G. Giffin, J. G. and J. M. Scott. 1996. Long-term population 

variability in the Palila, an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper. Pacific Science 50:363-

370. 

Jeffrey, J. J., S. G. Fancy, G. D. Lindsey, P. C. Banko, T. K. Pratt, and J. D. Jacobi. 1993. Sex 

and age identification of palila. Journal of Field Ornitholgoy 64:490-499. 

Miller, L. J. 1998. Behavioral ecology of juvenile Palila (Loxioides bailleui): foraging 

development, social dynamics, and Helping behavior. M.S. thesis, Univeristy of 

Maryland, College Park, MD. 

Munro, G. C. 1944. Birds of Hawaii. Tongg Publishing Company, Honolulu, HI. 

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1982a. Fossil birds from the Hawaiian Islands: evidence for 

wholesale extinction by man before Western contact. Science 217:633-645. 

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1982b. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of Hawaiian Islands. 

Smithsonian Contributions in Zoology No. 365. Washington, D.C. 

Perkins, R. C. L. 1903. Vertebrata. Pp. 365-466 in D. Sharp (editor). Fauna Hawaiiensis. Vol. 

1, part IV. The University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Pletschet, S. M. and J. F. Kelly. 1990. Breeding biology and nesting success of Palila. Condor 

92:1012-1021. 

Pratt, T. K., P. C. Banko, S. G. Fancy, G. D. Lindsey, and J. D. Jacobi. 1997. Status and 

management of the Palila, an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper, 1987-1996. Pacific 

Conservation Biology 3:330-340. 

Richards, L. P. and P. H. Baldwin. 1953. Recent records of some Hawaiian honeycreepers. 

Condor 55:221-222. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities 

of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Studies in Avian 

Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, C. van Riper, III, C. B. Kepler, J. D. Jacobi, T. A. Burr, and J. G. 

Giffin. 1984. Annual variation in the distribution, abundance, and habitat of the Palila 

(Loxioides bailleui). Auk 101:647-664. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

Region 1, Portland, OR. 502 pp. 

Van Riper, C., III. 1980. Observations on the breeding of the Palila (Psittirostra bailleui) on 

Hawaii. Ibis 122:462-475. 

For further information please contact: 

• Jay Nelson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 

Office (jay_nelson@fws.gov, 792-9400); 

• Scott Fretz of the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (scott@dofaw.net, 

587-4187); or 

• visit http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-56 

APPENDIX I. 

MAUI PARROTBILL FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by Maui Parrotbill Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, delisting 

criteria, recovery strategy, and a comprehensive list 

of recovery tasks for the Maui parrotbill are 

provided in the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Plan, 

which covers 21 species (USFWS 2005). The 

purpose of this five-year work plan is to identify 

interim recovery objectives for the Maui parrotbill 

that can be realized within five years, and to describe 

succinctly the actions needed to reach those interim 

objectives. Identification of interim recovery 

objectives will help ensure that initial conservation 

efforts by different agencies or groups are focused on the same ultimate goals, encourage efficient 

use of limited recovery resources, and provide milestones to track and evaluate progress toward 

recovery. Realization of these milestones will provide evidence of progress being made toward 

eventual recovery. Failure in realizing these milestones may indicate that additional resources are 

needed, or that the current recovery strategy is not effective. 

Species Summary. The Maui parrotbill is an insectivorous Hawaiian honeycreeper that uses its 

massive hooked bill to dig, tear, crack, crush, and chisel the bark and wood on a variety of native 

shrubs and small to medium-sized trees, especially `ākala (Rubus hawaiensis), kanawao 

(Broussaisia arguta), and `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha). Parrotbills also pluck and bite open 

fruit in search of insects, particularly kanawao. Especially preferred are larvae and pupae of 

various beetles and moths (Perkins 1903, Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. 1997). Maui 

parrotbills are socially monogamous, non-migratory, and defend year-round territories averaging 

2.3 hectares (5.7 acres) in size (Pratt et al. 2001). However, the Maui Forest Bird Recovery 

Project recently found at least 18 individuals in a 12 hectare area and have documented dispersal 

over 1.5 km, suggesting there may be more movement and variation in sociobiology than 

currently realized (MFBRP 

unpubl. data). Parrotbills 

frequently occur in family 

groups, due to the 

prolonged dependency of 

fledglings on their parents 

(Simon et al. 1997). 

The ecology of 

the Maui parrotbill has 

been little studied, but 

recently Lockwood et al.

(1994) and Simon et al.

(1997) investigated aspects 

of reproductive biology. 

The open cup nest is built 

by the female an average 

of 12 meters (40 feet) 

above the ground in a 

forked branch just inside 

the outer canopy foliage. 

Simon et al. (1997) 

Male Maui Parrotbill. Photo © Eric VanderWerf

Figure 1. Current distribution of Maui Parrotbill and key land 

Parcels on East Maui. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-57 

reported only single egg clutches, but there are reports of two-chick broods. Re-nesting occurs 

only after nest failures, and pairs will not raise more than one brood in a season. Development of 

the large bill and specialized feeding techniques proceed slowly, and fledgling dependency on 

parental care lasts 5 to 8 months. 

 Currently the Maui parrotbill is found only on Haleakalā Volcano in East Maui, in 50 

square kilometers (19 square miles) of wet montane forests from 1,200 to 2,350 meters elevation 

(4,000 to 7,700 feet; Scott et al. 1986, Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. 1997). The current 

range forms an arc from the Waikamoi Drainage west of Ko`olau gap to Haleakalā National Park 

lands in Kīpahulu Valley and the Manawainui Drainage (Figure 1). The current geographic range 

is much restricted compared to the known prehistoric range, which included dry leeward forests 

and low elevations (200 to 300 meters, 660 to 1,000 feet) on East Maui as well as Moloka`i, based 

on collections of subfossil bones (James and Olson 1991). Distribution and densities in the 

Waikamoi and Manawainui range edges are not well documented. 

The number of Maui parrotbills was estimated to be 500 ± 230 (95 percent CI) birds at an 

average density of 10 birds per square kilometer (0.39 square miles) in 1980 by the Hawai`i 

Forest Bird Survey (Scott et al. 1986). Repeat surveys of the same transects conducted in 1992 

(Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources 1995) and limited surveys conducted from 

1995 to 1997 by U.S. Geological Survey biologists indicated approximately the same densities of 

birds, but with perhaps some range constriction at lower elevations. 

A captive propagation program has successfully bred, hatched and reared Maui 

parrotbill, both from wild collected eggs and from pairs established in captivity, and anticipates 

producing enough offspring to provide the cohorts necessary for pilot releases (The Peregrine 

Fund and ZSSD 2000; Kuehler, et al. 2001; ZSSD 2002, 2003). 

Primary Threats. Maui parrotbill are restricted to higher elevation forests due to the presence of 

mosquito-borne diseases at lower elevations, and are restricted at upper elevations due to 

destruction of forest habitat. Within their present range, the factors that limit densities are not 

well known. Feral cats (Felis catus) and Barn Owls (Tyto alba) are known to prey on birds at 

Hanawī (Kowalsky et al. 2002), and black (Rattus rattus) and Polynesian (R. exulans) rats, both 

of which are serious predators on adults and nests of other Hawaiian forest birds, are abundant in 

parrotbill habitat (Malcolm et al. 2002), but direct evidence of predation on parrotbills is lacking 

and recent work suggests that predation rates may be low (Sparklin et al. in prep.) and that the 

population may be limited by food availability (Simon et al. 2000). Maui parrotbills were 

reported to strongly favor koa for foraging (Perkins 1903). Widespread habitat destruction from 

logging and ranching has greatly reduced parrotbill range, and has been particularly severe in 

more mesic areas that formerly supported high densities of koa. The current range is restricted to 

wet forest areas in which koa densities are relatively low. Habitat within the current range thus 

may be suboptimal compared to portions of the former range. Within its current range, habitat 

damage by feral pigs to the understory vegetation may be a significant factor contributing to 

reduced food availability, large territories, and low reproduction. Similar impacts in unoccupied 

potential habitat may make those areas unsuitable for reestablishment of parrotbill. Habitat 

degradation and marginal suitability may exacerbate the negative effects of severe weather events 

such as rainstorms, which are common in East Maui and have been linked to failure of parrotbill 

nests (Mountainspring 1987, Simon et al. 2000). 

Recovery Strategy. The recovery strategy for the Maui parrotbill is to better understand and 

optimize management of threats to population stability, to provide habitat protection within the 

entire current range, and to increase its range and establish a second viable population. The tools 

available for this work are population research, predator control using broad-scale methods, 

fencing and ungulate control, and captive propagation and reintroduction. 

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-range recovery goals for the Maui 

parrotbill the following short-term goals should be accomplished first. 

• Maintain Existing Stable Population. 

• Increase Distribution and Abundance of Existing Population. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-58 

• Begin habitat protection and restoration work to secure >1200 acres of koa forest 

habitat at Kahikinui (see map above). 

If these objectives are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives will be 

identified to continue to guide progress toward full recovery. If these objectives are not met 

within five years, then the causes for failure should be identified and rectified if possible. If it is 

not possible to correct the causes for failure and the current strategy is deemed ineffective, then a 

new strategy will be developed and new actions identified. 

Five-year Recovery Actions (2004-2008). In order to realize the interim recovery objectives 

described above, the following actions are necessary: 

• Protect Existing Habitat 

o Maintain existing fences in Hanawī NAR, Waikamoi, and Haleakalā National Park 

(NPS, USFWS, TNC, and DOFAW). 

o Complete fencing of lower Hanawī NAR (EMWP). 

o Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and 

safety of diphacinone (USFWS/DOFAW). 

o Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone in at least one 

site and monitor population and individual-level responses. Possible sites include 

Hanawī and Kīpahulu Valley. 

• Continue research to document distribution, ecology, threats, and habitat and management 

needs. 

o Complete long-term population trend analysis and habitat suitability modeling 

(Interagency Database Project, USFWS, NPS, DOFAW, and BRD). 

o Investigate movement patterns of adults and dispersal of juveniles through mistnetting, resighting, and radio tracking. 

o Document and publish response of Maui parrotbill distribution to habitat protection 

in Kīpahulu Valley. 

o Complete surveys in the Waikamoi and Manawainui areas 

(MFBRP/USFWS/DOFAW/NPS). 

o Carry out habitat use research in the Manawainui area (NPS). 

o Complete pilot nest predation study in Hanawī NAR (MFBRP/USFWS/DOFAW). 

• Restore New Habitat 

o Complete fencing and ungulate eradication of DOFAW Kahikinui parcel TMK# 

218001009 and portions of DHHL parcels TMKs 219001011, 219001007, and 

219001003 west of Kahikinui (see Fig. 1). Begin outplanting of koa and understory 

species in select areas. The community group LIFE holds a 20-year lease on the 

DHHL parcel and is currently fencing portions of the parcel for the purpose of 

restoration. Once restored, these parcels will together provide approximately 1200 

acres of protected koa forest habitat. DOFAW and USFWS are currently funding 

this work. 

o Support the formation of a Leeward Maui Watershed Partnership. 

• Develop a Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Program. 

o Continue captive propagation and optimization of methods. 

o Assess suitability of potential release sites in Waikamoi and Manawainui. 

o Conduct two years of experimental releases into suitable habitat to develop and 

optimize reintroduction methods. 

References. 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1995. State-wide Forest Bird Surveys. Unpubl. 

summaries. 

James, H. F. and S. L. Olson. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from the 

Hawaiian Islands. Part II. Passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 46:1-88. 

Kowalsky, J. R., T. K. Pratt, and J. C. Simon. 2002. Prey taken by cats (Felis catus) and Barn 

Owls (Tyto alba) in Hanawi Natural Area Reserve, Maui, Hawai`i. `Elepaio 62:127-131. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-59 

Kuehler, C., A. Lieberman, P. Harrity, M. Kuhn, J. Kuhn, B. McIlraith, and J. Turner. 2001. 

Restoration techniques for Hawaiian forest birds: collection of eggs, artificial incubation 

and hand-rearing of chicks, and release to the wild. Studies in Avian Biology 22:354-

358. 

Lockwood, J. L., J. E. Green, K. Wakelee, E. VanGelder, S. Ashe, and R. Aburomia. 1994. A 

description of Maui Parrotbill (Pseudonestor xanthophrys) nests and nesting behavior. 

`Elepaio 54:61-64. 

Malcolm, T. R., J. J. Groombridge, C. N. Brosius, and B. D. Sparklin. 2002. The effectiveness of 

ground-based rodenticide application in a remote cloud forest on Maui. Poster 

presentation, Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu. 

Mountainspring, S. 1987. Ecology, behavior, and conservation of the Maui Parrotbill. Condor 

89:24-39. 

Perkins, R. C. L. 1903. Vertebrata. Pp. 365-466 in D. Sharp (editor). Fauna Hawaiiensis. Vol. 

1, part IV. Cambridge University Press, UK. 

Pratt, T. K., J. C. Simon, B. P. Farm, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalski. 2001. Home range and 

territoriality of two Hawaiian honeycreepers, the Akohekohe and Maui Parrotbill. 

Condor 103:745-755. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities 

of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Studies in Avian 

Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

Simon, J. C., P. E. Baker, and H. Baker. 1997. Maui Parrotbill (Pseudonestor xanthophrys). In

The Birds of North America, No. 311 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Simon, J. C., T. K. Pratt, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 2000. Reproductive ecology of the 

Maui Parrotbill. Wilson Bulletin 112:482-490. 

Sparklin, B. D., T. R. Malcolm, C. N. Brosius, J. P. Vetter, S. Fretz, and E. VanderWerf. In prep. 

Effects of predator control measures and nesting substrate on nest predation, East Maui, 

Hawai`i. 

The Peregrine Fund and Zoological Society of San Diego. 2000. Hawai`i Endangered Bird 

Conservation Program. Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i. 

Cooperative Agreement No. 122001J001, Document No. 10120-3-0153, July 1, 1999 - 

September 30, 2000. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

Region 1, Portland, OR. 502 pp. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2002. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i. Cooperative Agreement 

No. 122001J001 (FWS), Contract #47865 (DLNR-DOFAW), October 1, 2001 – 

September 30, 2002. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2003. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. 

Report to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Hawai`i, Cooperative Agreement 

No. 122001J001 (FWS), Contract #47865 (DLNR-DOFAW). October 1, 2002 – 

September 30, 2003. 

For further information please contact: 

• Scott Fretz of the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (scott@dofaw.net, 

587-4187); 

• Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project (poouli@maui.net; 808 573-0280) 

• Eric VanderWerf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (eric_vanderwerf@fws.gov, 

792-9400); 

• visit http://www.mauiforestbird.org; or 

• visit http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-60 

APPENDIX J. 

`AKIAPŌLĀ`AU FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by Akiapōlā`au Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, delisting 

criteria, recovery strategy, and a comprehensive list of 

recovery tasks for `akiapōlā`au are provided in the Final 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds, 

which covers 21 species (USFWS 2005). The purpose 

of this five-year work plan is to identify interim 

recovery objectives for `akiapōlā`au, that can be 

realized within five years, and to succinctly describe the 

actions needed to reach those interim objectives. 

Identification of interim recovery objectives will help 

ensure that initial conservation efforts by different 

agencies or groups are focused on the same ultimate goals, encourage efficient use of limited 

recovery resources, and provide milestones to track and evaluate progress toward recovery. 

Realization of these milestones will provide evidence that progress is being made toward eventual 

recovery. Failure in realizing these milestones may indicate that additional effort and funding are 

needed, or that the current recovery strategy is not effective. 

Species Summary. The `akiapōlā`au is a specialized insectivorous Hawaiian honeycreeper that 

uses its unusual dimorphic bill as two tools deployed separately or together to extract insect larvae 

and spiders from crevices or insect borings (Pratt et al. 2001). Moth larvae are the most common 

food item in `akiapōlā`au fecal samples, followed by spiders and long-horned beetle larvae (Ralph 

and Fancy 1996). Lichen-covered and dead branches are preferred as foraging substrates. Tree 

species preferred for foraging include koa (Acacia koa), kōlea (Myrsine spp.), māmane (Sophora 

chrysophylla), and naio (Myoporum sandwicense), while `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) is not 

favored. This species also takes sap from small wells it drills in the bark of `ōhi`a trees. It is not 

clear how these sap trees are selected, and the prevalence of this behavior and the importance of 

this nutritional source are not known. `Akiapōlā`au often join mixed species foraging flocks. 

Home range size varies from approximately 5 to 40 hectares (12 to 100 acres). The factors that 

influence the range in 

territory size, and 

therefore population size, 

are unknown. Recently, 

`akiapōlā`au have been 

observed foraging and 

nesting in young koa 

plantations (L. Pejchar, 

unpubl. data), suggesting 

that this species may not 

be restricted to old 

growth as previously 

assumed. `Akiapōlā`au 

also inhabited wet 

montane forest dominated 

by `ōhi`a, with no koa. 

Some birds are still found 

in that habitat at middle 

elevations in Hāmākua. 

`Akiapōlā`au are found in 

Male `Akiapōlā`au. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf

Figure 1. `Akiapōlā`au Distribution and Recovery Area 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-61 

four disjunct populations inhabiting koa-dominated montane forests (Hāmākua south across the 

upper Waiākea kīpuka to Kūlani and Keauhou, in Ka`ū and Kapāpala, in southern Kona, and in 

central Kona; Figure 1). Until recently, a fifth population occupied subalpine dry forest on Mauna 

Kea. Originally these populations were all connected, but they have been isolated mainly because 

of loss of forest habitat due to the grazing. The current population estimate, based on surveys in 

1990 to 1995, is 1,163 birds, with a 90 percent confidence interval of 1,109 to 1,217 birds (Fancy 

et al. 1995).

Primary Threats. `Akiapōlā`au are apparently restricted to higher elevation forests due to the 

presence of mosquito-borne diseases at lower elevations (van Riper et al. 1986, Atkinson et al.

1995), and are restricted at upper elevations due to destruction and degradation of forest habitat 

(Scott et al. 1986). Habitat fragmentation may isolate the remaining populations, decrease the 

effective population size, and hinder recolonization of areas that were formerly inhabited. Within 

their present range, the factors that limit densities are not well known. Predation by introduced 

mammals and owls may play a role, but direct evidence for this is scarce. Recent surveys indicate 

rat densities are high at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, which contains a significant 

portion of the largest remaining `akiapōlā`au population (Lindsey et al. 1999). Juvenile 

`akiapōlā`au may be especially vulnerable to predators during the post-fledging period because 

their loud, persistent begging call makes them easy to locate. Predation may impact `akiapōlā`au 

more than other native birds because of their low reproductive rate (Ralph and Fancy 1996). 

Habitat degradation and food availability also may limit populations within their current range. 

Habitat within most of the current range of `akiapōlā`au has experienced significant degradation 

of canopy and understory structure. 

Recovery Strategy. The recovery strategy for the `akiapōlā`au is to better understand its habitat 

use and needs in order to optimize habitat and threat management, to provide habitat protection 

within the entire current range, and to increase its range. The tools available for this work are 

population research, predator control using broad-scale methods, fencing and ungulate control, 

and captive propagation and reintroduction. 

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-range recovery goals for `akiapōlā`au 

the following short-term goals should be accomplished first. 

• Maintain Stable Existing Populations 

• Increase Distribution and Abundance of Existing Populations 

• Establish New Population(s) 

If these actions are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives will be identified 

to guide progress toward full recovery. If these actions are not met within five years, then the 

causes for failure should be identified and rectified if possible. If it is not possible to correct the 

causes for failure and the current strategy is deemed ineffective, then a new strategy should be 

developed and new actions identified. 

Five-year Recovery Actions (2004-2008). In order to realize the interim recovery objectives 

described above, the following actions are necessary: 

• Protect Existing Habitat 

o Maintain existing fences and ungulate control in Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge, Keauhou, and Kapāpala. 

o Repair fences and maintain ungulate control at Pu`u Wa`awa`a (currently 

funded by USFWS and DOFAW). 

o Fence additional areas and remove ungulates in Waiākea kīpuka to Kūlani and 

Keauhou, Ka`ū and Kapāpala, and southern and central Kona. 

o Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and 

safety of diphacinone. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-62 

o Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone in at least 

one site and monitor population and individual-level responses. Possible sites 

include Hakalau, Keauhou, and Kapāpala. 

• Continue research to document distribution, threats, and habitat needs. 

o Complete habitat use research at Hakalau, Keauhou, and Kapāpala (currently 

funded by DOFAW and UC Santa Cruz) in old and new growth forests. 

o Begin comparative demography study in forests of different age and structure. 

o Begin food availability study in forests of different age and structure, drawing 

from results from comparative habitat use study. 

o Complete intensive surveys in the Kapāpala area (currently funded by DOFAW, 

USFWS, and BRD). 

o Carry out surveys in Pu`u Wa`awa`a and south and central Kona. 

o Complete long-term population trend analysis and habitat suitability modeling 

(currently funded by USFWS, NPS, DOFAW, and BRD) 

• Restore New Habitat 

o Continue reforestation of upper Hakalau and adjacent DHHL lands. 

o Continue reforestation of Kamehameha Schools lands in Keauhou. 

o Begin restoration at Pu`u Mali and Ka`ohe (currently funded by DOFAW and 

USFWS). 

• Develop a Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Program. 

o Begin captive propagation and optimization of methods. 

o Assess suitability and select release sites. 

o Conduct two years of experimental releases into suitable habitat to develop and 

optimize reintroduction methods. 

References. 

Atkinson, C. T., K. L. Woods, R. J. Dusek, L. S. Sileo, and W. M. Iko. 1995. Wildlife disease 

and conservation in Hawaii: Pathogenicity of avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) in 

experimentally infected Iiwi (Vestiaria coccinea). Parasitology 111:S59-S69. 

Fancy, S. G., S. A. Sandin, M. H. Reynolds, and J. D. Jacobi. 1995. Distribution and population 

status of the endangered `Akiapōlāa`u. Pacific Science 50:355-362. 

Lindsey, G. D., S. M. Mosher, S. G. Fancy, and T. D. Smucker. 1999. Population structure and 

movements of introduced rats in an Hawaiian reain forest. Pacific Conservation Biology 

5:94-102. 

Pratt, T. K., S. G. Fancy, and C. J. Ralph. 2001. `Akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi) and 

Nukupu`u (Hemignathus lucidus). In The Birds of North America, No. 600 (A. Poole 

and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Ralph, C. J. and S. G. Fancy. 1996. Aspects of the life history and foraging ecology of the 

endangered Akiapolaau. Condor 98:312-321. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities 

of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Studies in Avian 

Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

Region 1, Portland, OR. 502 pp. 

van Riper, C., III, S. G. van Riper, M. L. Goff, and M. Laird. 1986. The epizootiology and 

ecological significance of malaria in Hawaiian land birds. Ecological Monographs 56: 

327-344. 

For further information please contact: 

• Scott Fretz of the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (scott@dofaw.net, 

587-4187); 

• Thane Pratt of the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline 

(thane_pratt@usgs.gov, 808 967-7396; or 

• visit http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-63 

APPENDIX K. 

PO`OULI FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by Po`ouli Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, delisting 

criteria, recovery strategy, and a comprehensive list 

of recovery tasks for the po`ouli are provided in the 

Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest 

Birds (USFWS 2005), which covers 21 species. The 

purpose of this five-year work plan is to identify 

interim recovery objectives for the po`ouli, and to 

succinctly describe the actions needed in the next 

five years to reach those interim objectives. 

Identification of interim recovery objectives will 

help ensure that initial conservation efforts by 

different agencies or groups are focused on the same 

ultimate goals, encourage efficient use of limited recovery resources, and provide milestones to 

track and evaluate progress toward recovery. Realization of these milestones will measure 

progress being made toward eventual recovery. Failure in realizing these milestones may indicate 

that additional resources are needed, or that the current recovery strategy is not effective. 

Species Summary. The po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) is a critically endangered Hawaiian 

honeycreeper, and is perhaps the rarest bird in the world, with only three known individuals 

(Baker 2001). It is a stocky, medium-sized (26 g), bird with short wings, a short tail, stout legs, 

and a short straight bill, and is easily recognized by its gray crown, white cheek patch, and black 

“lone ranger” mask (Baker 1998). Remarkably, the po`ouli was apparently unknown to the 

Hawaiians and was first 

discovered in 1973 (Casey 

and Jacobi 1974). 

Morphological and genetic 

evidence indicates that the 

po`ouli forms a unique 

lineage within the Hawaiian 

honeycreepers, and it 

comprises its own monotypic 

genus (Fleischer et al. 2001). Only two nests of the po`ouli 

have ever been found, in 

March and April 1986, both 

from the same pair (Kepler et 

al. 1996). The second nest 

successfully fledged one of 

the two young, which spent 

21 days 

in the nest. The female alone 

incubated the eggs and 

brooded the chicks, but both 

parents fed the chicks. Both nests were an open cup composed of twigs and mosses and lined 

with thin fern rootlets (Engilis et al. 1996), and were hidden among the foliage 8 meters (26 feet) 

high in tall `ōhi`a trees (Kepler et al. 1996). Po`ouli forage by gleaning, probing, and excavating 

for small invertebrate prey in moss, lichen, and bark, primarily in the subcanopy and understory. 

They seem to prefer kanawao (Broussaisia arguta), kāwa`u (Ilex anomala), and `ōhi`a as foraging 

Po`ouli. Photo by Paul Baker, Maui Forest Bird 

Recovery Project. 

Figure 1. Location of Po`ouli home ranges in Hanawī NAR. Map 

by Bill Sparklin, Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-64 

substrates (Mountainspring et al. 1990, Pratt et al. 1997). Prey consist mainly of native snails, 

adult and larval beetles, and Lepidoptera larvae (Baldwin and Casey 1983, Mountainspring et al.

1990, Kepler et al. 1996). Po`ouli often associate with mixed-species foraging flocks of other 

insectivorous honeycreepers, especially Maui parrotbills (Pseudonestor xanthophrys) and Maui 

`alauahio (Paroreomyza montana). Po`ouli are unusually quiet, and their calls closely resemble 

parrotbills calls. Female po`ouli have been seen interacting with and even feeding juvenile 

parrotbills (T. Malcolm pers. obs.). 

 Historically, po`ouli have been confined to a 1,300 hectare (3,200 acre) area of wet 

montane forest on the northern and eastern slopes of Haleakalā (Mountainspring et al. 1990), but 

fossil evidence indicates po`ouli once inhabited drier forests at lower elevation on the leeward 

slope of Haleakalā (James and Olson 1991). The population was estimated at 140 ± 280 (Scott et 

al. 1986), but estimates of population size and density are imprecise because of the species’ low 

density and cryptic behavior. Numbers and range declined from 1976-1985 (Mountainspring et 

al. 1990), and surveys in 1994-1995 found six po`ouli at four locations, while surveys from 1997-

2000 located only three birds (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). No other po`ouli have been 

located since these three birds were color-banded in 1997 and 1998 (Hawai`i DLNR, unpubl. 

data). The last three birds, thought to consist of one male and two females, occur in separate, nonoverlapping home ranges between 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) and 1,950 meters (6,500 feet) 

elevation in Hanawī Natural Area Reserve (Figure 1). There are no known breeding pairs, and the 

last documented reproduction occurred in 1995 (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). Conservation 

efforts for the po`ouli have included creation of the 3,035 ha (7,500 acre) Hanawī Natural Area 

Reserve to provide additional protection for lands encompassing the known range; fencing of 800 

ha (2000 acres) in the upper portion of Hanawī by 1996 and removal of all ungulates by 1997 

(Bill Evanson, Maui DOFAW, pers. comm.); protection of adjacent forest through acquisition and 

protection of lands by the National Park Service and formation of the East Maui Watershed 

Partnership; and ground-based predator control in the home ranges of the three known birds 

(Malcolm et al. 2002). Ecological and life-history research was carried out under the direction of 

the USGS-Biological Resources Discipline during 1994-1996 (Baker 2001). 

Primary Threats. The range of the po`ouli coincides with high population densities of other 

honeycreeper species, a distribution believed to be delimited by suitable habitat and diseasebearing mosquitoes prevalent at elevations below 1,500 meters (5,000 feet; Scott et al. 1986). 

Po`ouli are associated with low levels of disturbance to soil and vegetation by feral pigs, and 

habitat damage by feral pigs is thought to be an important cause of the decline in po`ouli numbers 

(Mountainspring et al. 1990). Other threats have not been directly linked to the po`ouli, but both 

black and Polynesian rats are abundant in po`ouli habitat (Malcolm et al. 2002), and these animals 

are known to prey on adults and nests of other Hawaiian forest birds and also on native land 

snails, which are an important food for the po`ouli (Baldwin and Casey 1983). 

Recovery Strategy. Alternative strategies for recovery of the po`ouli were outlined previously in 

an Environmental Assessment (USFWS and Hawai`i DLNR 1999). Based on that EA and 

subsequent public comments, it was decided that the best strategy was continued habitat 

management, including predator control, in conjunction with translocation of a female into the 

home range of the last male, in hopes that they would form a breeding pair and nest. That 

translocation was successfully carried out in April of 2002, but the translocated female 

subsequently returned to her own home range after one day (Groombridge et al. 2002, 2003). 

Although no breeding pair was created by the translocation, the female showed signs of potential 

positive acclimation to captivity, reacting passively to its holding cage and readily consuming 

food items including a native Succinea snail and several waxworms (Groombridge et al. 2002, 

2003). 

 With a known population of only three birds, the last documented breeding of po`ouli in 

1995, and no known breeding pairs, the most urgent aspect of the recovery strategy for the po`ouli 

must be to facilitate pair formation and reproduction among the three known individuals 

(VanderWerf et al. 2003). The various recovery strategies for achieving this goal were revisited 

in June of 2002 by the Po`ouli Recovery Working Group, which consists of representatives from 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-65 

the USFWS, Hawai`i DOFAW, Hawai`i NARS, Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team, the 

Zoological Society of San Diego, the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project, and the University of 

Hawai`i. It was not possible to arrive at a strategy that was unanimously supported, but two 

options had broad support; capture of all three birds and removal to captivity, and capture of all 

three birds and placement in a field aviary. These strategies may be equally viable and both were 

considered to have advantages and disadvantages, but in November 2002 the USFWS and Hawaii 

DOFAW decided that removal to captivity was preferable because that option could be 

implemented more quickly, which is important due to the advanced ages of the birds and their 

unknown lifespan, and provided greater ability to ensure the safety of the birds from severe 

weather, predators, and vandals (VanderWerf et al. 2003). The ZSSD agreed subsequently with 

reservations to undertake care and attempt captive propagation of the po`ouli at the Maui Bird 

Conservation Center (ZSSD 2002). A series of trips from February-April 2003 failed to catch any 

of the three known birds for removal to captivity. Another series of trips is scheduled for 

October-December 2003. 

The ultimate goal of recovery efforts is to release offspring of the remaining birds back 

into the wild and restore a self-sustaining wild population. It is therefore extremely important that 

the species’ habitat continue to be protected and managed to ensure that reintroduction to the wild 

remains an option. Although much of the suitable habitat on east Maui has been surveyed for 

po`ouli (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001), it is difficult to say with certainty that no more than three 

birds exist due to the rugged terrain and cryptic nature of the species. Continued habitat 

protection and management also may benefit any wild po`ouli that have not been located and are 

not part of captive propagation efforts. The scale of management should be increased through 

actions such as additional fencing, ungulate control, and aerial broadcast of diphacinone to control 

rats. Surveys for additional wild po`ouli should be undertaken in order to provide more options 

for recovery. 

 In the event of a death of a po`ouli, various tissues should be collected for cell culture 

and possible future cloning, and immediately sent to both the Zoological Society of San Diego 

Center for the Reproduction of Endangered Species and the Audubon Nature Institute Center for 

Research on Endangered Species. 

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-range recovery goals for the po`ouli, 

the following short-term goals should be accomplished first. 

• Facilitate production of at least one young po`ouli. 

• Conduct large-scale rodent control at Hanawī NAR by aerial broadcast of 

diphacinone. 

• Complete fencing of lower Hanawī NAR and adjacent areas. 

• Locate any additional wild po`ouli through additional surveys. 

If these objectives are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives will be 

identified to continue to guide progress toward full recovery. If these objectives are not met 

within five years, then the causes for failure should be identified and rectified if possible. If it is 

not possible to correct the causes for failure and the current strategy is deemed ineffective, then a 

new strategy will be developed and new actions identified. 

Five-year Recovery Actions (2004-2008). In order to realize the interim recovery objectives 

described above, the following actions are necessary: 

• Facilitate production of at least one young po`ouli. 

o Safely capture remaining birds and transport them to MBCC. 

o Acclimate birds to captivity and get them to eat supplemental food. 

o Use captive breeding techniques to facilitate pair formation and breeding. 

o If reproduction does not occur in captivity after 30 months, consider moving 

birds to an outdoor aviary in a more natural setting. Possible sites include 

Waikamoi and Hanawī. 

• Protect and Manage Existing Habitat. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-66 

o Maintain existing fences in Hanawī NAR, Waikamoi, and Haleakalā National 

Park (currently funded by NPS, USFWS, TNC, and DLNR). 

o Complete fencing of lower Hanawī NAR and adjacent areas (in progress by 

EMWP). 

o Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and 

safety of diphacinone. 

o Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone in Hanawī

and monitor population and individual-level responses of the avian community. 

• Conduct surveys to locate additional wild po`ouli. Areas to survey include Hanawī, 

Haleakalā National Park, and State Forest Reserves. 

• Collect indeterminate germ cells from all three birds to establish cell cultures for use 

in possible future cloning. 

References. 

Baker, P. E. 1998. A description of the first live Poouli captured. Wilson Bulletin 110:307-310. 

Baker, P. E. 2001. Status and distribution of the Po`ouli in the Hanawī Natural Area Reserve 

between December 1995 and June 1997. Studies in Avian Biology 22:144-150. 

Baldwin, P. H. and T. L. C. Casey. 1983. A preliminary list of foods of the Po`o-uli. `Elepaio 

43:53-56. 

Casey, T. L. C. and J. D. Jacobi. 1974. A new genus and species of bird from the Island of Maui, 

Hawaii (Passeriformes: Drepanididae). Occasional Papers of the Bernice P. Bishop 

Museum 24:216-226. 

Engilis, A., Jr., T. K. Pratt, C. B. Kepler, A. M. Ecton, and K. M. Fluetsch. 1996. Description of 

adults, eggshells, nestling, fledgling, and nest of Po`ouli. Wilson Bulletin 108:607-619. 

Fleischer, R. C., C. L. Tarr, H. F. James, B. Slikas, and C. E. McIntosh. 2001. Phylogenetic 

placement of the Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, based on mitochondrial DNA 

sequence and osteological characters. Studies in Avian Biology 22:98-103. 

Groombridge, J. J., J. C. Bruch, M. M. Okada, T. R. Malcolm, C. N. Brosius, and B. D. Sparklin. 

2002. Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project Quarterly Report, April 2002. 

Groombridge, J. J., J. G. Massey, J. C. Bruch, T. Malcolm, C. N. Brosius, M. M. Okada, B. 

Sparklin, J. S. Fretz, and E. A. VanderWerf. 2004. An attempt to recover the Po`ouli by 

translocation and an appraisal of recovery strategy for bird species of extreme rarity. 

Biological Conservation 118:365-375. 

James, H. F. and S. L. Olson. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from the 

Hawaiian Islands. Part II. Passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 46:1-88. 

Kepler, C. B., T. K. Pratt, A. M. Ecton, A. Engilis, Jr., and K. M. Fluetsch. 1996. Nesting 

behavior of the Poo-uli. Wilson Bulletin 108:620-638. 

Malcolm, T. R., J. J. Groombridge, C. N. Brosius, and B. D. Sparklin. 2002. The effectiveness of 

ground-based rodenticide application in a remote cloud forest on Maui. Poster 

presentation, Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu. 

Mountainspring, S., T. L. C. Casey, C. B. Kepler, and J. M. Scott. 1990. Ecology, behavior, and 

conservation of the Poo-uli (Melamprosops phaeosoma). Wilson Bulletin 102:109-122. 

Pratt, T. K., C. B. Kepler, and T. L. C. Casey. 1997. Po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma). In 

The Birds of North America, No. 272 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Reynolds, M. H. and T. J. Snetsinger. 2001. The Hawai`i Rare Bird Search 1994--1996. Studies 

in Avian Biology 22:133-143. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities 

of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Studies in Avian 

Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

Region 1, Portland, OR. 502 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 1999. 

Environmental Assessment: Proposed Management Actions to Save the Po`ouli, 

Melamprosops phaeosoma. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i DLNR. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-67 

VanderWerf, E. A., T. Malcolm, J. S. Fretz, J. G. Massey, A. Lieberman, J. J. Groombridge, B. 

Sparklin, M. M. Okada, and C. N. Brosius. 2003. Update on recovery efforts for the 

Po`ouli. `Elepaio 63:25-30. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2002. Letter from ZSSD Executive Director Douglas Myers to 

Paul Henson and Michael Buck, September 25, 2002. 

For further information please contact: 

• Kirsty Swinnerton of the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project (poouli@maui.net, 808 

573-0280); 

• Scott Fretz of the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (scott@dofaw.net, 

808 587-4187); 

• Eric VanderWerf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office (eric_vanderwerf@fws.gov, 808 792-9400); or 

• Visit http://www.mauiforestbird.org 

• Visit http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-68 

Adult `Ākohekohe. Photo © Eric 

VanderWerf

APPENDIX L. 

`ĀKOHEKOHE FIVE-YEAR RECOVERY WORK PLAN 

Prepared by `Ākohekohe Working Group and Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team 

Purpose. The long-term recovery goals, delisting 

criteria, recovery strategy, and a comprehensive list of 

recovery tasks for the `Ākohekohe are provided in the 

Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Plan, which covers 21 

species (USFWS 2004). The purpose of this five-year 

work plan is to identify interim recovery objectives for 

the `Ākohekohe, and to succinctly describe the actions 

needed in the next five years to reach those interim 

objectives. Identification of interim recovery objectives 

and actions will help ensure that initial conservation 

efforts by different agencies or groups are focused on 

the same ultimate goals, facilitate efficient use of 

limited recovery resources, and provide milestones that 

can be used to track and evaluate progress toward recovery. Realization of these milestones will 

provide evidence of progress toward eventual recovery. Failure in realizing these milestones may 

indicate that additional resources are needed, or that the current recovery strategy is not effective. 

Species Summary. The `Ākohekohe, or crested honeycreeper (Palmeria dolei), is a primarily 

nectarivorous Hawaiian honeycreeper that also feeds on caterpillars (Lepidoptera), spiders, and 

other arthropods (Perkins 1903, Carothers 1986, Berlin and VanGelder 1999). Nectar is primarily 

sought from flowers of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha), but also from several subcanopy tree 

and shrub species (Berlin and VanGelder 1999, Berlin et al. 2001). Insects are taken mostly by 

gleaning `ōhi`a foliage, buds, and flower clusters (Berlin and VanGelder 1999). 

`Ākohekohe are highly aggressive and dominate resources over other nectarivorous birds 

(Carothers 1986). 

 `Ākohekohe defend relatively discrete feeding and nesting territories throughout the year 

by chasing and calling (VanGelder and Smith 2001, Pratt et al. 2001). The species appears to be 

monogamous for more than one breeding season, with pair formation starting in October, nesting 

occurring mainly between November and May, and some pairs raising two to three successful 

broods in a season (VanGelder and Smith 2001). They begin breeding by their second year 

(Simon et. al. 2001). `Ākohekohe nests were an average of 14 meters (46 feet) above ground in 

the terminal ends of branches below the canopy foliage of `ōhi`a trees (Berlin and VanGelder 

1999, VanGelder and Smith 2001). The open cup nest is built by the female, who lays one to two 

eggs. Incubation by the female lasts 17 days, and the chicks fledge after 3 to 4 weeks. Chicks can 

forage independently after 10 to 14 days, or longer when the chicks are from the last brood of the 

season (Berlin and VanGelder 1999). Independent juveniles flock in small groups and disperse to 

the edge of the species' range (Scott et al. 1986). Weather appears to be the most important factor 

in nest success, which is thus highly variable from year to year (36 - 87 percent success rate) 

(Simon et. al. 2001, VanGelder and Smith 2001). Vocalizations of the `Ākohekohe include 

various guttural clucking gurgles, raspy croaks, buzzing sounds, and clear upslurred whistles 

(Perkins 1903, VanGelder 1996, Berlin and VanGelder 1999). 

 `Ākohekohe currently are found only in 58 square kilometers (22 square miles) of wet 

and mesic montane forest dominated by `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) on the northeastern 

slope of Haleakalā Volcano in east Maui. Their elevational range has been reported to be 1,100 to 

2,300 meters elevation (3,600 and 7,550 feet), but nearly all birds occur from 1,500 to 2,100 

meters (5,000 to 6,600 feet), with some nonbreeding birds wandering further down slope (Conant 

1981, Scott et al. 1986, Hawai’i Division of Forestry and Wildlife unpubl. data). `Ākohekohe 

occur from just west of the Waikamoi Drainage in the Nature Conservancy's Waikamoi Preserve 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-69 

east through the Ko`olau and Hāna Forest Reserves and around to Haleakalā National Park lands 

in Kīpahulu Valley and southeast of Kuiki to Manawainui Valley. The current geographic range 

is much restricted compared to the known historical range, which also included native wet forests 

of the island of Moloka`i (Perkins 1903, Banko 1987). On Moloka`I the species was not known 

to have survived later than 1907, and was found at 1,200 meters (4,000 feet) on the high forested 

plateau between Wailau and Pelekunu valleys (Bryan 1908). On Maui, the species was first 

collected in the 1890's on the western slopes of Kula in mesic koa (Acacia koa)/`ōhi`a forest, but 

by 1920 it was already absent due to deforestation caused by logging and cattle-ranching. 

`Ākohekohe now inhabit only 5 percent of the estimated historical range of 1,015 square 

kilometers (385 square miles) on Maui and none of the 262 square kilometers (100 square miles) 

on Moloka`i Island (Scott et al. 1986). Fossil bones found in caves at low elevation on the 

southwestern slopes of Haleakalā suggest the species once inhabited very different dry forest 

habitat at much lower elevations (James and Olson 1991). 

 The total number of `ākohekohe was estimated to be 3,800 ± 700 (95 percent confidence 

interval) birds in 1980 by the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey (Scott et al. 1986). Surveys of the same 

transects in 1992 (Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources 1995) and limited surveys 

1995 to 1997 by U.S. Geological Survey biologists indicated approximately the same densities of 

birds within the same range. `Ākohekohe adults show high site tenacity, which may be expected 

from a behaviorally dominant nectivore (Pratt et. al. 2001). In addition, adult survivorship in 

Hanawi over a three year period was high (95%; Simon et .al. 2001). 

Primary Threats. `Ākohekohe are restricted to higher elevation forests due to the presence of 

mosquito-borne diseases at lower elevations, and are restricted at upper elevations in some areas 

by destruction of forest habitat. `Ākohekohe may be particularly vulnerable to mosquito-borne 

diseases because they migrate altitudinally in response to varying `ohi`a flowering phenology, 

potentially increasing their exposure to mosquitoes at lower elevations. Avian malaria was 

recently isolated from an `ākohekohe in Hanawī Natural Area Reserve (Feldman et al. 1995). 

Laboratory challenge experiments have shown that the `i`iwi (Vestiaria coccinea), which is 

closely related to the `ākohekohe but is more common and has a wider distribution, is extremely 

vulnerable to avian malaria, with 90 percent of experimental birds dying after being bitten by 

infected mosquitoes (Atkinson et al. 1995). Black and Polynesian rats are serious predators on 

adults and nests of Hawaiian forest birds and are abundant in `Ākohekohe habitat (Sugihara 1997, 

Malcolm et al. 2002), and Simon et al. (2001) found rat predation on an `Ākohekohe adult and 

egg, as evidenced by rat droppings and bird remains in the nest. The remains of an `Ākohekohe 

were found in a Barn Owl pellet from Hanawi, and feral cat scats also contained remains of other 

native forest birds (Kowalsky et al. 2002). Damage by feral pigs to understory vegetation may 

deplete nectar resources needed during times of year when `ōhi`a bloom is less available. 

Conservation Efforts. Conservation efforts for the `Ākohekohe have included creation of the 

3,035 ha (7,500 acre) Hanawi Natural Area Reserve in 1986; fencing of 800 ha (2000 acres) in the 

upper portion of Hanawi by 1996 and removal of all ungulates by 1997 (Bill Evanson, Maui 

DOFAW, pers. comm.); protection of adjacent forest through acquisition and management of 

lands by the National Park Service and formation of the East Maui Watershed Partnership (DLNR 

1996). Ecological and life history research has been conducted since 1992 (Simon et al. 1998, 

2001; Berlin et al. 2001; Pratt et al. 2001; VanGelder and Smith 2001). 

Recovery Strategy. The recovery strategy for the 'Ākohekohe is to protect habitat within the 

entire current range, increase the amount of suitable habitat and establish a second viable 

population, and to better understand threats to the species in order to optimize management 

methods. The tools available for this work are fencing and ungulate control, predator control 

using broad-scale methods, population research, and translocations. Captive propagation and 

reintroduction are also an option, but initial attempts at getting birds to breed in captivity were 

unsuccessful due to the aggressive nature of this species (ZSSD 2001). 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-70 

Interim Recovery Objectives. In order to meet the long-range recovery goals for the 

'Ākohekohe the following short-term goals should be accomplished first. 

• Maintain the existing population, which appears to be stable. 

• Increase the size and distribution of the existing population, particularly in leeward 

east Maui. 

• Determine habitat suitability and disease status of West Maui and Molokai for 

establishment of a second population. 

If these objectives are met within five years, then new interim recovery objectives will be 

identified to continue to guide progress toward full recovery. If these objectives are not met 

within five years, then the causes for failure should be identified and rectified if possible. If it is 

not possible to correct the causes for failure and the current strategy is deemed ineffective, then a 

new strategy will be developed and new actions identified. 

Five-year Recovery Actions (2003-2007). In order to realize the interim recovery objectives 

described above, the following actions are needed. 

• Protect Existing Habitat. 

o Maintain existing fences in Hanawi NAR, Waikamoi, and Haleakalā National 

Park (NPS, FWS, TNC, and DOFAW). 

o Complete fencing of lower Hanawi NAR (EMWP). 

o Begin public outreach about importance and benefits of controlling rodents and 

safety of diphacinone (FWS/DOFAW). 

o Conduct large-scale rodent control by aerial broadcast of diphacinone in at least 

one site and monitor population and individual-level responses. Possible sites 

include Hanawi and Kipahulu. 

• Continue research to document distribution, threats, and management needs. 

o Complete population trend and distribution analysis and habitat suitability 

modeling (Interagency Database Project, BRD, FWS, NPS, DOFAW). 

o Document distribution in the Waikamoi and Manawainui areas (MFBRP, FWS, 

DOFAW, NPS). 

o Further document effects of ungulate removal and predator control on 

demography in Hanawi NAR (MFBRP, FWS, DOFAW). 

o Investigate disease prevalence and dispersal and altitudinal migration as a 

mechanism of exposure to mosquito borne disease. 

• Investigate/Improve Habitat Suitability in West Maui, leeward East Maui and 

Moloka`i. 

o Follow-up on `I`iwi translocation to West Maui if possible, including survival 

and dispersal. 

o Continue fencing and removal of ungulates from potentially suitable habitat on 

West Maui, leeward East Maui, and Moloka`i (TNCH, Maui Land and Pine, 

Hawaii DLNR, NPS). 

o Monitor mosquito abundance, disease prevalence, and `ohi`a flowering 

phenology to determine readiness for translocation. 

o Support the formation of a Leeward Maui Watershed Partnership and local 

habitat restoration efforts. 

References. 

Atkinson, C.T., K. L. Woods, R. J. Dusek, L. S. Sileo, and W. M. Iko. 1995. Wildlife disease and 

conservation in Hawaii: pathogenicity of avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) in 

experimentally infected `I`iwi (Vestiaria coccinea). Parasitology 111:S59-S69 

Banko, W. E. 1987. History of the endemic Hawaiian birds. Part 1. Population histories-species 

accounts. Avian History Report 11a. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 
 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds 7-71 

Berlin, K. E., J. C. Simon, T. K. Pratt, J. R. Kowalsky, and J. S. Hatfield. 2001. `Ākohekohe 

response to flower availability: seasonal abundance, foraging, breeding, and molt. 

Studies in Avian Biology 22:202-212. 

Berlin, K. E. and E. M. VanGelder. 1999. `Ākohekohe (Palmeria dolei). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 400 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Bryan, W. A. 1908. Some birds of Molokai. Occasional Papers Bernice P. Bishop Museum 4:133-

176. 

Carothers, J. H. 1986. Behavioral and ecological correlates of interference competition among 

some Hawaiian Drepanidinae. Auk 103:564-573 

Conant , S. 1981. Recent observations of endangered birds in Hawaii's national parks. `Elepaio 

41:55-61. 

Feldman, R. A., L. A. Freed, and R. L. Cann. 1995. A PCR test for avian malaria in Hawaiian 

birds. Molecular Ecology 4:663-673 

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 1995. State-wide Forest Bird Surveys. Unpubl. 

summaries. 

James, H. F. and S. L. Olson. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from the 

Hawaiian Islands. Part II. Passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 46:1-88. 

Kowalsky, J. R., T. K. Pratt, and J. C. Simon. 2002. Prey taken by cats (Felis catus) and Barn 

Owls (Tyto alba) in Hanawi Natural Area Reserve, Maui, Hawai`i. `Elepaio 62:127-131. 

Malcolm, T. R., J. J. Groombridge, C. N. Brosius, and B. D. Sparklin. 2002. The effectiveness of 

ground-based rodenticide application in a remote cloud forest on Maui. Poster 

presentation, Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu. 

Perkins, R. C. L. 1903. Vertebrata. Pp. 365-466 in D. Sharp (editor). Fauna Hawaiiensis. Vol. 

1, part IV. Cambridge University Press, UK. 

Pratt, T. K., J. C. Simon, B. P. Farm, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 2001. Home range and 

territoriality of two Hawaiian honeycreepers, the `Ākohekohe and Maui Parrotbill. 

Condor 103:745-755. 

Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey, and C. B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird communities 

of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. Studies in Avian 

Biology 9:1-431. Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

Simon, J. C., T. K. Pratt, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 1998. Age and sex identification of 

Akohekohe. Journal of Field Ornithology 69:654-660. 

Simon, J. C., T. K. Pratt, K. E. Berlin, and J. R. Kowalsky. 2001. Reproductive ecology and 

demography of the `Akohekohe. Condor 103:736-745. 

Sugihara, R. T. 1997. Abundance and diets of rats in two native Hawaiian forests. Pacific Science 

51:189-198. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Final Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

VanGelder, E. M., and T. B. Smith. 2001. Breeding characteristics of the `Ākohekohe on east 

Maui. Studies in Avian Biology 22:194-201. 

Zoological Society of San Diego. 2001. Hawai`i Endangered Bird Conservation Program. 

Annual Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

For further information please contact: 

• Scott Fretz of the Hawai`i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (scott@dofaw.net, 

587-4187); 

• Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project (poouli@maui.net, 808 573-0280) 

• Eric VanderWerf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 

Office (eric_vanderwerf@fws.gov, 792-9400); or 

• visit http://www.dofaw.net/fbrp/projects.php. 

• visit http://mauiforestbird.org.