DRAFT REVISED RECOVERY PLAN 

FOR 

HAWAIIAN FOREST BIRDS

August 2003 

Original plans completed: 

February 3, 1983 (Hawaii Forest Birds) 

July 29, 1983 (Kauai Forest Birds) 

May 30, 1984 (Maui-Molokai Forest Birds) 

June 27, 1986 (Palila) 

Region 1 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Portland, Oregon 

Approved: _____________________________________________ 

 Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date: _____________________________________________ 
ii 

Dedication 

To the naturalists and scientists of Hawai`i 

who have contributed to our understanding 

 of the biology and ecology of Hawaiian forest birds. 
iii 

GUIDE TO RECOVERY PLAN ORGANIZATION 

 This recovery plan provides individual species accounts and actions 

needed Statewide for 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 are needed throughout all recovery habitat 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 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 information on 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 recovery habitat on each of the main Hawaiian Islands 

where they occur, criteria used to delineate the recovery habitat 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 Action 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 Hawaii by Pukui et al. (1976). 
iv 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S MISSION IN RECOVERY 

PLANNING 

 Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (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 (Service) and the NOAA 

Fisheries have been delegated the responsibility of administering the 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. 
v 

DISCLAIMER 

 Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are determined to be 

necessary for 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 the draft and 

final version of 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. 2003. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for 

Hawaiian Forest Birds. Region 1, Portland, OR. 428 pp. 

This plan may be viewed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 website: 

 http://www.r1.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/default.htm 
vi 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 The recovery planning process for Hawaiian forest birds has benefited 

from the collaboration, advice, and assistance of many individuals over the past 

several years. We thank Rick Camp and Marcos Gorreson for producing maps of 

recovery habitat and species distributions and updated status reports on Hawaiian 

forest birds; and Thomas Smith, former member of the Hawaiian Forest Bird 

Recovery Team, who helped write an earlier draft of the Rare Bird Discovery 

Protocol and participated in early discussions of recovery criteria. We also thank 

the following people for their assistance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ecological Services staff italicized), and apologize to anyone who was omitted 

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

Groombridge, Paul Henson, Christina Hermann, Scott Johnston, Carl Jones, 

David Ledig, Greg Massey, Mark Metevier, Patrick Morris, Cathleen Natividad, 

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

Schuler, Tom Snetsinger, Valerie Stein, 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; Kamehameha Schools; the University of Hawai`i; U.S. 

Army Garrison, Pōhakuloa Training Area; the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division and Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit; The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai`i; the Secretariat for Conservation Biology; the Zoological 

Society of San Diego; and The Peregrine Fund. 

Authors: 

Carter T. Atkinson1

, Tonnie L. C. Casey2, Paul J. Conry3, 

Fern P. Duvall4, Steven G. Fancy5, J. Scott Fretz3, Leonard A. Freed6, 

Jon G. Giffin7

, James D. Jacobi1, John J. Jeffrey8, Alan Lieberman9, 

Jay T. Nelson10, Thane K. Pratt1, J. Michael Scott11, Thomas Telfer12, 

Eric A. VanderWerf10, Bethany L. Woodworth1, and Marilet A. Zablan10. 

Other Contributors: 

Paul C. Banko1 (Palila species account)

Rick Camp1

 (draft monitoring recovery action narrative and species distribution 

maps) 

Marcos Gorreson1 (draft recovery habitat and species distribution maps) 

Cyndi M. Kuehler9 (draft captive propagation recovery action narrative and Table 13, 

captive propagation program strategies and priorities for facilities use and recovery) 

Thomas Smith13 (draft rare bird search protocol) 
vii 

1

 U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Pacific Islands 

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

Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718 

2

 Kamehameha Schools, 68-7831 Ali`i Drive, Suite 232, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 

3

 Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife, P.O. Box 4849, 1151 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 

4

Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife, 54 South High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793 

5

 National Park Service, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 

80525 

6

 Department of Zoology, University of Hawai`i, 2538 The Mall, Edmondson 

152, Honolulu, HI 96822 

7

 Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife, 19 East Kāwili Street, Hilo, HI 96720 

8

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, 32 

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

9

 Zoological Society of San Diego, Hawaiian Endangered Bird Conservation 

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

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 

Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850 

11 Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, College of Forestry, 

Wildlife and Range Science Research, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843 

12 Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife, 3060 Eiwa Street, Room 306, Līhu`e, HI 96766 

13 Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway 

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 
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 

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

observed reliably in more than 10 years and may be extinct, including the Maui 

nuku pu`u (Hemignathus lucidus affinis); Kaua`i nuku pu`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 with only three individuals known to exist despite intensive surveys. 

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) to 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 probably is extinct. The 

candidate species, the `akikiki or Kaua`i creeper (Oreomystis bairdi), has an 

estimated population of 2,000 to 3,000 individuals. 

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 

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

`alauahio or O`ahu creeper. The `io or Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) and the 
ix 

`alalā or Hawaiian crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) also are federally listed Hawaiian 

forest birds. The `Io has its own recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1984b). A revised recovery plan for the `alalā is in preparation. 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 benefit the `alalā and `io, which utilize many of the 

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

this plan. 

Five Primary Threats to Species Recovery: We consider five major 

threats to a taxon in order to list, delist, or reclassify the taxon. These are: A) 

Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; 

B) Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; C) Disease or predation; D) Inadequacies of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and E) Other natural or man-made factors affecting the continued 

existence of a species. Recovery actions in this recovery plan address these 

threats in order to achieve recovery objectives. 

 

The principle threats to Hawaiian forest birds are habitat loss and 

degradation by agriculture, urbanization, grazing by cattle, browsing by 

introduced ungulate species, timber harvest, predation by alien rodents and feral 

cats, and diseases carried by alien mosquitoes. Additional threats include the 

expansion of invasive nonnative plant species into native dominated plant 

communities and the resulting conversion of native ecosystems to alien plant 

communities. The majority of recovery actions therefore address threats to 

habitat (threat A) and disease and predation (threat C). The direct over-utilization 

of Hawaiian forest birds for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (threat B) currently is not a significant threat. The `akikiki, a candidate 

species for listing, is not on the Federal list of threatened and endangered species, 

but is threatened by inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms (threat D). 

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 man-made factors 

such as hurricanes and wildfires (threat E). Population monitoring and research 

do not fit into the above threat categories per se, but they are essential for 

recovery in order to evaluate population trends, determine the nature and 

importance of threats, and to measure population responses to management 

actions. 
x 

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 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. 

2. 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 intrinsic growth rate 

(lambda) 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 recovery habitat is protected and managed to achieve criteria 1 

and 2 above. 

4. The mix of 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 Habitat: To better address the recovery needs of endangered 

Hawaiian forest birds, recovery habitat areas have been established to emphasize 

where recovery efforts should be focused. Recovery habitat in this plan is defined 

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

endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Recovery habitat is the result of a biological 

evaluation of habitat potentially important for the recovery of Hawaiian forest 

birds and conveys no legal obligation on the part of any non-Federal entity to 

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

bird recovery. The foremost concern, in identifying recovery habitat for the great 

majority of endangered Hawaiian forest birds, is existing habitat and restorable 

habitat at upper elevations, because the cooler temperatures at these elevations are 

less suitable for both the introduced mosquito vector and the malarial parasite that 

causes avian malaria. Recovery habitat in most cases contains existing 

endangered forest bird populations, as well as habitat areas from which these 

species have disappeared in the recent past, but which likely still provide or could 

provide the conditions and resources necessary to support populations of 

endangered forest bird species. The elevational boundaries of recovery habitat 

were based on the need to include areas that lie above the mosquito zone and 

within elevations that can be expected to support suitable forest habitat. An effort 

was made to incorporate the naturally occurring habitat heterogeneity that can 

shape local adaptation and genetic variability 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, and actions such as ungulate, predator, and 

disease control. In some instances sufficient habitat for recovery is still available; 

however, in many cases habitat restoration is needed to recover degraded areas 

and provide sufficient suitable habitat for species recovery. Management 

emphasis may differ among species, because taxa are affected differently and to 

varying degrees by different limiting factors. However, key to management in 

many cases will be the control of feral ungulates that degrade forest habitat, 

promote the spread of introduced plant species, and create breeding sites for 

disease-carrying mosquitoes; control of introduced rodents and feral cats; control 

of invasive plant species; and reductions in the number of mosquito breeding 

sites. Habitat management and restoration will encourage the expansion of 

current populations into unoccupied habitat; however, the establishment of new 

populations using various translocation and/or captive propagation techniques 

will be needed in some cases to accelerate population expansion and to establish 

new populations in suitable habitat. 

Monitoring and Research Program: Monitoring is fundamental to an 

evaluation of population status, for the development and evaluation of the 

effectiveness of management actions, and the reclassification of a taxon. 

Systematic surveys of all recovery habitat at least once every 5 years, with more 

frequent monitoring in core areas, will be required to determine changes in 

distribution and population size of native and non-native forest birds. Systematic 
xii 

searches that target the most rare species will be required to determine the status 

of forest birds that have not been sighted in recent years. Because of unique 

properties of populations (e.g., low dispersal, source/sink relations, and social 

habitat selection), research on habitat carrying capacity, limiting factors, and 

general species biology must occur in conjunction with management actions. 

Recovery Planning for Hawaiian Forest Birds: The Hawaiian Forest 

Bird Recovery Team wrote the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest 

Birds during two periods of intensive work from 1994 to 1996 and 2000 to 2002. 

The Team’s goal was to revise existing single island recovery plans for each of 

the main Hawaiian Islands and to bring these together into a single 

comprehensive multi-island recovery plan for Hawaiian forest birds. In addition, 

the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds includes two listed 

species, the O`ahu `elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis) and O`ahu creeper 

(Paroreomyza maculata), 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 island teams 

within the Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery Team met more frequently to work on 

sections of the recovery plan pertaining to each island. Team members with 

expertise on a species or a particular topic, such as captive propagation and 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 the 

contributions of individual team members. The Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery 

Team is composed of State biologists from the Hawai`i Department of Forestry 

and Wildlife biologists; biologists from Federal agencies including the National 

Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; avian captive propagation specialists; university 

specialists; 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 some individuals not on the team for drafting 

the recovery habitat and species distribution maps and answering certain 

questions regarding individual species biology and recovery needs. 

Implementation Participants: Forest bird habitat in Hawai`i includes 

Federal, State, and private landholdings. Although we have the statutory 

responsibility for implementing this recovery plan, and only Federal agencies are 

mandated to take part in the effort, recovery cannot 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 
xiii 

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 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. 

Date of Recovery: Because 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, the 

date of recovery will be dependent on the effectiveness of management strategies 

in controlling limiting factors and on the response of species populations. Habitat 

areas that are badly degraded will take decades, in some instances, to recover. 

Not all habitat restoration can begin immediately. Some species with larger 

current populations and wider distribution may be recovered in 30 years. Other 

species will first need the substantial recovery of some habitat areas. We estimate 

that, on average, we can expect all species in this plan that have current 

populations of greater than 300 individuals to be recovered in 50 years. An 

estimated recovery date for all species in this category (with the exception of the 

Po`ouli and species that have not been seen in recent years) is the year 2,052. 

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery: Total estimated cost of recovery is 

$3,627,340,000 over the 50 years it will take to recover the above species. This 

figure may be substantially reduced with the development of more effective 

methods to address threats, specifically in the areas of predator and feral ungulate 

control. 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. 
xiv 

The total above is broken down by priority number as follows: 

 

Priority 1 actions: $1,186,110,000 

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

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

Priority 2 actions: $1,548,570,000 

 

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: $892,667,000 

All other actions necessary to meet recovery objectives. 
xv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

II. SPECIES ACCOUNTS 

 1. O`ahu `elepaio, Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis........................................................15 

 2. Kāma`o (large Kaua`i thrush), Myadestes myadestinus ...............................................28 

 3. Oloma`o (Moloka`i thrush), Myadestes lanaiensis rutha.............................................33 

 4. Puaiohi (small Kaua`i thrush), Myadestes palmeri.......................................................36 

 5. Kaua`i `ō`ō, Moho braccatus........................................................................................46 

 6. `Ō`ū, Psittirostra psittacea ...........................................................................................49 

 7. Palila, Loxioides bailleui...............................................................................................52 

 8. Maui parrotbill, Pseudonestor xanthophrys..................................................................67 

 9. Kaua`i `akialoa, Hemignathus procerus.......................................................................74 

 10. Kaua`i nuku pu`u, Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe....................................................75 

 11. Maui nuku pu`u, Hemignathus lucidus affinis............................................................77 

 12. `Akiapōlā`au, Hemignathus munroi ..........................................................................79 

 13. Hawai`i creeper, Oreomystis manna...........................................................................87 

 14. O`ahu `alauahio (O`ahu creeper), Paroreomyza maculata.........................................93 

 15. Kākāwahie (Moloka`i creeper), Paroreomyza flammea.............................................96 

 16. Hawai`i `ākepa, Loxops coccineus coccineus.............................................................97 

 17. Maui `ākepa, Loxops coccineus ochraceus...............................................................104 

 18. `Ākohekohe (crested honeycreeper), Palmeria dolei ...............................................107 

 19. Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma..........................................................................110 

 20. `Akikiki (Kaua`i creeper), Oreomystis bairdi (Candidate Sp.) ................................115 

 21. Bishop's `ō`ō, Moho bishopi (Sp. of Concern) .........................................................122 

III. RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Objectives ..................................................................................................138 

B. Recovery Criteria .......................................................................................................138 

C. Recovery Habitat 

 1. General Guidelines for Establishing Recovery Habitat Boundaries..................141 

 2. Hawai`i Recovery Habitat .................................................................................143 

 3. Maui Nui Recovery Habitat...............................................................................145 

 4. O`ahu Recovery Habitat ....................................................................................147 

 5. Kaua`i Recovery Habitat ...................................................................................147 

 D. Rare Bird Discovery Protocol 

 1. Background and Justification.............................................................................149 

 2. Target Species....................................................................................................150 

 3. Protocol..............................................................................................................150
xvi 

IV. RECOVERY ACTION NARRATIVE 

 1. Protect Ecosystems for Recovery of Native Forest Birds...........................................153 

2. Manage Forest Ecosystems for the Benefit and Recovery of Native 

Forest Birds.................................................................................................168 

3. Develop Captive Propagation and Related Recovery Strategies................................217 

4. Conduct Research as Needed......................................................................................226 

5. Monitor Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Forest Birds .......................242 

6. Public Awareness and Information.............................................................................244 

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE................................................................................256 

VI. REFERENCES 

 A. References Cited ........................................................................................................378 

 B. Personal Communications..........................................................................................402 

VII. APPENDICES 

A. Land Parcels in Recovery Habitat and Recovery Actions by Parcel.........................404 

B. Captive Propagation Program Strategies ...................................................................420 

C. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Priority Guidelines .........................427 

D. Listing Priority System ..............................................................................................428 
xvii 

TABLES 

Table 1. Federally listed endangered species of Hawaiian forest birds and The 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature species status 

listing (IUCN 1994)....................................................................................................5 

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

plan..............................................................................................................................6 

Table 3. Gazetteer of place names used in this plan, which are identified in 

Figures 2-5 ..................................................................................................................7 

Table 4. Estimated size and area of O`ahu `elepaio populations............................................20 

Table 5. Recovery habitat units and potential O`ahu `elepaio populations............................26 

Table 6. Species-specific recovery criteria for federally listed Hawaiian forest 

birds ........................................................................................................................140 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery habitat in need of protection....................................................156 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery habitat where reforestation is needed......................................168 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery habitat where fencing and ungulate control are 

needed .....................................................................................................................176 

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

habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands......................................................................190 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery habitat where predator control is needed ................................192 

Table 12. Areas where mosquito surveys are needed .............................................................206 

Table 13. Captive propagation program strategies and priorities for facilities 

use ...........................................................................................................................219 

Table 14. Research needs and priorities, by species...............................................................239 

Table 15. Areas of recovery habitat requiring avian monitoring surveys more 

frequently than every 5 years..................................................................................243 

Table 16. Sites where scenic overlooks and interpretive displays are needed .......................245 

Table 17. Sites where new trails with interpretive displays should be developed 

or where existing trails need enhancement with interpretive displays ...................246 

Table 18. Sites where increased access and interpretation are needed...................................248 

Table 19. Sites where visitor centers, displays, and interpretive programs are 

needed .....................................................................................................................249 

Table 20. Implementation schedule for recovery of Hawaiian forest birds............................262 
xviii 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. The Main Hawaiian Islands and Major Cities ..........................................................10 

Figure 2. Locations of land parcels on the island of Hawai`i that are referred to 

in this recovery plan (see Gazetteer of place names in Table 3) .............................11 

Figure 3. Locations of land parcels on the islands of Maui and Moloka`i that 

are referred to in this recovery plan (see Gazetteer of place names in 

Table 3).....................................................................................................................12

Figure 4. Locations of land parcels on the island of O`ahu that are referred to 

in this recovery plan (see Gazetteer of place names in Table 3) ..............................13 

Figure 5. Locations of land parcels on the island of Kaua`i that are referred to 

in this recovery plan (see Gazetteer of place names in Table 3) ..............................14

Figure 6. Population trends of palila ........................................................................................56 

Figure 7. `Ō`ū distribution ....................................................................................................124 

Figure 8. Palila distribution and recovery habitat ..................................................................125

Figure 9. `Akiapōlā`au distribution and recovery habitat ......................................................126 

Figure 10. Hawai`i creeper distribution and recovery habitat..................................................127 

Figure 11. Hawai`i `ākepa distribution and recovery habitat...................................................128 

Figure 12. `Ākohekohe distribution and recovery habitat........................................................129 

Figure 13. Maui parrotbill distribution and recovery habitat ..................................................130 

Figure 14. Po`ouli, Maui nuku pu`u, and Maui `ākepa distribution ........................................131 

Figure 15. Bishop’s `ō`ō, `oloma`o, and kākāwahie distribution.............................................132 

Figure 16. O`ahu `alauahio distribution ...................................................................................133 

Figure 17. O`ahu `elepaio distribution and recovery habitat ...................................................134 

Figure 18. `Akikiki distribution and recovery habitat..............................................................135 

Figure 19. Kaua`i `akialoa, Kaua`i nuku pu`u, Kaua`i `ō`ō, and kāma`o 

distribution..............................................................................................................136 

Figure 20. Puaiohi distribution and recovery habitat ...............................................................137 

 

 
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

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

massive operation in terms of number of species and diversity of threats. Over 

two-thirds of the remaining forest birds are listed, 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 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 of the introduced plant species have the potential to permanently 

alter ecosystems in which endangered birds exist. 

 This recovery plan includes species from four families of birds, with the 

majority being Hawaiian honeycreepers (subfamily Drepanidinae, family 

Fringillidae). Evolutionary biologists consider these birds the premier 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. 

The number of listed 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. Other forest birds covered in this plan include a monarch 

flycatcher (Monarchidae), two honeyeaters (Meliphagidae), and three solitaires or 

thrushes (Turdinae). 

 

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 Drepanids. Divergence of populations on 

different Hawaiian Islands reflects a similar process of colonization, isolation, 

time, and selection. Thus, 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 are local: the species have evolved in relation to 

each other and to the resources available in Hawaiian forests (Freed 1999). Many 
2 

Hawaiian forest birds have unique and often-spectacular morphological and 

behavioral specializations for obtaining food that are the outcome of resource 

partitioning shaped by past interspecific competition. Moreover, the specialized 

nature of many species makes them vulnerable to habitat alteration and has 

resulted in lower population density in degraded forest, and also limits their 

ability to respond adaptively to novel resources available in introduced forests. 

Timber harvesting and browsing by introduced cattle, goats, and sheep has 

degraded many native forests, and rooting by feral pigs has destroyed the 

understory in some areas. 

 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 silvestris), and the small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus) have severely impacted populations of native forest 

birds (Atkinson 1977, Scott et al. 1986, VanderWerf and Smith in press). An 

adaptive response by Hawaiian birds to the novel selection pressure of 

mammalian predators cannot be expected because of the limited time of exposure 

and high predation rate. No social insects existed in Hawai`i, but western yellowjacket 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 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 mosquitotransmitted diseases (Warner1968, van Riper et al. 1986, Scott et al. 1986, 

Atkinson et al. 1995). Most remaining populations of endangered birds are found 

at higher elevations, where the cooler temperatures limit development of both the 

mosquito and the avian malarial parasite during its development in the mosquito 

(van Riper et al. 1986, LaPointe 2000). Global warming could move transmission 

of pox and malaria to higher elevations, threatening remaining populations of 

endangered birds. 

 This recovery plan addresses some of the most difficult recovery efforts. 

Several of the covered species are so rare that they have not been sighted for 

years. One species, the po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma), has only three 

known individuals. Another species, the O`ahu `elepaio (Chasiempis 

sandwichensis ibidis), exists entirely within the range of introduced mosquitoes 

and pathogens (VanderWerf et al. 2001). The remaining species are restricted to 

upper elevations, frequently in degraded habitat (Scott et al. 1986). 
3 

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 to update records from the 1976 to 

1981 Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

Habitat loss from ranching and logging has been addressed 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). 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, and from much of the 

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

1985, Katahira et al. 1993). 

 

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, subspecies, or distinct population segment. 

However, studies on the O`ahu `elepaio demonstrate that rat control can result in 

significant increases in reproductive success and survival of adult females 

(VanderWerf 2001c, VanderWerf and Smith in press). Increases in the number of 

`akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi) have been documented on Kamehameha 

Schools land above Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park after control efforts for rats 

and cats were implemented (T. Casey 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 lacking. There currently are no efforts to 

control competing species within recovery habitat 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 
4 

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

Atkinson and D. LaPointe, 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 

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 

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

`akiapōlā`au and native Cerambycid beetles after only 25 years (T. Casey pers. 

comm.). This bodes well for the value of the koa reforestation efforts at Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge to endangered forest birds. 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 (Oreomystis 

mana), Hawai`i `ākepa (Loxops coccineus coccineus), and other non-endangered 

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), and 

has been particularly effective in the dry māmane forests on Mauna Kea, home to 

the endangered 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 are tools by 

which this might be accomplished. Artificial nesting boxes have proven effective 

in attracting cavity-nesting endangered birds, which have successfully fledged 

young from them. Use of these techniques to increase quality of younger forests 

for Hawai`i `ākepa, as well as to replace natural cavities lost by tree-fall in oldgrowth forest, appear to be a viable management option (Freed 2001). 

The captive propagation of Hawaiian forest birds has made significant 

progress over the past 17 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, eight species have now bred in captivity: Hawai`i 

`amakihi (Kuehler et al. 1996), `i`iwi, `ōma`o, `apapane (P. Luscumb, pers. 

comm.), puaiohi, Hawai`i creeper, palila, and Maui parrotbill (Kuehler et al.

2001). In the puaiohi, a founder flock of 15 birds from wild eggs has produced 

over 60 chicks in captivity. Forty-three puaiohi have been released in the Alaka`i 

Wilderness Reserve over 4 years beginning in 1999. Several of the birds released 

to the wild have reproduced successfully (Tweed et al. 1999, Kuehler et al. 2000). 

Restoration and management of forest bird habitat will continue to be used in 
5 

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. Plans have been initiated to release palila at Pu`u Mali on the northern 

side of Mauna Kea, and several areas on Maui are being considered for releases 

of 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 

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

property owners and increased public support for endangered species recovery. 

Table 1. Federally listed endangered species of Hawaiian forest birds included in this recovery 

plan and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature species status listing (IUCN 

1994). Guidelines for determining Recovery Priority Number are in Appendix C. 

Table 1 

Species (common name, 

scientific name, 4-letter 

acronym) 

Total 

Population 

Estimate 

Federal Listing Date and 

Reference; State Listing 

Date 

Federal Status; 

Recovery Priority 

Number 

IUCN Status 

Listing 

O`ahu `elepaio, Chasiempis 

sandwichensis ibidis, OAEL 

1,970 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 

28 Apr 1987 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1980); 22 March 

1982 

Endangered; 

4 

Extinct 

`Ō`ū, Psittirostra psittacea, 

OU 

Last detected 

in 1979 

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 nuku pu`u, 

Hemignathus lucidus 

Last confirmed 

detection in 

11 March 1967 (USFWS 

1967, 1970, 1980); 22 

Endangered; 

5 

Critically 

Endangered 
6 

Table 1 

Species (common name, 

scientific name, 4-letter 

acronym) 

Total 

Population 

Estimate 

Federal Listing Date and 

Reference; State Listing 

Date 

Federal Status; 

Recovery Priority 

Number 

IUCN Status 

Listing 

Hanapepe, KANU 1960s March 1982 

Maui nuku pu`u, 

Hemignathus lucidus affinis, 

MANU 

Last detected 

in 1979 

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 

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 

3 25 September 1975 

(USFWS 1975, 1992); 22 

March 1982 

Endangered; 

4 

Critically 

Endangered 

Table 2. Candidate species and species of concern included in this recovery plan. Guidelines 

for determining Listing Priority Number are in Appendix D. 

Table 2 

Species (as above) Total Population 

Estimate 

Conservation Status, 

including State 

Listing 

USFWS 

Listing 

Priority 

Number 

IUCN Status 

Listing 

Kaua`i creeper, Oreomystis bairdi, 

KACR 

2,000-3,000, current 

estimate pending 

Candidate species 

(USFWS 1999a) 

5 Endangered 

Bishop's `ō`ō, Moho bishopi, 

BIOO Last detected in 1904 Species of concern N/A Endangered 
7 

Table 3. Gazetteer of place names used in this plan and identified in Figures 2-5. 

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 

Kahaualea 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 

West Maui Mountains MA 12 

Hālawa MO 1 

Kalaupapa National Historic Park MO 2 

Kamakou Preserve MO 3 
8 

Table 3 

Place Name Island Number on Map 

`Ō`hialele 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`ulu 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 

Pahole 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 

Halemanu Steam K 4 

Halepa`akai Stream K 5 

Kawaikōī Stream K 6 

Koai`e Stream K 7 
9 

Table 3 

Place Name Island Number on Map 

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 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

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 (1997). Distribution and recovery habitat for these species are shown in 

Figures 7-20 at the end of all the species accounts, and are ordered by Hawaiian 

Island. This recovery plan includes all listed and candidate species of passerine 

birds occurring in the main Hawaiian Islands except the `alalā or Hawaiian Crow 

(Corvus hawaiiensis), whose conservation is guided by a different recovery team 

(National Research Council 1992). The purpose of these accounts is not to be a 

complete reference for each species, 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 species of 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. Therefore the priority placed on each 

component of the recovery strategy varies among species. The species accounts 

build on and refine the overall recovery strategy discussed in the Introduction 

(Section I), explain and justify the recovery criteria in Section III, and the 

recovery actions and priorities presented in the Recovery Action 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. For most species, maps 

showing the historical and current distribution and recovery habitat appear 

together following the accounts. 

1. O`ahu `Elepaio, Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

Description. The O`ahu `elepaio is a small (12.5 grams (.4 ounces) 

average weight, 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) total body length) monarch flycatcher 

(Monarchidae; VanderWerf 1998b). It is dark brown above and white below, 

with light brown streaks on the breast. The tail is long (6.5 cm, 2.6 inches) and 

often cocked up at an angle. Adults have conspicuous white wing bars, a white 

rump, and white tips on the tail feathers that are often displayed prominently. 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 (areas between the eye and 

bill) are white and the auricular (ear patch) is often black. 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 
16 

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 and the soles are cream-colored. The iris is dark brown. Rictal bristles are 

present at the base of the bill and average 9 to 11 millimeters (0.35 to 0.43 inches) 

in length. 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 

of the island, and response by birds varies to playbacks of different local dialects, 

indicating they recognize songs from different areas (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 wing-bars. Juvenile 

`elepaio can be confused with juvenile `Apapane (Himatione sanguinea), which 

are similar in size and overall color and also may cock the tail up, but have a 

curved black bill and lack contrasting wing-bars and tail tips. 

 

Taxonomy. The `elepaio comprises a monotypic genus of the monarch 

flycatcher family (Monarchidae) that is endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago 

(American Ornithologists Union 1997). The closest relatives of the `elepaio are 

other monarch flycatchers from the Pacific region, but generic relationships 

within the family are not well known (Boles 1979, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990). 

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.

(1997) and Pyle (1997), 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. 
17 

LIFE HISTORY 

Demography and Reproduction. `Elepaio are non-migratory and defend 

all-purpose territories year-round (Conant 1977, VanderWerf 1998a). The 

average territory size on O`ahu was 2.0 hectares (4.9 acres) in forest composed of 

introduced plants species (Conant 1977), but territory size likely varies with 

vegetation structure (VanderWerf 1998a). O`ahu `elepaio are socially 

monogamous, and approximately 63 percent of pairs remain together between 

years (E. VanderWerf unpubl. data). Site fidelity is high, with 96 percent of 

males and 67 percent of females remaining on the same territory between years. 

Young birds are subordinate and act as floaters while they attempt to acquire a 

territory and a mate. Annual survival of adults is high (approximately 80 percent) 

in the absence of disease and nest predation (VanderWerf and Smith in press). 

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, freestanding cup made of rootlets, bark strips, leaf skeletons, lichen, and 

spider silk, and is placed in a fork or on top of a branch (Conant 1977, 

VanderWerf 1998b). Nests have been found in a variety of plants, including 6 

native species and 13 introduced species (E. VanderWerf unpubl. data). Both 

sexes participate almost equally 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. Clutch size is usually 2, sometimes 1 or 3, 

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 removed the mean number of fledglings per pair is 0.75 per 

year (VanderWerf and Smith in press; 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, probably in 

association with climatic factors that affect populations of nest predators and 

disease-carrying mosquitoes. These annual variations appear to be unpredictable 

in nature and are thus not cyclic, but the average interval of occurrence of both 

rodent irruptions and disease episodes may be approximately 5 years. 

Demographic monitoring from 1996 to 2001 revealed that there was one year 

(1996) with high disease prevalence and one year (1999) with high rodent 

abundance and nest predation (E. VanderWerf unpubl data). Conditions that 
18 

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 pāpala kēpau (Pisonia umbellifera), lama 

(Diospyros sandwicensis), 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 1998b). Nest site 

selection by O`ahu `elepaio is non-specialized; nests have been found in 7 native 

and 13 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 sp.) 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-`Çhi`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 current range is dominated 
19 

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 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. 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 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. 

 

Current Range and Status. 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). 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 it 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 declined by roughly 75 percent in the last 25 

years. 

 

The total current population of O`ahu `elepaio is approximately 1,970 

birds that are distributed in 6 relatively large populations and several small 

population remnants (Table 4, Figure 17 (p. 135); 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 
20 

Table 4. Estimated size and area of O`ahu `elepaio populations. Data from 

VanderWerf et al. (2001). 

 

Table 4 

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 

P. Waianu Valley 1 0 8 

TOTAL 1,982 1,774 5,663 
21 

populations in each mountain range. Although the central Ko`olau population 

covers the largest area (Table 4), `elepaio are sparsely distributed in 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 and 

Ko`olau mountains (Table 4), 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. 

 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 (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 (.621 miles) (VanderWerf 

1998a), but most `elepaio populations on O`ahu are separated by many kilometers 

of unsuitable urban or agricultural habitat. There may be some 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). The genetic population structure is 

unknown. 

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 practically no `elepaio remain in 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 forest habitat 

currently are unoccupied, demonstrating that habitat loss is not the only threat. 

`Elepaio were observed regularly into the 1970’s or early 1980’s at Poamoho, 

Schofield-Waikāne, Mānana, Waimano, and other areas (Figure 17; Shallenberger 

1977, Shallenberger and Vaughn 1978), but `elepaio have disappeared from all 

these areas even though the forest is still 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 

two main factors reducing these parameters on O`ahu are nest predation by alien 

black rats (Rattus rattus) and introduced diseases, particularly avian pox 
22 

(Poxvirus avium), which is carried by the introduced southern house mosquito 

(Culex quinquefasciatus). Each of these threats is known to reduce both nesting 

success and adult survival. 

 Annual survival of birds with active avian pox lesions (60 percent) was 

lower than annual survival of healthy birds (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 (Plasmodium relictum) 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 investigated. 

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 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 a 112 percent increase in reproduction 

and a 66 percent increase in survival of adult females compared to control areas 

(VanderWerf and Smith in press). Both sexes of `elepaio incubate the eggs and 

brood the nestlings, but only females incubate at night, making them more 

vulnerable to predation by nocturnal predators like rats (VanderWerf and Smith in 

press). 

 

 The relative threat posed by disease and nest predation can be determined 

by calculating the finite rate of population growth, or lambda, under different 

conditions (calculated as lambda = 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 in press). 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 ± 0.15, 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 0.93. If disease could 

be eliminated and rats were removed, lambda might be as high as 1.11, which 

would allow the population to double in only 7 years. Removal of rats or disease 

alone may prevent further decline of O`ahu `elepaio, but may not be enough to 

allow rapid recovery of `elepaio populations. 

 

 Other Natural and Man-made Factors. The remaining `elepaio 

subpopulations are small and isolated, comprising 6 core subpopulations that 

contain between 100 and 500 birds, and numerous small remnant subpopulations, 

most of which contain fewer than 10 birds (Table 4). Even if the threats 

responsible for their decline were controlled, the existing subpopulations would 
23 

be unlikely to persist because their small sizes and restricted distributions make 

them vulnerable to extinction due 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 

as hurricanes (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 tree-snake (Boiga irregularis) from the Mariana 

Islands. O`ahu `elepaio at U.S. Army Schofield Barracks are not affected by 

noise from military training (VanderWerf et al. 2000), but fires ignited by 

military training activities have reduced the amount of suitable habitat for 

`elepaio and continue to threaten areas designated as critical habitat. 

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), but `elepaio currently 

are not found on the refuge. 

Conservation efforts for the O`ahu `elepaio thus far have included surveys 

to determine the current distribution and abundance (VanderWerf et al. 1997, 

2001), demographic monitoring to assess population status and identify threats 

(VanderWerf 1999), and removal of introduced predators (VanderWerf and Smith 

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 less 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 

reproductive success and survival of adult females, and ground-based rat control 

using snap traps and diphacinone bait stations has been conducted by the Hawai`i 

State Division of Forestry and Wildlife in the Honolulu Forest Reserve since 

1997, by the U.S. Army Environmental Division at Schofield Barracks West 

Range and Mākua Military Reservation since 1998, by The Nature Conservancy 

of Hawai`i at Honouliuli Preserve since 2000, and by the U.S. Navy and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, in Lualualei Valley beginning in 

2002. Blood samples have been collected from over 150 individuals for use in 
24 

disease screening, determination of genetic population structure, and to assist in 

identification of disease-resistant populations or individuals. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

 

There are several important components to the recovery strategy for the 

O`ahu `elepaio, including: identification of recovery habitat 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, they probably have lost less genetic diversity 

than smaller populations, and they 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. In addition to the extensive loss of habitat described in Current Threats, 

forest habitat supporting `elepaio also is threatened by fires resulting from human 

activities, such as military training at U.S. Army Schofield Barracks. 

 

Recovery Habitat. `Elepaio are adaptable and able to forage and nest in a 

variety of forest types composed of both native and introduced species (Conant 

1977, VanderWerf 1993, 1994, 1998a). 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 continious canopy and dense understory (VanderWerf et al.

1997). 

 

The remaining O`ahu `elepaio populations are small and isolated; even if 

the threats responsible for their decline were controlled, the existing 

subpopulations would be unlikely to persist because their small sizes and 
25 

restricted distributions make them vulnerable to extinction. `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 1998b). 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. The recovery habitat therefore includes areas that currently are 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 miles) in search of a territory (VanderWerf 1998b). Because the areas 

currently occupied by `elepaio are separated by many kilometers (Figure 17, p. 

137) and `elepaio are unlikely to disperse long distances, the existing populations 

probably are isolated (VanderWerf et al. 2001). Maintaining or restoring links 

among subpopulations 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, enlargement of small 

subpopulations by expansion onto adjacent lands not only would increase the 

chances of their long-term survival, but also would improve connectivity among 

populations by enhancing their value as “stepping stones” within the entire 

distribution. Recovery habitat therefore includes 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 habitat can be expected to support approximately 10,000 `elepaio (Table 

5; VanderWerf et al. 2001). 
26 

Table 5. Recovery habitat areas and potential O`ahu `elepaio populations. 

Table 5 

Recovery habitat area 

Area in 

hectares 

(acres) 

`Elepaio density in 

currently occupied parts of 

unit (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 Units 26,661 

(65,879) 

0.37 10,028 

 

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 in press). 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 

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. Aerial broadcast of 

some currently used 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 therefore will 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 (Warner 1968), and all populations of 

O`ahu `elepaio appear to be affected by disease (E. VanderWerf unpubl. data). 

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.), and the best 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.
27 

 

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 range-wide 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 habitat management. Demographic monitoring will 

require mist netting, banding, and resighting of birds to measure survival rate, 

nest searching to measure reproductive success, and data analysis. Measurement 

of demographic parameters should follow methods used in VanderWerf (1999) 

and VanderWerf and Smith (in press). Depending on what demographic data is 

available, calculation of lambda values should follow (in order of increasing 

information required) Pulliam (1988), Pease and Grzybowski (1995), Caswell 

(1989), or another biologically valid method. 

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, 

probably due to epizootics of disease and variation in predator (rodent) 

populations (VanderWerf 1999). 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. Because the number of O`ahu `elepaio remaining 

in the wild is relatively large, recovery may be achieved more cost-effectively 

through habitat management, and captive propagation and release of O`ahu 

`elepaio is not necessary for recovery at this time. However, captive propagation 

and/or rear and release of O`ahu `elepaio may become necessary 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 strongly 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 
28 

Society of San Diego 2000, 2001). Captive management has yet to produce a 

successful captive breeding or a release of `elepaio from captive-bred animals. 

2. Kāma`o, Myadestes myadestinus

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

Early descriptions of the kāma`o were made by Stejneger in 1887 from 

specimens provided to the Smithsonian Institution by Valdemar Knudsen in 

the 1880’s (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) solitaire, 

gray-brown above, tinged with olive especially on the back, and light gray 

below with a whitish belly and under tail coverts. The legs are dark graybrown and relatively short, but the ventral surface of the toes are 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 flute-like, and is often given just before dawn and after dusk. A scolding 

or hissing "police whistle" alarm note also has 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 heaviest periods of 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 eggs with irregular reddishbrown 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 elaborate song from treetops. 

The kāma`o seems to spend less time on the ground than does the smaller 

puaiohi. 
29 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

In the past half century the kāma`o has not been seen below 1,100 

meters (3,500 feet) elevation. 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. In more 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.), 

probably are associated with good kāma`o habitat. The `ie`ie vines highly 

favored by the kāma`o still exist in some areas of the island, but not in the 

higher elevations to which the birds may be currently restricted. That plant 

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 now is 

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 1960’s. At this time it remained only in the uppermost 

regions of the Alaka`i in very sparse numbers. From 1968 to 1973, Sincock et 

al. (1984) 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 19, p. 137). In the summer of 1985, 

two kāma`o were seen during an intensive 2-week survey of the Alaka`i. This 

followed the moderately severe Hurricane Iwa that occurred in November 

1982 (Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources 1985). 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 Natural 

Resources 1989). The more recent hurricane named “Iniki” severely damaged 

Kaua`i’s forests in September 1992. No sightings of kāma`o were made 

during a brief post-hurricane survey made in February 1993 (Hawai’i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources 1994), nor in more intensive 

surveys conducted in February and March 1994 and March 2000 (Hawai’i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources 1995). 

Although the kāma`o has not been seen since 1989, it should be noted 

that its smaller congener, the puaiohi or small Kaua`i thrush, went many years 
30 

without being seen, but then began to reappear in small numbers. 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. 

The fact that the kāma`o has not been seen since 1989 places this species on 

the brink of extinction, if it is not already extinct. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Avian disease is by far the most significant factor suspected to limit 

the kāma`o. Early historical observations were made of pox lesions on the 

kāma`o at the lower edges of its mid-19th century range, indicating the 

kāma`o was susceptible to alien diseases for which it had little or no 

immunity. The fact that some good quality native forest with abundant fruitbearing 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 solitaires generally 

are, predators such as rats (Rattus spp.) may severely limit nesting success and 

explain why some of the smaller arboreally nesting species have had a greater 

degree of nesting success. Feral cats occasionally are 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, 

Melodious Laughing-thrush (Garrulax canorus), and White-rumped Shama 

(Copsychus malabaricus) share the same habitat with the kāma`o to some 

degree and may compete with the kāma`o for food and nest sites. These and 

other alien bird species, including the recently established Japanese Bushwarbler (Cettia diphone), also may serve as reservoirs of disease. 

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 
31 

(Erigeron karvinskianus), glorybush (Tibouchina urvilleana), Japanese 

honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and others (see Table 10, p. 191). 

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 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 also could 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 direct prey items of 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 other endangered Kaua`i 

forest birds and their 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 birds have survived in during the past half century. The Forest 

Reserve Act of 1903 was an important action that protected watersheds in 

Hawai`i, and it was strengthened and re-titled Hawai’i Department of Land 

and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, Rules Regulating Activities 

Within Forest Reserves, which protects native forest values from certain 

degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai’i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectares (9,938 acres) 

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. 

 
32 

 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 1960's. 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 et al. 1984). 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 

1981, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994; Woodworth et al. in prep.). 

 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. Alternatives are of limited effectiveness, 

expensive, and logistically difficult. 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. 

 

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 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 

 The kāma`o is so critically rare, if not already extinct, that no specific 

recovery strategy can be devised at this point other than to include it within 

the general framework of the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol outlined in 

Section III. D. 

 Although the kāma`o has never been managed in captivity, it is 

reasonable to assume that many of the same techniques that have proven 

successful for the `ōma`o and the puaiohi (egg collection, artificial incubation 

and rearing, captive propagation, and reintroduction) would prove effective 
33 

with this congeneric solitaire species. If a breeding pair or nest is ever found, 

the eggs, nestlings, or juveniles should be collected to establish a captive 

population. 

3. Oloma`o, Myadestes lanaiensis

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The oloma`o or Moloka`i thrush is a medium-sized (21 centimeters, 8.3 

inches) 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 

show 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). 

Recent changes in the taxonomy of the Hawaiian thrushes have done away 

with the long-standing 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). With the wing 

measuring 95 millimeters and the tail 80 millimeters (3.7 and 3.1 inches, 

respectively), the oloma`o is slightly smaller and has a proportionately longer tail 

than the `ōma`o (M. obscurus). The two races, M. l. lanaiensis of Lāna`i Island 

and M. l. rutha of Moloka`i Island (more grayish below), cannot be safely 

distinguished by coloration or measurements (Pratt 1982). Questions remain 

regarding systematics of the Hawaiian solitaires. The `amaui (M. oahensis) of 

O`ahu and subfossil remains of solitaires from Maui may actually be oloma`o 

(Pratt 1982, James and Olson 1991). 

 

LIFE HISTORY 

The breeding biology of the oloma`o is largely unknown. Three nests 

attributed to oloma`o were 8 to 9 meters (26 to 30 feet) up in `ōhi`a (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 1908). By 

comparison, `ōma`o also build a cup nest in trees, often on a ledge formed by a 

branch or trunk (van Riper and Scott 1979, Wakelee et al. 1999). Modal clutch 

size is two for `ōma`o, and both young usually fledge. `Ōma`o parents tend their 

fledglings for about 6 weeks. Successful `ōma`o parents can raise two broods per 

season. Immature birds are not known to provide care at subsequent nestings by 

their parents. 
34 

Oloma`o consume a variety of small fruits that they swallow whole and 

insects taken at all levels in the forest (Rothschild 1893 to 1900, Perkins 1903, 

Bryan 1908). 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 ranges (Bryan 1908, Ralph and Fancy 1994b). 

They do not make long flights over the canopy, but do 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 difficult to 

locate (Bryan 1908). The song is beautiful, thrush-like, “of a jerky nature” 

(Rothschild 1893 to 1900), and similar to `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 (1964) claimed that the Lāna`i bird was “no 

singer at all.” Calls are “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). Recent records have all been from 

dense rainforest above 1,000 meters (330 feet) adjacent to the steep pali (cliff) of 

Pelekunu (Scott et al. 1986). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The historical range encompassed the mountains of East Moloka`i and 

Lāna`i (Figure 15, p. 133). Bryan reported that oloma`o were most abundant at 

Hālawa, Moloka`i, where closed forest provided pristine 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 

1860’s (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 
35 

of Pelekunu and on Oloku`i during the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey of 1979 and 

1980 (Figure 15); and (4) a fleeting glimpse in 1988 on Kapapamoa ridge 

somewhat above 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) (A. Engilis 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 the late 1980’s and 1990’s turned up no oloma`o (Reynolds 

and Snetsinger 2001, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources unpubl. 

data). Currently, the oloma`o population is undetected, if it survives at all. 

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 died out from 1923 to 1931 

when Lāna`i City was built, and “the people brought bird disease with their 

poultry and these, evidently carried by mosquitoes, were fatal to the native bird 

population” (Munro 1964). Extensive habitat exists on O`ahu, Moloka`i, Lāna`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. If a breeding pair 

or nest is ever found, the eggs, nestlings, or juveniles should be collected to 

establish a captive population. Consideration should be given to establishing a 

population at high elevation on East Maui, where the habitat is relatively intact 

and free of threat from mosquitoes and avian disease. While recovery of 

Hawaiian solitaires is valuable in itself, recovery of these fruit-eating birds also 

would restore an important natural seed disperser to native ecosystems. Although 

the oloma`o has never been managed in captivity, it is reasonable to assume that 

many of the techniques that have proven successful for the `ōma`o and the 
36 

puaiohi (egg collection, artificial incubation and rearing, captive propagation, and 

reintroduction) would be effective with this congeneric solitaire species. 

 

4. Puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The puaiohi or small Kaua`i thrush is a medium-sized (16.5 to 17.8 

centimeter [6.5 to 7.0 inch] 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 under 

tail 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). 

LIFE HISTORY 

Puaiohi nest in cavities or ledges on cliff faces, using small vegetationlined cavities 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 unknown (Tweed et al. 1999). 

Prior to intensive field efforts in the Upper Mōhihi area from 1996 to 1998 

(Snetsinger et al. in prep.), only four nests of the species had been found. The 

field study located 209 nests of which 113 were active (Snetsinger et al. in prep.). 

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. Nesting begins as early as March, peaks from April to 

June, and continues with decreasing frequency through mid-September. Nest 
37 

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. (1999) 

observed one- and three-egg clutches in captive-bred released birds. Eggs are 

grayish-green to pale greenish-blue with irregular reddish-brown splotches 

(Berger 1972). Eggs hatch after 13 to 15 days. Male and female share 

responsibility for provisioning the chicks, although the female is 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), second-year and 

hatch-year birds assist in nest defense and feeding of nestlings and fledglings, 

although the genetic 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 (6 

months) and high rates of nest success (83 to 91 percent), led to remarkably high 

productivity in 2 years studied - an average of 2.8 and 5.0 fledglings/pair in 1996 

and 1997 respectively. In 1998, when El Niño Southern Oscillation drought 

struck the islands, breeding seasons were shortened (3.5 months) and nest success 

decreased (54 percent), leading to productivity of only 0.4 young per pair per 

year. The decrease in nesting success appeared to be due to an increase in 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 a population increase of rats after 2 favorable 

years, is unknown. Regardless, based on this limited evidence, it appears that 

puaiohi are vulnerable to severe drought and 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. Adult survival is estimated at about 74 percent and juvenile (first year) 

survival at approximately 25 percent (T. Snetsinger in prep.). Dispersal 

frequency and distances appear to be small, a fact that has important implications 

for the rate of natural recolonization of recovering habitat. 

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 fruit and 18 percent 

insect 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 
38 

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 

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 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 rainfall/year, 39 to 79 inches) to 

extremely wet (2,500 to 13,000 millimeters rainfall/year, 98 to 512 inches) 

montane forest, with deeply dissected terrain containing steep-walled ravines 

above 1,000 meters (3,300 feet); (Perkins 1903, Scott et al. 1986). Its mesic 

forest habitat is dominated by koa (Acacia koa) and `ōhi`a (Metrosideros spp.), 

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, e.g., 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 rainfall/year(236 inches), at 1,050 to 1,300 meters 

(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 most readily on steep banks of small streams 

that drain the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve to the south and west. Species density 

is currently very low in some apparently suitable habitat. 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 about seven captive and wild birds. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Even in the late 1800’s, 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 
39 

97 ± 129 puaiohi within their 25 square kilometers (9.5 square miles) study area 

in the heart of the Alaka`i. 

Today the total population of puaiohi is estimated to consist of 

approximately 200 to 300 individuals, 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 (Snetsinger et al. 1999; Figure 20). The 

breeding population is restricted to an area < 20 square kilometers (7.6 square 

miles) in size, and 75 percent of the breeding population occurs in only 10 square 

kilometers (3.8 square miles). The puaiohi exists in high densities 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, puaiohi can be found at 

a density of approximately 16 breeding pairs per square kilometer (0.621 square 

mile), plus an undetermined number of floaters and helpers at the nest (Snetsinger 

et al. in prep.). Densities decline with elevation to about 1,050 meters (3,450 

feet) in these drainages (documented in the Mōhihi, theoretical in the Waiakoali). 

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). Anecdotal observations suggest that 

the population may have declined significantly in the last decade (T. Pratt pers. 

comm.). Because of the abundance of cliffside habitat and relatively low use of 

the area by hunters, this area is perhaps the best puaiohi-inhabited area for 

experimental ungulate and predator control (see Recovery Strategy). 

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 pers. comm.). These surveys did confirm 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/U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. data). Lā`au Ridge, where an incidental 

observation of puaiohi was made in 1969 (Sincock et al. 1984), has rarely been 

visited in recent decades; our crews did not detect any puaiohi there in March 

2000 (C. Melgar pers. comm. to J. Foster). 

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). As of September 1999, following 
40 

one season of breeding in the wild, the area was home to a population of 

approximately 12 birds (Tweed et al. 1999). The captive propagation program 

released an additional 5 birds in February 2000, and another 15 in 2001 (The 

Peregrine Fund 1999, The Peregrine Fund and The Zoological Society of San 

Diego 2000, The Zoological Society of San Diego 2001). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Disease. Early ornithologists did not note difficulties with lumps on the 

feet and bills (avian pox, Poxvirus avium) of puaiohi as they did with the kāma`o. 

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, Tom’s Camp, and 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.). The malarial fatality of 

a Kaua`i `Amakihi in the fall of 1999, in Kōke`e State Park indicated that active 

malarial transmission was occurring in the park at that time (C. Atkinson pers. 

comm.). 

 

To date, only five wild Puiaohi 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 malaria infection (C. Atkinson/U.S. 

Geological Survey unpubl. data). 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 serious limiting factors on puaiohi nesting success. 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 confirmed rat predation including a total of three 

females taken on their nests. Moreover, 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 passerines. 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 and nest sites. These and other alien bird 
41 

species, including the recently established Japanese Bush-warbler (Cettia 

diphone), also may serve as reservoirs of disease. 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. 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. New insects, such as the two-spotted leaf hopper (Sophonia 

rufofascia) are causing serious damage to many native and nonnative plants. 

Many of the food producing plants used by puaiohi could be negatively affected, 

reducing their range, fruit set, and even survival. Other introduced predatory 

insects may reduce or eliminate specialized native insects that are necessary for 

pollination of certain food plants. Introduced snails that prey on indigenous snails 

could reduce food resources of the puaiohi. 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 200 to 300 birds in a number of widely 

separated subpopulations, falls well below the effective population size of 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, periodic surveys and inventories, control of feral 

ungulates, small mammal control, and information and education. 

 
42 

Legal Protection. The Forest Reserve Act of 1903 was an important 

action that protected watersheds in Hawai`i, and it was strengthened and re-titled 

Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, Rules 

Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves, which protects native forest values 

from certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai`i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectares (9,938 

acres) 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 our cooperation and that of the 

Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey (then the National 

Biological Service), the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, The Peregrine 

Fund, and the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate. A team of biologists was 

tasked with locating and learning more about the life history of the puaiohi. Over 

200 nests were located, and the breeding behavior, 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 planned or 

in preparation (e.g., Snetsinger et al. in prep.). 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 Division, 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. Although it is a formidable task, hopes 

exist for finding ways of mitigating the disease problem of rare native forest birds 

exist. 

 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction. Beginning in 1995, we have 

cooperated with The Peregrine Fund, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife in developing and testing rear-and-release/reintroduction 

and translocation techniques with the closely-related `ōma`o (Myadestes 

obscurus) as a surrogate for the endangered puaiohi. The research showed that 
43 

rearing Hawaiian solitaires in captivity and releasing them to the wild using softrelease 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 flock of puaiohi was established at The Zoological 

Society of San Diego’s Keauhou Bird Conservation Center on Hawai`i and at the 

Maui Bird Conservation Center. The captive 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 birds), (2) the newlyestablished population of Puiaohi is not genetically isolated, dispersal distances of 

captive-reared released birds are long, 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 Zoological Society of San Diego may elect to 

augment the captive flock with wild-collected eggs (C. Kuehler pers. comm.). 

In January and February 1999, The Peregrine Fund released 14 captivebred birds (8 females and 6 males) in 2 hack towers in 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). Birds were observed 

consuming insects shortly after release, and most did not return to the hack site 

for food after initial release. Follow-up monitoring by U.S. Geological Survey 

showed that all 14 birds survived at least 9.5 weeks post-release, and 5 of 8 (63 

percent) that were under long-term observation survived the breeding season. 

Seven birds (50 percent) established breeding territories in the Kawaikōī and the 

rest dispersed to other drainages. Both captive-captive and captive-wild pairings 

were documented. In total, of 21 nests built from March to September, 18 

became active, 7 were depredated, and 6 fledged young (Tweed et al. 1999). 

As of December 1999, the Kawaikōī population totaled 12 birds (up from 

2 a year earlier): 4 captive-bred birds, 2 wild birds, and 6 fledglings. On 

February 1, 2000, an additional five birds (four females, one male) were released 

by The Peregrine Fund/Zoological Society of San Diego. As of March 1, 2000, 

all five birds were known to be alive; one female had settled in the vicinity of the 

hacktower with a male from the 1999 release and was prospecting for nest sites. 
44 

No further data were collected on the released population after March 1, 2000 

(The Peregrine Fund and The Zoological Society of San Diego 2000). 

An additional cohort of 15 birds was released in spring 2001. Twelve of 

the 15 released birds survived to independence (greater than 30 days). The 

overall release strategy for the 3 consecutive years releases (1999 to 2001) is 

considered to be highly successful, with 31 of 34 released birds surviving to 

independence, and with confirmed breeding in the wild from the released animals 

(The Zoological Society of San Diego 2001). 

 

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 

1960’s. 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 et al. 1984). Large-scale 

multi-agency surveys were conducted on established transects in 1981, 1985, 

1989, 1993, 1994, and 2000 (Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

1986 and Woodworth et al. in prep). 

 

 The Hawai`i Rare Bird Search Team made an intensive systematic effort 

to locate any surviving endangered Kaua`i forest bird populations (see description 

in Section D, Rare Bird Search Protocol). 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). 

 

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. 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. At present the Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources does not consider ungulate fencing and removal to be an 

economically or politically feasible option for protecting large areas of the 

Alaka`i, and supports development of alternative lethal methods in remote (nonhunted) areas. It is clear that long-term protection of the Alaka`i from feral 

ungulates will require creativity, commitment, political savvy, an extensive public 

relations campaign, and significant financial backing. 

Small mammal control. Rat control using registered rodenticides should 

be used in core nesting habitat or habitats where populations of puaiohi have been 

restored or are being established. 
45 

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 filmed and 

publicized 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 its February 1999, issue. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Habitat Protection. Prospects for recovery 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 

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. A need exists to develop, test, register, and apply 

toxicants for control of feral cats and introduced rodents in remote forested 

habitat. Prevention of additional introductions of exotic plants, insects, mammals 

(especially the 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 desireable. 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. 
46 

Other. Continued public information sharing is needed to maintain 

program support. 

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 

Moho and one of five known Hawaiian bird species within the family 

Meliphagidae. It is 19.5 centimeters (7.7 inches) long, shorter-tailed, and 

somewhat smaller than the `ō`ō’s of 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, except for the 

soles of the feet that are pale yellow (Berger 1972). 

 The song consists of loud whistles that have been described as flutelike, hollow, echoing, and haunting. A call note was described as a distinct 

“took-took” (Munro 1944). Nesting birds have been 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 et al. 1984). 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 40 feet (12 meters) 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). 

 

 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. 
47 

CURRENT AND HISTORIC RANGE AND POPULATION 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 19; 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 1960’s, the Kaua`i `ō`ō population was 

estimated at only 36 birds (Sincock et al. 1984). 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 that 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 (Hawai’i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources/J. Krakowski 1987 pers. comm.). 

It is very likely that the Kaua`i `ō`ō is now extinct, because no subsequent 

sightings or vocalizations have been documented despite three comprehensive 

forest bird surveys in 1989, 1994, and 2000, and a rare bird search conducted 

in 1996 (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

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 2 

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 probably extinct, that identification of threats and reasons for its decline is 

difficult, if not 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. 
48 

The use of large old-growth snags for nesting and the paucity of any 

large-timbered 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 1700's. The demise of many of Hawai`i’s 

forest birds seemed to have coincided 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 federallylisted 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. Strengthened and re-titled, “Hawai’i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources Title 13, Chapter 104, Rules Regulating 

Activities Within Forest Reserves,” it protects native forest values from 

certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai’i 

Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectares 

(9,938 acres) 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 Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III. D. 
49 

6. `Ō`ū, Psittirostra psittacea

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The `ō`ū is a heavy-bodied Hawaiian honeycreeper approximately 15.5 to 

17.5 centimeters (7 inches) in total length. The upper parts are dark olive-green, 

and the under parts are a lighter olive-green grading to whitish on the under tail 

coverts. The wings and tail are a darker brownish olive. `Ō`ū are sexually 

dichromatic, males having a bright yellow head that contrast 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. 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 1800’s (Henshaw 1902, Perkins 1903), 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. 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 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 
50 

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 forest with `ie`ie was considered to be 

preferred habitat (Perkins 1903, Bryan 1908). Although wide elevational 

movements from the upland māmane 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 the mid-elevation (900 to 1,500 meters; 

3,000 to 5,000 feet) mesic and wet `ōhi`a forests with 1,200 to >2,500 millimeters 

(47 to 98 inches) annual rainfall. In this area the canopy is dominated by `ōhi`a 

10 to 25 meters high (33 to 82 feet), with a subcanopy of `ie`ie, hāpu`u tree fern 

(Cibotium spp.), `ōlapa (Cheirodendron sp.), kāwa`u (Ilex anomola), 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 7; 

Perkins 1903, Scott et al. 1986). The `ō`ū is currently one of the rarest birds in 

Hawai`i, with populations extremely localized in occurrence, restricted to only a 

fraction of their former range in the mid-elevation `ōhi`a forest on the islands of 

Kaua`i and Hawai`i only (Figure 7). 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 1970’s indicated 400 ± 300 (95 percent CI) 

birds on Hawai`i Island and 3 ± 6 (95 percent CI) 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). 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

Modification and loss of habitat has had a significant role on 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). 
51 

`Ō`ū primarily inhabited the lower to mid-elevation forests (Perkins 

1903), where the impact on native forest birds from introduced diseases 

transmitted by mosquitos was most severe (Warner 1968, van Riper et al. 1986). 

`Ō`ū also moved seasonally to lower elevations to take advantage of abundant 

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, was inundated by the 1984 Mauna Loa lava flow, destroying 

thousands of acres of forest, 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. 

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. 
52 

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. 

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 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 ounce). 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. 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 
53 

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 

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 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 mid-September 

(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 egg-laying season 

was 113 ± 25.1 days (range = 53–205; 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 renesting 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/100 hectares (6 ± 2 nests/247 acres) in māmanedominated forest, whereas 4 ± 1 nests/100 hectares (4 ± 1 nests/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 

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 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, 2 in naio-dominated 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 
54 

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 (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 Kelley 1990). Palila may re-nest after failure, and some palila are 

able to successfully 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 (U.S. 

Geological Survey unpubl. data; Pratt et al. 1997a). 

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 (zero 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 

0.63 ± 0.05 (SE), 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 small population size, great 

annual variation in the number of pairs attempting to nest, small clutch size, and 

long nesting cycle. van Riper (1980a) found 14.8 pairs/100 hectares (14.8 

pairs/247 acres) and 1.8 young/pair/year in his study area, resulting in 26.1 

young/100 hectares/year (26.1 young/247 acres/year). By comparison, Hawai`i 

`Amakihi (Hemignathus virens virens) productivity was 203.5 young/100 

hectares/year (203.5 young/247 acres/year) in the same study area. Although the 

number of pairs nesting varies greatly from year to year, at least half of all eggs 

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). Fertility of eggs was 4 to 11 percent from 1996 

to 2000, suggesting that infertility is not a major problem (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 
55 

percent from 1996 to 2000 (U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. data). The year of 

lowest fledging 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. 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). 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 palila 

population and nearly all 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 response of palila 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 8). In the 1890's, 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). The range of palila apparently shrank relatively quickly in the 

early 1900’s to this small area on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea, because Munro 

(1944) determined that the species was in danger of extinction. 
56 

The distribution of palila (Figure 6) has remained fairly constant in recent 

decades. 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 1980’s 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 

(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 

range contraction. 

Figure 6. Population trends of palila. 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

Population Estimate (+SE)

 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 (Jacobi 

et al. 1996). Annual surveys from 1980 to 1995 yielded a mean population 

estimate of 3,390 ± 333 (SE) palila (Figure 8; Jacobi et al. 1996). Annual 

population estimates have ranged from 5,685 in 1981 to 1,584 in 1985, but such 

variability is common for passerines. Much of the perceived variation in numbers 

may be due more 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 
57 

above. Although reported declines in population size are possible due to 

starvation and other factors, the more dramatic increases could not have occurred. 

The reproductive potential of palila, for example, is insufficient to have produced 

population increases by factors of 2.9 (1986 to 1987), 2.4 (1992 to 1993), or 2.0 

(1995 to 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/pair, and 2) all adults and fledglings must 

survive until the next census. 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. 

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 1800’s and have since caused 

widespread loss and modification of palila habitat. Cattle, feral sheep, mouflon 

sheep, 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 

1820’s and the sheep population reached about 40,000 animals by the early 

1930’s (Bryan 1937). Heavy browsing effectively lowered 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 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 clandestinum), 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 
58 

established on the southern and western slopes of Mauna Kea (U.S. Geological 

Survey unpubl. data). Cape ivy (Deleiria odorata) is another pernicious weed 

that threatens 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 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 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 

(Dacstylis glomerata) especially may spread; however, native grasses and shrubs 

may also increase after fire. For example, Eragrostis atropioides almost 

completely dominated the vegetation following fires that started along Saddle 

Road on the western slope of Mauna Kea during the 1990’s (U.S. Geological 

Survey unpubl. data). Although Eragrostis burns readily and hotly (T. Tunison 

pers. comm.), it may be less fire-prone 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 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 

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 former range at lower elevations, including 

Pōhakuloa Flats. 

 

Predation by black rats, feral cats, and the Hawaiian short-eared owl or 

pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) is another important factor limiting the 
59 

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 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 

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 terminal forks of a tree (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 formal listing 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-1900’s (Munro 1944). Although relatively little conservation or research 

effort was directed specifically at the palila until recently, feral ungulate control 
60 

was initiated in the early 1900’s to protect the māmane woodland and watershed 

of 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 (Ovis musimon) 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 

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 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 misguided 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. Department of Fish 

and Wildlife 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), 
61 

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 

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 palila was completed in 1978, and revised 

in 1986 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986), and these 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 1970’s and early 1980’s, 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 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 also will 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 one 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 

have been undertaken with the goal of testing techniques for reestablishing a 

population on the northern slope of Mauna Kea, near Pu`u Mali. While 53 birds 

have been translocated in 3 different trials, there is little to suggest so far that 

birds will remain indefinitely in a new area (U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. 

data). Although some birds stay in the target area for over a year, most return to 

their original home ranges within a few months. Another trial is anticipated in 

2002, environmental conditions and funding permitting, when a larger number of 
62 

birds will be translocated to test the hypothesis that a more natural social 

environment and a larger pool of potential mates will encourage more birds to 

stay longer and breed. In conjunction with the 2002 translocation, it is hoped that 

captive-reared palila can be released on the northern slope to compare the 

survival, breeding, and other behavior between the two groups. Captive-bred 

palila will be 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). Prior to translocating and releasing captive-reared 

birds on the northern slope, predators will be removed and food and habitat 

conditions assessed to increase chances of success. 

In 1996, a captive propagation program was initiated as a collaborative 

effort between National Biological Survey (now Biological Resources Division of 

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. 

The progeny of the captive-propagation program are now being considered for 

release into recovery habitat. 

Although māmane and other native trees and shrubs have regenerated 

prolifically following the removal of feral ungulates, alien grasses and other 

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 1980’s (J. Scott 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. 
63 

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 is imperceptibly slow, if it is occurring at all, 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. 

 

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 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 
64 

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 

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 Pōhakuloa Training Area on the southern 

slope of Mauna Kea. Land below Mauna Kea Forest Reserve will be fenced and 

cattle will be withdrawn, probably by 2003. 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 also will 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. 
65 

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 e.g., 

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 former range on Hualālai and 

Mauna Loa are much less certain. Although māmane forest remains over 

relatively large areas, habitat conditions have not been evaluated carefully to 

determine their recovery potential. Except 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. Habitat at Kīpuka `Alalā within Pōhakuloa Training Area 

may be rehabilitated sufficiently to eventually 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 1950’s (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. 

 

Saddle Road mitigation provides a valuable bridge between short-term 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 

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 Saddle Road mitigation, large areas of former habitat would 

continue to be grazed. However, 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 
66 

(Hess et al. 1999), or where native forest is unlikely to regenerate quickly. 

Administrative commitment to recover palila and its habitat will be easier to 

muster 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. Involving citizens in palila recovery seems practical 

and could greatly promote palila recovery. Many areas of habitat are accessible 

by four-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. Therefore, a large cross-section of the public 

potentially could 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. They could also plant trees and other 

native species and assist with fire fuel management and fire education. There are 

significant opportunities to incorporate environmental education and recreation 

into habitat restoration activities. For example, with imagination and funding one 

or more sites on Mauna Kea could become 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. 

Studies on fire ecology and behavior in subalpine dry forests on Mauna 

Kea will be initiated in 2003, 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, 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 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 
67 

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 are 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. 

 

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 Hawaiian honeycreepers. It has a large head, powerful 

neck, a massive curved, parrot-like bill, stout legs, and short wings and tail. 

Adult Maui parrotbill 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. 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 safely 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 the yellow like 

adults. 

The Maui parrotbill is a monotypic species with no known geographic 

variation in plumage or morphology. It is most closely related to the `akiapōlā`au 

based on morphology and molecular genetics (Simon et al. 1997, Fleischer et al.

1998), 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 `alkali (Rubus hawaiensis), kanawao (Broussaisia arguta), and 

`ōhi`a. Parrotbills also pluck and bite open fruit in search of insects, particularly 
68 

kanawao, but do not eat the fruit. 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. in 

press). Parrotbills frequently occur in family groups, due to the prolonged 5 to 8 

month long 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 reported below. 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 temeiameia) twigs is built by the 

female an average of 12 meters (40 feet) above ground in a forked branch just 

under the outer canopy foliage. Simon et al. (1997) reported only single egg 

clutches, but reports of two-chick broods are known. 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. Males feed the nesting females, and 

females feed the nestlings with food obtained from the male. Once fledged, the 

young are frequently fed directly by the male. Development of the large bill and 

specialized feeding techniques proceed slowly, and fledgling dependency on 

parental care lasts 5 to 8 months. 

Vocalizations of the Maui parrotbill include a loud song of repeated, 

descending "chewy" notes, and three calls given by both sexes; a sharply defined 

chip notes, a soft "wit" contact call, and an upslurred two-part whistle (Simon et 

al. 1997). The chip notes are indistinguishable from similar calls of the Maui 

`alauahio (Paroreomyza montana) and the Po`ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma), 

which occur with parrotbills in mixed-species flocks, although call delivery rates 

for the three species can differ. Singing occurs throughout the year, but most 

often in winter and spring when the birds breed. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

 At present, Maui parrotbills survive in mid- to upper-elevation montane 

wet forest now dominated by `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha), and in a few 

more 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 generally is 

steep and highly dissected by deep gulches and narrow ridges. The climate is 

montane year-round, with frequent clouds, mist, and rain. Annual precipitation 

may reach as much as 8,500 millimeters/year (335 inches). 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 
69 

(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 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 13). 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). 

 

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 (.386 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. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

 The Maui parrotbill is subject to the same threats that negatively impact 

other forest birds on Maui, including habitat loss and degradation, predation, and 

introduced diseases. The parrotbill has a very low reproductive rate, however 

(see Life History), which may make 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 remain a persistent threat. 

 Habitat Loss and Degradation. 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, 
70 

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, mongoose, and 

owls is suspected to have a significant impact on many native Hawaiian bird 

species (Atkinson 1977, VanderWerf and Smith in press). Recent surveys 

indicate rat densities are very high in the Hanawī area where much of the 

parrotbill population currently occurs (Sugihara 1997, T. Malcolm 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, 

Mountainspring 1987). Despite the availability of apparently suitable habitat, 

parrotbills are absent from most areas below 4,500 feet (1,350 meters), where 

mosquitoes are common. This pattern contrasts with that of 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 nuku pu`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. Later, the State of 

Hawai`i, The Nature Conservancy, Haleakalā National Park, Hāna Ranch, and 

Alexander and Baldwin (East Maui Irrigation Company) joined together to 

protect 404,687 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 
71 

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 

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 removed to the Maui Bird Conservation Center, following the 

recommendations of Ellis et al. 1992 (The Peregrine Fund 1997). Subsequently, 

two additional wild eggs were collected, hatched, and reared in 1999 (The 

Peregrine Fund 1999). One pair formed from this trio, producing two chicks in 

2000 (The Peregrine Fund and The 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 (The 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 

program, with the intention of producing more birds for reintroduction into 

managed recovery habitat. It is anticipated that progeny from the captive flock 

will provide young Maui parrotbill for a pilot release program in the forests of 

East Maui. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY

The recovery strategy for the Maui parrotbill centers on protection, 

restoration, and management of native high elevation forests on East Maui 

(Haleakalā), West Maui, and East Moloka`i, research to optimize efforts at 

mitigating 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 Haleakala is needed to promote 

natural demographic and evolutionary processes. 

 

Recovery Habitat. Parrotbills are currently restricted to the windward 

forests of East Maui from Waikamoi to Kaupo (Figure 13). Interagency efforts 

and the East Maui Watershed Partnership have had landmark success in 

protection of this habitat for the parrotbill. However, extensive work is still 

needed to fence and protect the lower elevation areas from Hanawi Natural Area 

Reserve to Waikamoi, which provide habitat within the current range of the 

parrotbill, and much potential habitat that is apparently on the fringes of the 

current range. Additional fencing and ungulate eradication in this area will allow 

an intact and diverse native subcanopy vegetation to develop, thereby increasing 

food availability. This work may also help to reduce levels of mosquito vectors. 
72 

On southern and western exposures of East Maui (Haleakalā), a 

continuous "lei" of suitable forest should be reconnected around the mountain, 

especially at upper elevations where mosquitoes are rare. Although the current 

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 promote natural demographic and 

evolutionary processes. Restoration of koa (Acacia koa) to these montane areas is 

a key element of habitat restoration in these areas. 

A small amount of unprotected, remnant mesic koa forests currently exists 

on State Forest Reserve and Department of Hawaiian Homes land in the 

Kahikinui region of southern Haleakala. This area holds great potential to 

provide suitable habitat for the parrotbill, and relative to other more degraded 

areas of East Maui, likely will be the most cost-effective area to begin restoration 

work. Completion of fencing projects and initiation of programs to eradicate 

ungulates are needed to restore the native canopy and understory. 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 more highly degraded by 

ungulates. These areas, in addition to fencing and ungulate control, will require 

more intensive, long-term restoration to become suitable for endangered forest 

birds. 

Much of the potential parrotbill habitat on West Maui and East Moloka`i 

is managed as native ecosystems mostly free of ungulates. However, the 

suitability of these areas with respect to the presence of introduced mosquitoborne diseases is not clear. Much of the potential habitat lies at elevations below 

4,500 feet (1,350 meters), where mosquitoes may be common. 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. Control of small mammalian predators is needed 

throughout recovery habitat. Predator control may be especially important for 

parrotbill populations, because this species has an intrinsically low reproductive 
73 

rate and is particularly sensitive to unnaturally high rates of nest loss and adult 

mortality (Simon et al. 2000). Currently, intensive control of rats is underway in 

a portion of Hanawī Natural Area Reserve in association with Po`ouli recovery 

efforts. An important component of parrotbill recovery should be evaluation of 

the effect of rodent control on parrotbill reproduction and survival, and an 

expansion of the scale of the work if warranted. 

Disease. Protecting and restoring habitat in upper elevation disease-free 

areas is the principle feasible recovery strategy with respect to disease. 

Identification of resistance or tolerance to disease within the population is a 

second important strategy. Resistance or tolerance appears to be evolving in 

populations of some birds (Cann and Douglas 1999), and may exist for parrotbill 

as well. Parrotbills may occur at lower elevations in Kipahulu Valley than 

elsewhere, but the causes are not clear, and this pattern may be related to habitat 

management rather than disease resistance. Further research into the causes of 

this pattern is needed. Identification of resistant individuals holds the potential to 

identify genetic markers that are associated with resistance. If this is successful, 

incorporation of these individuals into captive breeding and translocation 

programs could greatly enhance recovery efforts. 

 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Programs. Captive 

propagation may play a significant role in recovery of the Maui parrotbill once 

recovery habitat is managed, allowing for the release and reestablishment of 

additional populations of this species. To establish a second population, current 

efforts should continue to build a captive-breeding population for eventual 

reintroduction of Maui parrotbill to southern Haleakala, and to West Maui or East 

Moloka`i. 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. Currently, areas on the 

fringe of parrotbill range in Waikamoi and Manawainui may provide suitable 

habitat for pilot releases. Work is needed presently to evaluate vegetation and 

parrotbill densities in those areas in order to assess the suitability of those sites as 

pilot release areas. Other potential sites on southern Haleakalā to the west of 

Kaupo Gap, such as the Kahikinui remnant forests, will need evaluation of habitat 

suitability and may require restoration before they are able to support a parrotbill 

population. The suitability of habitat for parrotbill on West Maui and East 

Moloka`i is not clear for the reasons discussed above. Pending an evaluation of 

their suitability, any releases in those areas would have to be considered 

experimental, with extensive evaluation of their success. It is therefore important 

that an evaluation be carried out to document the relative costs associated with 

habitat evaluation versus experimental reintroduction. 
74 

9. Kaua`i `Akialoa, Hemignathus procerus

DESCRIPTION 

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 

has a long history of nomenclatural change (Olson and James 1995). 

LIFE HISTORY 

 The life history of the Kaua`i `akialoa is poorly known, mainly from 

observations at 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 stejnegeri). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

 The species was widespread on Kaua`i and occupied all forest types above 

200 meters (660 feet) elevation (Perkins 1903). 

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 (Figure 19). After a hiatus of many 

decades, the species was seen again in the late 1960’s, and one specimen was 

collected. It has not been seen since, despite efforts by ornithologists (Conant et 

al. 1998), birders, and six intensive surveys by wildlife biologists in 1968 to 

1973, 1981, 1989, 1994, and 2000 (Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources 1995, Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). The Kaua`i `akialoa is probably 

extinct. 

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 
75 

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 also are 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 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, and it was strengthened 

and re-titled Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, 

Chapter 104, Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves, which 

protects native forest values from certain degrading factors caused by human 

activities. The Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

established the 4,022 hectares (9,938 acres) 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. 

10. Kaua`i nuku pu`u (Hemignatus lucidus hanapepe) 

 

DESCRIPTON AND TAXONOMY 

The Kaua`i nuku pu`u is a long-billed Hawaiian honeycreeper, larger than 

the 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 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 nuku pu`u differ from Maui nuku pu`u by their larger 

size and subtle differences in plumage (see Maui nuku pu`u species account). 

The Kaua`i nuku pu`u is one of two subspecies of nuku pu`u that may still 

survive (the other is the Maui nuku pu`u, H.l. affinis). The Kaua`i nuku pu`u was 
76 

described by Wilson (1889). Evidence is mounting that the Kaua`i, O`ahu, and 

Maui forms of nuku pu`u are distinct species (T. Pratt, J. Lepson, and R. Fleischer 

unpubl. data). 

LIFE HISTORY 

The historical record provides little information on the life history of the 

Kaua`i nuku pu`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 account for that species). Kaua`i nuku pu`u extracted or 

excavated invertebrates from epiphytes, bark, and wood using their unusual bill in 

a manner similar to that of the `akiapōlā`au. Nuku pu`u often join mixed species 

foraging flocks, especially Kaua`i creeper (Oreomystis bairdi). The song of the 

Kaua`i nuku pu`u resembles the warble of a House Finch (Carpodacus 

californicus), 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 century indicate that the Kaua`i 

nuku pu`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 nuku pu`u have been reported, so our 

understanding of the original distribution of this subspecies is limited to the 

historical record. Since 1960, the nuku pu`u has been reported infrequently from 

Kōke`e and the Alaka`i (Figure 19; 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) failed to find the Kaua`i nuku 

pu`u, and it seem likely that this bird is extinct (Pratt and Pyle 2000). 

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 Pauiohi species account). 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Kaua`i nuku pu`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 
77 

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 nuku pu`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, and it was strengthened 

and re-titled Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources Title 13, 

Chapter 104, Rules Regulating Activities Within Forest Reserves, which protects 

native forest values from certain degrading factors caused by human activities. 

The Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 

hectares (9,938 acres) 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. 

11. Maui nuku pu`u, Hemignathus lucidus affinis

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Maui nuku pu`u is a medium-sized, approximately 23-gram (0.78 

ounce), Hawaiian honeycreeper 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 supercilliary line. Maui nuku pu`u differ from Kaua`i nuku pu`u 

by their smaller size, yellowish rather than whitish vent, and grayish-green rather 

than yellowish-green back. 

The Maui nuku pu`u is one of three subspecies. The Maui and Kaua`i 

subspecies (H.l. hanapepe) 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 nuku pu`u are 

distinct species (T. Pratt, J. Lepson, and R. Fleischer unpubl. data). The Maui 

nuku pu`u was described by Rothschild (1893 to 1900). 

LIFE HISTORY 

The historical record provides little information on the life history of the 

Maui nuku pu`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 account for that species). Maui nuku pu`u tap and probe bark, 
78 

lichen, and branches to extract insects, and thus their foraging behaviors resemble 

those of `akiapōlā`au. Diet of the Maui nuku pu`u was reported by Perkins 

(1903) to be small weevils and larvae of coleoptera and lepidoptera. 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 

nuku pu`u take nectar from flowers. Maui nuku pu`u often join mixed species 

foraging flocks (Perkins 1903). Their song resembles the warble of a House 

Finch (Carpodacus californicus), 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 century, indicate that the 

Maui nuku pu`u inhabited mixed koa/`ōhi`a forest from 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) 

to timberline (Perkins 1903, Banko 1984b, The Nature Conservancy Natural 

Heritage Database) on the northwestern slope of Haleakalā. Sightings since the 

1967 rediscovery of the Maui nuku pu`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 nuku pu`u on Moloka`i 

and Maui show that the species once inhabited dry forests. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

Historically, the Maui nuku pu`u is known only from Maui, but subfossil 

bones of a probable Maui nuku pu`u from Moloka`i show that the species 

formerly inhabited that island (James and Olson 1991). A nuku pu`u specimen 

from Hawai`i Island does not represent the Maui form and instead could be a 

mislabeled O`ahu bird (Olson and James 1994, R. Fleischer pers. comm.). 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 nuku 

pu`u. As on Kaua`i, introduced mosquitoes (Hardy 1960) and avian diseases may 

have already limited these birds to forests at higher elevations. However, we can 

presume that the Maui nuku pu`u once had a much wider geographic range. 

In 1967, W. Banko rediscovered Maui nuku pu`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 nuku pu`u is difficult to 

evaluate. Scott et al. (1986) estimated a population of 28 ± 56 birds based on a 

single sighting. The most intensive surveys to date (1995 to 1999) did not detect 

nuku pu`u in these locations (Baker 2001, Hawai’i Department of Land and 
79 

Natural Resources unpubl. data), and the Maui subspecies may be extinct (Pratt 

and Pyle 2000). 

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 account. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

The Maui nuku pu`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 nuku pu`u. Subsequently, the species has benefited, or 

could benefit, from thorough surveys of the best habitat, predator control, and 

habitat restoration at locations where the last sightings were reported (seep 

po`ouli species account). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III. D. 

12. `Akiapōlā`au, Hemignathus munroi

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

 The `akiapōlā`au is a medium-sized (14 centimeter, 28 gram; 5.5 inch, 0.9 

ounce), stocky, short-tailed Hawaiian honeycreeper 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 under parts, a 

greenish back and wings, and black lores. Adult females differ in color, with a 

yellow chin, throat, and upper breast that contrasts with a pale yellowish-gray 

lower breast and belly (Pratt et al. 1994). Fledglings have a mottled yellowishgray 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 
80 

1983). The `akiapōlā`au is closely related to the nuku pu`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 this fascinating and 

unusual species currently is the subject of an intensive study by L. Pejchar of the 

University of California at Santa Cruz. 

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`trees. The nest is cupshaped 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. Usually only one young is fledged, followed 

by an extended period (>4 to 5 months) of juvenile dependency, so that only a 

single young typically is produced per year. In one study of a declining 

population, annual productivity was found to average 0.86 young per pair, which 

is low compared to most passerines (Ralph and Fancy 1996). 

The aspect of the `akiapōlā`au’s life cycle most important to conservation 

is the low intrinsic rate of reproduction, which puts a premium on success of 

nesting events and on adult survival. Even under optimal conditions, `akiapōlā`au 

populations cannot be hoped to grow as rapidly as that of other Hawaiian 

honeycreepers sharing their habitat; indeed, under threat they may be expected to 

decline more quickly. 

`Akiapōlā`au is mainly insectivorous. 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). The bird uses its unusual "swiss-army 

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, hooked 

upper mandible is used as a probe to extract insect larvae and spiders from 

crevices or insect borings. Despite their different lengths, the two mandibles can 

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 
81 

branches, whereas females and young are more often observed foraging on small 

branches and twigs (Ralph and Fancy 1996). What drives sexual foraging 

differences is unknown. Tree species preferred for foraging include koa, kōlea, 

māmane, and naio, 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. 

While this species rarely takes nectar from flowers, 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. It is not clear how these 

"sap" trees are selected, and the prevalence of this behavior and the importance of 

this nutritional source have yet to be investigated. 

`Akiapōlā`au often join mixed species foraging flocks, perhaps to benefit 

from their 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 censusing 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. 2001). Home ranges are defended as territories, 

and there is little evidence of daily or seasonal movement patterns. Some birds 

appear temporarily in areas where they are usually not seen, suggesting some 

seasonal movement; others remain on territory year-round. What factors 

influence the huge range in territory size, and therefore population size, is 

unknown, but would be important to understand. With so little disease-free 

habitat available to this species, it would be valuable to explore how to increase 

population density as a means of increasing population size. 

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. The recent discovery of `akiapōlā`au inhabiting 
82 

young koa plantations demonstrates that this species may not be restricted to old 

growth. Although koa/`ōhi`a forest occurs below 1,300 meters elevation (4,000 

feet), 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. 

`Akiapōlā`au will cross gaps of 100 meters (330 feet) or more, but the 

frequency with which they do so and the maximum width of gaps that they 

regularly cross is unknown. What constitutes a barrier to habitat use or to 

dispersal is unknown. 

While habitat preferences of `akiapōlā`au in primary forest are well 

documented, their use and persistence in successional habitats and in habitat 

mosaics needs 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. Study of 

habitat use is needed at the individual and metapoplulation 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 9; Pratt et al. 2001). Perkins (1903) reported that 

they were abundant and occurred as low as 500 meters (1,650 feet) in forests near 

Hilo. In the 1940's, 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 1970’s, `akiapōlā`au were found in four disjunct populations 

inhabiting koa-dominated montane forests: in Hāmākua south across the upper 

Waiākea kīpuka to Kūlani and Keauhou, in Ka`ū and Kapāpala, in southern Kona, 

and in central Kona (Figure 9). A fifth population occupied subalpine dry forest 

on Mauna Kea. Originally these populations were all connected, but they have 

been isolated mainly due to 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). An estimated 793 `akiapōlā`au, or 68 

percent of the population, was found in koa-dominated forests on the Hāmākua 

coast. The population in the Kūlani and Keauhou Ranch area was estimated at 

312 `akiapōlā`au, and the Ka`ū/Kapāpala population was estimated at 44 

individuals. Only three `akiapōlā`au remained in the māmane forest on Mauna 

Kea in 2000. Another few birds inhabit koa/`ōhi`a forests of central Kona, and 
83 

the status of the birds in southern Kona is unknown. The central and southern 

Kona populations have not been censused in 25 years. 

 

The Hawai`i Forest Bird Surveys in the late 1970’s found `akiapōlā`au in 

the same disjunct populations, with a total estimated population size of 1,500 

birds ± 400 (95 percent confidence interval; Scott et al. 1986). Compared with 

the early 1990’s estimates mentioned above, a decline is evident in range and 

numbers. The most significant change has occurred in the Ka`ū/Kapāpala area, 

where the population apparently has decreased from an estimated 533 to 44 

individuals for unknown reasons; the area, some of which is recovering from 

grazing, should be resurveyed to verify this decline. The dry forest population 

has decreased from an estimated 46 individuals to less than 10, an unexpected 

outcome as the habitat is recovering. The Hāmākua population seems to be 

maintaining its numbers, although the species' distribution has contracted 

somewhat since the 1970’s, and the population there in the 1970’s may have been 

underestimated (Fancy et al. 1995). 

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 censused. 

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 censusing methodology to 

supplement standard point-counts, and by initiating a comprehensive 

investigation of the species metapopulation. 

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 remain a persistent 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 mamane-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 
84 

loss and alteration of forest habitats also has lead to a fragmentation of 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. 

 Predation. Predation of nests and adults by rats, cats, mongoose, and 

owls is suspected to have a significant impact on many native Hawaiian bird 

species (Atkinson 1977, VanderWerf and Smith in press), 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 4500 feet (1,350 meters), 

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 

limiting populations of endangered Hawaiian forest birds have been conducted 

sporadically since the late 1980's, and a research project dedicated specifically to 
85 

`akiapōlā`au was initiated in 2000, by L. Pejchar of the University of California at 

Santa Cruz. 

 

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 220,000 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 recovery habitat and could serve as sites for reintroducing `akiapōlā`au. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

 Recovery of the `akiapōlā`au will require protection, management, and 

restoration of native forests above 4,500 feet (1,350 meters), 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 

and census methodology, followed by mapping and censusing of all populations 

and long-term monitoring in representative areas in Hāmākua, upper Waiākea 

kīpukas, 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; 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. 
86 

Recovery Habitat. The most important component of the recovery 

strategy for the `akiapōlā`au is protection, management, and restoration of 

koa/`ōhi`a forests above 1,300 meters (4,000 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 Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. It is important 

that this action include all recovery habitat (Figure 9). Several numbers reinforce 

this point: the current average density of `akiapōlā`au is one pair per 20 hectares 

(49 acres). By comparison, 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 habitat encompasses 

238,000 hectares (588,000 acres; Figure 9), much of which requires extensive 

restoration. 

Old-growth koa/`ōhi`a forest on many parcels in recovery habitat is 

deteriorating due to browsing and rooting by feral pigs, sheep, or mouflon, singly 

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 in press). 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 
87 

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 

(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. 

13. Hawai`i Creeper, Oreomystis mana

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The Hawai`i creeper is a small Hawaiian honeycreeper 10.8 to 13.0 

centimeters in length (4.3 to 5.1 inches) and 13.7 grams (0.48 ounces) average 

weight. 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 (Hemignathes 

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 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 
88 

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 hectares (9.9 to 17.3 

acres) home range during the breeding season (Ralph and Fancy 1994a, 

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 (17.3 acres), and join other 

forest birds in mixed-species flocks (VanderWerf 1998a). 

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; see Remsen and Robinson 1990 

for definitions of foraging terms). 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 and koa trees; the remainder of maneuvers were in subcanopy trees 

(specifically, `ōlapa), 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 (about 

120 to 180 days), and molt occurs from May to August (Ralph and Fancy 1994a, 

Woodworth et al. 2001). A small proportion (<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 1998a, Woodworth 

et al. 2001). Based on 61 nests found at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

from 1994 to 1999, Hawai`i creeper generally build cup nests at mid-canopy at 

about 13 meters (range 2.8 to 24 meters) in height (43 feet, range 9 to 79 feet) and 

about 1.5 meters (range 0 to 4.8 meters) from the main bole of the tree (5 feet, 

range 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 2 eggs, nest building 
89 

requires 11 to 19 days, incubation 13 to 17 days, and nestling period 18 days 

(Sakai and Johanos 1983, VanderWerf 1998a, Woodworth et al. 2001). 

Approximately one-third of recorded nesting attempts have been abandoned 

before egg-laying commenced (33 percent, n = 6, VanderWerf 1998a; 27.9 

percent, n = 61, Woodworth et al. 2001). At Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

from 1994 to 1999, daily survival rates of active creeper nests was 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 1998a; 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 (Nelson et al., in prep). 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 

1998a; Woodworth et al. 2001). If a complete nesting cycle requires about 50 

days plus post-fledging care, and breeding seasons typically last at least 120 days, 

then there appears to be ample time for pairs to start a second brood. However, a 

daily nest failure rate of 5 percent might effectively prevent this from occurring 

very often. 

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 refugia, above the level of mosquito populations. 

In general, 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 

to Hawai`i. 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 Hawa`i creeper. 

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 (range 4.3 to 27.1 hectares, 10.6 to 66.9 acres), 

and individuals banded birds have been observed in different locations 1 to 4 

kilometers (.62 to 2.48 miles) apart (VanderWerf 1998). Snetsinger (1995) 
90 

observed a Hawai`i creeper in mamane 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 1500 

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 (Metrosideros polymorpha) and koa (Acacia koa). The 

subcanopy is composed of `ōlapa (Cheirodendron trigynum), pūkiawe (Styphelia 

tameiameiae), `ōhelo (Vaccinium calycinum), `ākala (Rubus Hawaiiensis), kolea 

(Myrsine sandwicensis), kawa`u (Ilex anomola), and Cibotium tree ferns 

(Woodworth et al. in prep.). 

Hawai`i creeper, along with `akiapōlā`au (Hemignathus munroi) and 

Hawai`i `ākepa (Loxops coccineus), show a decreasing population density 

gradient from south to north across three sites in Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge (2.18 ± 0.50 birds/hectare in the south at Pua `Ākala, compared with 0.57 

± 0.23 birds/hectare in the north at Maulua). The causes for the density gradient 

are unknown, but based on correlative studies, habitat structure, cavity 

availability, relative abundance of feral cats and rodents, or presence of breeding 

mosquitoes have been ruled out as probable causative factors. Feral pig sign was 

negatively correlated with Hawai`i creeper density across the three sites. Other 

possible limiting factors remaining to be investigated include abundance of 

arthropod prey and periodic disease epizootics in the northern sections of the 

refuge (Woodworth et al. in prep).

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

In the 1890’s, 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; 

Perkins 1903). Creepers were recorded in the Kona and Ka`ū districts as well as 

the forests above Hilo (Figure 10). Perkins noted that they were very abundant 

and generally distributed but had 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 1930’s and 1940’s 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 10; 
91 

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 1980’s (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 

predators, particular black rats (Rattus rattus) into their habitat. Hawai`i creeper 

nests may be particularly 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 Whiteeye (Zosterops japonicus, 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, 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 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 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 the early 1990’s, and 
92 

over 250,000 koa seedlings have been planted thus far. The `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership and Kona unit of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge also 

provided 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 habitat that could serve as sites for reintroducing Hawai`i creeper. 

 

Research on factors that limit populations of endangered Hawaiian forest 

birds has been ongoing since the late 1980’s. The productivity, recruitment, and 

survival of the Hawai`i creeper was investigated as part of a larger study by 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 creeper 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 10). To 

maintain connectivity and allow dispersal among fragmented patches of habitat, 

cattle should be removed from several key parcels and habitat restoration pursued. 

Management for avian disease should focus on reduction of breeding habitat for 

mosquitoes through drainage of stock ponds, public education/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. 

Progeny from captive-propagation efforts would provide birds for reintroduction 

in order to establish and enhance populations of Hawai`i creeper in managed 

recovery habitat.
93 

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 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 grayish-green 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 chloris), 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 (American 

Ornithologists Union 1997). It is currently placed in the genus Paroreomyza

(Olson and James 1982b, Pratt 1992b, American Ornithologists Union 1997), 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, 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 
94 

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 

1,000 to 2,000 feet (300 to 600 meters), not on summits. 

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 16). 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 1890’s,” 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 1,500 feet (350 meters) elevation. 

The O`ahu creeper has undoubtedly declined very seriously since it was 

first observed, and it may already be extinct. 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 

`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 
95 

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. 

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). 

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 cold temperatures (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 (VanderWerf and Smith 

in press), 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 

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 
96 

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. 

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

 DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

 

The kākāwahie, or Moloka`i creeper, was known only from Moloka`i, but 

now is assumed to be extinct. 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 

was short and straight. Its calls were 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). 

 

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 

1960’s (Perkins 1903, Munro 1944, Pekelo 1963). This species was an 

insectivore that gleaned vegetation and bark of the wet `ōhi`a (Metrosideros 

polymorpha) forests. Only minimal information exists about nests and young 

Munro (1944). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

 No detailed habitat description for the species is available. The boggy 

forested upper areas of Moloka`i have been reported by Munro (1944) and Pekelo 

(1963) as the species’ habitat. The last detections of 1960's were on the west rim 

of Pelekunu Valley on the `Ōhi`alele Plateau in moss-shrouded `ōhi`a and `ōlapa 

(Cheirodendron trigynum). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

 Historically, the species was recorded only from Moloka`i (Figure 15). 

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 still 

earlier searches (Scott et al. 1986). All surveys and special searches since 1988 
97 

have failed to detect this species (Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources 1988, U.S. Geological Survey 1995, Hawai`i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources 1995, U.S. Geological Survey 1996, Reynolds and Snetsinger 

2001). This species is likely extinct. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

 Reasons for the early 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), 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). No other specific conservation efforts for this species 

have been initiated. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III. D. 

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 typically are grayish green with a yellow breastband. 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. All 

females are entirely gray during their second year. Thereafter they can acquire a 

trace of a yellow breast-band, a full yellow breast-band, an orange yellow breastband that extends onto the throat, and extensive orange-yellow that covers the 

entire head and breast (Freed and Lepson in review). These increasing color 

classes are loosely related to age, but most females do not acquire the orangeyellow and extensive classes. Juvenal plumage, similar in both sexes, is grayish 
98 

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, with variation that includes a brown ridge on the 

culmen (central ridge of the upper mandible) and orange cutting edges. 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 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). 

 

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 probably is 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 and 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/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 v. virens), `i`iwi 

(Vestiaria coccinea), and `apapane (Himatione sanguinea). Only one brood can 

be completed 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, pers. comm.). No nestling mortality was detected. 
99 

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 provision 

of nestlings. Despite the potential vulnerability of cavity nesting species to 

predators like rats (Lack 1968, Nilsson 1986), nesting success is 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. The displays include an arboreal display of 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” rising as high as 100 meters (330 feet) before breaking 

up. 

 

It appears that variation in female plumage and fitness drives this 

competition. Females in the more colorful classes have both higher annual 

survival and higher nesting success than duller females of the same age (Freed 

and Lepson in review). 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 extensively on small insects, spiders, and 

caterpillars throughout the year. It rarely feeds on nectar. Foraging is mainly on 

the terminal leaf clusters of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha), and to a lesser 

extent among koa (Acacia 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 portions of the `ōhi`a canopy (Fretz 2002). 

During the dry summer of 1999, several birds were captured with `ākala berry 

pulp (Rubus hawaiiensis) dried on their bills. They may have been using the 

berries as a source of water. Birds also have been seen foraging occasionally in 
100 

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 (13.9 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 feet) in diameter at 

breast height (Freed 2001). `Ōhi`a are 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 et al. in prep.). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

 The historical range is shown in (Freed 1999). The major change in 

distribution has been the loss of birds from lower elevations, below 1,300 meters 

(4,300 feet). However, the range at also has contracted somewhat at upper 

elevations (compare Freed 1999 with Scott et al. 1986). 

Hawai`i `ākepa are currently found in 5 disjunct populations in `ōhi`a/koa 

forests in Hāmākua, Kūlani/Keauhou Ranch, Ka`ū, southern Kona, and Hualālai, 

totaling approximately 14,000 ± 2,500 birds in 1980 (Figure 11; 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 
101 

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 remaining forest habitat. Hawai`i `ākepa are 

especially sensitive to the loss of old growth forest due to their exceptional 

dependence on large trees with cavities for nesting (Freed 2001). Much oldgrowth forest has been cleared for pasture at upper elevations (Tomonari-Tuggle 

1996). 

 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 or desiccation than smaller trees. 

The areas of highest `ākepa density are in disturbed areas and nest-site sized trees 

are falling at a rate of five trees per square kilometer (.621 per square mile) per 

year at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Reduced nest sites in highdensity 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). The next source of monopodial trees is not obvious from existing 

seedlings. 

 

`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). Both the mosquito and malarial parasite are 

limited in elevation by temperature. Greater exposure of remaining `ākepa 

populations to vectors and pathogens is likely to occur with global warming. 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 
102 

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). 

 

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 the early 1990’s, and 

over 250,000 koa seedlings have been planted thus far. The `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership and Kona unit of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge also 

protect and manage 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 habitat that could serve 

as sites for reintroducing Hawai`i `ākepa. 

 

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 
103 

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 

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) 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 

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 in press). 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 
104 

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 has been developed for the Hawai`i `ākepa in 

case it is needed to help reestablish wild populations. 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. 

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, and 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. 

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 
105 

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) 

agreed that they fed chiefly on caterpillars and small spiders. Perkins also noted 

that they drank `ōhi`a 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 vs. hollows in branches would be important to 

discover. Refer to the account of Hawai`i `ākepa for comparable information 

about that race. 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

All specimens of Maui `ākepa were collected in `ōhi`a/koa rainforest at 

1,200 to 1,800 meters (4,000 to 6,000 feet) 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 race also may have once occupied all 

forests within its range. 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 (Figure 14). This 

range suggests that the birds were missing from forests at lower elevations, 

perhaps due to the introduction of disease-transmitting mosquitoes to Lāhainā in 

1826 (Hardy 1960). However, it may be that the Maui `ākepa originally occupied 

all forests on Maui. Complete destruction of habitat has not been 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 
106 

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. In fact, no reliably detectable population has been 

known during this period, and there is little evidence to dispute that the Maui 

`ākepa has been extinct for decades. Regardless, the current population, if it 

exists, is undetected and 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). 

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 infest `ākepa habitat on Maui (Sugihara 1997). 

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). Surveys to locate the bird in 1995 to 1999 yielded no definite 

detections (Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

See the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III. D. 
107 

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. 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 yellowishwhite, 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. Feet and legs and bill 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 and `i`iwi. 

LIFE HISTORY 

 

The `ākohekohe is primarily nectarivorous, but also feeds on caterpillars 

(Lepidoptera), spiders, and dipterans (Perkins 1903, Carothers 1986, VanGelder 

1996). Nectar is primarily sought from flowers of `ōhi`a (Metrosideros 

polymorpha), but also from several subcanopy tree and shrub species (VanGelder 

1996, Berlin et al. 2000). 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. 

 

Investigation of the `ākohekohe’s life history and ecology began with 

studies of its distribution in the late 1970's (Scott et al. 1986), followed by its role 

in the nectarivore community (Carothers 1986), and several reproductive and 

ecological investigations (VanGelder 1996, Berlin et al. 2001, U.S. Geological 

Survey unpubl. data). `Ākohekohe maintain and defend relatively discrete 

feeding and nesting territories throughout the year by chasing and calling 

(VanGelder 1996, Pratt et al. in press). The species appears to be monogamous 

for more than one breeding season, with pair formation starting in October, and 

nesting occurring mainly between November and May (VanGelder 1996, Berlin 
108 

and VanGelder 1999). These authors also reported two to three successful broods 

in a season. `Ākohekohe typically nest 14 meters (46 feet) above ground in the 

terminal ends of branches below the canopy foliage of `ōhi`a trees (VanGelder 

1996, Berlin and VanGelder 1999). 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, VanGelder 1996, 

Berlin and VanGelder 1999). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

 At present `ākohekohe survive in montane wet and mesic forests 

dominated by `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha). The habitat is generally as 

described for the Maui parrotbill, 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. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

 The `ākohekohe is currently found only in 58 square kilometers (22 square 

miles) of wet and mesic montane forests on the northeastern slopes of East Maui 

on Haleakalā Volcano, Maui, from 1,100 to 2,300 meters elevation (3,600 and 

7,550 feet), with nearly all birds occurring from 1,500 to 2,100 meters (5,000 to 

6,600 feet); (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 through the Ko`olau and Hāna Forest 

Reserves east 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 12; 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 1890's on the western slopes of Kula in mesic koa (Acacia koa)/`ōhi`a 

forested, 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 
109 

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 that 

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 1995), and limited surveys 1995 to 1997 by U.S. 

Geological Survey biologists, indicated approximately the same densities of birds 

within the same range. 

REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS 

The `ākohekohe is seemingly vulnerable to all of the same threats that 

negatively impact other honeycreepers on Maui (Berlin and VanGelder1999). 

Mortality from mosquito-borne diseases likely limits the species at lower 

elevations (Scott et al. 1986), and avian malaria was recently isolated from an 

`ākohekohe in Hanawī Natural Area Reserve (Feldman et al. 1995). `Ākohekohe 

may be particularly vulnerable to mosquito-borne diseases because they migrate 

attitudinally in response to varying `ōhi`a flowering phenology, potentially 

increasing their exposure to mosquitoes at lower elevations. 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). 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 

 The `ākohekohe was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967), automatically protected under State of 

Hawai`i endangered species law on March 22, 1982, and was included in the 

previous Maui-Moloka`i Forest Bird Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1984a). For information on habitat protection and restoration see the 

Maui parrotbill account; these two species share roughly the same geographical 

range. 

 

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 
110 

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 these two species 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. 

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 

(Figure 12). 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 habitat should remain an option if translocations of wild 

birds do not succeed in establishing a second population. Suitability of West 

Maui and Moloka`i as release sites for translocated birds currently is questionable 

due to the presumed presence of avian diseases in these lower elevation areas. 

19. Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma 

DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY 

The po`ouli is a medium-sized, 26 gram (0.9 ounce), stocky Hawaiian 

honeycreeper 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 under parts, whereas females (and perhaps young 

males) have a grayish throat and breast. Fledglings have whitish under parts, 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 
111 

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 discovered in 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 (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 like the other bark-foraging honeycreepers, the `akiapōlā`au and Maui 

parrotbill. In 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. 

Our knowledge of the 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 about 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. 

Throughout nesting, the male fed the female at or away from the nest. 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 pūkiawe 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 trees and were hidden among leaf-bearing 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, kawa`u (Ilex anomola), and `ōhi`a 

(Mountainspring et al. 1990, Pratt et al. 1997b). Po`ouli glean from, 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 (Kepler et al. 1996). 
112 

Po`ouli often associate with mixed species foraging flocks of other 

insectivorous honeycreepers, especially Maui `alauahio (Paroreomyza montana) 

and Maui parrotbill, 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 po`ouli. 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 those of 

Maui `alauahio, but often characteristically paired or given in rapid succession. 

Interestingly, most of the more 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 (Jamie Bruch, 

pers. comm.). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

Po`ouli currently 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. Rainfall, 

delivered mostly by the trade wind weather system, exceeds 5 meters (200 inches) 

annually. The vegetation is mixed shrub montane wet forest (Jacobi 1985) with a 

canopy averaging 13 meters (43 feet) height and 60 percent crown cover, 

dominated by `ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha). 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 as such are intolerant of habitat alteration by feral pigs. 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

The po`ouli apparently was unknown to the Hawaiians; it eluded western 

naturalists during the discovery period of Hawaiian ornithology at the end of the 

19th century, and was discovered by a team of university students in 1973 (Casey 

and Jacobi 1974). Historically, po`ouli have been confined to a 1,300-hectare 

(3,200 acres) section of forest on the northern and eastern slopes of Haleakalā

Volcano, Maui (Figure 14; 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, implicating a much broader geographic and habitat range 

(James and Olson 1991). 
113 

Po`ouli numbers and range have declined to a tiny population difficult to 

detect over at most a few hundred hectares. Attempts to estimate population size 

and density have met with frustration because of the bird’s poor delectability. 

Mountainspring et al. (1990) reported densities at the type locality of 76 ± 8 (SE) 

birds/square kilometers in 1976, 15 ± 7 birds/square kilometers in 1981, and 8 ± 4 

birds/square kilometers in 1985 (30.8 ± 3.2 birds/100 acres in 1976, 6.1 ± 2.8 

birds/100 acres 1981, and 3.2 ± 1.6 birds/100 acres in 1985). No birds were 

found in the type locality in 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); 

(Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001, Baker 2001). Thorough surveys of the historical 

range in 1997 to 2000 located only three birds, 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). These last three birds, now known to consist of one male and two females, 

occur in separate, non-overlapping home ranges, so there are no known breeding 

pairs. 

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. Of these factors, the most 

important are presumed to be nest predation by rats and mortality from mosquitoborne diseases. Both black and Polynesian rats are abundant in po`ouli habitat 

(Sugihara 1997). 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 State of Hanawī

Natural Area Reserve. Through fencing and control efforts, the State has 

removed feral pigs from sections of Hanawī Natural Area Reserve and State 

Forest Reserve that harbor po`ouli immediately to the east. These actions have 

stabilized soil erosion and stimulated vegetation recovery, improvements that 

should benefit the po`ouli. To the south, in habitat that appears suitable for 

po`ouli, the National Park Service has also erected fences and removed pigs. 
114 

Portions of The Nature Conservancy’s Waikamoi Preserve are managed as native 

ecosystems and could also serve as habitat for po`ouli. Habitat downhill from the 

fenced portions of Hanawī Natural Area Reserve is proposed for fencing. 

Several agencies and groups have initiated research and recovery. The 

East Maui Watershed Partnership, a consortium of government agencies, 

nongovernmental agencies, and private landowners seeks to protect 40,000 

hectares (100,000 acres) of rainforest, of which the higher elevations contain the 

last population of po`ouli. The Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural 

Resources and the U.S. Geological survey Biological Resources Division are 

continuing searches for the po`ouli in the Hanawī Natural Area Reserves and 

adjacent habitat. The Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into a cooperative agreement to 

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, surveys for native land snails, and mist netting, banding, 

and collecting blood samples to monitor demography and disease prevalence in 

native bird populations, including the po`ouli. The same program has included an 

attempt to translocate one po`ouli into the home range of another to encourage 

breeding (see Recovery Strategy for more detail). 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

Fundamental to the long-term strategy for recovery of the po`ouli is 

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. Recovery of vegetation should proceed rapidly at 

first as ferns and native shrubs move into disturbed areas. Regeneration of 

subcanopy trees will be slower, but within a few decades should return the forest 

to a restored condition. Forested lands below the lower boundary of Hanawī

Natural Area Reserve should be fenced, and feral pigs removed, to provide a 

buffer for current po`ouli home ranges and to protect any po`ouli that have not 

been detected. 

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 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 
115 

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 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources 1999). 

Translocation efforts began in January 2002. If a breeding pair is created by 

translocation, every effort should be made to search for nests, and any eggs 

produced should be brought to the appropriate facilities for rearing and 

establishment of a captive flock that eventually would produce birds for release 

back into the wild. 

While surveys for po`ouli have nearly exhausted the possibility of locating 

new birds, additional searches may be warranted adjacent to areas already 

covered. In addition, research should be conducted on the feasibility of largescale habitat management through application of rodenticide by hand broadcast or 

by aerial broadcast. Additional information on the abundance and distribution of 

the bird’s prey-base would increase our understanding of whether food limits the 

po`ouli population. 

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) and 11.5 to 17.0 grams (0.39 to 0.58 ounces), 

endemic to the Island of Kaua`i. Its head, back, sides, and flanks are dull gray to 

olive, the throat, breast, belly, and under tail 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. 

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. in press), and the species has been 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 1993, 1998) following Pratt (1979, 1992b), but its inclusion with the 

Hawai`i creeper in the genus is a matter of serious and 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. in press). 
116 

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. (in press) 

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 pers. comm., T. 

Snetsinger pers. comm.). `Akikiki also form mixed-species flocks with `akeke`e 

(Loxops caeruleirostris), `anianiau (Hemignathus parvus), Kaua`i `amakihi 

(Hemignathus stejnegeri), and Kaua`i `elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis 

sclateri), and historically with `akialoa (Hemignathus ellisianus), and Kaua`i 

nuku pu`u (Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe) (Perkins 1903, Munro 1944). 

Nest construction has been observed 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 pers. comm.), and the breeding season is believed to last 

into June or July. Only seven nests of Kaua`i creeper have been found (J. Foster 

pers. comm.) and only three of these have been reported in the literature 

(Eddinger 1972; Foster et al. in press). 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 at 8 to 9 meters (26 to 29 feet) high in the crowns of 

`ōhi`a 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 bark (J. Denny pers. comm.). 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 nestling period 

probably lasts 17 to 19 days, based on traits of the closely related Hawai`i creeper 

(Woodworth et al. 2001) and Maui `alauahio (Baker and Baker, 2001). Family 

groups of parent(s) and one to two juveniles can be found throughout the year. 

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. Nests can fledge two young 

successfully, 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 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. Nectarivory and frugivory have rarely 

been observed. 
117 

No data are available on the annual survival rate of `akikiki. 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 (>1,500 meters, 5,000 feet) where 

these data were collected (see below). 

HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

 The habitat description that follows has been taken from Foster et al. (in 

press). Kaua`i creepers are most common in mesic and wet forests from 600 

meters to 1,600 meters (2,000 to 5,300 feet) elevation. In the eastern edge of the 

species range, annual rainfall exceeds 13,000 millimeters/year (512 inches), 

declining to 1,100 millimeters (43 inches) at the western edge at Kōke`e State 

Park. This rainfall gradient, combined with varied topography, lead to great 

variability in habitat in `akikiki range. The montane wet forest is dominated by 

`ōhi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha) with a subcanopy of `ōlapa (Cheirodendron 

trigynum), 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), Clermontia faurei, kāwa`u (Ilex anomala), kōlea (Myrsine lessertiana), 

na`ena`e (Dubautia spp.) and 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 `akikiki was considered to be common from high to low elevation in 

native forests in the late 1800's (Perkins 1903), and was locally abundant in and 

near the Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve as late as the early 1960’s (Figure 18; 

Richardson and Bowles 1964). In 1968 to 1973, J. Sincock made the first attempt 

to estimate the total population of `akikiki (Sincock et al. 1984). 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 1981, the 

Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey, using different methods, estimated that there were 

approximately 1,650 ± 450 `akikiki in a 25 square kilometer (9.5 square miles) 

area of the southeastern Alaka`i, in the vicinity of what is now known as 

Sincock’s Bog (Scott et al. 1986). This is similar to the 2,300 ± 700 birds that 

Sincock had estimated in the same area. However, the range of the population 

has been contracting, resulting in an overall decline in numbers. In the heart of its 

range, `akikiki densities reached 101 to 200 birds/square kilometer (.386 square 

miles) in 1981 (Scott et al. 1986).
118 

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. 

Disease. Avian diseases, including both pox and malaria (Plasmodium 

relictum), are thought to play a major role in limiting the distribution of Kaua`i 

creeper. Mosquitoes have been captured as high as Sincock’s Bog at 4,400 feet 

(1,330 meters) elevation and are likely to occur to the highest elevations on 

Kaua`i (D. LaPointe pers. comm.). Mist netting of forest birds from 1994 to 

1997, at three locations, Pihea/Alaka`i Swamp Trail, Koai`e Camp, and Sincock’s 

Bog, established that 2 to 5 percent of all birds have active malaria infections and 

up to 12 percent have 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. 

To date, 10 `akikiki have been tested for disease. Of these, none had 

either active infections or evidence of past infection with malaria (C. 

Atkinson/U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. data). However, it is impossible to tell 

from these data how limiting a factor disease is for this species; low infection 

rates could reflect either low transmission rates or high mortality of infected 

birds. 

Habitat degradation/Invasive species. 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 have been 

reviewed elsewhere (Cabin et al. 2000), including soil erosion, disruption of 

regeneration of beneficial plants, and spreading of alien weeds. 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 during 1968 to 1973. 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 `akikiki 

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. 
119 

Predation from introduced and native species. Predation on `akikiki 

and their nests has not been documented. However, introduced mammals such as 

black rats (Rattus rattus), Polynesian rats (R. exulans), Norway rats (R. 

norvegicus), and feral cats (Felis silvestris) are present in the Alaka`i swamp on 

Kaua`i (Tweed et al. 2000) and are potential predators on roosting or incubating 

adults, nests, or young. Two species of owls, the native pueo or Hawaiian shorteared owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) and introduced barn owl (Tyto alba), 

are known to depredate forest passerines (U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. data). 

For the time being at least, the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) 

does not occur on Kaua`i. 

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 1999b). 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. The surveys included the 

majority of interest native forest on Kaua`i above about 1,200 meters (4,000 feet). 

These data are currently being analyzed. Final products of this and subsequent 

survey efforts will include: (1) an up-to-date population estimate for the `akikiki 

and other bird species of concern on public lands on Kaua`i; (2) an analysis of 

population trends over the past 20 years for species of special concern in the 25 

square kilometer (9.65 square miles) area in the southeastern Alaka`i, using 

historical and current data collected by the Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey and State 

Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources; (3) an up-to-date 

distribution map (hard copies and GIS coverages) for `akikiki and other species of 

special concern in the region; and (4) a habitat suitability map for `akikiki. 

 

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 

maintained at the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center. 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 The Zoological Society of San Diego 2000). 
120 

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 nuku 

pu`u (Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe), Kaua`i `akialoa (Hemignathus ellisianus), 

and puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). The area is also important as a 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 and subsequent 

predator control were important actions that have 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 values from 

certain degrading factors caused by human activities. The Hawai’i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources established the 4,022 hectares (9,938 acres) 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 

1960's. 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 et al. 1984). Large-scale 

multi-agency surveys were conducted on established transects in 1981, 1985, 

1989, 1993, 1994, and 2000 (Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources 

1986 unpubl. Data; U.S. Geological Survey unpubl. data). 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 succeeds only in the 

more accessible areas of the preserve, and ungulate populations in more remote 

areas remain quite high. Alternatives are expensive, of limited effectiveness, 

logistically difficult, and/or politically contentious. Very 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. At 
121 

present the Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural Resources does not consider 

large scale ungulate fencing and removal to be an economically feasible option 

for protecting the Alaka`i, and instead supports development of alternative lethal 

methods in remote (non-hunted) areas. It is clear that long-term protection of the 

Alaka`i from feral ungulates will require creativity, commitment, political savvy, 

an extensive public relations campaign, and significant financial backing. 

 

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 and educate the public and gain 

support for funding to preserve endangered species. Privately funded filmmakers 

including the British Broadcasting Company and the National Geographic Society 

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 

Division, 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 have had a major 

role in the decline and extinction of native birds in Hawai`i. Although it is a 

formidable task, there are hopes of finding some means of managing the disease 

problem of rare native forest birds. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

 The primary strategy for the recovery of the Kaua`i creeper is the 

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 18). 

Habitat Protection. Prospects for recovery 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 

devices for use in areas inaccessible to hunters, or in areas closed to 

hunters; 
122 

• 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. A need exists to develop, test, register, and apply 

toxicants for control of feral cats and introduced rodents in remote forested 

habitat. It is necessary to prevent additional introductions of exotic plants, 

insects, mammals, especially the mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus), currently 

resident on other Hawaiian islands, and alien birds that may act as predators on or 

competitors with native birds. 

Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Programs. It could be 

necessary to continue development of captive breeding and release techniques for 

Oreomystis creepers as a model for potential implementation with the `akikiki. 

Population Surveys and Monitoring. A primary need is an intensive 

demographic study of `akikiki 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 (concurrent or subsequent) 

management actions to mitigate key limiting factors. Also necessary is continued 

monitoring of the status of forest bird populations and their habitats to measure 

the effectiveness of management actions. 

21. Bishop's `Ō`ō, Moho bishopi

DESCRIPTION and TAXONOMY 

 Bishop’s `ō`ō, now considered a “species of concern,” was a large, 12-

inch (31 centimeters), vociferous, long-tailed black forest bird with a yellow ear 

patch, under tail coverts, and maxillary tufts. Bishop’s `ō`ō was known with 

certainty only from Moloka`i, and was a member of the honeyeater family 

(Melaphagidae), originating in Australia and the South Pacific and not related to 

the Hawaiian honeycreepers. The genus Moho was endemic to the Hawaiian 

Islands, but all four species in this genus are now extinct. The Bishop's `ō`ō was 

last seen in 1904 (Munro 1944). Detailed descriptions of this species and its calls 

are 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 
123 

1944). Apparently this species was primarily nectarivorous, preferring lobelia 

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 and 

lobeliads in the upper elevations of Moloka`i. Supposed detections of `ō`ō on 

Maui were from montane rainforest of northeastern East Maui (Sabo 1982). 

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT RANGE AND STATUS 

 Historically, this species was recorded only from Moloka`i (Figure 15). 

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 

(1980-1984) 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). It seems clear that this 

species should 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 Hawaiians for its yellow plumes, 

and it is possible that unregulated feather collecting in the 1800's, when guns 

became available, contributed to the bird's demise. 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

 No specific efforts to recover this species have been initiated because no 

individuals are known to exist and the species is almost certainly extinct. 

RECOVERY STRATEGY 

 It is very unlikely that this species survives on either Moloka`i or Maui. 

However, see the Rare Bird Discovery Protocol in Section III. D.
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 

III. RECOVERY 

A. Recovery Objectives 

 The primary objective of this Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery 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 also 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 recovery of evolutionarily viable units. 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.). 

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. Recovery objectives 

specific to particular taxa are listed in Table 6, and are discussed in detail in the 

species accounts for those taxa. A metapopulation as used below is defined as a 

group of partially isolated populations belonging to the same species among 

which exchange of individuals occurs. 

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

of the following criteria apply, as well as any species-specific downlisting criteria 

listed in Table 6: 
139 

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. 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 intrinsic growth rate 

(lambda) 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 recovery habitat is protected and managed to achieve Criteria 1 

and 2 above. 

4. The mix of 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 

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 when the downlisting criteria described above, as 

well as any species-specific criteria listed in Table 6, have been satisfied for at 

least 30 consecutive years. 
140 

Table 6. Additional species-specific recovery criteria for some Hawaiian forest birds. See 

individual species accounts for discussion of the recovery strategy and justification of recovery 

criteria. 

Table 6 

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/Halepaakai, 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 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 

Hamakua, 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 

criterion 2 applies over a 

30-year period. 

Hawai`i creeper Viable populations or metapopulations exist in 

Hamakua, Kūlani/Kīlauea/Keauhou, Ka`ū, and 

Kona dry forest, 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 

Hamakua, Kūlani/Kīlauea/Keauhou, Ka`ū, south 

Kona, and Puu Waawaa/Hualalai, 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 

Same as downlisting, and 

criteria 2 and 3 apply over 
141 

Table 6 

Species Downlisting Criteria Delisting Criteria 

period. a 30-year period. 

`Akikiki (candidate 

species) 

Total population of 6,000 birds throughout 75 

percent of the area occupied from 1968 to 1973 

(Sincock surveys), 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), and 

criteria 2 and 3 apply over 

a 30-year period. 

C. Recovery Habitat 

1. General Guidelines for Establishing Recovery Habitat Boundaries 

To better address the recovery needs of endangered Hawaiian forest birds, 

we established recovery habitat boundaries to emphasize where recovery efforts 

should be focused. We define recovery habitat as those areas that will allow for 

the long-term survival and recovery of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. 

Recovery habitat is a biological evaluation of habitat potentially important for the 

recovery of Hawaiian forest birds and conveys no legal obligation on the part of 

private landowners to manage their lands for forest bird recovery. Recovery 

habitat is not to be confused with “critical habitat,” the formal designation that 

requires analysis of both biological and economic factors. Implementation of the 

recovery actions identified in the Recovery Action Narrative (Section IV) within 

the recovery habitat units 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 habitat 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 originally was much larger than the area identified as recovery 

habitat in this plan. The overall purpose of recovery habitat is to guide efforts to 

stabilize and recover listed species. Recovery habitat includes 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 habitat also includes intervening areas that will 

facilitate dispersal of birds and gene flow among high elevation populations that 

currently are isolated, thereby increasing the effective population size and 

possibly creating a metapopulation. Areas within recovery habitat currently differ 

in suitability for forest bird recovery; some areas already contain high quality 
142 

habitat and support core populations of endangered forest birds, other areas may 

need intensive management and restoration before they can be considered 

suitable. 

 The foremost concern in determining recovery habitat 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 habitat therefore focuses on 

existing habitat and restorable habitat at high elevations, up to tree line on the 

higher islands (Maui and Hawai`i) and to the mountain summits on lower islands 

(Kaua`i, O`ahu, 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 habitat 

occurs in different units that are separated by large gaps of unsuitable developed 

land, while on other islands (Hawai`i, Kaua`i) there is one unit 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. 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 habitat 

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 habitat units. 

Within the identified recovery units, every attempt should be made to 

manage for continuous habitat that matches the historical distribution and 

environmental conditions in which 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. Maintenance or development of continuous 

habitat within recovery units will facilitate dispersal and connectivity. 

Contiguous recovery habitat also is 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. Density of birds is not expected to be uniform throughout the 
143 

recovery habitat; source-sink dynamics, metapopulation dynamics, and seasonal 

movements in response to geographic variation in resources should be included 

where they naturally would exist. 

For species that have not been detected in 10 or more years, recovery 

criteria still pertain in the long-term; however, the immediate recovery action 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 `ō`ū , 

Maui nuku pu`u, Maui `ākepa, Bishop’s `ō`ō, `oloma`o, kākāwahie, O`ahu 

`alauahio, Kaua`i `akialoa, Kaua`i nuku pu`u, Kaua`i `ō`ō, and kāma`o. With the 

exception of the `ō`ū on the Island of Hawai`i, we have not identified separate 

recovery habitat for species that have not been seen recently because areas that 

should be searched are included in the recovery habitat for other species. We 

have identified recovery habitat 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 

habitat and historical and current range for all 21 species listed in this plan appear 

together following the species accounts (Figures 7-20). 

2. Hawai`i Recovery Habitat 

`Akiapōlā`au 

• Recovery habitat encompasses 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 can be restored. `Akiapōlā`au inhabit both koa/`ōhi`a 

forest and māmane forest. More than half of the recovery habitat 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 3,000 feet (910 meters) on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea, 3,000 

feet (910 meters) on the eastern and southeastern slopes of Mauna Loa, 4,000 

feet (1,210 meters) on the western slopes of Mauna Loa, and 3,800 feet (1,150 

meters) on the northern slope of Hualālai. 

• The upper limit of recovery habitat is delineated by the highest elevation edge 

of the historical koa and māmane vegetation zones on all volcanoes. 
144 

Hawai`i `Ākepa and Hawai`i Creeper

• Recovery habitat encompasses 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 can be restored. Both species 

are found in koa-`ōhi`a forest, but do not inhabit māmane like the 

`akiapōlā`au. Hawai`i `•kepa currently are restricted to only a portion of 

their recovery habitat due to limited availability of large diameter trees for 

nesting as well as other limiting factors. These two species have very similar 

distributions and occupy similar habitat, but historical observations indicate 

the Hawai`i creeper once occurred at somewhat lower elevations (down to 

3,000 feet [910 meters]) on the western slope of Mauna Loa. 

• The lower limit of recovery habitat is determined by the distribution of 

mosquitoes, the same as for the `akiapōlā`au. 

• The upper limit of recovery habitat is delineated by the highest elevation edge 

of koa and `ōhi`a vegetation zones on all volcanoes. 

Palila

• The palila is an extreme food specialist, preferring unhardened māmane seeds 

in green pods or in pods that are just beginning to turn brown. Palila are 

dependent on māmane and māmane-naio 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 4,500 

feet (1,360 meters) on Mauna Kea and the western slope of Mauna Loa. 

• The current population of palila is concentrated on 

the southwestern slope 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 habitat is delineated by 

the highest elevation edge of the historical m•mane 

and m•mane-naio forest on Mauna Kea and the upper 
145 

limit of historical m•mane and m•mane-naio forest on 

the western slope of Mauna Loa. 

3. Maui Nui Recovery Habitat 

`Ākohekohe

• Currently there is only one population, on the windward side of Haleakalā. 

Additional habitat is needed to achieve at least two populations or a 

metapopulation on Maui Nui (Maui, Moloka`i, and Lana`i). To accomplish 

the goal for the second population, it will be necessary to establish the birds 

on West Maui or reestablish a Moloka`i population. Both sites may offer 

enough available habitat if disease is not a limiting factor. 

• Haleakalā population: The `ākohekohe population on the windward side is 

currently about 3,800 birds, in only 5 percent of the estimated historical Maui 

range. Population increase could be achieved by increasing habitat or by 

increasing habitat and improving carrying capacity. Birds seem to occupy all 

suitable habitat in the current range, given disease constraints at lower 

elevations and boundaries of native vegetation. Carrying capacity increases in 

currently occupied range are not sufficient to achieve recovery criteria; 

therefore, additional upper elevation habitat must be restored from 4,000 to 

7,000 feet (1,210 to 2,120 meters) on leeward slopes and from 5,000 to 7,000 

feet (1,515 to 2,120 meters) on the Kula slopes. A lower elevational limit of 

2,500 feet (750 meters) on windward Haleakalā would encompass 

nonbreeding habitat for some birds following seasonal flower bloom 

downslope, and enough habitat for expansion of the breeding population to a 

size at which the species could be downlisted. 

• West Maui population: The indicated area, from 2,500 feet (750 meters) to 

the summit, encompasses all remaining forest habitat sufficient for forest bird 

inhabitation. Vegetation condition is currently almost pristine and managed 

for conservation. A population situated here could provide the second 

geographically disjunct population. Elevation is not high enough to provide 

disease- and vector-free habitat. 

• Moloka`i population: The indicated area, from 2,500 feet (750 meters) to the 

summit, encompasses all remaining forest habitat sufficient for forest bird 

inhabitation. Habitat conditions and disease implications are similar to West 

Maui. 

Maui Parrotbill

• Currently there is only one population, on the windward side of Haleakalā. 

Additional habitat is needed to achieve at least two populations or a 

metapopulation for Maui Nui. 
146 

• The Hawai`i Forest Bird Surveys of 1980 and 1995 to 1997 resulted in 

identification of one population of 500 birds in 5,000 hectares (12,350 acres) 

on Haleakalā. At present, birds seem to occupy all suitable habitat in current 

range, given disease constraints at lower elevations and boundaries of native 

vegetation. Therefore, to increase the Haleakalā population additional habitat 

must be restored on the leeward slopes from 4,000 to 7,000 feet (1,210 to 

2,120 meters) and from 5,000 to 7,000 feet (1,515 to 2.120 meters) on the 

Kula slopes. The lower elevational range on windward Haleakalā slopes must 

be expanded down to 2,500 feet (750 meters). 

• To attain two or more populations or a metapopulation to allow downlisting 

would require birds to occupy all of current Haleakalā forest habitat, currently 

unoccupied historical habitat, habitat needing restoration, and other Maui Nui 

areas as well. These areas include the two other remaining large tracts of 

Maui Nui forests: West Maui and East Moloka`i. Although there is no 

historical record for parrotbills at either location, the habitat closely resembles 

occupied habitat on Haleakalā, and there is fossil evidence that the species 

inhabited Moloka`i. 

• Moloka`i: It will be necessary to reestablish the birds on West Maui or 

Moloka`i. The indicated area, from 2,500 feet (750 meters) to the respective 

summits, encompasses all remaining forest habitat sufficient for forest bird 

inhabitation on West Maui and Moloka`i. A population situated on West 

Maui could provide the second geographically disjunct population where 

vegetation condition is currently almost pristine and managed for 

conservation. There is little disease- and vector-free habitat on Moloka`i or 

West Maui. 

Po`ouli

• Currently there is only one population of three birds, on the windward side of 

Haleakalā. Additional habitat is needed to achieve at least two populations or 

a metapopulation for Maui Nui. 

• The Hawai`i Forest Bird Survey of 1980 found only 0.08 birds per hectare 

(0.03 birds per acre), and only three birds are currently known to exist on 

windward Haleakalā. Essentially the entire population on Haleakalā must be 

rebuilt. Since habitat requirements for the po`ouli remain poorly understood, 

it must be assumed that habitat needs of this species will be met by the 

recovery habitat for Maui parrotbill, which the fossil evidence suggests 

probably encompassed the full range of native forest bird habitat on 

windward, leeward, and Kula slopes of East Maui. Therefore, to increase the 

Haleakalā population, additional habitat must be restored on the leeward 

slopes from 4,000 to 7,000 feet (1,210 to 2,120 meters) and from 5,000 to 

7,000 feet (1,515 to 2.120 meters) on the Kula slopes. 
147 

• To attain two or more populations or a 

metapopulation to allow downlisting would require 

birds to occupy all of current Haleakal• forest 

habitat, currently unoccupied historical habitat, 

habitat needing restoration on the Leeward and Kula 

slopes of Haleakal•, and other Maui Nui areas as 

well. It will be necessary to reestablish the birds 

on West Maui to attain downlisting and delisting 

criteria. The indicated area, from 2,500 feet (750 

meters) to the summit, encompasses all remaining 

forest habitat sufficient for forest bird 

inhabitation on West Maui. A population situated on 

West Maui could provide the second geographically 

disjunct population where vegetation condition is 

currently almost pristine and managed for 

conservation, and resembles current po`ouli habitat 

on Haleakal•. There is little disease- and vectorfree habitat on West Maui. 

4. O`ahu Recovery Habitat 

O`ahu `Elepaio

• Recovery habitat includes all areas that are currently occupied by the O`ahu 

`elepaio, excluding one very small, isolated area at Hau`ula that contains only 

a single male (Figure 17). 

• 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 habitat units 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 currently is occupied by O`ahu `elepaio. 

• Although disease is a serious threat, it was not considered in delineating 

recovery habitat for the O`ahu `elepaio because no parts of the island are high 

enough to provide refuge from mosquitoes and all areas are subject to disease. 

5. Kaua`i Recovery Habitat 
148 

Puaiohi

• Puaiohi exist at a density of about 16 birds/square kilometer (16 birds/0.39 

square mile) in the core of their range (i.e., best remaining habitat; Snetsinger 

et al. in prep.). We estimate that there is, at best, roughly about 100 square 

kilometers (38 square miles) of suitable or restorable habitat remaining. 

Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect to achieve a total population 

size of puaiohi of more than 2,000 birds. Furthermore, surrounding lowland 

habitats are too degraded to consider as possible habitat and are outside 

consideration until methods for dealing with avian disease have been 

developed. The lack of suitable habitat elsewhere on the island makes it 

functionally impossible to establish a second population isolated from the 

Alaka`i population. 

• We used 1977 and 1978 aerial photographs to delineate the boundaries of the 

wet and mesic montane forest habitat, and this formed the basis for the 

inclusion of: 

o All known current and historical range that is restorable; 

o All the high elevation montane wet forest remaining in the 

Alaka`i/Kōke`e region above 3,000 to 3,500 feet (900 to 1,060 

meters), except steep unforested cliffs; and 

o All of Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, portions of Kōke`e State Park, and 

private lands to the south deemed to be recoverable. 

‘Akikiki

• Recovery habitat includes: 

o All known current and historical range that is restorable; 

o All the high elevation montane wet forest remaining in the 

Alaka`i/Kōke`e region above 3,000 to 3,500 feet (900 to 1,060 

meters), except steep unforested cliffs; 

o Portions of montane mesic forest/scrub (especially in Kōke`e State 

Park), Lā`au Ridge, and Nāmolokama Peak, based on historical 

distribution and documentation by J. Sincock. However, Lā`au and 

Nāmolokama are small, isolated areas and therefore are unlikely to 

sustain viable populations separate from the main population in the 

Alaka`i; and 

o All of Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, portions of Kōke`e State Park, and 

private lands to south and northeast deemed to be recoverable. 
149 

• At current densities, `akikiki recovery will require protecting and managing as 

much of the remaining habitat as possible. Two separate, self-sustaining 

populations (i.e., one outside of the Alaka`i) will not be possible. 

Other Endangered Kaua`i Forest Birds

There have been no confirmed sightings of the Kaua`i `Akialoa, Kaua`i 

nuku pu`u, Kaua`i `ō`ō, kāma`o, and `ō`ū for many years. In recent history, all 

five of these species were last extant within the boundaries of puaiohi recovery 

habitat, and 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., nuku pu`u) originally were more widespread than puaiohi, 

existing in lower-elevation koa forests. Presumably the Alaka`i was a last refuge 

from disease but not necessarily the preferred/optimal habitat for these species. 

D. Rare Bird Discovery Protocol 

1. Background and Justification 

Currently, the majority of the 30 species and subspecies of Hawaiian birds 

listed as endangered are forest birds. While a number of extensive surveys of 

forest birds have taken place since 1976, the majority of these surveys have 

focused on determining 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 for 

information before informed management strategies can be developed and 

implemented. Moreover, given the magnitude of the threats to Hawaiian forest 

birds, immediate management measures directed at recovery of the population 

should be undertaken whenever possible. In October 1993, personnel of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service formed a field team (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 Memo, 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 are 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 field 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 by the public agencies or the private citizenry of a species that is 

considered to be possibly “extinct”: (5) maximize data collection efforts; (6) 
150 

facilitate communication and decisions between collaborating individuals, 

agencies, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appointed working groups; and (7) 

provide the information necessary to formulate the most effective and successful 

conservation management strategies for the target species. 

2. Target Species 

The species for which these protocols may pertain, generally those 

numbering less than 50 individuals and/or have not been seen for 10 years or 

longer, include: 

Psittirostra psittacea, `ō`ū 

Melamprosops phaeosoma, po`ouli 

Hemignatus lucidus affinus, Maui nuku pu`u 

Loxops coccineus ochraceus, Maui `ākepa 

Moho bishopi, Bishop’s `ō`ō 

Myadestes lanaiensis rutha, oloma`o (Moloka`i thrush) 

Paroreomyza flammea, kākāwahie (Moloka`i creeper) 

Paroeomyza maculata, O`ahu `alauahio (O`ahu creeper) 

Hemignathus procerus, Kaua`i `akialoa 

Hemignathus lucidus Hanapepe, Kaua`i nuku pu'u 

Moho braccatus, Kaua`i `ō`ō

Myadestes myadestinus, kāma`o (large Kaua`i thrush) 

3. Protocol 

The following is an outline of 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, propagation 

managers). 

The designation of “potentially extinct” should be based on the 

number of years since last observed, evaluation of rate and cause 

of decline, general condition of preferred habitat, accessibility of 

wild population, natural history/seasonality, and the joint 

recommendations of the participating biologists of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

ii. Search, find, and study target species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, U.S. Geological 

Survey, private birdwatchers). 
151 

Once the target species is located, an intensive search of the 

surrounding vicinity by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife should be made over a period of 

approximately 3 weeks to study the target species and determine: 

a) Number of individuals, and if possible sex and age class of 

each. 

b) Immediate threat(s) to the population (e.g., predators, disease, 

human presence, 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, propagation 

managers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey). 

After the target species has been initially observed and its situation 

documented, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife, in consultation with the Hawaiian Forest 

Bird Recovery Team, Captive Propagation Working Group, and 

the captive propagation managers, will consider some or all of the 

following invasive 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. 

b) Blood-samples for genetics, sexing, and veterinary evaluation. 

c) Installation of transmitter(s) on some or all individuals. 

d) Implementation of control measures for potential threats (e.g., 

fencing, trapping, poisoning, shooting, etc.). 

e) Implementation of measures that may enhance reproductive 

success in the wild (e.g., providing supplementary food 
152 

stations, artificial nests and nesting material, and field 

aviaries). 

f) Translocation. 

g) Removal from the wild of individuals and nestlings and/or eggs 

for transferal to one of the captive propagation facilities for 

propagation and/or hand-rearing prior to management 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 habitat management (i.e., 

continuous funding and implementation), and current levels of 

expertise. 

iv. Initiate intervention if necessary (Hawaiian Forest Bird Recovery 

Team, propagation managers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Forestry and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey). 

Each management strategy selected will require participation by 

various combinations of agencies, personnel and/or facilities 

managers. Each action step will require population specific 

protocols, which should be developed by all entities involved just 

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. 
153 

IV. RECOVERY ACTION NARRATIVE 

 

The recovery action narrative is organized into six broad categories of 

recovery actions: 1) Protect Ecosystems for Recovery of Native 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 habitat, 

reducing or eliminating the detrimental effects of alien plants within ecosystems, 

reducing or eliminating the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within 

forest ecosystems, reducing or eliminating the detrimental effects of alien 

mammalian 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 do not have priority numbers for 

implementation, but each specific recovery action was assigned an 

implementation priority number (see Table 20, Implementation Schedule). Tables 

in the recovery action narrative are organized by island and 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. 

1. Protect Ecosystems for Recovery of Native Forest Birds. 

1.1 Describe and delineate recovery habitat. (Priority 1) 

 Recovery habitat maps have been created for each island and for 

species with known current distributions (Figures 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 17, 18, and 20). 

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 
154 

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 Groups Mission/Purpose is to revive Hawaiian 

Home Lands beneficiary involvement in management of 

the 3,030 hectares (7,500 acres) 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 Lands and the 

beneficiary community initiative to resettle the ahupuaa 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 core (100,000 

acres) 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 

in the strategy increased public hunting, and fencing. 

1.2.4 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 

region from alien pest animals, weeds, inappropriate human 

activities, and other threats. 

1.2.5 The East Moloka`i Watershed Partnership is a coalition of 

conservation interests, landowners, and county, State, and 

Federal government agencies bringing together economic 
155 

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. 

1.2.6 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 habitat areas through conservation easement, 

partnership agreement, safe harbor agreement, and change in land 

use designation, lease, or purchase from willing seller. 

Table 7 lists, by island, recovery habitat areas requiring protection. 

Habitat management plans should be written for all protected 

areas, and protection could be implemented through conservation 

easements, partnerships, or, if necessary, land exchange, changes 

in land use designation, or purchase from willing seller. Public 

(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 when ever possible. Several watershed 

partnerships are in effect across the State, and 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 
156 

through partnerships or easements, parcels should be considered 

for purchase by private and public conservation organizations 

when owners are interested in selling and when 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 as recovery habitat and 

state that, when the opportunity arises, purchase in each case 

should be weighed as an option for forest bird conservation. 

Table 7. Parcels in recovery habitat in need 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 

`akialoau; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nuku pu`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 for 

landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 7 

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 State, 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 State, DHHL. Provides a 

vital link between mesic koa forest 

and dry māmane forest. By lease, 

conservation easement, 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 State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Currently the Laupāhoehoe Section 

of Hilo Forest reserve Area. By 

conservation easement or change in 

land use designation to conservation 

protective subzone. A mid-elevation 

forest with intact native tree canopy 

vulnerable to destruction by 

continued sustained yield pig 

hunting. 

2 

1.3.4 H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, Pīhā

AKIP 

HCRE 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Contains important wet and mesic 

2 
157 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

Section, 

333001004 

AKEP 

OU 

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. A midelevation forest with intact native 

tree canopy vulnerable to 

destruction by sustained yield pig 

hunting. 

1.3.5 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, 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 State, DHHL. Restorable. 

A vital link between wet and dry 

forest communities. Currently 

leased by Nobrega Ranch for cattle 

grazing. By lease, conservation 

easement, cooperative agreement, or 

partnership. 

1 

1.3.7 H Humu`ula, 

Portions of 

338001007 

AKEP 

AKIP 

HCRE 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, 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 Lamaia Section, 

326018002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, 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 

1.3.9 H Pu`u `ō`ō Ranch, 

326018001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. Leased to Pu`u `ō`ō Ranch 

for cattle grazing. Important mesic 

and wet koa/`ōhi`a forest remnants, 

vital link between wet and dry forest 

1 
158 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

communities. By lease, 

conservation easement, change of 

jurisdiction, or change in land use 

designation to conservation. 

1.3.10 H Ka`ohe Lease, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division, currently leased for cattle 

grazing. A vital 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. Contains 

remnant mesic koa and `ōhi`a forest. 

By lease, conservation easement. 

Currently a new member of the 

Olaa-Kilauea Parnership. 

2 

1.3.12 H Kapāpala Ranch, 

Portions of 

398001010 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division, Kapāpala Ranch, currently 

leased for cattle grazing. 

Restorable. A link between forest 

communities to the east and west. 

By lease, conservation easement, 

change of jurisdiction, 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. 

Protects 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 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park. 

Valuable wet and mesic forest 

habitat that links Ka`ū Forest and 

South Kona Forest. Restorable. 

2 

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 agreement, change in 

land use designation, or purchase 

3 
159 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

from willing seller. 

1.3.17 H Pāpā, 

388001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Koa Aina Ventures. A link between 

Ka`ū Forest and South Kona Forest. 

By lease, conservation easement, 

partnership agreement, change in 

land use designation, or purchase 

from willing seller. 

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 

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 

1.3.21 H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i DLNR. Land Division. 

Protects 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 

Kamehameha Schools. By lease, 

conservation easement, partnership

2 
160 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

AKEP agreement, change in land use 

designation, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

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. 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 

1.3.25 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 

1.3.26 H Pu`u Lehua, 

Portions of 

378001003 

378001007 

372002001 

378001001 

AKIP 

PALI 

HCRE 

Kamehameha Schools. Provide 

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,

AKOH, 

MAPA,

J. Haili. Small parcel at lower edge 

of recovery habitat. By partnership

3 
161 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

Kukui`ula, 

216001007 

POOU with EMWP. 

1.3.29 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

Kukui`ula, 

216001006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kalalau, Cleveland. Small parcel at 

lower edge of recovery habitat. By 

partnership with EMWP. 

3 

1.3.30 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

218001007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Isolated; secure 

access for management needed. By 

partnership with EMWP or lease. 

1 

1.3.31 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217001032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

A. Kaapana et al. Small parcel at 

lower edge of recovery habitat. By 

partnership with EMWP. 

3 

1.3.32 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217001024 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Small parcel at 

lower edge of recovery habitat. By 

partnership with EMWP. 

3 

1.3.33 MA Nu`u, 

218001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Degraded former 

forest land in need of active 

management. By partnership with 

EMWP. Acquisition being 

negotiated by NPS. By safe harbor 

agreement, easement, change of land 

use designation, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

3 

1.3.34 MA Nu`u, 

218001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

James Campbell Est. Degraded 

former forest land in need of active 

management. By partnership with 

EMWP, conservation easement, or 

purchase from willing seller. 

3 

1.3.35 MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Isolated; secure 

better access for management. 

Degraded former forest land in need 

of active management. By 

partnership with EMWP or lease. 

1 

1.3.36 MA Kahikinui 

Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Degraded 

former forest land in active forest 

stewardship program with FWS. By 

partnership with EMWP. 

1 
162 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

219001011 

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 partnership with EMWP. 

By conservation easement, safe 

harbor agreement, change in land 

use designation, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2 

1.3.38 MA Kula Forest 

Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. By partnership with 

EMWP. 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 

EMWP, 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 partnership with 

EMWP, 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 partnership 

with EMWP, 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 EMWP, conservation 

easement, safe harbor agreement, 

change of land use designation, or 

purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.43 MA Kamehame AKOH R. G. Von Tempsky Jr. Trust. 2 
163 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

Nui/Kealahou, 

223005002 

MAPA 

POOU 

Degraded former forest in need of 

active management. By partnership 

with EMWP, conservation 

easement, safe harbor agreement, 

change of land use designation, or 

purchase from willing seller. 

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 partnership with 

EMWP, 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

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,

AKOH 

MAPA 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. In WMWP. By

2
164 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

Pu`u Kī/Haakea, 

245022002 

245022004 

POOU conservation easement, safe harbor 

agreement, or purchase from willing 

seller. 

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

1.3.59 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Laeokapuna,

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Hodgins. By easement, safe 

harbor agreement, or purchase from 

willing seller. 

2
165 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

257005027 

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

1.3.69 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kawela,

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kawela Plantation Homes 

Association. By easement or 

purchase from willing seller. In 

2
166 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

254003001 

254003028 

EMOWP. 

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 partnership 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 partnership 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 may be needed to ensure 

protection of large `elepaio 

population. By easement, 

partnership 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, 

partnership 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, partnership in KMWP, 

or purchase from willing seller. 

2 

1.3.76 O Kapālama, 

14015009 

OAEL Julius Chung Trust. Small parcel. 

By partnership in KMWP. 

3 

1.3.77 O Moanalua 

Valley,

OAEL Damon Estate. In KMWP, but 

additional measures may be needed 

2 
167 

Table 7 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, Tax Map Key (TMK) 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

11013001 to ensure protection of large `elepaio 

population. By easement or 

purchase from willing seller. 

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 or purchase from willing 

seller. 

2 

1.3.79 O Wai Kāne 

Valley, 

48014005 

OAEL SMF Enterprises. In KMWP, but 

additional measures may be needed 

to ensure protection of large `elepaio 

population. By easement or 

purchase from willing seller. 

1 

1.3.80 O Waianu Valley, 

48014003 

48013014 

OAEL Waiahole Irrigation Co. Ltd. In 

KMWP, but additional measures 

may be needed to ensure protection 

of large `elepaio population. By 

easement 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 

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. 

3 
168 

2. Manage Forest Ecosystems for the Benefit and Recovery of Native Forest 

Birds. 

2.1 Reforest areas of recovery habitat that no longer contain necessary 

constituent elements for species recovery. (Priority 1-3) 

Recovery of most 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. 

Table 8. Parcels in recovery habitat 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 

`akialoau; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nuku pu`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 for 

landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.1.1 H Northeastern 

Slope of Mauna 

Kea, 

Portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State 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 State, DHHL. Provides a 

vital link between mesic koa forest 

and dry māmane forest habitats. 

Restore upper pasturelands. 

1 

2.1.3 H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe 

Section, 

337001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. 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 State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. Remove alien 

trees. Restore transition forest from 

wet `ōhi`a to mesic koa. Facilitate 

understory regeneration. 

3 
169 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.1.5 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, 

337001010 

329005005 

333001007 

329005003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Currently managed forest bird 

habitat. Remove alien trees and 

continue forest restoration program. 

1 

2.1.6 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

 Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DHHL, leased by 

DOFAW. Facilitate canopy tree and 

understory regeneration. 

3 

2.1.7 H Humu`ula, 

338001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Restorable. 

A vital link between wet and dry 

forest communities. 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 State, DHHL, leased to 

Parker Ranch. Reforest pasturelands 

to native montane dryland habitat. 

2 

2.1.9 H Lamaia Section, 

326018002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, 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 State, DLNR, State 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 State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. Protect and reforest. 

2 

2.1.12 H Mauna Kea 

Forest Reserve, 

 344015001 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, 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, 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park. 

Continue dryland forest restoration. 

3 
170 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

399001002 

2.1.15 H Kapāpala Ranch, 

398001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division, Kapāpala Ranch. A link 

between forest communities to the 

east and west. Protect parcel, 

remove alien trees and restore 

montane dryland 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 

2.1.17 H Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve, 

Portions of 

397001006 

397001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools. Protect and 

facilitate natural regeneration. 

3 

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 

Koa Aina Ventures. A link between 

Ka`ū Forest and South Kona Forest. 

Protect and 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 State. 2 

2.1.23 H Yee Hop Ranch, 

Portions of 

388001003 

388001004 

387012001 

392001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. Provides links 

between State owned 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. 

3 
171 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

387012003 

387012004 

387001007 

387001006 

387001011 

387001004 

2.1.24 H Kona Forest 

NWR, 

386001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Restore montane mesic koa forest. 

1 

2.1.25 H `Alae Ranch, 

Portions of 

387001014 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State 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 State, DLNR, State 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. 

Protects contiguous forest habitat in 

South Kona from development, and 

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 
172 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.1.31 H Pu`u Wa`awa`a, 

371001001 

371001006 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, 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. 2 

 2.1.33 MA Haleakalā

National Park, 

218001007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

National Park Service. Restore 

montane mesic forest in Kaupō Gap. 

1 

 2.1.34 MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217004006 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Restore montane 

mesic forest along cliff lines and 

head of Manawainui Valley. 

1 

 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 State. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. 

1 

 2.1.38 MA Kahikinui 

Homelands, 

219001003 

219001007 

219001008 

219001011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, 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 State. 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 
173 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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 

 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 

R. G. Von Tempsky Jr. Trust. 

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 elevations. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

1 

 2.1.48 MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve, 

224016001 

224016002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Restore montane 

mesic forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

1 

 2.1.49 MA West Maui NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

231006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Restore montane wet 

forest and shrubland. 

2 

 2.1.50 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Kaheawa, 

248001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Restore montane wet 

forest and shrubland. Replace 

nonnative trees. 

2 

 2.1.51 MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Ukumehame/Olo

walu, West Maui 

NAR, Līhau, 

248001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Restore montane wet 

forest and shrubland. 

2 
174 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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 State. 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 

 2.1.55 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kahanui, 

261001004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. 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 State. 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 
175 

Table 8 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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 State, DLNR, Division of 

State Parks. Additional protection 

may be needed to secure remaining 

forested habitat. 

3 

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. Parcels where fencing 

and/or ungulate control are needed for recovery of species 

included in this plan are listed in Table 9. 
176 

Table 9. Parcels in recovery habitat 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 `akialoau; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nuku pu`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 for 

landowner and partnership abbreviations. 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.2.1 H Northeastern 

slopes of 

Mauna Kea, 

portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. 

2 

 2.2.2 H Kanakaleonui 

Corridor, 

338001009 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Provides a 

vital link between mesic koa forest 

and dry māmane forest habitats. 

Currently under lease for cattle 

grazing. Needs fencing and 

ungulate control. 

1 

 2.2.3 H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe 

and Pīhā

 Sections, 

337001004 

333001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Currently managed for game 

hunting. Needs fencing and 

ungulate control. 

2 

 2.2.4 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, 

337001010 

333001007 

329005005 

329005003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Currently managed forest bird 

habitat. Ungulate control under 

way. Construct additional fences 

and control ungulates in unmanaged 

areas. 

1 

 2.2.5 H 326018002 AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DHHL, adjacent to 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge. Encourage fencing and 

ungulate removal. 

2 
177 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.6 H Pu`u `ō`ō

Ranch, 

326018001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State 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 State, DHHL. Encourage 

fencing and ungulate removal. 

2 

 2.2.8 H Ka`ohe, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. Suspend lease. Fence and 

remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.9 H Mauna Kea 

Forest Reserve, 

344015001 

344016003 

338001004 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Palila critical 

habitat. Continue to remove 

ungulates. 

1 

 2.2.10 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Upper 

Portion, 

324008001 

AKIP 

AKEP 

HCRE 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Fence and remove ungulates. 

2 

 2.2.11 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Lower 

Portion, 

324008001 

OU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, 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 State, DLNR, State Land 

Division, Kapāpala Forest Reserve. 

Fencing and ungulate control. 

2 

 2.2.14 H Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve, 

397001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

OU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW, 

Ka`ū Forest Reserve. Fencing and 

ungulate control. 

3 
178 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.15 H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Samuel M. Damon Trust. Purchase 

by NPS, fence and remove 

ungulates. 

3 

 2.2.16 H Manukā NAR, 

Upper portions 

of 391001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Fencing and ungulate control. 

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 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Fence and remove ungulates. 

2 

 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 State, DLNR, State 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 
179 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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 State, DLNR. 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 State, DLNR. NAR 

fencing now protects 1,734 acres, 

ungulate-free, above 5,400 ft. Fence 

and remove ungulates from remain 

portions of NAR (above 2,500 ft. for 

bird management). 

1

 2.2.27 MA Hāna Forest 

Reserve, 

210001001 

214001001 

215001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, 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 

National Park Service. Mostly 

protected by fencing, where 

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
180 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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 State, 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. 

3

 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

 2.2.36 MA Kahikinui 

Forest Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. 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 State, 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. Continue to 

encourage fencing and ungulate 

removal above 4,000 ft. for bird 

recovery. 

1
181 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.39 MA Kula Forest 

Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Currently a 

game management area for 

sustained yield. For portions within 

forest bird recovery habitat, fence 

and remove ungulates to encourage 

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 habitat, 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 habitat, 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 habitat, manage with 

Kula Forest Reserve. 

2

 2.2.43 MA Waiakoa, 

222008001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Lucky Shoji USA Inc. et al. Fence 

and remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery habitat, manage with 

Kula Forest Reserve. 

2

 2.2.44 MA Kamehame 

Nui/Kealahou, 

223005002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

R. G. Von Tempsky Jr. Trust. 

Fence and remove ungulates within 

forest bird recovery habitat. 

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 habitat. 

1

 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 State, DLNR. Public 

hunting currently permitted. Fence 

and remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery habitat. 

1
182 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.48 MA West Maui 

NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

231006001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.49 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Waihe`e, 

232014001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Board of Water Supply. 

Protect with strategic fencing and 

remove ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.50 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kou, 

232014002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.51 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Wailuku, 

233003003 

235003001 

236003001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Wailuku Agriculture. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.52 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

`Īao, 

233003004, 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.53 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kealaloloa, 

236001014 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.54 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Manawainui 

Plant Reserve, 

236001052 

248001010 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.55 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kaheawa, 

248001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.56 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Ukumehame/ 

Olowalu, West 

Maui NAR,

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2
183 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

Līhau, 

248001002 

 2.2.57 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Launiupoko, 

247001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.58 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Pūehuehu, 

247001004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.59 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kaua`ula, 

246025001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.60 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Pana`ewa, 

246025002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.61 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kahoma, 

245022001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.62 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kahoma, 

245022005 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

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. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.64 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Wahikuli, 

245022003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.65 MA Kapunakea 

Preserve, 

Amfac/JMB, 

TNCH, 

244007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

American Factors (Amfac)/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., TNCH. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2
184 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.66 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Kapāloa, 

244007007 

AKOH 

MAPA, 

POOU 

Unknown. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.67 MA West Maui 

NAR, 

Honokōwai, 

244007004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.68 MA Pu`u Kukui 

Watershed 

Management 

Area, 

242001001, 

241001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Maui Land and Pineapple. Protect 

with strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.69 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kalama`ula, 

252014003 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.70 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kahanui, 

252014001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.71 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kahanui, 

261001004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.72 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Waikolu, 

261001002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Ungulate control 

currently ongoing at Pu`u Ali`i 

NAR. Protect with strategic fencing 

and remove ungulates within forest 

bird recovery habitat. 

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. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.74 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Pelekunu 

Valley, 

Wawaeolepe,

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Wm. Hitchcock, et al. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2
185 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

259008017 

 2.2.75 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Pelekunu 

Valley, 

254003032 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai`i. Ungulate control currently 

ongoing. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.76 MO Oloku`i NAR, 

Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Wailau Valley, 

 259006002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Oloku`i NAR is 

naturally isolated but vulnerable to 

incursion. Ungulate control 

currently ongoing. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.77 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Wailau Valley 

and Oloku`i, 

259006004 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

G. Brown III, et al. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.78 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Laeokapuna, 

257005027 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Hodgins. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.79 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Keanakoholua, 

257005001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

M. Hustice Trust. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.80 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

`Uala`pue, 

256006026 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.81 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kahananui, 

256006014 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.82 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Manawai, 

256006013

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

P. Petro Trust. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat

2
186 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

256006013 recovery habitat. 

 2.2.83 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

eastern `Ōhi`a 

Gulch, 

256006011 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.84 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, West 

`Ōhi`a Gulch, 

256006010 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

E. Wond Trust. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.85 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Keawa 

Nui, 256006007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.86 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Puaahala, 

256006002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

K&H Horizons Hawai`i. Protect 

with strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

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 doing animal 

removal. Continue with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.88 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kamalō, 

255001016 

255001006 

255001017 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kamehameha Schools. In EMOWP; 

currently fencing portions and doing 

animal removal. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.89 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Mākolelau, 

255001015 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2
187 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.91 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kawela, 

254003001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Kawela Plantation Homes 

Association. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.92 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kamiloloa/ 

Makakupa`ia, 

254003025 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Protect with strategic 

fencing and remove ungulates 

within forest bird recovery habitat. 

2

 2.2.93 MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kaunakakai, 

253003005 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. Protect with 

strategic fencing and remove 

ungulates within forest bird 

recovery habitat. 

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 2nd 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. 

1 

 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 
188 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 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. 

1 

 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 

 2.2.101 K Halehaha, 

Halepaakai and 

Koai`e 

drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

Portions of 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. Fencing of at 

least a 4 km square area in the 

Halepaakai 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 
189 

Table 9 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targete

d 

Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

 2.2.102 K Upper Mōhihi 

and upper 

Waiakoali 

drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

Portions of 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. Recommend 

fencing as much of the core 

population of puaiohi as possible, 

e.g., upper Mōhihi drainage. 

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 State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. 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; management for 

release of captive-bred puaiohi. 

Fencing and ungulate control may 

be needed in preparation for aerial 

broadcast of rodenticides. 

3 

 

2.3 Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of alien plants within 

forest ecosystems, through mechanical, chemical, or biological 

means, as appropriate. 

Habitat degradation resulting from the invasion of nonnative 

weeds is a long-term, pervasive threat in many areas of recovery 

habitat. 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. 
190 

Table 10. List of alien plant taxa known or suspected to pose a significant threat to 

forest bird recovery habitat 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 

habitat. At higher taxonimic levels, all known naturalized taxa from five genera and four 

families pose significant threats to forest bird recovery habitat. Urgency of the need for 

management of each taxon is represented by a code: 1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = low. 

Table 10 

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 

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 
191 

Table 10 

Scientific Name Common Name Hawai`i Maui Nui O`ahu Kaua`i 

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 

 

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, mongoose) 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 silvestris). The black rat (Rattus rattus) is 

thought to have been a major cause of the declines in native bird 

populations in the early 1900’s (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 in press). 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 
192 

Indian mongoose (herpestes auropunctatus) has had a major 

negative effect on the Nēnē, seabirds, and waterbirds (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1999b, Hodges and Nagata 2001, Hu et al.

2001), but its limited climbing ability makes it a lesser threat than 

rats and feral cats to forest birds. 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. 

2.4.1 Control alien mammalian predators in core forest bird 

habitat by trapping, poisoning, and other means (see Table 

11). 

Table 11. Parcels in recovery habitat 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 

`akialoau; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nuku pu`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 for landowner and 

partnership abbreviations. 

Table 11 

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 State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. 

2 

2.4.1.2 H Kanakaleonui 

Corridor, 

338001009 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Provides a 

vital link between mesic koa forest 

and dry māmane forest habitats. 

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 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Currently managed for game 

hunting. 

2 
193 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

333001004 

2.4.1.4 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, 

337001010 

333001007 

329005005 

329005003 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Currently managed forest bird 

habitat. Ungulate control under way. 

Predator control needed to protect 

core populations of three listed 

species. 

1 

2.4.1.5 H 326018002 AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State 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 State, DLNR, State Land 

Division, Pu`u `ō`ō Ranch lease. 

2 

2.4.1.7 H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. 2 

2.4.1.8 H Ka`ohe, 

344015002 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land 

Division. Suspend lease. 

2 

2.4.1.9 H Mauna Kea 

Forest Reserve, 

344015001 

344016003 

338001004 

AKIP 

PALI 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. 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 State, DLNR, DOFAW. 2 

2.4.1.11 H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, lower 

portion, 

324008001 

OU Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 1 

2.4.1.12 H `Ōla`a/Kīlauea 

Partnership, 

324008009 

399001007 

399001004 

324008025 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Kamehameha Schools, Keauhou 

Ranch. Kūlani Correctional Facility, 

Pu`u Maka`ala NAR, HVNP. 

1 
194 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

319001001 

319001007 

2.4.1.13 H Kapāpala Forest 

Reserve, 

Portions of 

398001004 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State 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 State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife, Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve. Predator control needed to 

protect large populations of three 

listed species. 

3 

2.4.1.15 H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Samuel M. Damon Trust. Purchase 

by NPS. 

3 

2.4.1.16 H Manukā NAR, 

Upper portions 

of 391001002 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, DOFAW. 2 

2.4.1.17 H TNCH, 

Honomalino, 

389001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 3 

2.4.1.18 H Yee Hop Ranch, 

392001005 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 3 

2.4.1.19 H Kona Forest 

NWR, 

386001001 

AKIP 

HCRE 

AKEP 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Predator control needed to protect 

last wild `alala and other listed 

species. 

2 

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 
195 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

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 

breeding habitat for endangered 

species, priority #1, remaining 

portions, priority #2. 

1 

2.4.1.26 MA Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

 211002002 

212004005 

229014001 

211001050 

211001044 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Portions providing 

breeding habitat for endangered 

species, priority #1; remaining 

portions, priority #2 and tier #2. 

1

2.4.1.27 MA Hanawī NAR 

and Ko`olau 

Forest Reserve, 

212004007 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Portions providing 

breeding habitat for endangered 

species, priority #1, remaining 

portions, priority #2 and tier #2. 

1

2.4.1.28 MA Hāna Forest 

Reserve, 

210001001 

214001001 

215001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Portions providing 

breeding habitat for endangered 

species, priority #1, remaining 

portions, priority #2 and tier #2. 

1 

2.4.1.29 MA Haleakalā

National Park, 

213001003 

216001002 

216001001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

National Park Service. Portions 

providing breeding habitat for 

endangered species, priority #1, 

remaining portions, priority #2 and 

tier #2. 

1
196 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

216001003 

217004016 

216010001 

218001007 

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 long-term 

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 

2.4.1.33 MA Kula Forest 

Reserve, 

222007001 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Potential long-term 

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 breeding 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 nearterm 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 AKOH Hawai`i State. Potential long-term 3
197 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

NAR, Līhau, 

 248001002 

MAPA 

POOU 

site for reintroduction. 

2.4.1.39 MA West Maui 

Forest Reserve, 

Pana`ewa, 

246025002 

AKOH 

MAPA 

POOU 

Hawai`i State. Potential long-term 

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

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 starting in 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 OAEL U.S. Navy. Rodent control initiated 1 
198 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

Magazine, 

88001001 

in 2002 using diphacinone bait 

stations and snap traps, should be 

continued and expanded, using aerial 

broadcast if possible. 

2.4.1.48 O Schofield 

Barracks West 

Range, 

77001001 

OAEL U.S. Army. Environmental Division 

has attempted small-scale rat control 

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 

conducted starting 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 

2.4.1.52 O Wai Kāne 

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 State. 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 State. Rodent control 

conducted in 1999 using bait 

stations. Currently few `elepaio, but 

aerial broadcast would help prepare 

site for reintroduction/augmentation. 

2 

2.4.1.56 O Kahanahāiki 

Valley, 

81001012 

OAEL U.S. Army. Rodent and mongoose 

control conducted starting in 1998 

using snap traps, bait stations, and 

live traps. Currently few `elepaio,

2 
199 

Table 11 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs 

Species 

Targeted Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

aerial broadcast would help prepare 

site for reintroduction/augmentation. 

2.4.1.57 O O`ahu Forest 

NWR, 95004001 

76001001 

OAEL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Currently no `elepaio, rodent control 

would help prepare site for 

reintroduction. 

3 

2.4.1.58 O Lower Ka`ala 

NAR, 67003025 

OAEL Hawai`i State. Currently few 

`elepaio, predator control would help 

prepare site for 

reintroduction/augmentation. 

3 

2.4.1.59 K Halehaha, 

Halepaakai, and 

Koai`e 

drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. Recommend 

aerial broadcast of rodenticide in 

Halehaha and Halepaakai drainages, 

and a tributary of Koai`e Stream. 

1 

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 State, DLNR, DOFAW. 

Pending study of threat posed by rats 

to core puaiohi population, 

recommend aerial broadcast of 

rodenticides in upper Mōhihi and 

Waiakoali drainages. Ground-based 

protection of active nest-sites. 

2 

2.4.1.61 K Upper Kawaikōī, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

459001001 

PUAI 

KACR 

KAMO 

KAAK 

OO 

OU 

KANU 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. 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. 

3 
200 

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 in the 1800’s, and the introduction of avian malaria 

(Plasmodium relictum) in the early 1900’s 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, Atkinson et al. 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 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. 

2.5.1 Prevent introduction of new diseases and disease vectors 

into Hawai`i. (Priority 1) 

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 
201 

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 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 2) 

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. 
202 

2.5.1.3 Establish a monitoring program for new diseases 

and diagnose causes of avian disease outbreaks. 

(Priority 1) 

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) 

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 

habitats and areas outside forest bird 

recovery habitat. (Priority 1) 

Because of their close proximity to areas 

of human habitation, areas outside forest 

bird recovery habitats 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 
203 

be supported. All State and Federal 

wildlife biologists and technical support 

personnel who work regularly in both 

forest bird recovery habitat and areas 

outside forest bird recovery habitats 

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 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. 

2.5.2 Prevent movement of diseases and disease vectors between 

islands. (Priority 1) 

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. 

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., 
204 

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 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. (Priority 1) 

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 
205 

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. 

(Priority 1) 

Culex quinquefasciatus is a domesticated 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 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 man-made 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. Ability of adult Culex to 

travel up to 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) through closedcanopy 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 

suitable buffer areas around recovery habitat where 

management actions can be taken to reduce 

numbers of mosquitoes. 

2.5.3.1.1 Survey recovery habitat for mosquito 

breeding sites and adjacent lands for 

mosquito breeding sites that may serve as 

sources of wind-dispersed adult 

mosquitoes (See Table 12). 
206 

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. 

Table 12 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.1 Hawai`i Portions of parcels between the 2,000 

and 5,000 foot contour lines on Mauna 

Loa and Kīlauea Volcanoes that 

include recovery habitat 

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 Hawai`i Portions of parcels between the 3,400 

and 5,000 foot contour lines on Mauna 

Kea Volcano that include recovery 

habitat 

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 Hawai`i 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 

habitat 

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 

2.5.3.1.1.4 Hawai`i 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 km of 

recovery habitat 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been 

conducted in these areas. Their 

windward location makes them 

possible sources for winddispersed mosquitoes that could 

threaten higher elevation habitats, 

but their distance from recovery

2 
207 

Table 12 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

habitat makes them lower 

priority. 

2.5.3.1.1.5 Hawai`i Portions of parcels on Kīlauea Volcano 

that are adjacent to or within 3 

kilometers of recovery habitat 

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 

habitat should determine relative 

contributions of humanassociated 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 Hawai`i Portions of parcels on Hualālai 

Volcano that are adjacent to or within 3 

kilometers of recovery habitat 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been 

conducted in these areas. Their 

close proximity to recovery 

habitat on Hualālai and role as 

potential sources of dispersing 

adult mosquitoes give them high 

priority for surveys. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.7 East Maui Multiple land parcels in recovery 

habitat 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 habitat in this elevation 

zone are needed to prioritize 

mosquito control efforts. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.8 East Maui 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 

2 
208 

Table 12 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

known. These parcels could be a 

significant source of winddispersed mosquitoes that could 

threaten higher elevation habitats, 

but are classified as lower priority 

because of their distance from 

recovery habitat. 

2.5.3.1.1.9 East Maui 217004006 Manawainui Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, 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 East Maui 215001001 Waiho`i Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

2,000 feet. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.11 East Maui 216001002 Kīpahulu Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

1,600 feet. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.12 East Maui 211002002 Ke`anae Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 1,800 to 

2,500 feet. 

1 

2.5.3.1.1.13 East Maui Multiple parcels below and within 3 

kilometers 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 habitat has been 

restored. 

3 

2.5.3.1.1.14 West Maui Multiple land parcels in recovery 

habitat 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 West Maui 233003003, 235003001, 233003004, 

and multiple smaller parcels within `Īao 

Valley 

`Īao Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, 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 
209 

Table 12 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

2.5.3.1.1.16 West Maui 232014001, 233003003 Waiehu Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.17 West Maui 232014001 Waihe`e Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.18 West Maui 231006001 Kahahuloa Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.19 West Maui 241001017 Honokōhau Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.20 West Maui 236003001, 235003001 Waikapū Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.21 West Maui 241001017 Honolua Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.22 West Maui 242001001 Honokahua Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.23 West Maui 242001001 Kahana Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.24 West Maui 244007004, 244007011, 244007001, 

244007005 

Honokōwai Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.25 West Maui 245022001 Kahoma Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.26 West Maui 246025002 Kanahā Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.27 West Maui 246025001, 247001002 Mākila Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.28 West Maui 248001002 Olowalu Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.29 West Maui 248001002 Ukumehame Valley incursion 

into recovery habitat, from 2,500 

to 600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.30 West Maui 236003001 Pōhākea Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.31 West Maui 245022003 Waihikuli Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

600 feet. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.32 West Maui 245022004 Hanakea Valley incursion into 

recovery habitat, from 2,500 to 

2 
210 

Table 12 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

600 feet. 

2.5.3.1.1.33 West Maui Multiple parcels below and up to 3 

kilometers 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 Lāhainā. 

Priority for surveying these areas 

is lower because of their distance 

from recovery habitat. 

3 

2.5.3.1.1.34 Moloka`i Multiple land parcels in recovery 

habitat 

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 

2.5.3.1.1.35 Moloka`i 261001002, 259006011, 259006002 

and smaller windward parcels in 

Waihanuu, Wai`ale`ia, Waikolu, 

Pelekunu, and Wailau Valleys that are 

adjacent to or within 3 kilometers of 

recovery habitat 

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 Moloka`i Parcels in Kaunakakai Gulch Kaunakakai Gulch may act as a 

natural corridor for dispersal of 

mosquitoes from urban/suburban 

Moloka`i directly into recovery 

habitat. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.37 Moloka`i Portions of parcels 252014003, 

253003005, 254003025, 254003001, 

255001006 and others that are adjacent 

to or within 3 kilometers of the 

southern and eastern boundaries of 

recovery habitat on leeward Moloka`i 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been 

conducted in these areas. Since 

the area is deeply dissected by 

numerous stream valleys that 

could funnel mosquitoes into 

recovery habitat, vector surveys 

should ideally extend from the 

lower boundary of recovery 

habitat to the coastline, 

particularly in areas with rural 

agricultural development. 

2 

2.5.3.1.1.38 O`ahu Portions of parcels that include 

recovery habitat 

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`ahu Portions of parcels that are adjacent to 

or within 3 kilometers of recovery

Detailed surveys for adult and 

larval mosquitoes have not been 

2 
211 

Table 12 

Recovery 

Action # Island Land Parcel, TMKs Current Landowner/Comments Priority 

habitat 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 habitat, but this needs to 

be documented. 

2.5.3.1.1.40 Kaua`i Portions of parcels 414001020, 

414001014, 414001013, 459001016, 

459001001, 414001003, 417001001, 

458001001 and others that include 

recovery habitat 

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. Areas in recovery 

habitat need additional detailed 

surveys 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 Kaua`i Portions of parcels 459001001, 

458001001, 458002002, 459001003, 

459001002 that are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers of recovery habitat 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been 

conducted in windward valleys of 

the Akaka`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 Kaua`i Portions of parcels 414001014, 

414001020, 414002040, 414001003, 

417001001 that are adjacent to or 

within 3 kilometers of recovery habitat 

Surveys for adult and larval 

mosquitoes have not been 

conducted in leeward valleys and 

slopes of the Akaka`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 
212 

2.5.3.1.2 Eliminate or treat larval habitats in 

recovery habitat and adjacent areas with 

BTI (Bacillus thuringensis israeliensis

toxin), Dunk®, or other environmentally 

compatible pesticides that are safe for 

non-target organisms. (Priority 1) 

Known mosquito sources within recovery 

habitat or within 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) 

of the lower, windward boundaries of 

recovery habitat 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 habitat 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 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 habitats where primary 

larval habitats are 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 non-recovery 

habitats. 

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 
213 

adjacent to recovery habitat; coordinate 

efforts with the State Department of 

Health. (Priority 1) 

In locations where human development is 

close to recovery habitat (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 epiootics 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 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 around residential 

and agricultural areas near 

recovery habitat. (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 
214 

reduction can reduce those 

threats. (Priority 1) 

 

2.5.3.1.4 Eliminate larval habitats associated with 

feral animals in recovery habitats 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 areas 

in recovery habitat at 

elevations 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 pigdamaged tree ferns that hold 

water and fill or drain pig 

wallows in 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 
215 

habitat for Culex mosquitoes and their 

relative roles as larval habitats in both 

forest bird recovery habitat and areas 

outside forest bird 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. (Priority 2) 

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 (Ewald 1984, 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. 

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 recovery forest bird 

habitats. (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 

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. 
216 

2.6 Reduce or eliminate effects of alien species. (Priority 2) 

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 here are 

necessary to conserve and recover Hawaiian forest birds. 

2.6.1 Prevent introductions of new detrimental species. 

(Priority 2) 

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 

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 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 Hawai’i Department of Agriculture with 

obtaining an enforcement branch to pursue 

smuggling and release violations. (Priority 2) 

2.6.1.4 Encourage U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt 

State injurious species lists as part of Federal 

injurious wildlife listed under the Lacey Act. 

(Priority 2) 

2.6.1.5 Encourage Hawai’i Department of Agriculture, 

Hawai’i Department of Land and Natural 
217 

Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

county police departments to develop a task force to 

pursue smuggling and release violations. 

(Priority 2) 

2.6.1.6 Provide single point-of-exit at airports. (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 mainland. (Priority 2) 

2.6.1.9 Prevent inter-island expansion of established 

vertebrates of restricted range. (Priority 2) 

2.6.2 Eradicate all incipient populations of new Tetrapoda (nonnative vertebrate species). (Priority 1) 

2.6.2.1 Prevent spread of Eleutherodactylus frogs to new 

areas. (Priority 1) 

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 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, 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. 

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 
218 

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. 

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 

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 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.), 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 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 the 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. Priorities for the use of facilities take into account 

considerations based on taxonomic uniqueness, urgency/degree of 

threat, cause of decline, available knowledge of natural history, 

status of current research and habitat management, population size, 

distribution (fragmentation), practical considerations (funding, 

labor, facilities etc.), avicultural difficulty, release difficulty, 

availability and accessibility of release sites, value as an ecosystem 

component, cultural value, educational value, Service policies, and 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

recommendations. Refer to Appendix B for more detailed 

discussion. 
219 

Table 13. Captive propagation program strategies and priorities for facilities use and recovery. 

Captive Propagation Program Strategies are defined 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. 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) Species for which captive breeding development is to be used as surrogates to 

aid the development of techniques for other species. 

Table 13 

Species Captive Propagation Program 

Strategies Captive Breeding Priorities 

“On the Brink Species” 

(Po`ouli, Kāma`o, etc.) 3 1 

Puaiohi 4 1 

`Alalā 5, 6 1 

`Akiapōlā`au 8, 4 2 

Palila 8, 4 2 

Nēnē 4 2 

Nihoa Millerbird 8, 2, 4 2 

Kaua`i Creeper 8, 4 2 

Maui parrotbill 8, 4 2 

O`ahu `Elepaio 1, 2, 3 3 

Hawai`i `Ākepa 8, 3, 4 3 

Hawai`i Creeper 8, 3, 4 3 

`Ākohekohe 8, 2, 3 3 

Laysan Finch 1, 2 3 

Hawai`i `Elepaio 8 4 

`I`iwi 8 4 

`Ōma`o 3 4 

3.2 Develop captive propagation programs for target species, including 

both endangered and surrogate species. 

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, construction materials), 
220 

veterinary requirements, mate selection, and proper socialization 

of captive-reared birds. Aviculture and release technology is 

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 twelve species of 

Hawaiian forest birds has been established 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 nuku pu`u, Maui `ākepa, 

oloma`o, po`ouli, O`ahu creeper, kāma`o, Kaua`i nuku pu`u, 

Kaua`i `akialoa, and Kaua`i `ō`ō if nests can be located and eggs 

collected. Captive management of the Hawai`i `elepaio will 

provide propagation and release techniques required for future 

work with the endangered O`ahu `elepaio. Development of 

translocation methods for the `ākohekohe should continue, and 

captive breeding technology should be developed if translocaton 

efforts fail. The appropriate captive propagation strategy for each 

species should be evaluated and implemented through the 

development of annual Work Plans and 5 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 nuku pu`u, Maui `ākepa, oloma`o, O`ahu 

creeper, kāma`o, Kaua`i nuku pu`u, Kaua`i `akialoa, and 

Kaua`i `ō`ō. 

For these species, which are 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 managed 

habitat in the future. (Priority 1) 

3.2.2 Po`ouli. 

Continue habitat management, attempt to promote pairing 

and reproduction, in captivity if necessary, and collect eggs 

for captive propagation and future reintroduction into 

managed habitat. (Priority 1) 
221 

3.2.3 Puaiohi. 

Maintain a captive breeding flock of whose progeny will be 

used for reintroduction into managed habitat. (Priority 1) 

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. 

Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing to establish 

a captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used for 

reintroduction into managed habitat. (Priority 2) 

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. 

3.2.5.1 Collect eggs of Maui parrotbill and maintain a 

captive breeding flock whose progeny will be used 

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 no longer known to 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 no 

longer known to 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 wild 

eggs, or establish a captive breeding flock whose 

progeny will be used for reintroduction into 

managed habitat in the future. 
222 

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 <90 

percent), collect wild eggs. (Priority 1) 

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 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. 

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. 

Collect the eggs of Hawai`i `elepaio to serve as a surrogate. 

(Priority 3). 

The Hawai`i subspecies is the most appropriate surrogate to 

develop the 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 longterm persistence of reintroduced populations. 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 
223 

(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), elevation, elevational gradient, 

topography, edaphics, 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, 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 logistic 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 

habitat 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 1) 

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 1) 

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 

provide funding to construct and operate the captive breeding 

facilities, supplemented by private sector funding. Funding needs 

and availability will be considered in Annual Workplans and 5 

Year Work Plans that prioritize the captive propagation activities 

for the year as well as for the long term. 

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 
224 

might well 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 2000) and the non-endangered 

O`ahu `Amakihi (Hemignathus chloris) (Shehata et al. 2001) and 

Hawai`i `Akakihi (Hemignathus var. 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 

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 differences 

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, 

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. 

3.6.1 Monitor dispersal, survival, and mortality of released birds 

to refine propagation and release techniques. (Priority 2) 

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. 
225 

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 micro-habitat, size, dimension, and exact 

location of the hacking aviary; location and positioning of 

supplemental food stations; locations of field observations; 

and the 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, it is important to establish demographic goals for 

captive propagation program, for example, how many birds to 

produce using which demographic strategy over what period of 

time and released into how many sites. (Priority 2) 

 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 and 

genetic needs of the species, with the ultimate goal being the reestablishment 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-by-species 

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) 
226 

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) 

3.12 Evaluate the out-placement 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, or species which are in the captive program but 

for which there is not a high priority to continue to enlarge 

the captive inventory through breeding, and for 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 

actions proposed to deal with these threats require research and 

management to 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 development of methods to control 

identified threats and evaluation of the effectiveness of those control 

methods. In addition, populations may be vulnerable 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, 
227 

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, prioritizing management actions for 

ecosystems as well as individual species, and for determining the 

effectiveness of implemented actions. 

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 of forest bird 

recovery habitat. (Priority 1) 

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 
228 

(VanderWerf and Smith in press) and mongooses 

(Keith et al. 1989, Stone et al. 1994, Smith et al. 

2001). Current registration requires a very laborintensive application using bait stations, limiting 

effective use of this tool to small areas. For 

effective control of predators over a spatial scale 

that is meaningful for recovery of endangered forest 

birds, additional experimentation and efforts 

leading to registration labels that allow hand- or 

aerial-broadcasting of diphacinone are needed. A 

public education campaign that explains the need 

for use of diphacinone and its relative safety also is 

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 study/control. (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. 

4.2.3 Feral cat study/control. (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 study/control. (Priority 2) 

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 study/control. (Priority 1) 

4.2.6 Ungulate study/control. (Priority 1) 
229 

4.2.6.1 Experimental test of alternative methods of feral pig 

control. (Priority 2) 

4.2.7 Weed study/control. (Priority 2) 

4.2.8 Yellow jacket wasp study/control. (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/control. (Priority 2) 

Study barn owls and pueo in forest bird habitats to 

determine densities and predatory impacts on native forest 

birds. 

4.2.10 Avian competitor study/control. (Priority 2) 

Study nonnative passerines in forest habitats to determine 

food habits, breeding success, range, density, nesting 

habitat, and direct and indirect competitive interactions 

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 

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) and white-rumped shama 

(Copsychus malabaricus). (Priority 2) 

4.2.10.3 Investigate role of Japanese white-eye (Zosterops 

japonicus) and Japanese bush-warbler (Cettia 

diphone) as competitors and reservoirs of disease 

for on all islands. (Priority 2) 
230 

4.2.11 Determine best ways of 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. 

4.3 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 natural history of the birds should 

include refined estimates of demographic rates, 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 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, 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. 

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 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 

when the surviving individuals maintain a viable population. 
231 

4.5.1 Identify geographical variation in behavior and 

reproduction of forest birds that may make them less 

susceptible to threats. (Priority 2) 

4.5.1.1 Determine if roost site selection and specific 

mosquito avoidance behaviors (e.g., sleeping 

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. (Priority 1) 

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 (Ewald 1984, 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, 

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 survive pox and 

malaria infections or to resist them. (Priority 1) 

Research that identifies specific genetic markers for 

disease resistance should be supported so that 
232 

informed decisions about maintaining genetic 

diversity in isolated populations can be made. For 

example, failure to identify specific haplotypes that 

confer 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 acute disease and 

have acquired immunity to reinfection. (Priority 1) 

Recently developed polymerase chain reaction 

(Feldman et al. 1995) and serological (Atkinson et 

al. 2001) 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. 

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. 

(Priority 2) 

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 rat-proof 

artificial nest structures for puaiohi on 

Kaua`i. (Priority 2) 
233 

4.6.1.2 Determine if application of fertilizer to host plants 

increases growth, flowering, and abundance of 

arthropods. (Priority 2) 

4.6.1.3 Develop effective techniques for restoration of 

degradaded and deforested lands. (Priority 2) 

4.6.2 Document the population structure. (Priority 2) 

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 populations below 

carrying capacity. Furthermore, 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 
234 

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 upper elevations. 

Management for disease, especially in light of 

global warming, 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 calculation of lambda as an 

indicator of stable or increasing populations. The Nature 

Conservancy Population Viability Handbook specifies 

additional analyses that can be used to assess population 

viability within a single population or a metapopulation. 

4.6.3.1 Conduct trend analysis using count data. 

(Priority 2) 

4.6.3.2 Use demographic data for estimating lambda. 

(Priority 2) 

4.7 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 or for supplementing a small population or for genetic 

management. 

 

4.7.1 Evaluate effectiveness of translocations of both disease 

survivors and disease resistant forest birds for restoration of 
235 

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. 

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 

involved. In addition, this 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 1) 

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 areas where residential and agricultural areas 

are located next to recovery habitats. Land use changes 
236 

that affect mosquito productivity and movements should be 

identified so that mosquito free reserves and conservation 

easements can be located around forest bird recovery 

habitat. These factors may be particularly important for the 

design of safe, disease-free corridors to link recovery 

habitats at different elevations or geographic areas of the 

same island. 

4.8.2 Determine effects of long-term climate change on disease 

transmission. (Priority 2) 

The key role that environmental temperature plays in 

limiting development of malarial parasites in the mosquito 

vector and increasing the duration of the gonotrophic cycle 

of Culex makes it likely that global warming 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 

this 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 habitat 

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 1) 

Research on experimental vaccines for control of pox and 

malaria transmission, methods for their delivery to wild 

free-ranging passerines, and their effects on host-parasite 

coevolutionary adaptations should be supported. 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. 

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) 
237 

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 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 habitat. (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. 
238 

Atkinson/U.S. Geologicl Survey unpubl. data), but where 

larval Culex have rarely been found. In these situations, 

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. 

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 transfer of virus to offspring in situations 

where one or more parent birds 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 recovery forest bird 

habitats. (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 effectiveness of management actions and for 

determining how complex interactions between abiotic and 

biotic environmental factors, anthropogenic factors, native 

and non-native hosts, vectors and diseases are evolving. 
239 

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. 

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 `akialoau; KACR = Kaua`i creeper; KAMO = kāma`o; KANU = Kaua`i nuku 

pu`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 

Recovery 

Action # 

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 

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 

KACR 

PUAI 

K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Area 

Examine factors that 

determine abundance and 

distribution, including

2 
240 

Table 14 

Recovery 

Action # 

Category of Research 

(Recovery action 

narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

in density (4.1) elevational range. 

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 (4.3.1) 

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 (4.3.1) 

MAPA 

AKOH 

POOU 

MA Maui Determine population 

response to predator control 

efforts. 

2 

4.10.9 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of threat 

management actions; 

determine response of 

bird population to 

removal or reduction 

of a threat (4.3.1) 

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 (4.3.1) 

KACR 

PUAI 

K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Area 

Measure effect of 

experimental test of broadscale predator control on 

nest success, adult and postfledging survival, and 

population trends. 

2 

4.10.11 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of threat 

management actions; 

examine response of 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3.2) 

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 (4.3.2) 

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 

MAPA 

AKOH 

MA Maui Determine population 

response to forest 

regeneration and restoration 

efforts. 

2 
241 

Table 14 

Recovery 

Action # 

Category of Research 

(Recovery action 

narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3.2) 

4.10.14 Evaluate the 

effectiveness of threat 

management actions; 

examine response of 

populations to habitat 

restoration (4.3.2) 

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 treats; 

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. 

1 

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 

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 

AKIP H Hawai`i Determine the basis of 

variation in size of home 

range in areas of different 

density of the bird and in 

2 
242 

Table 14 

Recovery 

Action # 

Category of Research 

(Recovery action 

narrative general 

action number) 

Species Island Area Research Description Priority 

structure along 

gradients in density, 

particularly 

elevational gradients 

(4.6.2.3) 

areas with different forest 

structure. 

4.10.20 Document population 

structure; determine 

genetic as well as 

morphological, 

behavioral, 

ecological, and vocal 

variation among core 

populations (4.6.2.5) 

AKEP 

HCRE 

AKIP 

H Mauan Kea, 

Mauan 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 (4.6.2.5) 

OAEL O O`ahu Determine morphological, 

genetic, behavioral, 

ecological, and vocal 

variation among core 

populations. 

2 

4.10.22 Document population 

structure; determine 

patterns of dispersal 

by age and sex 

(4.6.2.6) 

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) 

AKIP 

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 
243 

should include all transects surveyed during the Hawai`i Forest 

Bird Surveys in 1976 to 1981, plus additional transects established 

on O`ahu to adequately survey all recovery habitat 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 intrinsic growth rate 

(lambda) 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 1970’s, 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 habitat. 

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. 

Table 15. Areas of recovery habitat requiring avian monitoring surveys 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 

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 Annually/biannually 2 

5.2.9 MA Hanawī NAR Annual survey 2 
244 

Table 15 

Recovery 

Action # Island Study Area Survey Need/ Comments Priority 

5.2.10 MA Waikamoi Preserve Annual survey 2 

5.2.11 MA Kīpuhulu 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 

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. 

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 

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. (Priority 2) 
245 

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. Hawai`i’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 

visitor 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 Fund the planning and development of scenic overlooks 

and trails with interpretative signs along roadsides and in 

native forest areas (see Table 16). 

Expanding visitor outdoor experiences by developing 

scenic overlooks and trails with interpretative signs along 

public roadways within native habitats where available, 

will lead to a greater connection between the public and 

natural environments. 

 

Table 16. Sites where scenic overlooks and interpretive displays are needed. Island 

codes: H = Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu.

Table 16 

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 points out native forest birds found 

in the kīpuka and their forest habitat. 

3 

6.1.1.2 H Hawai`i 

Volcanoes 

National Park, 

Mauna Loa 

Strip Road 

Develop several overlooks, parking 

areas, short loop trails, and interpretive 

displays along the Mauna Loa Strip 

Road. 

3 

6.1.1.3 MA Polipoli State 

Park 

The parking area needs an interpretive 

kiosk to point out four local species of 

honeycreepers. 

3 

6.1.1.4 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 

6.1.1.5 K Kōke`e State 

Park, Kalalau 

and Pu`u O Kila 

lookouts 

Both lookouts need interpretive kiosks or 

signage to point out common native 

forest birds and recovery efforts being 

conducted for the endangered puaiohi. 

3 
246 

6.1.2 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 the 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 17). 

 

Table 17. Sites where new trails with interpretive displays should be developed or where 

existing trails need enhancement with interpretive displays. Island codes: H = Hawai`i; 

K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. 

 

Table 17 

Recovery 

Action # Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.2.1 H Saddle Road, 

Pu`u `ō`ō Trail 

Trailhead access and parking area need 

improvement and interpretive displays 

should be installed to bring attention to 

native forest birds. 

3 

6.1.2.2 H Hawai`i, 

Hawai`i 

Volcanoes 

National Park, 

Mauna Loa 

Strip Road. 

Develop several short loop trails, parking 

lots, and interpretive displays along the 

Mauna Loa Strip Road. 

3 

6.1.2.3 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR 

Expand visitor use with a loop trail and 

interpretive displays. 

2 

6.1.2.4 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 

6.1.2.5 H `Ainapō Trail Work with Na Ala Hele to add a bird 

component to their brochure and 

interpretive signs at parking areas. 

3 

6.1.2.6 H Pu`u Wa`awa`a 

Forest Bird 

Sanctuary 

Develop a system of trails with interpretive 

signs. 

3 

6.1.2.7 H NARs 

Pu`u Maka`ala 

Develop a system of trails with interpretive 

signs. 

3 
247 

Table 17 

Recovery 

Action # Island Area Development Needed Priority 

Laupāhoehoe 

Kīpāhoehoe 

Manukā 

Pu`u `Umi 

6.1.2.8 MA Haleakalā

National Park, 

Hosmer Grove 

Develop a new bird trail, overlook, and 

interpretive signs. 

3 

6.1.2.9 MA Polipoli State 

Park 

Develop interpretive signs and brochures 

for the Waiakoa Loop Trail, and include a 

bird component. 

3 

6.1.2.10 MA Pu`u Kukui, 

Maui Land and 

Pineapple 

Develop access, trails, and interpretive signs 

for the Pu`u Kukui Trail. 

3 

6.1.2.11 MA Waihe`e Ridge 

Trail 

Develop an interpretive display at the top of 

the trail. 

3 

6.1.2.12 MA Kahakuloa 

NAR. 

At top of Po`elua Road, develop trail and 

interpretation on birds and other native 

biota. 

3 

6.1.2.13 MO Hanalilolilo 

Trail 

Develop an interpretive trail to rim of 

Pēpē`ōpae Bog. 

3 

6.1.2.14 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 

6.1.2.15 K Kōke`e State 

Park 

Develop interpretive signs and brochures 

for all Kōke`e State Park Trails focusing on 

native forest birds. 

2 

6.1.3 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 18). 
248 

Table 18. Sites where increased access and interpretation are needed. Island codes: H = 

Hawai`i; K = Kaua`i; MA = Maui; MO = Moloka`i; O = O`ahu. 

Table 18 

Recovery 

Action # Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.3.1 H Hakalau Forest 

NWR, Hakalau 

and Kona 

Forest Units 

Conduct open houses on a basis regular 

basis and develop open public access 

opportunities. 

3 

6.1.3.2 H Pu`u Wa`a 

Wa`a Wildlife 

Sanctuary 

Improve public access and interpretation. 

 

3 

6.1.3.3 MA Waikamoi 

Preserve 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Expand public access opportunities into 

areas with native forest birds. 

3 

6.1.3.4 MA Makawao 

Forest Reserve 

Develop public access and interpretation of 

the Idyllwild entrance to the reservoir on the 

4,300 foot contour road. 

3 

6.1.3.5 MA Hanawī NAR Increase limited public access for bird study 

and permitted public access. 

3 

6.1.3.6 MA Haleakalā

National Park 

Increase public access opportunities for bird 

viewing in the Kaupō koa forest and in the 

Hosmer Grove area. 

3 

6.1.3.7 MO Kamakou 

Preserve, The 

Nature 

Conservancy 

Improve public access by connecting the 

preserve with Hanalilolilo trail. 

3 

6.1.3.8 O Barber’s Point Develop interpretive displays and sponsor 

regular trips to sinkholes at Barber’s Point 

to see fossil bird bones. 

3 

6.1.3.9 O Honouliuli 

Preserve, The 

Nature 

Conservancy 

Support public education through the 

Project Stewardship program run by The 

Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 

3 

6.1.4 Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor 

centers, displays, facilities, and public interpretive 

programs (see Table 19). 
249 

Table 19. 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 19 

Recovery 

Action # Island Area Development Needed Priority 

6.1.4.1 H Hakalau Forest 

National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Develop a visitor center with interpretive 

displays and docents promoting refuge 

programs to protect Hawai`i’s endangered 

flora, fauna, and ecosystems. 

2 

6.1.4.2 MA Haleakalā

National Park 

Construct an interpretive display in the 

cabin at Palikū providing information on 

programs by the NP and State for Maui 

parrotbill, `ākohekohe and other native 

forest birds. 

2 

6.1.4.3 O Honolulu Zoo Provide support for developing a Hawai`i 

forest bird display at Honolulu Zoo. 

2 

6.1.5 Promote the opening of State Forest Reserve trails to the 

general public for nature walks and birding on all islands. 

(Priority 2) 

6.1.6 Support the Na Ala Hele Trail System. (Priority 2) 

6.2 Fund, support, and promote programs that inform teachers and 

educate children, lawmakers, local public, and visitors. 

Most people in Hawai`i are unfamiliar with Hawai`i’s native 

species and the problems associated with their decline. Raising the 

level of awareness on endangered species issues at the community 

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 tarsier education programs that promote 

native species issues. (Priority 2) 

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 Hawai`i’s native species for 
250 

elementary and high school teacher education 

programs. (Priority 1) 

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. (Priority 2) 

6.2.1.4.1 Develop forest bird posters for schools, 

emphasizing each of the native forest birds 

and keyed to each islands 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. (Priority 2) 

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 program. 

6.2.2.1 Fund and support programs for school children on 

each island that provide a “hands on” approach to 

learning about Hawai`i’s native species: 
251 

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) 

6.2.2.2 Fund and support organizations such as `Ōhi`a 

Productions and Keauhou Bird Conservation Center 

that provide environmental educational programs to 

Hawai`i’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 Malama 

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. (Priority 2) 

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 O`ahu 

`elepaio “nest cam” to local schools 

through a web site. (Priority 3) 
252 

6.2.4 Provide information and promote awareness of the harmful 

effects of some alien species to public health, native 

species, and native ecosystems. (Priority 2) 

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 Hawai`i’s ecosystems 

and economy. 

 

6.2.4.1 Initiate and fund public outreach efforts about the 

effect of rats and cats as vectors for human disease, 

agricultural pests, and predation on native species. 

Provide film and video footage of the harmful 

effects rats and cats have on native species and 

humans. (Priority 2) 

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 2) 

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) 

6.3 Use a professional marketing agency and business marketing 

techniques (TV, Radio, Internet, newspapers, advertising, 

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, TV, 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 
253 

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 TV and radio about native species and 

their habitat. (Priority 2) 

6.3.2.1 Assist in the development of public service 

announcements about native species by providing 

local TV 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, TV stations, and newspapers 

to promote native species awareness. (Priority 3)

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 TV 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 
254 

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 

TV program about Hawai`i’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. (Priority 3) 

 

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. (Priority 3) 

 

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 Hawai`i’s natural and 

cultural resources. (Priority 2) 

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. (Priority 2) 
255 

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 Hawai`i’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) 

6.4.1.3.1 Develop volunteer programs for banding 

O`ahu `Amakihi at Lyon Arboretum and 

O`ahu `elepaio in Wailupe Valley. 

(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 programs with other 

conservation agencies, native Hawaiian groups, and private 

landowners. (Priority 3) 

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 Association, and 

other non-governmental organizations to promote 

environmental awareness. (Priority 3)
256 

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Recovery actions in the Implementation Schedule have been prioritized in 

a two-part ranking system. First, each action was assigned a “priority number” 

from 1 (highest priority) to 3 (lowest priority). Second, within each priority 

number, actions were further 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. These priority tiers were applied only to actions in 

Tables 7, 8, 9, and 11 (recovery habitat parcels in need of protection, 

reforestation, fencing and ungulate control, and predator control, respectively) 

because it would be difficult to prioritize the large number of actions in these 

categories without the greater resolution provided by the recovery tier. The 

recovery tier rankings were 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 were 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 land owners and land managers who may wish to see 

a complete list by parcel of recovery actions for their lands. Recovery actions in 

Appendix A are from Tables 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the recovery action narrative. 

 

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. 

Threat Categories. We consider five major threats to species in order to list, 

delist, or reclassify a species: 

A – Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat 

or range; 
257 

B – Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

C – Disease or predation; 

D – Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

E – Other natural or man-made factors affecting the continued existence of a 

species. 

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 recovery criteria of creating viable populations or meta-populations 

and management of recovery habitat (see Recovery Criteria section). The 

majority of recovery actions in this plan address threats to habitat (threat A) and 

disease and predation (threat C). The over-utilization of Hawaiian forest birds for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (threat B) is not 

currently a concern. The `akikiki, a candidate species for listing, is threatened by 

inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms (threat D) because it is not on the 

Federal list of threatened and endangered species. In addition, in some cases 

listed species may be threatened by zoning regulations that are inadequate to 

ensure protection of their habitat. Population monitoring does not fit under the 

above threat categories, but in order to determine whether recovery criteria have 

been met, it is essential to evaluate population trends, effects of threats on 

populations, and measure population response to management. 

Definitions of Action Durations: 

Continual – An action that will be implemented on a routine basis once begun. 

Ongoing – An action that is currently being implemented and will continue 

until the action is no longer necessary. 

Unknown – Action duration is not known at this time or action is not being 

implemented currently. 

Complete – Action has been completed. 

Responsible Parties for Action Implementation: 

We have the statutory responsibility for implementing this recovery plan. 

Only Federal agencies are mandated to take part in the effort. Recovery actions 

identified in this plan imply no legal obligations of State and local government 

agencies or private landowners. However, in most cases complete recovery of 

listed species included in this plan will require the involvement and cooperation 

of the Federal, State, local, and private interests. For each recovery action 
258 

described in the Implementation Schedule, the column titled “Responsible 

Parties” lists the primary Federal and State agencies responsible for implementing 

recovery actions and conservation groups, partnerships, and private landowners 

that also may wish to be involved in recovery implementation. An asterisk (*) 

identifies lead partners for implementing recovery actions. 

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. 

Secure Recovery Habitat: Costs to secure recovery habitat 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 habitat parcel(s) to be reforested or restored multiplied by 

cost per acre for reforestation or restoration. Cost/acre for reforestation = 

$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. 

 

Fencing and Feral Ungulate Removal: Cost for each action number equals 

total acreage in the recovery habitat parcel(s) requiring fencing multiplied by cost 

per acre for fencing added to the total acreage in the recovery habitat 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 
259 

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 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 percent. One-way 

gates and other means of reducing numbers of ungulates in fenced areas are 

included in the cost for fencing designs. 

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 habitat 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. However, 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. It is not possible to 

determine the cost of predator control for many parcels at this time because the 

cost will depend 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 $100 million for all 
260 

activities under the general heading of captive propagation and related recovery 

strategies, or $2 million per year for a 50-year period. 

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 30 years. 

Recovery of other species will require substantial habitat restoration, which could 

take more than 30 years. We have estimated on average that we can expect all the 

species in this plan with current populations of greater than 300 individuals to be 

recovered in 50 years. For actions that are continual, total costs reflect annual 

costs summed over 50 years. 

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 

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 

KS – Kamehameha Schools 

MFBRP – Maui Forest Bird Recovery Program 

MWP – Maui Watershed Partnership 

NAPS – Natural Areas Partnership 

NAR – Natural Area Reserve 
261 

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
262 

Table 20. Implementation Schedule for the Hawaiian Forest Birds Recovery Plan. 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 1.1 A Describe and delineate recovery habitat Complete *USFWS, *HFBRT 

 1 1 1.3.2 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 

Unknown *DHHL TBD1

1 1 1.3.6 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Humu`ula, TMK 338001002 

Unknown *DHHL, Nobrega Ranch TBD1

1 1 1.3.8 A Secure recovery habitat areas: TMK 326018002 Unknown *DHHL TBD11 1 1.3.9 A Secure recovery habitat areas: TMK 326018001 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division, Pu`u ō`ō Ranch TBD1 
263 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 1.3.10 A Secure recovery habitat areas: TMK 344015002 Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD11 1 1.3.27 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Ko`olau Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016003 224016004 228008001 228008007 

Unknown 

*Alexander and 

Baldwin, *East 

Maui Irrigation, 

*EMWP 

TBD1

1 2 1.3.30 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMKs 216001005 

Unknown *DLNR, *EMWP TBD1
264 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

217001033 217002035 217004006 218001007 

1 3 1.3.35 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kahikinui Forest Reserve, TMKs 218001006 218001005 218001009 

Unknown *DLNR, *EMWP TBD1

1 3 1.3.36 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kahikinui Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 

Unknown 

*DHHL, 

USFWS, 

*EMWP 

TBD1

1 2 1.3.44 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Haleakalā Ranch 

(Pūlehu Nui /Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

Unknown 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*EMWP 

TBD1

1 1 1.3.45 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Waikamoi Preserve, TMK 223005004 

Unknown 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*TNCH, 

*EMWP 

TBD1
265 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 1.3.71 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Pia Valley, TMKs 37003073 37003033 

Unknown 

*Benjamin 

Casiday, *James 

Pflueger, 

*KMWP 

TBD1

1 1 1.3.72 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Lower Wailupe Valley, TMK 36004001 

Unknown 

*City and 

County of 

Honolulu 

TBD1

1 1 1.3.73 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kūpaua Valley, TMKs 37004001 37004002 

Unknown 

*Hawai`i 

Humane Society, 

*KMWP 

TBD1

1 1 1.3.74 A Secure recovery habitat Unknown *Joseph Paiko TBD1 
266 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

areas: Kuli`ou`ou Valley, TMK 38013001 

Trust, *KMWP 

1 1 1.3.79 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Wai Kāne Valley, 

TMK 48014005 

Unknown 

*SMF 

Enterprises, 

*KMWP 

TBD1

1 1 1.3.81 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Southern Alaka1i Plateau, Portion of TMK 417001001 

Unknown *Robinson Family Partners TBD1

1 1 2.1.2 A 

Reforest areas of the Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 

Unknown *DHHL 15.1 

1 1 2.1.5 A 

Reforest areas of Hakalau Forest NWR, TMKs 337001010 329005005 333001007 329005003 

Ongoing *USFWS 33.7 

1 1 2.1.12 A 

Reforest areas of Mauna Kea Forest Reserve, TMK 344015002 

Unknown *DLNR 3.9 
267 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 2.1.24 A 

Reforest areas of Kona Forest NWR, TMK 386001001 

Unknown *USFWS 2.0 

1 1 2.1.33 A 

Reforest areas of Haleakalā National Park, 

TMK 218001007 

Unknown *NPS 8.8 

1 1 2.1.34 A 

Reforest areas of Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, 

TMK 217004006 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 0.2 

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 Kahikinu Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 

Unknown *DHHL 21.1 

1 3 2.1.46 A 

Reforest areas of Haleakalā Ranch (Pūlehu 

Nui/Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

Unknown *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 4.1 

1 1 2.1.47 A 

Reforest areas of Waikamoi Preserve, TMK 223005004 

Unknown 

*Haleakalā

Ranch Co., 

*THCH 

29.8 

1 2 2.1.48 A 

Reforest areas of Makawao Forest Reserve, TMK 

Unknown *DLNR 6.9 
268 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

224016001 224016002 

1 1 2.2.2 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 

3 years *DHHL 18.1 

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 

3 years *USFWS 61.9 

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 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 69.1 

1 1 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 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 124.3 

1 1 2.2.12 A, C Reduce or eliminate the 3 years *KS, Keauhou 90.9 
269 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within `Ōla`a/ Kīlauea 

Partnership, TMKs 324008009 399001007 399001004 324008025 319001001 319001007 

Ranch, Kūlani 

Correctional 

Facility, 

*Maka`ala NAR, 

*HVNP 

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 

3 years 

*Alexander and 

Baldwin, *East 

Maui Irrigation, 

EMWP, TNCH 

50.02

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 

3 years *DLNR, *EMWP 50.02

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,

3 years *DLNR 100.02
270 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

TMK 212004007 

1 1 2.2.27 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Hāna Forest 

Reserve, TMK 210001001 214001001 215001001 

3 years *DLNR 81.5 

1 1 2.2.28 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within HaleakalāNational Park, TMK 213001003 216001002 216001001 216001003 217004016 216010001 

3 years *NPS 50.02

1 2 2.2.31 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMKs 216001005 217001033 217002035 217004006 

3 years *DLNR 15.5 

1 3 2.2.36 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahikinui Forest Reserve, TMKs 

3 years *DLNR 50.02
271 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

 218001006 218001005 218001009 

1 3 2.2.37 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahikinui Homelands, TMKs 219001003 219001007 219001008 219001011 

3 years *DHHL 50.02

1 3 2.2.38 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Upper Auwahi, TMKs 219001006 221009001 222001001 222001034 

3 years *`Ulupalakua Ranch Inc. 50.02

1 3 2.2.45 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Haleakalā Ranch (Pūlehu Nui/Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

3 years *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 9.3 

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. 20.02

1 2 2.2.47 A, C Reduce or eliminate the 3 years *DLNR 15.6 
272 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Makawao Forest Reserve, TMKs 224016001 224016002 

1 1 2.2.94 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Honouliuli Preserve, TMK 92005013 

3 years 

*James 

Campbell Est., 

*TNCH 

21.4 

1 1 2.2.95 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Lualualei Naval Magazine, TMK 88001001 

3 years *U.S. Navy 9.3 

1 1 2.2.96 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Schofield Barracks West Range, TMK 77001001 

3 years *U.S. Army 11.0 

1 1 2.2.97 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation 

3 years *DLNR 3.9 
273 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

within Pahole NAR, TMK 68001002 

1 1 2.2.101 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Halehaha, Halepaakai, and Koai`e drainages, Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, Portions of TMK 414001003 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 5.9 

1 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 

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

Ongoing *USFWS 674.0 13.5 13.5 13.5 
274 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

329005003 

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 406.8 8.1 8.1 8.1 

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 

2,288.7 45.8 45.8 45.8 

1 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 

730.3 14.6 14.6 14.6 

1 1 2.4.1.26 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Ko`olau Forest 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 819.0 16.4 16.4 16.4 
275 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Reserve, TMKs 211002002 212004005 229014001 211001050 211001044 

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 588.6 11.8 11.8 11.8 

1 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 714.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 

1 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 

Continual *NPS 829.9 16.6 16.6 16.6 
276 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

217004016 216010001 218001007 

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 

595.4 11.9 11.9 11.9 

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 

290 5.8 5.8 5.8 

1 1 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 125 2.5 2.5 2.5 
277 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

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 150 3.0 3.0 3.0 

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 80 1.6 1.6 1.6 

1 1 2.4.1.50 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in North Hālawa Valley, TMK 99011002 

Continual *KS 10 0.2 0.2 0.2 

1 1 2.4.1.51 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Control alien 

Continual *Damon Estate 20 0.4 0.4 0.4 
278 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Moanalua Valley, TMKs 11013001 and 11013002 

1 1 2.4.1.52 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Waikāne Valley, TMK 48014005 

Unknown *SMF Enterprises 30 0.6 0.6 0.6 

1 1 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 30 0.6 0.6 0.6 

1 1 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 

10 0.2 0.2 0.2 

1 1 2.4.1.59 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Halehaha, Halepaakai, and Koai`e drainages, Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, TMK 414001003 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 80 1.6 1.6 1.6 
279 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

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 

50.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

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 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

1 1 2.5.1.3.2 C 

Respond to and determine causes of avian disease outbreaks in forest bird recovery habitats and areas outside forest bird recovery habitat 

Continual *ADWG 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

1 1 2.5.2.1 C 

Initiate inspection programs for all interisland vessels,

Continual 

*State and 

Federal 

Departments of 

50.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
280 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

including ships, airplanes, and barges and their cargos to intercept and kill mosquito larvae and adults 

Agriculture, 

ADWG 

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 

50.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.2 C 

Mosquito surveys on Hawai`i between the 3,400 and 5,000 ft. contour lines on Mauna Kea Volcano that include recovery habitat 

4 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.3 C 

Mosquito surveys between the 3,400 and 5,000 ft. contour lines on Hualālai Volcano that include recovery habitat, portions of TMKs 371001001, 372002001, 374002008, 374001003, 374002007, 374001002 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

2.5 2.5 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.7 C 

Mosquito surveys: between 2,500 and 5,000 ft. contour lines on Haleakalā Volcano that 

include recovery habitat 

4 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 2 2.5.3.1.1.9 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 215001001 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 2 2.5.3.1.1.10 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 1 year *USGS, 2.5 2.5 
281 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

216001002 USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1 2 2.5.3.1.1.11 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 211002002 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 1 2 2.5.3.1.1.12 C 

Mosquito surveys on the northern slope of Haleakalā between the 

2,500 ft. contour line and Hāna Highway 

4 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.14 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui in recovery habitat between 2,500 and 5,000 ft. contour lines 

2 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

5.0 2.5 2.5 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.34 C 

Mosquito surveys in multiple parcels that include recovery habitat on Moloka`i 

2 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

5.0 2.5 2.5 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.38 C 

Mosquito surveys of parcels on O`ahu that include recovery habitat 

4 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW, 

DOD 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 1 2.5.3.1.1.40 C 

Mosquito surveys on Kaua`i that include recovery habitat, TMKs 414001020, 414001014, 414001013, 459001016, 459001001, 414001003, 417001001, 458001001 and others 

3 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 
282 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 2.5.3.1.2 C 

Eliminate or treat mosquito breeding sites in recovery habitat and adjacent areas at elevations below 5,000 ft. with BTI (Dunk®) or other environmentally compatible pesticides that are safe for nontarget 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 

1 3 2.5.3.1.3.1 C Eliminate or treat cattle troughs and stock ponds Ongoing 

*Land 

Managers, State 

Departments of 

Health and 

Education 

25 0.5 0.5 0.5 

1 3 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 

5 0.1 0.1 0.1 

1 2 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 areas near recovery habitat 

Ongoing 

*Land 

Managers, *State 

Depa rtments of 

Health and 

Education 

20.0 
283 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 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 

1 1 2.5.3.1.4.1 C 

Identify and fence priority areas in recovery habitat 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 

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 

1 1 2.6.2 A 

Eradicate all incipient populations of new tetrapoda 

4 years *APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 80.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

1 1 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 

1 1 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 

1 1 3 E Develop captive 

pro

pagation, Ongoing *ZSSD, *USFWS, 1,000.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 
284 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

translocation and related recovery strategies 

USGS, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

1 1 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 1 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, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4

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 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4 
285 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

managed habitat 

1 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 

1 1 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 

1 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, 

*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

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 1 3.11.1 E 

Establish a cryogenic cell culture of germplasm of the endangered Hawaiian avifauna at two 

partner 

Unknown 

*ZSSD, 

ADWG, VC, 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

5.0 
286 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

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 

DOFAW 

1 1 4.2.1.1 C 

Continue efforts to register hand and aerial broadcast methods for dispersing diphacinone toxicants for controlling predators 

Ongoing 

Research 

Institutions, UH, 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 

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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 1 4.2.2 C Rat study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

1 1 4.2.3 C Feral cat study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 

1 1 4.2.5 C Mosquito study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 
287 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

1 1 4.2.6 A Ungulate study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

12.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

1 1 4.4.1 C 

Address public health concerns regarding aerial broadcast of rodenticide and its effects on both game and non-game nontarget species, and its persistence in watershed and sediments 

3 years 

Research 

Institutions, UH, 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

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 

1 1 4.5.2.2 C 

Refine diagnostic methods for identifying individuals who have survived acute disease and who have acquired immunity to reinfection 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

1 1 4.8.1 C Special research considerations for Ongoing *Research Institutions, 2.0 1.0 1.0 
288 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

disease and parasitism: Determine the effects of land use changes on disease transmission 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

1 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 

1 1 4.8.5 C 

Determine dispersal distances of adult mosquitoes from point sources outside of recovery habitat 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

1 1 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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

3.0 1.5 1.5 

1 1 4.10.16 C 

Determine if tolerance or resistance to malaria and pox virus is evolving in any of the fragmented populations 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.5 1.5 

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 

Ongoing 

UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

60.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 
289 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

distribution and population size of all native and non-native forest birds 

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, 

*DOFAW 

35.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 

1 1 6.2.1.1 E 

Institute core curriculum at the university level emphasizing Hawai`i’s native species for elementary and high school education programs 

Ongoing *UH 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 1.2 A Continue existing and develop new partnerships Ongoing 

*All Land 

Owners, Land 

Managers, and 

Other Parties 

TBD1

2 2 1.3.1 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1

2 2 1.3.3 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Hilo Forest Reserve, Laupāhoehoe Section, TMK 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW TBD1
290 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

337001004 

2 1 1.3.4 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Hilo Forest Reserve, Pīhā Section, 

TMK 333001004 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW TBD1

2 2 1.3.5 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kīipuka `Āinahou Nēnē Sanctuary, TMK 338001008 

Unknown *DHHL, *DOFAW TBD1

2 1 1.3.7 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Humu`ula, Portions of TMK 338001007 

Unknown *DHHL TBD1

2 2 1.3.11 A Secure recovery habitat Unknown *KS TBD1 
291 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

areas: TMK 399001004 

2 2 1.3.12 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kapāpala Ranch, Portions of TMK 398001010 

Unknown 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Kapāpala Ranch 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.13 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Ka`ū Forest Reserve, TMK 397001007 

Unknown *Mauna Kea Agribusiness TBD1

2 3 1.3.14 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Ka`ū Forest Reserve, Portions of TMKs 397001006 397001005 

Unknown *KS TBD1

2 2 1.3.15 A Secure recovery habitat Unknown *Samuel M. TBD1 
292 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

areas: Portions of TMK 392001002 

Damon Trust, 

Kahuku Ranch 

2 3 1.3.17 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Papa, TMK 388001001 

Unknown *Koa Aina Ventures TBD1

2 2 1.3.18 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Portions of TMKs 388001003 388001004 387012001 392001005 387012003 387012004 387001007 387001006 387001011 387001004 

Unknown *Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. TBD1
293 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 1.3.20 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: McCandless Ranch, Portions of TMKs 392001003 386001001 

Unknown *McCandless Ranch TBD1

2 1 1.3.21 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Waiea Tract, TMK 386001003 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1

2 1 1.3.22 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Keālia Ranch, TMK 385001001 

Unknown *KS TBD1

2 1 1.3.23 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Hōnaunau Forest, TMKs 384001001 384001002 383001001 383001002 

Unknown *KS TBD1
294 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 1.3.24 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Keālia Ranch, Portions of TMK 385001002

Unknown *Elizabeth Stack et al. TBD1

2 1 1.3.26 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Pu`u Lehua, Portions of TMKs 378001003 378001007 372002001 378001001 

Unknown *KS TBD1

2 3 1.3.37 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Upper Auwahi, TMKs 219001006 221009001 222001001 222001034 

Unknown 

*`Ulupalakua 

Ranch Inc., DOI, 

NHPS, *EMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.38 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kula Forest Reserve, TMK 222007001 

Unknown *DLNR, *EMWP TBD1
295 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 3 1.3.39 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kēōkea, TMK 222004033 

Unknown 

*James 

Campbell Est., 

*EMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.40 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Waiohuli, TMK 222005052 

Unknown 

*James 

Campbell Est., 

*EMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.41 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: 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 habitat areas: Waiakoa, TMK 222008001 

Unknown 

*Lucky Shoji 

USA Inc., 

*EMWP 

TBD1
296 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 3 1.3.43 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kamehame Nui/Kealahou, TMK 223005002 

Unknown 

*R. G. Von 

Tempsky Jr. 

Trust, *EMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.46 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: West Maui Forest Reserve, Wailuku, TMKs 233003003 235003001 236003001 

Unknown 

*Wailuku 

Agriculture, 

*WMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.47 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: West Maui Forest Reserve, Launiupoko, TMK 247001002 

Unknown 

*Amfac/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., 

*WMWP 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.48 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: West Maui Forest Reserve, Kaua`ula, TMK 246025001 

Unknown 

*Amfac/JMB 

Hawai1i Co., 

*WMWP 

TBD1
297 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 3 1.3.49 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: West Maui Forest Reserve, Kahoma, TMK 245022001 

Unknown *KS, *WMWP TBD1

2 3 1.3.50 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: 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 habitat areas: 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 habitat areas: West Maui Forest Reserve, Kapāloa, TMK 244007007 

Unknown *WMWP TBD1

2 3 1.3.53 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Pu`u Kukui Watershed Management Area, TMKs 242001001 241001017 

Unknown 

*Maui Land and 

Pineapple, 

*WMWP, NAPS 

TBD1
298 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 2 1.3.54 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 252014001 

Unknown *R. W. Myer Ltd., et al. TBD1

2 3 1.3.55 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 259006011 

Unknown *TNCH TBD1

2 3 1.3.56 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, Wawaeolepe, TMK 259008017 

Unknown *William Hitchcock, et al. TBD1

2 3 1.3.57 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 254003032 

Unknown *TNCH TBD1

2 3 1.3.58 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: 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 habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Laeokapuna, TMK 257005027 

Unknown *P. Hodgins TBD1

2 3 1.3.60 A Secure recovery habitat Unknown *M. Hustice TBD1 
299 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Keanakoholua, TMK 257005001 

Trust 

2 3 1.3.61 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Manawai, TMK 256006013 

Unknown *P. Petro Trust TBD1

2 3 1.3.62 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, West `Ōhi`a 

Gulch, TMK 256006010 

Unknown *E. Wond Trust TBD1

2 3 1.3.63 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Keawa Nui, TMK 256006007 

Unknown *KS TBD1

2 3 1.3.64 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pua`ahala, TMK 256006002 

Unknown *K&H Horizons Hawai`i TBD1

2 3 1.3.65 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kumu`eli, TMK 256006001 

Unknown *D. Fairbanks III Trust TBD1

2 3 1.3.66 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamalō, TMKs 

Unknown *KS TBD1
300 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

255001016 255001006 255001017 

2 2 1.3.67 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Mākolelau, 

TMK 255001015 

Unknown *Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust TBD1

2 3 1.3.68 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 

Unknown 

*Moloka`i 

Ranch Ltd., 

TNCH 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.69 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kawela, TMKs 254003001 254003028 

Unknown 

*Kawela 

Plantation 

Homes 

Association 

TBD1

2 3 1.3.70 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kaunakakai, TMK 253003005 

Unknown *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. TBD1

2 1 1.3.75 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Ka`alakei Valley, TMK 39009001 

Unknown 

*Hawai`i Kai 

Development 

Co., *KMWP 

TBD1

2 1 1.3.77 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Moanalua Valley, TMK 11013001 

Unknown *Amon Estate, *KMWP TBD1
301 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 1.3.78 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: South Hālawa Valley, Tripler Ridge, TMK 99011001 

Unknown 

*Queen’s 

Medical Center, 

*KMWP 

TBD1

2 1 1.3.80 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Waianu Valley, TMKs 48014003 48013014 

Unknown 

*Waiāhole 

Irrigtaion Co. 

Ltd., *KMWP 

TBD1

2 1 2.1.1 A 

Reforest areas of on the Northeast slope of Mauna Kea, Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 31.5 

2 1 2.1.7 A 

Reforest areas of Humu`ula, TMK 338001002 

Unknown *DHHL 29.8 

2 1 2.1.8 A 

Reforest areas of Humu`ula Portions of TMK 338001007 

Unknown *DHHL, Parker Ranch 71.6 
302 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 2.1.9 A 

Reforest areas of Lamaia Section, TMK 326018002 

Unknown *DHHL 14.3 

2 1 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 1 2.1.11 A 

Reforest areas of recovery habitat: Ka`ohe, TMK 344015002 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 0.9 

2 2 2.1.15 A 

Reforest areas of Kapāpala Ranch, Portions of TMK 398001004 

Unknown 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Kapāpala Ranch 

11.9 

2 2 2.1.18 A 

Reforest areas of recovery habitat, Portions of TMK 392001002 

Unknown *Samuel M. Damon Trust 11.2 
303 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 2 2.1.22 A 

Reforest areas of Honomalino Forest Reserve, TMK 389001002 

Unknown *DLNR 1.3 

2 1 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 2 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 

2 2 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 

Unknown *DOFAW 34.3 
304 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

371001001 371001006 

2 2 2.1.32 A 

Reforest areas of Hualālai Ranch, TMK 372002001 

Unknown *KS 11.8 

2 3 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 

2 3 2.1.42 A 

Reforest areas of Waiohuli, TMK 222005052 

Unknown *James Campbell Est. 1.7 

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 3 2.1.51 A 

Reforest areas of West Maui Forest Reserve, Ukumehame/ Olowalu, West Maui NAR, Līhau,

Unknown *DLNR 18.4 
305 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

TMK 248001002 

2 3 2.1.52 A 

Reforest areas of Pu`u Kukui Watershed Management Area, TMK 241001017 

Unknown *Maui Land and Pineapple 11.6 

2 3 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. 3.4 

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 

2 3 2.1.58 A 

Reforest areas of Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 

Unknown 

*Moloka`i 

Ranch Ltd., 

*TNCH 

11.1 

2 3 2.1.60 A 

Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamiloloa/Makakupaīa, 

TMK 254003025 

Unknown *DLNR 5.3 

2 1 2.2.1 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of 3 years *DLNR, State Land Division 26.4 
306 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ungulates on vegetation on the northeast slopes of Mauna Kea, Portions of TMKs 344014002 344014003 343010002 343010008 

2 1 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 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 34.1 

2 1 2.2.5 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Lamaia Section, TMK 326018002 

3 years *DHHL 24.0 

2 1 2.2.6 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Pu`u `ō`ō Ranch, 

TMK 326018001 

3 years 

*DLNR, State 

Land Division, 

Pu`u `ō`ō Ranch 

19.9 

2 1 2.2.7 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, TMK 338001008 

3 years *DHHL 29.8 

2 1 2.2.8 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of 3 years *DLNR, State Land Division 1.5 
307 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ungulates on vegetation within Ka`ohe, TMK 344015002 

2 2 2.2.13 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kapāpala Forest 

Reserve, Portions of TMK 398001004 

3 years *DLNR, State Land Division 49.7 

2 1 2.2.16 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Manukā NAR, 

Upper Portions of TMK 391001002 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 11.5 

2 1 2.2.19 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kona Forest NWR, TMK 386001001 

3 years *USFWS 13.3 

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 

3 years 

*McCandless 

Ranch and E. 

Stack et al. 

49.9 

2 1 2.2.21 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiea Tract, TMK 386001003 

3 years *DLNR, State Land Division 3.2 

2 1 2.2.22 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of 3 years *KS 50.02 
308 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ungulates on vegetation within Hōnaunau Forest, TMKs 384001001 384001002 383001001 383001002 

2 2 2.2.23 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Pu`u Lehua, Portion of TMKs 378001003 378001007 372002001 378001001 

3 years *KS 73.1 

2 3 2.2.39 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kula Forest Reserve, TMK 222007001 

3 years *DLNR 26.8 

2 3 2.2.40 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kēōkea, TMK 

222004033 

3 years *James Campbell Est. 1.2 

2 3 2.2.41 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiohuli, TMK 222005052 

3 years *James Campbell Est. 4.0 
309 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 3 2.2.42 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ka`ono`ulu, TMKs 222007002 222006009 222007010 222006032 

3 years *Ka`ono`ulu Ranch Co. Ltd. 8.1 

2 3 2.2.43 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Waiakoa, TMK 222008001 

3 years *Lucky Shoji USA Inc. et al. 1.6 

2 3 2.2.44 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kamehame Nui/Kealahou, TMK 223005002 

3 years 

*R. G. Von 

Tempsky Jr. 

Trust 

7.6 

2 3 2.2.48 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui NAR, Kahakuloa, TMK 231006001 

3 years *DLNR 13.3 

2 3 2.2.49 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Waihe`e, TMK 232014001 

3 years *Maui Board of Water Supply 24.2 

2 3 2.2.50 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest 

3 years *DLNR 0.65 
310 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Reserve, Kou, TMK 232014002 

2 3 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 

3 years *Wailuku Agriculture 45.6 

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 

3 years *DLNR 0.64 

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 

3 years *DLNR 3.1 

2 3 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 

3 years *DLNR 0.51 

2 3 2.2.55 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest 

3 years *DLNR 1.3 
311 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Reserve, Kaheawa, TMK 248001001 

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 

3 years *DLNR 42.0 

2 3 2.2.57 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Launiupoko, TMK 247001002 

3 years *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co. 10.7 

2 3 2.2.58 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Pūehuehu, TMK 247001004 

3 years *DLNR 2.0 

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. 2.0 

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 

3 years *DLNR 9.2 

2 3 2.2.61 A, C Reduce or eliminate the 3 years *KS 8.0 
312 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest Reserve, Kahoma, TMK 245022001 

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 

3 years *DLNR 0.20 

2 3 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 

3 years *Amfac/JMB Hawai`i Co. 1.9 

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 

3 years *DLNR 2.2 

2 3 2.2.65 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kapunakea Preserve, Amfac/JMB, TNCH, TMK 244007001 

3 years 

*Amfac/JMB 

Hawai`i Co., 

*TNCH 

6.9 

2 3 2.2.66 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui Forest 

3 years UNK 1.6 
313 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Reserve, Kapāloa, TMK 244007007 

2 3 2.2.67 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within West Maui NAR, Honokōwai, TMK 

244007004 

3 years *DLNR 8.4 

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 

3 years *Maui Land and Pineapple 37.2 

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 

3 years *DLNR 3.7 

2 3 2.2.70 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kahanui, TMK 252014001 

3 years *R. W. Myer, et al. 7.8 

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 

3 years *DLNR 0.11 

2 3 2.2.72 A, C Reduce or eliminate the 3 years *DLNR 16.5 
314 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Waikolu and Pu`u Ali`i NAR, TMK 261001002 

2 3 2.2.73 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 259006011 

3 years *TNCH 12.0 

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 

3 years *William Hitchcock, et al. 0.14 

2 3 2.2.75 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Pelekunu Valley, TMK 254003032 

3 years *TNCH 1.0 

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 

3 years *DLNR 19.5 

2 3 2.2.77 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest 

3 years *G. Brown III, et al. 0.40 
315 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Reserve, Wailau Valley and Oloku`i, TMK 259006004 

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 

3 years *P. Hodgins 1.1 

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 

3 years *M. Hustice Trust 3.3 

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 

3 years *DLNR 0.89 

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 

3 years *DLNR 0.83 

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 

3 years *P. Petro Trust 1.2 

2 3 2.2.83 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of 3 years *DLNR 1.5 
316 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, east `Ōhi`a 

Gulch, TMK 256006011 

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 

3 years *E. Wond Trust 0.74 

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 

3 years *KS 0.88 

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 

3 years *K&H Horizons Hawai`i 0.62 

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 

3 years *D. Fairbanks III Trust, EMOWP 50.02

2 3 2.2.88 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kamalō, TMKs 

3 years *KS, *EMOWP 50.02
317 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

255001016  255001006  255001017 

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 

3 years *Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust 2.4 

2 3 2.2.90 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kamakou Preserve, Kawela, TMK 2540003026 

3 years 

*Moloka`i 

Ranch Ltd., 

*TNCH, 

EMOWP 

25.3 

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 

3 years 

*Kawela 

Plantation 

Homes 

Association 

8.6 

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 

3 years *DLNR 11.0 

2 3 2.2.93 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kaunakakai,

3 years *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. 0.57 
318 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

TMK 253003005 

2 1 2.2.98 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahanahāiki Valley, TMK 81001012 

3 years *U.S. Army 1.5 

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 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 7.7 

2 3 2.2.103 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve, TMK 414001003 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 100.02

2 1 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 630.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 

2 1 2.4.1.2 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, 

poisoning and other 

Continual *DHHL 302.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 
319 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

means in Kanakaleonui Corridor, TMK 338001009 

2 1 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 54.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 

2 1 2.4.1.5 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in TMK 326018002 

Continual *DHHL 286.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 

2 1 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 

356.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 

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 356.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 
320 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

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 18.0 0.36 0.36 0.36 

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 2,972.8 59.5 59.5 59.5 

2 1 2.4.1.13 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kapāpala 

Forest Reserver, Portions of TMK 398001004 

Continual *DLNR, State Land Division 237.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 

2 1 2.4.1.16 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Manukā NAR, 

Upper portions of TMK 391001002 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 71.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 

2 1 2.4.1.19 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Kona Forest NWR, TMK 386001001 

Continual *USFWS 142.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 

2 1 2.4.1.20 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in McCandless Ranch, TMKs 

Continual *McCandless Ranch 257.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 
321 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

392001003 386001001 385001002 

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 75.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

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 957.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 

2 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 1,399.5 28.0 28.0 28.0 

2 2.4.1.24 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pu`u Wa`a wa`a Bird Sanctuary, TMKs 371001001 and 371001006 

Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 686.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 

2 2 2.4.1.30 C Control alien mammalian 

predators by trapping, Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 135.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 
322 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

poisoning and other means in Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMKs 216001005 217001033 217002035 217004006 

2 2 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 177.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 

2 2 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 422.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 

2 2 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 137.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 

2 3 2.4.1.37 C Control alien mammalian 

predators by trapping, Continual *DLNR, *DOFAW 116.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 
323 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

poisoning and other means in West Maui NAR, Kahakuloa, TMK 231006001 

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 

60.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 

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 73.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 

2 3 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 326.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 

2 3 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 144.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 
324 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 3 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 170.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 

2 3 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 

221.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 

2 1 2.4.1.55 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Pahole NAR, TMK 68001002 

Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 50 1.0 1.0 1.0 

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 20 0.4 0.4 0.4 
325 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

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 100 2.0 2.0 2.0 

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 20.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 

2 3 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 

2 1 2.5.2.3 C 

Establish disease monitoring protocols for captive native birds to assess presence of avian disease in captive held 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW, 

ADWG 

25.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 
326 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

populations and risk of transfer of disease strains between avian captive holding facilities 

2 1 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 

1 year 

*ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW, 

*ADWG 

5.0 2.5 2.5 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.4 C 

Mosquito surveys of windward Hāmākua 

between the 3,400 and 2,000 ft. contour lines on Mauna Kea Volcano adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery habitat 

4 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.5 C 

Mosquito surveys on Kilauea Volcano adjacent to or within 3 kilometers of recovery habitat 

2 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

5.0 2.5 2.5 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.6 C 

Mosquito surveys on Hualālai Volcano adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery habitat 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

2.5 2.5 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.8 C Mosquito surveys, TMK 217004006 1 year *USGS, USFWS, DOFAW 2.5 2.5 2 1 2.5.3.1.1.15 C 

Mosquito surveys within `Īao Valley, West Maui, 

TMKs 233003003, 235003001, 233003004,

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 
327 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

and multiple smaller parcels 

2 1 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 1 2.5.3.1.1.17 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 232014001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.18 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 231006001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.19 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 241001017 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 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 1 2.5.3.1.1.21 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 241001017 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.22 C 

Mosquito surveys, of West Maui, TMK 242001001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.23 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 242001001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 
328 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 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 1 2.5.3.1.1.25 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 245022001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.26 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 246025002 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 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 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.28 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 248001002 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.29 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 248001002 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.30 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 236003001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.31 C 

Mosquito surveys of West Maui, TMK 245022003 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

1.0 1.0 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.32 C Mosquito surveys of 1 year *USGS, 1.0 1.0 
329 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

 West Maui, TMK 

245022004 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.35 C 

Mosquito surveys in Waihanuu, Wai`ale`ia, Waikolu, Pelekunu, and Wailau Valleys on Moloka`i that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery habitat, 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 1 2.5.3.1.1.37 C 

Mosquito surveys adjacent to or within 3 km of the southern and eastern boundaries of recovery habitat 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 

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 habitat 

4 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

DOD 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

2 1 2.5.3.1.1.41 C Mosquito surveys on 1 year *USGS, 2.5 2.5 
330 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Kaua`i that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery habitat, portions of TMKs 459001001, 458001001, 458002002, 459001003, 459001002 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

2 2 2.5.3.1.1.42 C 

Mosquito surveys on Kaua`i that are adjacent to or within 3 km of recovery habitat, portions of TMKs 414001014, 414001020, 414002040, 414001003, 417001001 

1 year 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

2.5 2.5 

2 2 2.5.3.1.4.2 C 

Manually drain feral pigdamaged 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 

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 

150.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

2 1 2.5.5 C 

Monitor long-term changes in the 

prevalence and 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS,

125.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 
331 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

transmission of avian diseases in recovery forest bird habitats 

*USGS, 

DOFAW, 

ADWG 

2 1 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 

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 1 2.6.1.5 A 

Encourage HDOA, DLNR, USFWS, and county police departments to develop a task force to pursue smuggling and release violations 

Ongoing 

*HDOA, 

APHIS, 

*USFWS, 

*DLNR, 

*County Police 

Departments 

5.0 5.0 

2 1 2.6.1.6 A Provide single point-of- exit at airports Unknown 

*FAA, *County 

Airports, HDOA, 

APHIS, USFWS, 

DLNR 

100.0 

2 1 2.6.1.7 A Increase the numbers of Unknown Count

y Airports, 20.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 
332 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

HDOA and USDA inspectors to better cover nursery cargo and passenger baggage/handcarry 

*HDOA, 

*USDA 

2 1 2.6.1.8 A 

Secure congressional approval of USDA quarantine of mainland 

Unknown *USDA, APHIS, USFWS, DLNR 10.0 

2 1 2.6.1.9 A 

Prevent inter-island expansion of established vertebrates of restricted range, including brown tree snake 

Ongoing 

*HDOA, *APHIS, 

USFWS, DLNR 

1,000.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

2 1 2.6.3 A 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of vespulid wasps on forest birds within forest ecosystems 

Ongoing *USFWS, DLNR, NPS 125.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 

2 1 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, 

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, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4 

2 1 3.2.5.2 E 

Develop rear and release methods for managed native habitat on leeward 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

USGS, 

TBD4 
333 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Haleakalā (Kahikinui), West Mai or Moloka`i, when disease is no longer known to be a threat 

DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

2 1 3.2.6.1 E 

Continue program to use translocation to West Maui or Moloka`i as recovery strategy 

Ongoing 

ZSSD, USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4 

2 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 1 3.2.7.1 E 

Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing 

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 

2 1 3.3.1 E 

Develop methods of evaluating, selecting, and preparing sites for release of endangered birds to ensure long-term 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW, 

*HFBRT 

TBD4 
334 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

persistence of birds reintroduced to West Maui and Moloka`i 

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, 

*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, 

*DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4 

2 1 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 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

USFWS, 

USGS, 

TBD4
335 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

into managed habitat: Develop and refine release (hacking) procedures 

DOFAW 

2 1 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, 

*DOFAW 

TBD4

2 1 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, 

*DOFAW 

TBD4

2 1 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

2 1 3.10 E 

If egg collections fail, develop methods by which to bring nestling birds, juveniles, and/or adults into captivit

y with 

Unknown 

*ZSSD, 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

TBD4
336 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

concomitant quarantine procedures 

2 1 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 

2 1 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, 

DOFAW 

21.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 

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, 

*DOFAW 

10.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 
337 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 4.2.4 C Mongoose study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 

2 1 4.2.7 E Yellow-jacket wasp study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.2.8 C Barn owl and Pueo study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

2 1 4.2.9 E Avian competitor study Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 4.2.10.1 E 

Investigate Red-billed Leiothrix as competitor and reservoir for disease for po`ouli and Maui parrotbill 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
338 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

reservoirs of disease for Hawai`i `ākepa, Hawai`i creeper, and `akiapōlā`au 

2 1 4.2.11 A 

Determine best ways of conducting reforestation efforts 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.3.1 A, C 

Examine response of populations to habitat restoration, including the provisioning of food, foraging substrates, nestsites, 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, 

*DOFAW 

40.0 

2 1 4.4 A, C, E Determine safety of threat management to non-target species Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

12.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

2 1 4.5.1.1 C 

Determine if sleeping habits may reduce exposure to mosquitoes and predators 

1 year 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

0.5 0.5 

2 1 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, 

DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.6.1 E Investigate ways to Ongoing *Research 10.0 
339 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

enhance niche characteristics for particular species within existing habitat 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2 1 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 

Ongoing 

Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 

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 

Research 

Institutions, UH, 

USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

2 2 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, 

DOFAW 

10.0 

2 2 4.6.1.3 A 

Develop effective techniques for restoration of degraded and deforested lands 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 2 4.6.2.1 E 

Develop a comprehensive library of microsatellite loci 

3 years 

Research 

I*nstitutions, 

ZSSD, *UH, 

USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 4.6.2.2 E Document genetic Ongoing *Research 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 
340 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

population structure of species with single populations 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2 1 4.6.2.3 E 

Document source/sink metapopulation structure along gradients in density, particularly elevational gradients 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 4.6.2.5 E Determine patterns of dispersal by age and sex Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 4.6.2.6 E 

Determine seasonal patterns of movement by age and sex 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 4.6.3 E 

Conduct population and metapopulation viability analyses 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.6.3.1 E Conduct trend analysis using count data Ongoing *Research Institutions, UH, USFWS, 2.0 1.0 1.0 
341 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2 1 4.6.3.2 E Use demographic data for estimating lambda Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.7.2 E 

Determine optimal parameters for translocation efforts 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, UH, 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.8.2 C 

Special research considerations for disease and parasitism: Determine effects of long-term climate change on disease transmission 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 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, 

DOFAW 

4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

2 1 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 

2 1 4.8.4.2 C Determine whether concomitant infections 3 years *Research Institutions, 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 
342 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

with pox and malaria affect virulence and transmissibility 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2 1 4.8.6 C 

Determine the feasibility of decreasing malarial transmission through genetic manipulation of vector populations 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 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 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.8.8 C 

Determine the role that endoparasites such as Coccidea play in demography of birds 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.8.9 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 

4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.9 E 

Conduct development and testing of improved survey and monitoring techniques to survey recovery habitat for extremely rare species and species difficult to monitor using standard methods 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

1.0 0.5 0.5 
343 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 4.10.1 E 

Determine the basis for variation in population density and termination of range 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.2 E 

Determine the basis for low nesting success documented at Honohina Tract (wet habitat) using cameras on nests while documenting rainfall 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.3 E 

Determine the role of food in timing of breeding, attempts to breed, and breeding success 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.4 E 

Determine why these birds are limited to high elevations 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.6 E 

Determine the role of food as the basis for different densities of the bird in continuous habitat 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.7 C 

Determine population response of palila to predator control efforts 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

2.0 1.0 1.0 
344 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

DOFAW 

2 1 4.10.8 C 

Determine population response of endangered Maui forest birds to predator control efforts 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

USGS, 

*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 

2 1 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 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

2 1 4.10.11 A 

Determine population response of palila to forest regeneration and restoration efforts 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

2 1 4.10.12 A 

Determine use of regenerating/restored canopy trees as substrates for feeding 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.13 A 

Determine population response of endangered Maui forest birds to forest regeneration and habitat restoration efforts 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.14 A Determine 

population Ongoing *Research 2.0 1.0 1.0 
345 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

response to experimental control of weeds (e.g., ginger) 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2 1 4.10.17 E 

Document genetic population structure of species with single populations 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.18 E 

Document source/sink metapopulation structure and dispersal characteristics in populations along lateral and elevational gradients of density 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 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 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.20 E 

Determine genetic as well as morphological, behavioral, ecological, and vocal variation among core populations. 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW 

4.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 4.10.21 E 

Determine genetic as well as morphological, behavioral, ecological, and vocal variation among core populations. 

Unknown 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.22 E Determine patterns of dispersal by age and sex Unknown *Research Institutions, *UH, *USFWS, 2.0 1.0 1.0 
346 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2 1 4.10.23 E 

Document dispersal and survival of juveniles 

Unknown *Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.24 E 

Conduct population and metapopulation viability analyses and calculate lambda in populations in different portions of the recovery area 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 4.10.25 E 

Conduct development and testing of improved survey and monitoring techniques 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 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 

10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 

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 10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 1 5.2.3 E 

Conduct systematic surveys of Kona Unit, Hakalau Forest NWR,

Ongoing *USFWS, USGS 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 
347 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Hawai`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size 

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 

12.5 0.5 0 0.5 

2 2 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 

5.0 0.2 0 0.2 

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 

5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

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 

5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

2 2 5.2.8 E 

Conduct systematic surveys of Mauna Loa Strip, Hawai`i, to determine annual and 

Ongoing 

USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW, *NPS 

5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 
348 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

seasonal changes in distribution and population size 

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 

12.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 

2 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 

5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

2 1 5.2.11 E 

Conduct systematic surveys of Kīpuhulu 

Valley, Maui, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size 

Ongoing 

USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW, *NPS 

5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

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 

2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 1 5.2.13 E 

Conduct systematic surveys of Pia Valley, O`ahu, to determine 

Ongoing 

*USFWS, 

USGS, 

*DOFAW 

2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 
349 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size and to monitor efficacy of predator control 

2 1 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 

2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 1 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 

2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 

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 

2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 1 5.2.17 E 

Conduct systematic surveys of “core” puaiohi habitat in Alaka`i Wilderness Preserve,

Ongoing 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 
350 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Kaua`i, to determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and population size 

2 1 6 E 

Inform 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 

Ongoing 

*USFWS, 

*DLNR, 

*DOFAW 

2 1 6.1 E 

Build alliances with the public through outdoor experience with native forest birds and their forest habitats 

Continual 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DLNR, 

*DOFAW 

2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 

2 1 6.1.2.3 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Hakalau Forest NWR, Hawai`i 

2 years *USFWS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 6.1.2.4 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Pu`u Lā`au, 

Mauna Kea, Hawai`i, 

2 years *DLNR, *USGS 2.0 1.0 1.0 
351 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 6.1.2.14 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Kuli`ou`ou Trail and `Aiea Loop Trail, O`ahu 

2 years *DLNR, *USFWS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 6.1.2.15 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Kōke`e State 

Park, Kaua`i 

2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 6.1.4.1 E 

Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor centers, displays and facilities, and public services interpretive programs: Hawai`i, Hakalau Forest NWR 

Ongoing *USFWS 44.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 

2 1 6.1.4.2 E 

Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor centers, displays and facilities, and public services interpretive programs: Maui, Haleakalā National Park 

Ongoing *NPS 44.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 

2 1 6.1.4.3 E 

Expand visitor awareness with development of visitor centers, displays and facilities, and public 

Ongoing *HZ 44.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 
352 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

services interpretive programs: O`ahu, Honolulu Zoo 

2 1 6.1.5 E 

Promote the opening of State Forest reserve trails to the general public for nature walks and birding on all islands 

Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 50.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

2 1 6.1.6 E Support the Na Ala Hele Trail System Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 50.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 6.2.1 E 

Fund and support teacher education programs that promote native species issues 

Ongoing TBD 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

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 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

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 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

2 1 6.2.1.4.2 E 

Fund the development and distribution of educational materials: 

4 years *KS 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
353 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Keauhou Ranch/ Kīlauea 

Forest Reserve. Assist Kamehameha Schools with their ongoing development of environmental learning opportunities 

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 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 

Ongoing 

*Hawai`i 

Outdoor 

Education 

Centers 

150.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

2 1 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 Hawai`i’s school children 

Ongoing TBD 50.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
354 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

2 1 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 10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 1 6.2.2.3 E 

Develop and support programs such as Malama Hawai`i, that encourage widespread awareness of conservation goals through a diverse coalition of traditional and non-traditional partnerships 

Ongoing TBD 10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 

2 1 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 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

2 1 6.2.4.1 E 

Initiate and fund public outreach and information about the effect of rats and cats as vectors for 

4 years *USFWS, *HDPH 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 
355 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

human disease, agricultural pests, and their threats to native species as predators 

2 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 

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 

2 1 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 

2 1 6.3.2.1 E 

Assist in the development of public service announcements 

Ongoing TBD 10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 
356 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

about native species by providing local TV 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 

2 1 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 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

2 1 6.4.1.1 E 

Support conservation outreach organizations to promote conservation at a “grass roots” level 

Ongoing TBD 25.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 

2 1 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 

20.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 

2 1 6.4.1.3.1 E 

Develop program to bring volunteers for banding O`ahu `Amakihi at Lyon Arboretum and `ele

paio in Wailupe 

Ongoing *UH, *USFWS 2.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 
357 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Valley 

3 3 1.3.16 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Honomalino, TMKs 389006004 389006029 

Unknown *Scott C. Rolles Trust TBD1

3 3 1.3.19 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Portions of TMK 387001014 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division TBD1

3 1 1.3.25 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Portions of TMK 382001001 

Unknown 

*Kealakekua 

Development 

Corp. 

TBD1

3 3 1.3.28 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, Kukui`ula, TMK 216001007 

Unknown *J. Haili, *EMWP TBD1

3 3 1.3.29 A Secure recovery habitat areas: Kīpahulu Forest Unknown *Kalalau, Cleveland, TBD1 
358 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Reserve, Kukui`ula, TMK 216001006 

*EMWP 

3 2 1.3.31 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMK 217001032 

Unknown *A. Kaapana et al., *EMWP TBD1

3 2 1.3.32 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMK 217001024 

Unknown *Kaupō Ranch Ltd., *EMWP TBD1

3 3 1.3.33 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Nu`u, TMK 218001001 

Unknown 

*Kaupō Ranch 

Ltd., *EMWP, 

*NPS 

TBD1

3 3 1.3.34 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Nu`u, TMK 218001002 

Unknown 

*James 

Campbell Est., 

*EMWP 

TBD1

3 1 1.3.76 A 

Secure recovery habitat areas: Kapālama, TMK 14015009 

Unknown *Julius Chung Trust, *KMWP TBD1 

3 1 1.3.82 A Secure recovery habitat areas: Upper Wainiha Unknown *Alexander and Baldwin, TBD1 
359 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Pali, Portion of TMK 458001001 

Hawai`i Inc., 

*DLNR 

3 1 2.1.3 A 

Reforest areas of the Hilo Forest Reserve, Laupāhoehoe Section, TMK 337001004 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 0.9 

3 3 2.1.4 A 

Reforest areas of the Hilo Forest Reserve, Pīhā

Section, TMK 333001004 

Unknown *DLNR, *DOFAW 1.4 

3 3 2.1.6 A 

Reforest areas of Kīpuka 

`Āinahou NēnēSanctuary, TMK 338001008 

Unknown *DHHL, *DOFAW 17.8 

3 1 2.1.13 A 

Reforest areas of Keauhou Ranch, TMK 399001004 

Unknown *KS, Keauhou Ranch 108.7 

3 3 2.1.14 A Reforest areas of HVNP, TMK 399001002 Unknown *HVNP 13.1 
360 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

3 2 2.1.16 A 

Reforest areas of Ka`ū

Forest Reserve, TMK 397001007 

Unknown *Mauna Kea Agribusiness 1.1 

3 2 2.1.17 A 

Reforest areas of Ka`ū

Forest Reserve, Portions of TMKs 397001006 and 397001005 

Unknown *KS 5.3 

3 2 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 2 2.1.21 A 

Reforest areas of Honomalino, TMK 389001001 

Unknown *TNCH 12.0 

3 2 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 
361 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

3 1 2.1.25 A 

Reforest areas of `Alae Ranch, Portions of TMK 387001014 

Unknown *DLNR, State Land Division 0.9 

3 1 2.1.29 A 

Reforest areas of recovery habitat, Portions of TMK 382012001 

Unknown 

*Kealakekua 

Development 

Corp. 

31.9 

3 3 2.1.35 A Reforest areas of Nu`u, TMK 218001001 Unknown *Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 2.7 3 3 2.1.36 A Reforest areas of Nu`u, TMK 218001002 Unknown *James Campbell Est. 4.3 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 3 2.1.44 A 

Reforest areas of Waiakoa, TMK 222008001 

Unknown *Lucky Shoji USA Inc. 0.7 

3 3 2.1.45 A 

Reforest areas of Kamehame Nui/Kealahou, TMK 223005002 

Unknown 

*R. G. Von 

Tempsky Jr. 

Trust 

3.3 

3 3 2.1.57 A 

Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Mākolelau, TMK 

Unknown *Ashton Pitts Jr. Trust 1.0 
362 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

255001015 

3 3 2.1.59 A 

Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kawela, TMK 254003001 

Unknown 

*Kawela 

Plantation 

Homes 

Association 

3.7 

3 3 2.1.61 A 

Reforest areas of Moloka`i Forest Reserve, Kaunakakai, TMK 253003005 

Unknown *Moloka`i Ranch Ltd. 2.5 

3 1 2.1.62 A Reforest areas of Mākua Military Reservation Unknown *U.S. Army 6.0 3 1 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 

3 1 2.2.14 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Ka`ū Forest Reserve, TMK 397001001 

3 years *DLNR, *DOFAW 165.9 

3 1 2.2.15 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kahuku Ranch, Portions of TMK 392001002 

3 years *Samuel M. Damon Trust 125.3 

3 1 2.2.17 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of 3 years *TNCH 0.9 
363 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ungulates on vegetation within Honomalino, TMK 389001001 

3 1 2.2.18 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Yee Hop Ranch, TMK 392001005 

3 years *Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 20.6 

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 

3 years *J. Haili 0.15 

3 3 2.2.30 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, Kukui`ula, TMK 216001006 

3 years *Kalalau, Cleveland 0.49 

3 2 2.2.32 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMK 217001032 

3 years *A. Kaapana et al. 0.11 

3 3 2.2.33 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Kīpahulu Forest Reserve, TMK 217001024 

3 years *Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 0.12 

3 3 2.2.34 A, C Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of 3 years *Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 6.2 
364 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ungulates on vegetation within Nu`u, TMK 218001001 

3 3 2.2.35 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Nu`u, TMK 218001002 

3 years *James Campbell Estate 9.9 

3 1 2.2.99 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within O`ahu Forest NWR, TMKs 95004001 and 76001001 

3 years *USFWS 38.9 

3 1 2.2.100 A, C 

Reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of ungulates on vegetation within Lower Ka`ala NAR, TMK 67003025 

3 years *DLNR 6.4 

3 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 

3 years *Robinson Family Partners 20.02

3 1 2.4.1.14 C Control alien mammalian Continual *DLNR, 3,967.7 79.4 79.4 79.4 
365 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Ka`ū Forest Reserve, TMK 397001001 

*DOFAW 

3 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 2,247.4 44.9 44.9 44.9 

3 1 2.4.1.17 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in TNCH, Honomalino, TMK 389001001 

Continual *TNCH 240.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 

3 1 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. 245.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 

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 234.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 

3 2 2.4.1.34 C 

Control alien mammalian predators by trapping, poisoning and other means in Haleakalā

Ranch (Pūlehu 

Continual *Haleakalā Ranch Co. 81.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 
366 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Nui/Kalialinui), TMK 223005003 

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 368.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 

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 80.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 

3 1 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 500 10.0 10.0 10.0 

3 1 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 85 1.7 1.7 1.7 
367 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

3 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 20.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 

3 1 2.5.3.1.1.1 C 

Mosquito surveys on Hawai`i between the 2,000 and 5,000 ft. contour lines on Mauna Loa and Kīlauea 

Volcanoes that include recovery habitat 

2 years 

*USGS, 

USFWS, 

DOFAW 

5.0 2.5 2.5 

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 

3 1 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 

3 1 3.2.8.1 E 

Collect eggs for incubation and captive rearing 

Ongoing 

*ZSSD, 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, 

DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

TBD4 

3 1 3.2.8.2 E Maintain captive flocks of Hawai`i `ākepa and Ongoing *ZSSD, USFWS, TBD4 
368 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Hawai`i creeper whose progeny will be used for reintroduction into managed habitat in the future, or rear and release in managed habitat 

USGS, 

DOFAW, 

HFBRT 

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 

3 1 4.7.3 E 

Evaluate the relative costs of habitat suitability analysis vs. experimental translocation or reintroduction 

Ongoing 

*Research 

Institutions, UH, 

*USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DOFAW 

3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

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 1 6.1.1.2 E 

Develop scenic overlook and interpretive displays at Mauna Loa Strip Road, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 

2 years *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.1.3 E 

Develop scenic overlook and interpretive displays at Polipoli State Park, Maui 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 1 6.1.1.4 E Develop scenic overlook 2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 
369 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

and interpretive displays at Pu`u Ali`i NAR, Moloka`i 

3 1 6.1.1.5 E 

Develop scenic overlook and interpretive displays at Kalalau and Pu`u O Kila lookouts, Kōke`e State Park, Kaua`i, 

2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.2.1 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Pu`u `ō`ō

Trail, Saddle Road, Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 1 6.1.2.2 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Mauna Loa Strip Road, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park 

2 years *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.2.5 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Ainapō Trail, 

Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR, *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 
370 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

3 1 6.1.2.6 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Pu`u Wa`awa`a Forest Bird Sanctuary, Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.2.7 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Pu`u Maka`ala, Laupāhoehoe, Kīpāhoehoe, Manukā, Pu`u O`umi NARs, Hawai`i 

2 years *DLNR 3.0 1.5 1.5 

3 1 6.1.2.8 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Hosmer Grove, HaleakalāNational Park, Maui 

2 years *NPS 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.2.9 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 
371 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

displays at Polipoli State Park, Maui 

3 1 6.1.2.10 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Pu`u Kukui, Maui 

2 years *Maui Land and Pineapple Co. 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.2.11 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Waihe`e Ridge Trail, Maui 

2 years *DLNR 2.0 1.0 1.0 

3 1 6.1.2.12 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Kahakuloa NAR, Maui 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 1 6.1.2.13 E 

Promote and support native species public awareness and environmental education through improved visitor access and interpretive displays at Hanalilolilo Trail, Maui 

2 years *DLNR 1.0 0.5 0.5 

3 1 6.1.3.1 E Promote increased access Ongoing *USFWS 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 
372 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Hawai`i, Hakalau Forest NWR, Hakalau and Kona Forest Units 

3 1 6.1.3.2 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 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.1.3.3 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Waikamoi Preserve, The Nature Conservancy 

Ongoing * TNCH 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.1.3.4 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Makawao Forest Reserve 

 Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.1.3.5 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Hanawī NAR 

Ongoing *NAR 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.1.3.6 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Maui, Haleakalā

Ongoing *NPS 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 
373 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

National Park 

3 1 6.1.3.7 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Moloka`i, Kamakou Preserve, The Nature Conservancy 

Ongoing *TNCH 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.1.3.8 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: O`ahu, Barber’s Point 

Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.1.3.9 E 

Promote increased access and interpretation programs on lands where native species are found: Honouliuli Preserve, The Nature Conservancy. 

Ongoing *DLNR, *DOFAW 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 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 1 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 
374 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

3 1 6.3.2.3 E 

Promote the use of prizewinning contests, with sponsors, on local radio, TV stations and newspapers to promote native species awareness 

Ongoing TBD 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 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 Hawai`i’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 2.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 

3 1 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 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 6.3.2.4.2 E 

Develop a weekly radio program provided radio stations on all islands providing information on native species and 

Ongoing TBD 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 
375 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

ecosystem issues, with the writing shared by conservation organizations throughout the state 

3 1 6.3.2.4.3 E 

Develop a half hour weekly or monthly TV nature program about Hawai`i’s native species and their habitat 

Ongoing TBD 20.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 

3 1 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 

3 1 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 trayliners, milk cartons, and other heavily used advertising media 

Ongoing TBD 2.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 

3 1 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 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 
376 

Table 20 

Cost Estimate (in $100,000 uni

Prirty 

Nmbr

Prirty 

Tier

Action 

Number 

List. 

Factor Action Description Action Duration Responsible Parties Total FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

3 1 6.4.1.2 E 

Develop a “mentor” program, where natural science based professionals provide field opportunities for young people in learning about Hawai`i’s native species 

Unknown 

*UH, *USFWS, 

*USGS, 

*DLNR, 

*DOFAW 

10.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 

3 1 6.4.1.4 E 

Support the development of a volunteer “clearinghouse” to provide volunteers for resource management, education, and outreach 

Ongoing TBD 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3 1 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 25.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 

TOTAL 36,273 1,051 1,001 905 

1Costs to secure recovery habitat cannot be determined at this time because numerous methods ar

(conservation easement, partnership agreement, safe harbor agreement, change in land use deschange of jurisdiction, lease, or purchase from willing seller) that vary widely in their potentia
377 

is not possible to speculate which method might be most appropriate or effective in the futureparcels in question are owned by State or local governments or private interests, and the most 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 be

locations and extent of strategic fencing are not known at this time, and/or total acreage to be 

been determined. 

3Costs to reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects of exotic plants through mechanical, chemica

biological means can not be determined at this time because the distributions of exotic plants aknown, 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 ac

3, and are part of the continuing captive propagation program for Hawaiian forest birds. 
378 

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 (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1983. Checklist of North American birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

American Ornithologists Union (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1985. Thirtyfifth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of 

North American birds. Auk 102:680-686. 

American Ornithologists Union (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1991. Thirtyeighth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of 

North American birds. Auk 108:750-754. 

American Ornithologists Union (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1993. 

Thirty-ninth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list 

of North American birds. Auk 110:675-682. 

American Ornithologists Union (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1997. Fortyfirst supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of 

North American Birds. Auk 114:542-552. 

American Ornithologists Union (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1998. Checklist of North American Birds. Seventh 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. 2001. Sereological responses and 

immunity to superinfection with avian malaria in experimentally-infected 

Hawaiian Amakihi. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37:20-27. 
379 

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. 

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(2): 109-133. 

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, H. and P. E. Baker. 2001. `alauahio (Paroreomyza Montana). 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. 

Banko, P. C. and W. E. Banko. 1980. Historical trends of passerine populations 

in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Pp. 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. and J. Williams. 1993. Eggs, nests, and nesting behavior of 

Akiapolaau (Drepanidinae). Wilson Bulletin 105:427-435. 
380 

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. 1981. Historical synthesis of recent endemic Hawaiian birds. 

University of Hawaii Press, 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 

Akiapola`au. Avian History Report 9:1-143. Cooperative National Park 

Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

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. Pp. 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). 

Berger, A. J. 1970. The eggs and young of the palila, an endangered species. 

Condor 72:238-240. 
381 

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. 

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. 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. 

Boles, W. E. 1979. The relationships of the Australo-Papuan flycatchers. Emu 

79:107-110. 

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. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 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. 

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 
382 

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. Pp. 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. Pp. 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. 

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. 
383 

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 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 `ōma`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. 

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. 

Finsch, O. 1880. Ornithological letters from the Pacific, 1879-1881. Ibis 4:75-

81, 218-220. 
384 

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., C. L. Tarr, H. F. James, B. Slikas, and C. E. McIntosh. 2001. 

Phylogenetic placement of the po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, base 

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. 

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. In press. `Akikiki (Oreomystis 

bairdi). The Birds of North America, No. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

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. 

Freed, L. A. 1999. Extinction and endangerment of Hawaiian honeycreepers: a 

comparative approach. Pp 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. and J. K. Lepson. In review. Significance of female plumage in the 

sexually dichromatic Hawai`i `ākepa. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

Series B London. 

Fretz, J. S. 2000. Relationship of canopy arthropod prey to distribution and life 

history of the Hawaii Akepa. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii, 

Manoa. 

Fretz, J. S. 2002. Scales of food availability for an endangered insectivore, the 

Hawaii Akepa. Auk 119:166-174. 
385 

Fretz, J. S., E. A. VanderWerf, P. J. Hart, and L. A. Freed. In prep. Association 

of food availability with reproductive success in the Hawai`i `ākepa and 

Hawai`i `elepaio. 

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. Pp. 219-241 in Wilson and Evans 

(1890-1899) q. v. 

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. 

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. 

Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources. Unpubl. data. 

Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources. 1986. Unpubl. data. 

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. 
386 

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 Division of Forestry and Wildlife. Unpubl. data. 

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. 

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. 
387 

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. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ICUN). 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 (ICUN). 1994. Red list 

categories. As approved by the 40th meeting of the IUCN Council. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ICUN). 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 (ICUN). 2000. Guidelines for 

Captive Breeding. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding 

Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

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. 

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. 
388 

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. 

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. 19pp. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
389 

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 Manoa. 

Lepson, J. K. and E. A. VanderWerf. Unpubl. data. 

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. 

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. 

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 Nino 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 exlcosures 

in Hawaii: a review. Pp. 377-402 in, C. P. Stone and J. M. Scott (eds.), 

Hawaii’s terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. 

University of Hawai`i Press. Honolulu, HI. 

MacCaughey, V. 1919. The Hawaiian Elepaio. Auk 36:22-35. 

Medway, D. G. 1981. The contribution of Cook’s third voyage to the 

Ornithology of the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 35:105-175. 
390 

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. 

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., 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. 

Mountainspring, S. and J. M. Scott. 1985. Interspecific competition among 

Hawaiian forest birds. Ecological Monographs 55:219-239. 

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. 

Munro, G. C. 1964. Birds of Hawaii. 2nd 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. 

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. 

Nilsson, S.G. 1986. Evolution of hole-nesting in birds: on balancing selection 

pressures. Auk 103:432-435. 
391 

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 nuku pu`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 

nuku pu`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. 

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. Pp. 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. 

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. 
392 

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. 

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., 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, 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. 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. 

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. K. Lepson, and R. C. Fleischer. Unpubl. data. 

Pratt, T. K. and R. L. Pyle. 2000. Nuku pu`u in the Twentieth Century, 

endangered species or phantom presence? `Elepaio 60:35-41. 

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. 
393 

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American 

Naturalist 132:652-661. 

Pyle, R. L. 1997. Checklist of the birds of Hawaii--1997. `Elepaio 57:129-138. 

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. 

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. 
394 

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. 

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. Pp. 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 R. Hobdy. 1986. Recovery of montane koa parkland 

vegetation from feral goats. Biotropica 19:208-215. 

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 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, Australia. 
395 

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. 

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. 

Sibley, C. G. and J. E. Ahlquist. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds: A 

study in molecular evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, CN. 

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(4): 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. 

Sincock, J. L. 1982. Status and distribution of the forest birds of Kaua`i, Hawai`i. 

Unpublished Manuscript. 

Sincock, J. L., R. E. Daehler, T. Telfer, and D. H. Woodside. 1984. Kauai forest 

bird recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

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., 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 Puiaohi (Myadestes palmeri). 
396 

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. 

Stone, C. P. 1985. Alien animals in Hawaii's native ecosystems: Toward 

controlling the adverse effects of introduced vertebrates. Pp. 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. Pp. 666-704 in, C. P. 

Stone, C. W. Smith, and J. T. Tunison (eds.), Alien plant invasions in 

native ecosystems of Hawaii: management and research. University of 

Hawai`i Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. University of 

Hawai`i Press. Honolulu, HI. 

Stone, C. P., M. Dusek, and M. Aeder. 1994. Use of an anticoagulent 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. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1995. Keauhou Bird Conservation Center. Hawaiian 

Endangered Bird Program. 1995 Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

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 – 1997 Report. 

The Peregrine Fund. 1998. Hawaiian Endangered Bird Program. Report to: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, November 16, 1997 – November 15 1998. 
397 

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. 

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 Division, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Tweed, E. J., J. T. Foster, and B. L. Woodworth. 2000. Recommendations 

forcontrolling introduced rodent populations in the Alakai Wilderness 

Preserve. Special Report to Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Office of the Secretary, Native Fish and 

Wildlife, Endangered Species. 32 FR 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. 35 FR 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. 40 FR 44151-44151. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Determination of critical habitat for six 

endangered species. 42 FR 40685-40690. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Republication of lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Species and Correction of the Technical Errors in Final Rules. 

45 FR 33768-33781. 
398 

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. 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; Review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates or proposed 

for listing as endangered or threatened; Annual notice of findings on 

recycled petitions; and annual description of progress on listing actions. 

64 FR 57538. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Draft revised recovery plan for Hawaiian 

waterbirds, second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 107 pp. 

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. 65 FR 20760-20769. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000c. Policy regarding controlled propagation 

of species listed under the endangered species act. 65 FR 56916-56922. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Determination of critical habitat for the 

Oahu Elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis); Final Rule. 66 FR 

63752-63782. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i Hawai’i Department of Land and 

Natural Resources. 1999. Environmental Assessment: Proposed 
399 

Management Actions to Save the Po`ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Hawai`i DLNR, HI. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. Unpubl. data. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Kīlauea Field Station, Volcano, HI. Unpubl. data. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Hawai`i Rare Bird Search Trip Report. 

Unpublished report. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Hawai`i Rare Bird Search Trip Report. 

Unpublished report. 

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. 

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 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. 1982. Census and breeding observations of the birds on Koala 

Mountain, Hawaii. Wilson Bulletin 94:463-476. 

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. Unpubl. data. 
400 

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. 

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., 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., 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. 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., 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. In press. Effect of alien rodent control on 

demography of the O`ahu `elepaio. Pacific Conservation Biology. 
401 

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, 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. 

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. 

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., 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. 

Woodworth, B. L., S. G. Fancy, M. P. Moore, J. T. Nelson, E. J. Tweed, and G. 

Lindsey. In prep. Testing hypotheses for a gradient in forest bird 

densities in a Hawaiian rainforest. 

The 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. 
402 

B. Personal Communications 

 

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., Biologist, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC. 

Foster, J., Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Freed, L., Biologist, University of Hawai`i-Manoa, 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. 

LaPointe, D., Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Luscumb, P., Curator of Avian Collections, Honolulu Zoo, HI. 

Melgar, C., Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

Pratt T., Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, HI. 

Scott, J., Wildlife Biologist, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 
403 

Snetsinger, T., Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Kīlauea Field Station, 

Volcano, 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. 
404 

VII. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. 

 

Land Parcels in Recovery Habitat 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 habitat in need of protection; 

2.1._ = Parcels in recovery habitat needing reforestation; 

2.2._ = Parcels in recovery habitat needing fencing and ungulate control; and 

2.4.1._ = Parcels in recovery habitat 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, NAR = Natural Area 

Reserve, HVNP = Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park. 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Northeastern 

slopes of Mauna 

Kea, portions of 

344014002 

344014003 

343010002 

343010008 

Hawai`i State, 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 State, 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 State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. Currently the Laupāhoehoe 

Game Management Area. 

1.3.3 (2); 2.1.3 (3); 

H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, 

Humu`ula Section, 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. Currently the Laupāhoehoe 

Game Management Area. 

2.1.3 (3); 
405 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

337001004 

H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, Pīhā

Section, 

333001004 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 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 State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. Currently the Laupāhoehoe 

and Pīhā Game Management Areas. 

2.2.3 (2); 

H Hilo Forest 

Reserve, 

Laupāhoehoe and 

Pīhā

 Sections, 

337001002 

333001004 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 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 326018002 Hawai`i State, DHHL, adjacent to Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

2.2.5 (2); 2.4.1.5 (2); 

H Kīpuka `Āinahou 

Nēnē Sanctuary, 

338001008 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Leased by Division 

of Forestry and Wildlife 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 State, DHHL. Currently leased by 

Nobrega Ranch for cattle grazing. 

1.3.6 (1); 2.1.7 (2); 

H Humu`ula, 

Portions of 

338001007 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Parker Ranch, 

leased for grazing. 

1.3.7 (2); 2.1.8 (2); 

H Lamaia Section, 

326018002 

Hawai`i State, DHHL. Adjacent to Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

1.3.8 (1); 2.1.9 (2) 

H Pu`u `ō`ō Ranch, 

326018001 

Hawai`i State, 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); 
406 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Ka`ohe Lease, 

344015002 

Hawai`i State, 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 State, DLNR. 2.1.12 (1); 

H Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve, 

344015001 

344016003 

338001004 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. 2.2.9 (1); 2.4.1.9 (1); 

H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Upper 

Portion, 

324008001 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.2.10 (2); 2.4.1.10 

(2); 

H Waiākea Forest 

Reserve, Lower 

Portion, 

324008001 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.2.11 (1); 2.4.1.11 

(1); 

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 State, DLNR, State Land Division. 

Kapāpala Ranch, currently leased for cattle 

grazing. 

1.3.12 (2); 

H Kapāpala Ranch, 

Portions of 

398001004 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land Division. 

Kapāpala Ranch, currently leased for cattle 

grazing. 

2.1.15 (2); 

H Kapāpala Forest 

Reserve, 

Portions of 

398001004 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, State Land Division. 2.2.13 (2); 2.4.1.13 

(2); 
407 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

H Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve, 

397001001 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.2.14 (3); 2.4.1.14 

(3); 

H Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve, 

397001007 

Mauna Kea Agribusiness. 1.3.13 (2); 2.1.16 (3); 

H Ka`ū Forest 

Reserve, 

Portions of 

397001006 

397001005 

Kamehameha Schools. 1.3.14 (2); 2.1.17 (3); 

H Kahuku Ranch, 

Portions of 

392001002 

Samuel M. Damon Trust. 1.3.15 (2); 2.1.18 (2); 

2.2.15 (3); 2.4.1.15 

(3); 

H Manukā NAR, 

Upper portions of 

391001002 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.2.16 (2); 2.4.1.16 

(2); 

H TNCH, 

Honomalino, 

389001001 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 2.1.21 (3); 2.2.17 (3); 

2.4.1.17 (3); 

H Honomalino, 

389006004 

389006029 

Scott C. Rolles Trust. 1.3.16 (3); 2.1.19 (3); 

H Honomalino 

Forest Reserve, 

389001002 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.22 (2); 

H Honomalino, 

389001001 

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i. 2.1.21 (3); 

H Pāpā, 

388001001 

Koa Aina Ventures. 1.3.17 (2); 2.1.20 (3); 

H Yee Hop Ranch, 

Portions of 

388001003 

388001004 

387012001 

392001005 

387012003 

387012004 

387001007 

387001006 

387001011 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 1.3.18 (2); 2.1.23 (3); 
408 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

387001004 

H Yee Hop Ranch, 

392001005 

Yee Hop Ranch Ltd. 2.2.18 (3); 2.4.1.18 

(3); 

H Kona Forest 

NWR, 

386001001 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2.1.24 (1); 2.2.19 (2); 

2.4.1.19 (2); 

H `Alae Ranch, 

Portions of 

387001014 

Hawai`i State, 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, 

Portions of 

392001003 

386001001 

385001002 

McCandless Ranch. 2.1.26 (2); 2.2.20 (2); 

2.4.1.20 (2); 

H Waiea Tract, 

386001003 

Hawai`i State, 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); 

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 Kealakekua Development Corp. 1.3.25 (3); 2.1.29 (3); 
409 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

Development 

Corp., 

Portions of 

382001001 

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 State, Pu`u Wa`awa`a Bird 

Sanctuary. 

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); 

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 State, DLNR. 2.2.25 (1); 2.4.1.26 

(1); 
410 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA Hanawī NAR and 

Ko`olau Forest 

Reserve, 

 212004007 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. 2.2.26 (1); 2.4.1.27 

(1); 

MA Hāna Forest 

Reserve, 

210001001 

214001001 

215001001 

Hawai`i State, 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); 

MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

218001007 

Hawai`i State. 1.3.30 (1); 

MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

216001005 

217001033 

217002035 

217004006 

Hawai`i State. 2.2.31 (1); 2.4.1.30 

(2); 

MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217004006 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.34 (1); 

MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217001032 

A. Kaapana et al. Small parcel at lower 

edge of recovery habitat. 

1.3.31 (3); 2.2.32 (3); 

MA Kīpahulu Forest 

Reserve, 

217001024 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. Small parcel at lower 

edge of recovery habitat. 

1.3.32 (3); 2.2.33 (3); 

MA Nu`u, 

218001001 

Kaupō Ranch Ltd. 1.3.33 (3); 2.1.35 (3); 

2.2.34 (3); 

MA Nu`u, James Campbell Est. 1.3.34 (3); 2.1.36 (3);
411 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

218001002 2.2.35 (3); 

MA Kahikinui Forest 

Reserve, 

218001006 

218001005 

218001009 

Hawai`i State. 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 State, DHHL. 1.3.36 (1); 2.1.38 (1); 

2.2.37 (1); 2.4.1.32 

(2); 

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 State. 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 

R. G. Von Tempsky Jr. Trust. 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 (1); 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); 
412 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MA Makawao Forest 

Reserve, 

224016001 

224016002 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.48 (1); 2.2.47 (1); 

2.4.1.36 (2); 

MA West Maui NAR, 

Kahakuloa, 

2231006001 

Hawai`i State. 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 State, 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 State, DLNR. 2.2.52 (2); 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Kealaloloa, 

236001014 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. 2.2.53 (2); 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Manawainui Plant 

Reserve, 

236001052 

248001010 

Hawai`i State, DLNR. 2.2.54 (2); 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kaheawa, 

248001001 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.50 (2); 2.2.55 (2); 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, 

Ukumehame/Olow

alu, West Maui 

NAR, Līhau, 

248001002 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.51 (2); 2.2.56 (2); 

MA West Maui NAR, Hawai`i State. 2.4.1.38 (3); 
413 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

Līhau, 

248001002 

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 State, 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 State, 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 State. 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 State. 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); 

MA West Maui Forest 

Reserve, Kapāloa, 

244007007 

Unknown. 1.3.52 (2); 2.2.66 (2); 

MA West Maui NAR, Hawai`i State. 2.2.67 (2); 2.4.1.41 
414 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

Honokōwai, 

244007004 

(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 State. 2.4.1.43 (2); 

MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kalamāula, 

252014003 

Hawai`i State. 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, 

252014004 

Hawai`i State. 2.1.55 (2); 2.2.71 (2); 

MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, Waikolu, 

261001002 

Hawai`i State. 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); 

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 

Hawai`i State. 2.2.76 (2); 2.4.1.44 

(2); 
415 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

Reserve, Wailau 

Valley, 

 259006002 

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 State. 2.2.80 (2); 

MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kahananui, 

256006014 

Hawai`i State. 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 State. 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); 
416 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

MO Moloka`i Forest 

Reserve, 

Kumu`eli, 

256006001 

D. Fairbanks III Trust. 1.3.65 (2); 2.2.87 (2); 

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 State. 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 Honouluuli 

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 (1); 2.4.1.47 

(1); 

O Schofield Barracks U.S. Army. 2.2.96 (1); 2.4.1.48 
417 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

West Range, 

77001001 

(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 State. 2.2.97 (1); 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 

(3); 

O Lower Ka`ala 

NAR, 

 67003025 

Hawai`i State. 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 

Volumes Co. Ltd. 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); 

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, Damon Estate. 1.3.77 (2); 
418 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

11013001 

O Moanalua Valley, 

11013001 

11013002 

Damon Estate. 2.4.1.51 (1); 

O North Hālawa 

Valley, 

99011002 

Kamehmeha Schools. 2.4.1.50 (1); 

O South Hālawa 

Valley, Tripler 

Ridge, 99011001 

Queen’s Medical Center. 1.3.78 (2); 

O Wai Kāne Valley, 

48014005 

SMF Enterprises. 1.3.79 (1); 2.4.1.52 

(1); 

O Waianu Valley, 

48014003 

48013014 

Waiahole Irrigation Co. Ltd. 1.3.80 (2); 

O Mākua Military 

Reservation 

U.S. Army. 2.1.62 (3); 

K Halehaha, 

Halepaakai and 

Koai`e drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.2.101 (1); 2.4.1.59 

(1); 

K Upper Mōhihi and 

upper Waiakoali 

drainages, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

414001003 

State of Hawai`i, DLNR, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife. 

2.2.102 (2); 2.4.1.60 

(2); 

K Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

 4414001003 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.2.103 (2); 

K Upper Kawaikōī, 

Alaka`i 

Wilderness 

Preserve, 

459001001 

Hawai`i State, DLNR, Division of Forestry 

and Wildlife. 

2.4.1.61 (2); 

K Kōke`e State Park, Hawai`i State. 2.1.63 (3); 
419 

Appendix A 

Island Land Parcel, 

TMKs Landowner Recovery Actions 

414001013 

459001016 

414001020 

414001014 

414001002 

and numerous 

small parcels 

within 

K Southern Alaka`i 

Plateau, 

Portions of 

417001001 

Robinson Family Partners 1.3.81 (1); 2.2.104 

(3); 2.4.1.62 (3); 

K Upper Wainiha 

Pali, 

Portions of 

458001001 

Alexander and Baldwin Hawai`i Inc. 1.3.82 (3); 
420 

APPENDIX B. 

Captive Propagation Program Strategies for: 

The Hawaiian Endangered Bird Conservation Program Keauhou Bird 

Conservation Center/Maui Bird Conservation Center 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 

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? 
421 

• 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: 

 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 
422 

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: 

 

• No captive propagation/reintroduction program necessary 

• Translocation 

• Rear and release 

• Captive-breeding (immediate release) 

• 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 
423 

critically low numbers if they are to have a reasonable chance of preventing a 

species’ extinction. 

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, 

this is a preferable strategy. 

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 with 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). 

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 “captive-
424 

breeding (immediate release)” program (~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 x 85 percent hatchability = 17 chicks hatched 

17 chicks x 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. 

Example Program: Puaiohi (1996-1999)

43 viable wild and captive eggs collected (hatchability =91 percent; 

survivability of hand-reared chicks = 93 percent) 

43 eggs x 91 percent hatchability = 39 chicks hatched 

39 chicks x 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 ~691 birds in over 100 institutions; no release program exists at 

this time. Releases failed because limiting factors were not controlled 

(poaching). 
425 

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. 

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. 
426 

29 viable wild eggs collected (hatchability =93 percent; survivability of 

hand-reared chicks = 93 percent) 

29 eggs x 93 percent hatchability = 27 chicks hatched 

27 chicks x 93 percent survivability = 25 chicks hand-reared 

25 birds released 

(Fancy et al. 2001, Kuehler et al. 2000). 
427 

APPENDIX C. 

Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Priority Guidelines 

(adapted from 48 FR 51985)

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 
428 

APPENDIX D. 

Listing Priority System 

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