Recovery Plan for 

Phyllostegia hispida

Addendum to the Molokai 

Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Phyllostegia hispida. ©Hank Oppenheimer, used with permission.
Recovery Plan for

Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the

Moloka‘i Plant Cluster

Recovery Plan

Region 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Portland, Oregon
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

ii

DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to 

recover and/or protect listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance 

of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, Tribal agencies, and other affected 

and interested parties. Plan objectives and funds are 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 time for 

achievement of recovery are only estimates and are subject to change. Recovery 

plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific actions. Nor do they

necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals 

or agencies involved in recovery plan formulation, other than the Service. 

Recovery plans represent the official position of the Service only after they have 

been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved 

recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in 

species status, and the completion of recovery actions.

By approving this recovery plan, the Regional Director certifies that the data used 

in its development represent the best scientific and commercial information 

available at the time it was written. Copies of all documents reviewed in the 

development of the plan are available in the administrative record, located at the

Service’s Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

LITERATURE CITATION:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Oregon. 42 pp.

Recovery plans can be downloaded from the Service website at:

<http://pacific.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/default.htm> and 

also at <http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html>
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida was prepared by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 

We would like to thank the following agencies and organizations for their 

invaluable assistance: the Hawaiʻi Plant Extinction Prevention Program (Ane 

Bakutis and Hank Oppenheimer) and the Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i, 

Moloka‘i Office (Ed Misaki and Russell Kallstrom). We also thank experts who 

provided peer review comments.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER...................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................vi

I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW............................................................................. 1

B. STATUS OF THE SPECIES ................................................................ 1

C. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND LIFE HISTORY............................... 3

D. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT POPULATION STATUS ............... 4

E. HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS...................... 7

F. REASONS FOR LISTING AND CURRENT THREATS ................... 8

G. CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................................... 8

II. THREATS ASSESSMENT............................................................................ 14

A. RECOVERY STRATEGY ................................................................. 21

B. RECOVERY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................... 22

C. RECOVERY CRITERIA.................................................................... 23

1. Downlisting Criteria.................................................................... 24

2. Delisting Criteria ......................................................................... 25

D. RECOVERY ACTIONS..................................................................... 26

IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE............................................................... 27

A. DEFINITION OF RECOVERY ACTION PRIORITIES................... 27

B. RECOVERY ACTION NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION ................ 27

C. RECOVERY ACTION DURATION ................................................. 27

D. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES................................................................. 28

E. COST ESTIMATES............................................................................ 28

F. ACRONYMS AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ................................ 29

V. REFERENCES............................................................................................... 36

A. LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................... 36
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

v

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS .................................................. 41

APPENDIX A. Summary of threats and recommended recovery actions ..........46 

APPENDIX B. Summary of the comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for 

Phyllostegia hispida: Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan...50 

TABLE 1. Total Estimated Cost of Recovery..........................................x

FIGURE 1. Distribution map of Phyllostegia hispida...............................2
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Species Status: Phyllostegia hispida (no common name) is a plant 

species endemic to the island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. It was federally listed as 

endangered in 2009 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2009). Currently 

there are fewer than 10 wild mature individuals, 3 wild seedlings, and 

approximately 7 to 10 reintroduced individuals on the island of Moloka‘i.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Phyllostegia hispida is 

typically found in wet Metrosideros polymorpha (‘ōhi‘a)–dominated forest, 

occurring between 1,112 and 1,280 meters (3,650 and 4,200 feet) elevation. 

The major threats to all known populations are: habitat degradation by feral pigs 

(Sus scrofa); habitat degradation by and competition with invasive introduced 

plants; predation or herbivory by rats (Rattus spp.) and nonnative slugs; climate 

change; habitat degradation by landslides and flooding; and the negative 

demographic and genetic consequences of extremely small population size, as 

well as the consequent vulnerability to extinction through deterministic or 

stochastic (chance) events. Native caterpillar species may also pose an herbivory 

threat to this species.

Recovery Priority Number: The recovery priority number for Phyllostegia 

hispida is a 5, on a scale from 1 (highest) to 18 (lowest), reflecting its taxonomic 

position as a full species, a high degree of threat, and a moderate potential for 

recovery, with some threats that are well understood and easily alleviated and 

others that are currently difficult to alleviate.

Recovery Strategy: The first step toward recovery of Phyllostegia hispida is 

to protect all of the known wild populations. Continuing survey efforts will focus 

on identifying additional populations that may exist but are currently unknown. 

In order to reduce the potential for extinction due to the catastrophic loss of the 

small population on a single island, recovery actions will require increasing the 

area occupied by the existing populations where space and habitat allow, as well 

as establishing new populations within the estimated historical range of the 

species. Threats such as habitat degradation by feral pigs and habitat degradation 

by and competition with invasive introduced plants must be sufficiently controlled 

to allow for this population expansion. The effective management and 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

vii

reintroduction of P. hispida will require gaining further knowledge about the life 

history of the species and the functioning of the ecosystem on which it depends. 

Therefore, research and monitoring are key components of the recovery strategy.

The recovery strategy is oriented to dynamic adaptive management of 

Phyllostegia hispida and its habitat in wet Metrosideros polymorpha (‘ōhi‘a)–

dominated forest on Moloka‘i. This strategy is consistent with the Service’s 

Strategic Habitat Conservation process, which calls for an iterative process of 

biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring 

and research. The biological planning and conservation design set forth in this 

recovery plan lay out the criteria for recovery and identify localities for 

implementing actions. The recovery actions describe a process for implementing 

conservation on the ground, outcome-based monitoring to assess success, and 

ongoing assumption-driven research to test biological hypotheses important to 

management.

Recovery Goal: The ultimate goal of recovery planning is to recover species to

the point where they no longer require the protections of the Endangered Species

Act. Given the current shortage of information about the biology and habitat 

requirements and the magnitude of current threats where Phyllostegia hispida

occurs, only tentative criteria for stabilizing, downlisting, and delisting are

established here. These criteria were formulated based on recommendations from 

individuals on the Hawai‘i and Pacific Plants Recovery Coordinating Committee, 

as well as the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources’ draft red list categories (Version 2.2) and the advice and 

recommendations of knowledgeable biologists and individuals. 

Recovery Objectives: In the short term, the interim recovery objective is to 

stabilize all existing populations of Phyllostegia hispida. To be considered stable, 

the species must be managed to control threats (e.g., feral ungulates and invasive 

plants) and be represented in an ex situ population (such as a nursery or 

arboretum). Longer-term objectives will lead toward downlisting and delisting. 

These include an increase in populations and their numbers (which may involve 

outplanting, development of appropriate management and monitoring plans at 

each site) and conservation agreements with landowners to ensure threats are 

controlled in perpetuity.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

viii

Recovery Criteria: Recovery criteria are measurable, achievable goals that we

believe will result from implementation of the recovery actions in this plan. 

Achievement of these criteria will take time and is intended to be measured over 

the life of the plan, not on a short-term basis, and they should not be considered 

near-term recommendations. This plan is designed to meet these criteria, at which 

time we will make a decision about whether to proceed with a downlisting or 

delisting proposal. Downlisting or delisting requires publication of a proposed 

and final rule in the Federal Register, including an analysis of the five listing 

factors to determine whether the species meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered. These recovery criteria represent our current best assessment of the 

conditions that should be met for such an analysis to determine the species is no 

longer threatened or endangered. However, we may still consider proceeding 

with a downlisting or delisting proposal without all recovery criteria having been 

exactly met, if we believe the five-factor analysis will support such a proposal.

Phyllostegia hispida may be considered for downlisting to threatened status when 

all of the following conditions have been met:

Downlisting Criterion 1: Population size. A total of at least five viable 

populations of Phyllostegia hispida are documented in suitable habitat on 

Moloka‘i. Each of these populations must be naturally reproducing, stable or 

increasing in number, and threats must be managed so that a minimum of 300 

mature individuals are maintained per population. 

Downlisting Criterion 2: Management and monitoring plans. Habitat around 

each population must be managed to ensure that it will support the long-term 

persistence of Phyllostegia hispida. To achieve this, each of the five populations 

identified in Downlisting Criterion 1 must have implemented management and 

monitoring plans that will identify actions and procedures necessary to ensure that 

all threats are controlled and populations are stable or increasing.

Downlisting Criterion 3: Habitat quality. All of the populations that meet 

Downlisting Criterion 1 above must be fenced and protected from ungulates, with 

agreements from conservation partners to maintain those protections in perpetuity. 

The agreements will also include provisions for removal of invasive introduced 

plants, as appropriate, and adaptive management plans to address habitat 

degradation by feral pigs and herbivory by caterpillars and other unforeseeable 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

ix

threats. In addition, the agreements will include provisions for maximizing native 

plant biodiversity in these areas that is appropriate for that particular habitat and 

location. 

Phyllostegia hispida may be considered for delisting when all of the following 

conditions have been met:

Delisting Criterion 1: Population size. A total of at least eight viable populations 

are documented in suitable habitat on Moloka‘i. Each of these populations must 

be naturally reproducing, stable or increasing in number, and threats must be 

managed so that a minimum of 300 mature individuals are maintained per 

population. 

Delisting Criterion 2: Management and monitoring plans. Habitat around each 

population must be managed to ensure that it will support the long-term 

persistence of Phyllostegia hispida. To achieve this, each of the eight populations 

identified in Delisting Criterion 1 must have implemented management and 

monitoring plans that will identify actions and procedures necessary to ensure that 

all threats are controlled and populations are stable or increasing. 

Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat quality. All of the populations that meet Delisting 

Criterion 1 above must be fenced and protected from ungulates, with agreements 

from conservation partners to maintain those protections in perpetuity. The 

agreements will also include provisions for invasive introduced plant removal, as 

appropriate, and adaptive management plans to address habitat degradation by 

feral pigs and herbivory by caterpillars and other unforeseeable threats. In 

addition, the agreements will include provisions for maximizing native plant 

biodiversity in these areas that is appropriate for that particular habitat and 

location. 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

x

Actions Needed:

1. Protect habitat and control threats.

2. Expand existing wild populations through natural recruitment and if 

needed, augmentation.

3. Conduct essential research.

4. Develop and implement detailed monitoring plans for all populations.

5. Establish new populations as needed to reach recovery objectives.

6. Validate and revise recovery criteria.

Estimated Date and Cost of Recovery: If all recovery criteria have been 

met, it is currently estimated that Phyllostegia hispida may be eligible for 

downlisting by the year 2029, and delisting by the year 2034. The estimated cost 

to recover Phyllostegia hispida to the point where it may be delisted is

approximately $6,131,000 (Table 1).

Table 1. Total Estimated Cost of Recovery through Year 2034

(in $1,000).

Year Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Action 6 Total

2014 469 20 141 20 15 18 683

2015 450 20 141 20 24 18 673

2016 437 20 141 20 19 18 655

2017 422 20 141 20 28 9 640

2018 422 20 141 20 15 9 627

2019 to 

2034 2,392 51 176 118 82 34 2,853

TOTALS $4,592 $151 $881 $218 $183 $106 $6,131
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

1

I. Background

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW

This document is the second addendum to the Recovery Plan for the 

Moloka‘i Plant Cluster (RPMPC) (USFWS 1996). The original RPMPC and its

first addendum (USFWS 1998) jointly addressed 19 plant taxa, most of them 

endemic to Moloka‘i. This addendum covers Phyllostegia hispida (no common 

name), which was added to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants on March 17, 2009 (USFWS 2009). Because P. hispida

occurs in habitats similar to those for plants covered in the original RPMPC, and 

faces similar threats, many of the recommended recovery actions are similar or 

identical to those in the RPMPC. This Addendum will therefore refer frequently 

to sections of the RPMPC. 

Phyllostegia hispida is known only from the island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

(Figure 1). Phyllostegia hispida and its habitat have been adversely affected and 

continue to be threatened by all or some of the following: habitat degradation by 

feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and invasive introduced plant species; habitat degradation 

by landslides and flooding; climate change; competition with invasive introduced

plant species; herbivory by native caterpillars; predation or herbivory by rats 

(Rattus spp.) and nonnative slugs; and the negative demographic and genetic 

consequences of extremely small population size, as well as the consequent 

vulnerability to extinction through deterministic or stochastic (chance) events 

(USFWS 2009).

This Addendum outlines the strategy and actions needed to recover 

Phyllostegia hispida based on the best available information, including new 

information obtained since the final rule to list the species. The recovery 

recommendations in this plan are based on resolving the threats to the species and 

ensuring the persistence of self-sustaining populations in the wild. 

B. STATUS OF THE SPECIES

Phyllostegia hispida was first identified as a candidate for listing in the 

September 19, 1997, Notice of Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

2

Figure 1. Distribution map of Phyllostegia hispida.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

3

Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 

(USFWS 1997). On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned 

us to list 225 species of plants and animals as endangered under the provisions of

the Endangered Species Act (“Act”; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including P. hispida. 

In the September 12, 2006, Notice of Review, P. hispida was included as a 

candidate species with a listing priority number of 2 (USFWS 2006). A proposed 

rule to list P. hispida as endangered throughout its range was published on 

February 19, 2008 (USFWS 2008a), and the final rule was published on March

17, 2009 (USFWS 2009). At the time of listing, critical habitat was found to be 

prudent but not determinable (USFWS 2009). Critical habitat was later proposed 

for P. hispida on June 11, 2012, as part of a multi-species listing and critical 

habitat proposed rule (USFWS 2012).

When a species is listed as endangered or threatened under the Act, it is 

automatically added to the list of protected species by the State of Hawai‘i 

(Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter [HRS] 195D).

The recovery priority number for Phyllostegia hispida is a 5, on a scale 

from 1 (highest) to 18 (lowest), reflecting its taxonomic position as a full species, 

a high degree of threat, and a moderate potential for recovery, with some threats 

that are well understood and easily alleviated and others that are currently difficult 

to alleviate (USFWS 1983a, b).

C. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND LIFE HISTORY

Phyllostegia is a genus in the mint family (Lamiaceae) that is nearly 

endemic to Hawai‘i, consisting of approximately 27 species located in Hawai‘i 

and a single species in Tahiti (Wagner et al. 1999a). Phyllostegia hispida Hillebr. 

was first described by William Hillebrand in 1870 from a specimen collected 

from an area that he described as the “heights of Mopulehu” on the island of 

Moloka‘i (see “Type Information”, Wagner et al. 2005), and is recognized as a 

distinct taxon by Wagner et al. (1999a). A nonaromatic member of the mint 

family, P. hispida is a loosely spreading, many-branched vine that often forms 

large, tangled masses. Leaves are thin and flaccid with hispid hairs (rough with 

firm, stiff hairs) and rarely glandular on the lower surface of the leaves. The leaf 

margins are irregularly and shallowly lobed. Six to eight white flowers make up 

each verticillaster (a false whorl, composed of a pair of nearly sessile cymes [a 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

4

flat-topped or round-topped flower cluster] in the axils of opposite leaves or 

bracts), and nutlets are approximately 2.5 millimeters (0.1 inch) long (Wagner et 

al. 1999a).

The fragrant flowers of Phyllostegia species, which have larger lower lips 

and mostly white- to pink-colored corollas, are generally associated with insect 

pollination. By comparison, species in the related Hawaiian genus Stenogyne 

have odorless flowers and smaller lower lips, and are generally bird pollinated 

(Lindqvist and Albert 2002). Phyllostegia species have fleshy fruits (Lindqvist 

and Albert 2002). Phyllostegia hispida has been observed in fruit during April to 

June (H. Oppenheimer, Plant Extinction Prevention Program, pers. comm. 

2008a). 

D. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT POPULATION STATUS

From 1910 through 1979, a total of eight populations of Phyllostegia

hispida were recorded from the wet forests of eastern Moloka‘i (Hawai‘i

Biodiversity and Mapping Program 2007). Attempts to find the historical 

locations were made, but none of these historical populations were relocated 

during surveys conducted in the wet forests of east Moloka‘i over the past several 

years (The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i 1997; S. Perlman, National Tropical 

Botanical Garden, pers. comm. 2006a). In 1996, two adult plants were found in 

eastern Moloka‘i within The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i’s Kamakou 

Preserve. One was found next to the Pēpē‘ōpae Boardwalk, and the other east of 

Hanalilolilo growing along the fence within the State of Hawai‘i’s Pu‘u Ali‘i 

Natural Area Reserve. In 1997, a single Phyllostegia individual was discovered 

on the rim of Pelekunu Valley in the Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve (Hawai‘i 

Biodiversity and Mapping Program 2005; The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i 

1997). There is some uncertainty, however, as to whether this individual was P. 

hispida, as it was identified as P. manni by Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife staff, based upon the size and lobing of its leaves (R. Hobdy, Robert

Hobdy Environmental Consulting, pers. comm. 2006; J. Lau, Hawai‘i 

Biodiversity and Mapping Program, pers. comm. 2006; T. Nohara, Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife, pers. comm. 2006). This individual plant was protected 

from feral ungulates inside a fenced exclosure. Seeds were collected, and 

seedlings were produced by Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife and 

outplanted into the exclosure with the wild plant (T. Nohara, pers. comm. 2006).
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

5

The Pēpē‘ōpae Boardwalk individual died in 1998 or 1999 (Hawai‘i

Biodiversity and Mapping Program 2005). The fenceline individual near 

Hanalilolilo was reported dead in 2003 (S. Perlman, pers. comm. 2005, 2006a). 

The wild plant and reintroductions at Pelekunu Valley in Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area 

Reserve, which may not have been Phyllostegia hispida (the question of 

taxonomic identity was never resolved), died several years ago (S. Perlman, pers. 

comm. 2005; K. Wood, National Tropical Botanical Garden, pers. comm. 2005; 

G. Hughes, Kalaupapa National Historical Park, pers. comm. 2006a).

Surveys were conducted in the wet forests of east Moloka‘i, but no

additional Phyllostegia hispida plants were found. The species was thought to

have been extirpated from the wild until 2005, when two seedlings were found in

the headwaters of Waikolu Stream in Kamakou Preserve. The presence of these 

seedlings indicate the possible presence of a mature plant, or plants, somewhere in 

the vicinity (The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i 1997; S. Perlman, pers. comm. 

2005; S. Perlman, pers. comm. 2006a; K. Wood, pers. comm. 2006; H. 

Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009). One of the seedlings has since died (G. 

Hughes, pers. comm. 2006b; B. Garnett, Kalaupapa National Historical Park, 

pers. comm. 2006). The other seedling was collected by a botanist with the 

National Tropical Botanical Garden.

Phyllostegia hispida was again thought to be extirpated from the wild until

Natural Area Reserve staff discovered a single juvenile plant in May 2006 within

Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve along the Pu‘u Ali‘i fenceline at 1,250 meters 

(4,100 feet) elevation (S. Perlman pers. comm. 2006c). Although protected

within a fenced exclosure (B. Stevens, Maui Division of Forestry and Wildlife,

pers. comm. 2006), that individual has since died for unknown reasons (H.

Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2007). However, 10 new wild plants were discovered

in April 2007: 9 within Kamakou Preserve and a single individual within Pu‘u 

Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve. The individual plant found at the Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural

Area Reserve was in a vegetative state when it was last seen in 2009, and it is not

known whether this individual produced any seed (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm.

2009). This individual has since died after a landslide occurred in the area (A. 

Bakutis, Plant Extinction Prevention Program, pers. comm. 2012a). 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

6

Four of the nine wild individuals found within Kamakou Preserve in 2007 

were seedlings that were closely clustered next to the Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area 

Reserve fenceline. These were protected with temporary emergency fencing by 

Natural Area Reserve Staff; however, two of these individuals are now dead.

Two of the remaining seven wild individuals discovered in April 2007 are mature 

and have fruited and produced seeds. Seeds and cuttings have been removed from 

these individuals for attempted cultivation (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009).

Since April 2007, 15 additional Phyllostegia hispida individuals have been

found within Kamakou Preserve in the course of Rubus argutus (Florida prickly

blackberry) control trips (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008a, b). In 2008, there

were 24 wild individuals and most of them were located on landslides or in

windthrow areas (areas in which trees have been uprooted or overthrown by wind)

(H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008b, c).

A single Phyllostegia hispida individual was found in October 2008, on

the west rim of Pelekunu Valley in The Nature Conservancy’s Pelekunu Preserve

(H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009) in a nonreproductive state (H.

Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2011a). Although this site is located within Pelekunu 

Preserve, it is more easily accessible and affected by management actions 

occurring within Kamakou Preserve and Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve. This 

individual died after a large flowering and fruiting event (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 

2011). 

In June 2009, a single seedling was discovered near a reintroduction site 

for Schiedea laui at Kamakou Preserve (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 

2009). Another two seedlings were discovered at upper Hanalilolilo within 

Kamakou Preserve growing near a stream bank (Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program 2009); they were revisited in July 2009 but no fruits were collected 

(Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2010). These seedlings died after being 

washed out in a flood event in the spring of 2012 (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 

2012b).

In 2010, two mature individuals of Phyllostegia hispida were discovered 

in two separate locations within Kamakou Preserve (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 

2012a). Additional seedlings were found on the outskirts of a landslide within the 

area, but the number of seedlings was not reported (Plant Extinction Prevention 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

7

Program 2010). In May 2010, a single mature individual and a single seedling 

were found in Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve by staff of the Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program growing above known wild individuals (Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program 2010). In 2012, two seedlings were found within this area 

(A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 2012a). 

As of 2012, there are less than 10 mature wild individuals and 3 seedlings 

known in the wild in at least 3 populations (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 2012a, b). 

These populations are found in The Nature Conservancy’s Kamakou Preserve 

(two populations) and Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve (one population). In 

addition, as further discussed in section I.G (Conservation Measures) below, 

numerous propagated individuals of Phyllostegia hispida have been reintroduced 

between 2007 and 2009 at the Kamakou Preserve and the Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area 

Reserve on Moloka‘i (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009, 2010, 2011), 

but many individuals have died. As of 2012, only about 7 to 10 reintroduced 

individuals remain after growing for roughly 2 to 4 years (A. Bakutis, pers. 

comm. 2012c). Field botanists monitoring the plants have observed that this 

species survives for only 2 to 3 years, and it is considered short-lived (A. Bakutis, 

pers. comm. 2012a). 

Natural recruitment of reintroduced individuals has been noted at a 

reintroduction site along Pēpē‘ōpae Boardwalk in Kamakou Preserve where two 

seedlings were observed near a large mature individual (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 

2012a). The large mature individual died for unknown reasons and the two 

seedlings were not observed in July 2012 (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 2012b).

E. HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

The few documented specimens of Phyllostegia hispida have typically 

been found in wet Metrosideros polymorpha (‘ōhi‘a)–dominated forest, with most 

occurring at 1,112 and 1,280 meters (3,650 and 4,200 feet) elevation. Associated 

native species include Cheirodendron trigynum (‘ōlapa), Ilex anomala (kāwa‘u), 

Cibotium glaucum (hāpu‘u), Broussaisia argutus (kanawao), Rubus hawaiensis 

(‘ākala), Sadleria cyatheoides (‘ama‘u), Pipturus albidus (māmaki), Coprosma 

granadensis (mākole), Athyrium microphyllum (‘ākōlea), Elaphoglossum fauriei

(No common name), and various species of bryophytes (Hawai‘i Biodiversity and 

Mapping Program 2007).
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

8

It appears that Phyllostegia hispida is dependent on habitat that has been 

disturbed, such as landslides and riparian corridors. Phyllostegia hispida is also 

known to colonize windthrow areas, which are areas where trees have been 

uprooted or overthrown by wind (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009). 

Windthrow creates openings in the canopy that provide increased sunlight for 

germination (USFWS 2009). In 2008, most of the remaining wild mature

individuals, which numbered 20, were located on landslides or in windthrow areas

(H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008a, b); it is unknown whether the currently 

known 10 mature individuals are located on landslides.

F. REASONS FOR LISTING AND CURRENT THREATS 

As identified in the final listing rule (USFWS 2009), the primary threats to 

Phyllostegia hispida and its habitat are ungulates and invasive introduced plant 

species. Predation or herbivory by rats and nonnative slugs has also been noted as 

a threat to this species. In addition, the negative demographic and genetic 

consequences of extremely small population size, as well as the consequent 

vulnerability to extinction through deterministic or stochastic (chance) events are 

a threat. Unidentified native caterpillar species may also be a threat to this 

species (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009). A description of each of these

threats is presented in the final listing rule (USFWS 2009) and in the Threats 

Assessment section (page 14); each is classified according to the five 

listing/delisting factors identified in section 4 of the Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.).

Additionally, Phyllostegia hispida is also threatened by habitat destruction 

and modification by climate change. Although the exact nature of the impacts of 

global climate change and increasing temperatures on this species are unknown,

they are likely to include the loss of native species that comprise the communities 

in which this species occur (Benning et al. 2002; Pounds et al. 1999; Still et al. 

1999). 

G. CONSERVATION MEASURES

Conservation measures implemented for Phyllostegia hispida have 

included micropropagation (i.e., tissue culture); reintroduction of seedlings and 

cuttings cultivated from wild individuals; removal, control, and herbicide 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

9

treatment of invasive introduced plants within occupied habitat; and temporary 

and permanent fencing to exclude introduced feral ungulates. Staff from the Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program have targeted this species and have purposely 

conducted surveys, revisited individual plants, and followed up on observations 

by The Nature Conservancy and Natural Area Reserve System staff specifically 

for the recovery of Phyllostegia hispida (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2011b). 

To maintain the genetic variation remaining in the population, the Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program also attempts to collect genetic material from 

every wild individual known. All of the known individuals are mapped with a 

GPS and tagged with a unique identification number. 

Phyllostegia hispida currently occurs entirely on public lands or lands that 

are managed by the State of Hawai‘i’s Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Natural Area Reserve System in 

Pu‘u Ali‘i, and The Nature Conservancy’s Kamakou and Pelekunu Preserves. All 

of these areas have some level of management for invasive introduced plants and 

feral ungulates.

As of 2012, The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i continues to conduct 

surveys for ungulates and control pigs within the Kamakou and Pelekunu

Preserves (Russell Kallstrom, Information Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy, 

pers. comm. 2012). In Fiscal Year 2013, The Nature Conservancy plans to begin 

construction on an estimated 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mile) fence extension from the 

existing Kamakou Preserve east boundary fence to connect to the existing Nature 

Conservancy- Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve fence (R. Kallstrom, pers. comm. 

2012). This fence will protect approximately 327 hectares (808 acres) of wet 

forest in Kamakou Preserve to prevent pig ingress, and as a result is expected to 

protect most of the known populations of Phyllostegia hispida within the 

Preserve. In addition to ungulate control, The Natural Conservancy conducts 

periodic surveys and removal efforts for invasive plant species such as Rubus 

argutus (blackberry) within their Preserves (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2011b; 

R. Kallstrom, pers. comm. 2012). 

Invasive plant species are also controlled by the Moloka‘i Invasive 

Species Committee, which focuses on incipient ecosystem-altering invasive plant 

species. Aerial surveys for Miconia calvescens (miconia), which is not yet known 

from Moloka‘i, are periodically conducted by the Moloka‘i Invasive Species 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

10

Committee in areas where Phyllostegia hispida is known to occur (H. 

Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2011b). 

Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve

The University of Hawai‘i’s Lyon Arboretum has propagation material 

collected from the plant that was found in 1996 on the fenceline east of 

Hanalilolilo within the Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve (USFWS 2005).

Seeds and cuttings were collected from the mature individual discovered 

within the Reserve in April 2007 and were sent to the Lyon Arboretum and the 

Olinda Rare Plant Facility, jointly run by the Service and the Hawai‘i Division of 

Forestry and Wildlife, for propagation (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009). 

Seventy-two individuals were reintroduced into Pu‘u Ali‘i in October 

2008 (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009). Propagation material for these 

reintroductions was collected from two founder individuals located within 

Kamakou Preserve and was grown at Olinda Rare Plant Facility. 

In January 2010, staff of the Plant Extinction Prevention Program

reintroduced 17 individuals of Phyllostegia hispida into a large fenced area within 

Pu‘u Ali‘i Natural Area Reserve (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2010).

Kamakou Preserve

In November 1996, The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i erected an 

exclosure around the Phyllostegia hispida plant growing near the Preserve’s 

Pēpē‘ōpae Boardwalk. They also began frequent, recurrent weeding and 

monitoring within the fenced area (The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i 1997). 

They built an exclosure approximately 200 meters (656 feet) away from this plant 

for future reintroductions of propagated individuals. Plants grown from leaf buds 

from this one known plant on the property were reintroduced into the exclosure in 

December 1997 (The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i 1998a). They survived 

through 1998 (The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i 1998b), but have since been 

confirmed dead (S. Aruch, The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i, pers. comm. 

2006; E. Misaki, The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i, pers. comm. 2006). The
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

11

University of Hawai‘i’s Lyon Arboretum has propagation material from this lone 

individual (USFWS 2005).

Of the two seedlings that were found in 2005 in the headwaters of 

Waikolu Stream in the Kamakou Preserve (S. Perlman, pers. comm. 2005; H. 

Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009), one was collected and given to the Kalaupapa 

National Historical Park on Moloka‘i for attempted propagation. That plant has 

since died (G. Hughes, pers. comm. 2006b; B. Garnett, pers. comm. 2006). The 

other seedling was collected and propagated by the National Tropical Botanical 

Garden. Cuttings of that seedling were given to the Kalaupapa National 

Historical Park for propagation (S. Perlman, pers. comm. 2006b). Thirty plants 

were grown from these cuttings by the National Tropical Botanical Garden and 

have since been reintroduced into the Preserve (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 

2009).

Twelve cuttings of Phyllostegia hispida that were grown at the National 

Tropical Botanical Garden were reintroduced into an exclosure in the Preserve in 

April 2007 (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008a). Eleven of the cuttings that 

were reintroduced were doing well as of April 2008. In April 2007, seeds were 

collected from mature Phyllostegia hispida plants found within the Preserve and 

sent to the Lyon Arboretum and the Olinda Rare Plant Facility for propagation (H. 

Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009). In June 2007, another 12 individuals were 

reintroduced into a second enclosure in the Preserve, all of which remained as of 

April 2008 (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008b). 

In April 2008, Steve Perlman and Hank Oppenheimer collected cuttings 

from four wild individuals discovered by The Nature Conservancy’s Moloka‘i 

field staff in Kamakou Preserve (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008a). These 

cuttings were given to Bill Garnett to propagate at his nursery on Moloka‘i. 

Seeds were also collected from two wild individuals in the Preserve and given to 

the Olinda Rare Plant Facility and the National Tropical Botanical Garden for 

propagation (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008a). In June 2008, cuttings were 

collected from four wild individuals found at three different sites in the Kamakou 

Preserve. These cuttings were given to Bill Garnett to propagate. Seeds from the 

same four wild individuals were given to the Olinda Rare Plant Facility and the 

National Tropical Botanical Garden for propagation (H. Oppenheimer, pers. 

comm. 2008a). 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

12

In August 2008, 124 individuals of Phyllostegia hispida were reintroduced 

into the Preserve within 13 sites (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2008b; Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program 2009). The propagation material was collected 

from two founder individuals located in the Kamakou Preserve (Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program 2009). In addition, another 46 individuals collected from 2 

founder individuals in the Kamakou Preserve were reintroduced back into the 

Preserve on September 2008 (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009). During 

the same month, 15 individuals grown from seeds collected from a founder 

individual at the Kamakou Preserve were reintroduced into the Preserve (Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program 2009). These seedlings were grown at Olinda 

Rare Plant Facility.

In January 2009, four individuals were reintroduced into the Kamakou 

Preserve (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009). These individuals were 

propagated from cuttings grown by Bill Garnett that were collected from four new 

founders located at Kamakou Preserve. A few months later in June 2009, more 

than 50 fruits were collected from an individual growing at Hanalilolilo pipeline 

trail within the Kamakou Preserve and sent to the Lyon Arboretum for storage 

and/or propagation (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009).

Sixteen individuals were reintroduced at Pēpē‘ōpae Boardwalk within the 

Kamakou Preserve in May 2010 (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2010). By 

January 2011, all 16 reintroduced individuals were revisited (Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program 2011). 

In July 2010, 55 individuals of Phyllostegia hispida were reintroduced at 

Pipeline trail within the Kamakou Preserve (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 

2011). An additional 23 individuals were reintroduced into the same area in 

August 2010 (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2011).

Summary of Reintroduction Efforts

Between 2007 and 2009, over 150 individuals were reintroduced within at

least 30 discrete sites located within the Kamakou Preserve and the Pu‘u Ali‘i 

Natural Area Reserve (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009, 2010, 2011). 

In 2011, about 80 percent of the reintroduced individuals died from unknown 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

13

causes. However, these mortalities appear to be related to life history 

characteristics, since plants have died after major flowering events (Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program 2011). As of 2012, only about 7 to 10

reintroduced individuals remain after growing for roughly 2 to 4 years (A. 

Bakutis, pers. comm. 2012c). Monitoring by field botanists observed that this 

species survives for only 2 to 3 years and is considered short-lived (A. Bakutis, 

pers. comm. 2012a).

Ex situ and Captive Propagation Efforts

In 2009, the Olinda Rare Plant Facility had 126 individuals of Phyllostegia 

hispida representing 6 wild founders (Olinda Rare Plant Facility 2009). 

Propagation of this species at the Olinda Rare Plant Facility has been highly 

successful, with an estimated 100 percent germination of seeds (H. Oppenheimer, 

pers. comm. 2011b). The Lyon Arboretum Micropropagation Laboratory 

contained numerous propagules of P. hispida in storage as of 2011 (Lyon 

Arboretum Micropropagation Laboratory 2011). As of 2012, the Moloka‘i Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program had collected genetic material from 62 percent of 

the 8 ex situ populations and sampled 48 percent of the 29 ex situ individuals 

(includes mature, juvenile, and seedlings) (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 

2012).
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

14

II. Threats Assessment

The major factors in the decline of Phyllostegia hispida are: (1) habitat 

degradation by feral pigs and (2) habitat degradation by and competition from 

invasive, introduced plant species (USFWS 2008). In addition to the primary 

threat factors, species like P. hispida that are endemic to small portions of a single 

island are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species. This 

vulnerability is due to the higher risks posed to a few populations and individuals 

by random demographic fluctuations and localized catastrophes such as 

hurricanes, landslides, flooding, and disease outbreaks. For example, a few

individuals of P. hispida have died for unknown reasons that appear related to 

herbivory by a native caterpillar species.

An analysis of threats is an essential component of our listing, delisting, 

and reclassification decisions. The status of Phyllostegia hispida was determined 

by analyzing the following five factors, as required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 

habitat or range;

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes;

C. Disease or predation;

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the continued existence of a 

species.

• Invasive plant species (Factors A and E). Introduced plant species 

compete with native plants for water, light, and nutrients. They may modify 

habitats occupied by native plant species by changing the availability of light, 

altering soil-water regimes, modifying nutrient cycling, and changing the fire 

characteristics of the native plant community. The most common introduced 

plant species impacting Phyllostegia hispida are Axonopus fissifolius (narrowleaved carpetgrass), Clidemia hirta (Koster’s curse), Erechtites valerianifolia 

(fireweed), Juncus effusus (Japanese mat rush), Rubus rosifolius
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

15

(thimbleberry), Sacciolepis indica (Glenwood grass) (USFWS 2008),

Phytolacca octandra (Southern pokeberry), Rubus argutus (blackberry), and 

Tibouchina herbacea (cane tibouchina) (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2011a, 

Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2009). 

• Climate change (Factor A). Since climate change was not addressed as a 

threat in the Recovery Plan for the Molokaʻi Plant Cluster (USFWS 1996) and

the first addendum (USFWS 1998), a more detailed description of this threat 

is provided here. The exact nature of the impacts of global climate change 

and increasing temperatures on ecosystems of Hawai‘i, including P. hispida, 

are unknown. However, these impacts are likely to include the loss of native 

species that comprise the communities in which this species occur (Benning et 

al. 2002; Pounds et al. 1999; Still et al. 1999).

Historically in Hawai‘i, temperature has been rising over the last 100 years 

with the greatest increase after 1975 (Giambelluca et al. 2008). At lower 

elevation (below 800 meters [2,625 feet]), the rate of increase is 0.09 degrees 

Celsius (0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, which is below the observed 

global temperature rise of 0.18 Celsius (0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). However, at higher 

elevations (above 800 meters [2,625 feet]), the rate of increase is 0.27 degrees 

Celsius (0.48 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, which greatly exceeds the 

global rate. These data show that since 1919, and especially since 1975, 

Hawai‘i has experienced significantly warmer summer and winter 

temperatures. This change is mainly due to increased temperatures at night 

and at higher elevations (above 800 meters [2,625 feet]). These statistically 

significant increases are summarized as follows for non-urban areas:

• warmer summer (May through October) days (maximum daily 

temperature) since 1975;

• warmer summer nights (minimum daily temperature) since 1919 and 

since 1975, mainly due to an increase in temperature at lower (below 

800 meters [2,625 feet]) elevations;

• warmer winter (November through April) days since 1919 and since 

1975, mainly due to an increase in temperature at higher (above 800 

meters [2,625 feet]) elevations;
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

16

• warmer winter nights due to increased temperatures at high and low 

elevation sites but especially at high elevation sites.

Overall, the daily temperature range in Hawai‘i is decreasing, resulting in 

a warmer environment, especially at higher elevations and at night.

For future climate conditions, the average ambient air temperature (at sea 

level) is projected to increase by about 2.3 degrees Celsius (4.1 degrees 

Fahrenheit) with a range of 1.5 to 3.7 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 6.7 degrees 

Fahrenheit) by 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). 

These changes would increase the monthly average temperature from the 

current value of 23.3 degrees Celsius (74 degrees Fahrenheit) to between 25.0

and 30.0 degrees Celsius (77 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit). How these changes 

will be distributed across the topographic features of the Hawaiian Islands has 

not yet been determined.

Currently, in the oceans around Hawai‘i, the average annual rainfall at sea 

level is about 635 millimeters (25 inches). The orographic (mountain) 

features of the islands increase this annual average to about 1,778 millimeters 

(70 inches) but can exceed 6,096 millimeters (240 inches) in the wettest 

mountain areas. Rainfall is distributed unevenly across each high island, and 

rainfall gradients are extreme (approximately 635 millimeters [25 inches] per 

mile), creating very dry and wet areas. Data on precipitation in Hawai‘i, 

which includes sea level precipitation and the added orographic effects, shows 

a steady and significant decline of about 15 percent over the last 15 to 20 

years (Diaz et al. 2005; Chu and Chen 2005). These data are also supported 

by a gradual but steady decline in stream flow beginning in the early 1940s 

(Oki 2004). 

In the future, global climate modeling predicts that net precipitation at sea 

level near the Hawaiian Islands will decrease in winter by about 4 to 6 

percent, with no significant change during summer (Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change 2007). Downscaling of global climate models indicate 

that wet-season (winter) precipitation will decrease by 5 to 10 percent, while 

dry-season (summer) precipitation will increase by about 5 percent (Timm and 

Diaz 2009).
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

17

Future changes in precipitation are uncertain because they depend in part

on how El Niño (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric system in the Tropical 

Pacific having important global consequences for weather and climate) might 

change. Reliable projections of changes in El Niño have yet to be made 

(Benning et al. 2002).

Phyllostegia hispida may be among the species most vulnerable to 

extinction due to anticipated global climate change, although the specific 

impacts of such climate change on this species cannot currently be known. 

Available projections of climate change in Hawai‘i do not currently have the 

spatial landscape resolution that is needed to help identify the specific impacts 

of climate change on terrestrial species of Hawai‘i in the mid- to late 21st 

Century. Impacts of climate change to P. hispida would be expected to 

include habitat loss and alteration or changes in disturbance regimes, in 

addition to direct physiological stress. The probability of species going 

extinct as a result of these factors increases when ranges are restricted, habitat 

decreases, and population numbers decline (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2007). Such is the case for P. hispida, which is characterized 

by limited climatic ranges and restricted habitat requirements, small 

population size, and low number of individuals.

• Feral pigs (Factor A). Feral pigs contribute to the modification and 

degradation of habitat. They do so by disturbing and destroying vegetative 

cover, trampling plants and seedlings, reducing or eliminating plant 

regeneration by damaging seeds and seedlings, and increasing erosion by 

creating large areas of bare soil. Feral pigs are also a major vector for the 

dispersal of invasive, nonnative plant species (USFWS 2008a).

• Landslides and flooding (Factor A). Landslides and flooding adversely 

impact the habitats of Phyllostegia hispida by destabilizing substrates, 

damaging and destroying individual plants, and altering hydrological patterns. 

Landslides and flooding result in habitat destruction or modification, and 

changes to native plant communities. During storms, rain may fall at 76 

millimeters (3 inches) per hour or more, and sometimes may reach nearly 

1,000 millimeters (40 inches) in 24 hours, causing destructive flash-flooding 

in streams and narrow gulches (Wagner et al. 1999b; adapted from Price 

(1983) and Carlquist (1980)). Like P. hispida, species which occur in small 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

18

numbers in highly restricted geographic areas, such events have the potential 

to eradicate all individuals of a population, or even all populations of a 

species, resulting in extinction. Landslides and floods, although possibly 

necessary to create habitat for this species, may also adversely impact this 

species, which occurs in such low numbers.

• Herbivory by unknown caterpillars (Factor C). Reintroduced 

individuals were dying from unknown causes possibly related to herbivory by 

unknown species of native caterpillars (H. Oppenheimer, pers. comm. 2009). 

Native Lepidoptera species often use plants in the genus Phyllostegia as host 

plants (Zimmerman 1958). 

• Rat predation or herbivory (Factor C). Rats (Rattus sp.) have been 

noted as a threat to Phyllostegia hispida at the Kamakou Preserve (Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program 2009, 2010, 2011). There are three species of 

introduced rats in the Hawaiian Islands, the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), 

the black rat (R. rattus), and the Norway rat (R. norvegicus). Rats impact 

native plants by eating fleshy fruits, seeds, flowers, stems, leaves, roots, and 

other plant parts (Atkinson and Atkinson 2000), and can seriously affect 

regeneration. Rats have caused declines or even the total elimination of island 

plant species (Campbell and Atkinson 1999, cited in Atkinson and Atkinson 

2000). In the Hawaiian Islands, rats may consume as much as 90 percent of 

the seeds produced by some trees, or in some cases prevent the regeneration of 

forest species completely (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). All three species of rat 

(black, Norway, and Polynesian) have been reported to seriously threaten 

many endangered and threatened Hawaiian plants (Stone 1985; Cuddihy and 

Stone 1990). 

• Nonnative slug predation or herbivory (Factor C). Slugs have been 

noted as a threat to Phyllostegia hispida at the Kamakou Preserve (Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program 2009, 2010, 2011). There are no native slugs

in the Hawaiian Islands, but over a dozen introduced slug species are now 

established (Joe and Daehler 2008). The direct effect of nonnative slugs on 

the decline of this species has not been reported. However, slugs pose a threat 

by feeding primarily on plant seedlings and low-statured herbs (Hanley et al. 

1995), by mechanical damage, destruction of plant parts (photosynthetic tissue 

and reproductive organs), and mortality (Joe 2006, Joe and Daehler 2008).
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

19

• Small population size and restricted distribution (Factor E). 

Approximately 20 to 23 individuals of Phyllostegia hispida are currently 

known to exist in the wild: there are approximately 10 mature individuals in 

the wild, 3 seedlings in the wild, and 7 to 10 reintroduced individuals. 

Although most of the mature individuals of P. hispida in the wild have fruited 

and produced seeds, many of them have died after a large flowering or fruiting 

event (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 2011). Reintroductions have been attempted 

(USFWS 2009), however, in 2011, about 80 percent of the reintroduced

individuals died from unknown causes that appear related to life history 

characteristics (Plant Extinction Prevention Program 2011).

In 2012, the first documented natural recruitment of reintroduced 

individuals was observed at a reintroduction site located along the Pēpē‘ōpae 

Boardwalk in the Kamakou Preserve. Two seedlings were observed near a 

large reproductive individual (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 2012a). However, this

large mature individual has since died for unknown reasons and the two 

seedlings were not observed in July 2012 (A. Bakutis, pers. comm. 2012b). 

Although propagules of P. hispida have been collected on a regular basis and 

some controlled propagation of the species has taken place, there is no 

dedicated funding for the Lyon Arboretum, Olinda Rare Plant Facility, or 

Plant Extinction Protection Program for continued propagation, management, 

and reintroduction efforts for this species (USFWS 2009).

Deterministic factors, such as habitat alteration or loss of a key pollinator, 

may have reduced this population to such a small size that it is now 

susceptible to a stochastic extinction event (Gilpin and Soule 1986). Species

than are known from few wild individuals and are endemic to a single, small 

island are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species. 

This vulnerability is due to the higher risks posed to few populations and 

individuals by genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, and 

localized catastrophes, such as hurricanes and disease outbreaks (Mangel and 

Tier 1994; Pimm et al. 1988). In the case of Phyllostegia hispida, the entire 

population of the species is small and restricted to a highly localized 

geographic area. This renders it highly vulnerable to the risk of extinction in 

the wild due to the lack of redundancy in populations. These consequences of 

small population size (e.g., insufficient natural reproduction, loss of genetic 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

20

diversity), in conjunction with the risk of losing the entire population in the 

wild due to factors such as localized events (e.g., hurricanes), render the 

species highly vulnerable to extinction at any time. Although some species 

are naturally rare, the poor survivorship of P. hispida suggests that the 

requisite biological or ecological needs of the species are not being met under 

current conditions. However, the reasons for the poor survivorship and low 

reproduction rates observed in the species are not currently known.

• Lack of mature reproductive individuals (Factor E). Approximately 

20 to 23 individuals of Phyllostegia hispida are currently known to exist: 

there are roughly less than 10 mature individuals in the wild, 3 wild seedlings, 

and around 7 to 10 reintroduced individuals. The shortage of reproductive 

individuals and age-structure of the population toward young plants pose a 

significant threat to the species. Recruitment and the consequences of small 

population size may not be sufficient to offset mortality in the population

(USFWS 2009). The decline of successful reproduction in P. hispida could 

lead to the extirpation of this species.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

21

III. Recovery

A. RECOVERY STRATEGY

The highest priority for the recovery of Phyllostegia hispida is the 

implementation of immediate recovery actions needed to protect and stabilize the 

known wild populations. These management actions include: controlling 

introduced plant species and feral ungulates, seed collection and long-term seed 

banking to protect the genetic resources of the species, the development and 

implementation of management plans, and reestablishment of populations within 

historical suitable habitat. Many of these actions are currently occurring.

Because a major threat to the species is its small population size and 

restricted distribution, an important component of recovery is increasing the size 

of the known populations, and either finding additional populations by conducting 

thorough surveys or establishing additional populations within the estimated 

historical range of the species on Moloka‘i. To ultimately recover Phyllostegia 

hispida, habitat must be protected and managed for natural expansion of the 

current population, and reintroductions must occur into portions of its former 

range that are unlikely to be naturally recolonized in the near future. Research 

into the specific habitat needs of P. hispida, identification of reintroduction sites, 

and development of propagation and reintroduction protocols must all take place 

before new populations are likely to be successful. Research on P. hispida is

complicated by the small size and vulnerability of the population, and the scarcity 

of mature reproductive individuals.

Habitat degradation by feral pigs is another serious threat to Phyllostegia 

hispida. While rooting the soil in search of invertebrates and plant material, feral 

pigs directly affect this species by disturbing and destroying vegetative cover, 

trampling plants and seedlings, and possibly reducing or eliminating plant 

regeneration by damaging or eating seeds and seedlings (USFWS 2009). Feral 

pigs are also major disseminators of introduced plant seeds by carrying them 

internally or on their bodies, and they often carry the seeds into more pristine 

forests, further degrading the native ecosystem. The threat of habitat degradation

by feral pigs can be addressed through fencing and/or hunting to control pigs.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

22

A research program is also recommended for Phyllostegia hispida to study 

its growth and reproductive viability, determine the parameters of viable 

populations, study the causes of poor survivorship for both wild and reintroduced 

individuals, and identify the species’ pollinators and dispersal agents. A study 

should also be conducted on the possible pests and diseases affecting P. hispida, 

including herbivory by native caterpillars. This research should be designed to 

guide management practices. 

This recovery strategy is congruent with our Strategic Habitat 

Conservation process (USFWS 2008b). The biological planning and conservation 

design set forth in this recovery plan lay out the criteria for recovery and identify 

localities for implementing actions. The recovery actions describe a process for 

implementing conservation on the ground, outcome-based monitoring to assess 

success, and ongoing assumption-driven research to test biological hypotheses 

important to management.

B. RECOVERY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of the recovery program is to establish a framework within which 

recovery actions are undertaken to ensure the long-term survival of Phyllostegia 

hispida. This includes controlling or reducing the threats to the species to the 

extent that it no longer requires the protections afforded by the Act and therefore 

warrants delisting. In order to downlist, the recovery plan identifies ways to 

protect P. hispida and enhance its habitat so that there will be an increased 

likelihood of the species persisting in the foreseeable future.

Given the current shortage of information about the biology and habitat 

requirements and the magnitude of current threats where Phyllostegia hispida

occurs, only tentative criteria for stabilizing, downlisting, and delisting are 

established here. These criteria were formulated based on recommendations from 

individuals on the Hawai‘i and Pacific Plants Recovery Coordinating Committee, 

as well as the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources’ draft red list categories (Version 2.2) and the advice and 

recommendations of knowledgeable biologists and individuals. 

The interim recovery objective is to stabilize all existing populations of 

this species. To be considered stable, the species must be managed to control 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

23

threats (e.g., feral ungulates and invasive plants) and be represented in an ex situ

population (such as a nursery or arboretum). In addition, a minimum of three 

populations should be documented on Moloka‘i. Each of these populations must 

be naturally reproducing and increasing in number, with a minimum of 50 mature 

individuals per population. The long-term objectives leading to downlisting and 

delisting are an increase in populations and their numbers. This may involve

outplanting, development of appropriate management and monitoring plans at 

each site, and conservation agreements with landowners to ensure threats are 

controlled in perpetuity. 

C. RECOVERY CRITERIA

An endangered species is defined in the Act as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened 

species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Downlisting or delisting is 

warranted when a listed species no longer meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. Recovery criteria are set to serve as objective, 

measurable guidelines to assist in determining when an endangered species has 

recovered to the point that it may be downlisted to threatened, or that the 

protections afforded by the Act are no longer necessary and the species may be 

delisted. However, meeting all criteria would not automatically result in delisting, 

nor would not meeting all criteria necessarily preclude delisting. Determining 

whether a species should be downlisted or delisted requires a separate rulemaking process based on an analysis of the same five categories of threats (i.e., 

the five threat factors or the listing factors) considered in the listing of a species, 

as described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Section I-F, Reasons for Listing and 

Current Threats).

We may consider downlisting or delisting Phyllostegia hispida when the 

recovery criteria outlined below are met. Recovery criteria are conditions that, 

when met, are likely to indicate that a species may warrant downlisting or 

delisting. Thus, recovery criteria are mileposts that measure progress toward 

recovery. Establishing these criteria articulates our conservation objectives for 

the species under the biological planning element of our Strategic Habitat 

Conservation framework. These recovery criteria are our best assessment at this 

time of the conditions that may result in a determination that downlisting or 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

24

delisting of the P. hispida is warranted based on the results of a formal five-factor 

analysis in a subsequent formal regulatory rule-making process. These criteria 

define the demographic characteristics of a recovered population and ensure that 

the threats to the species have been alleviated, both of which are necessary to 

ensure that this species is no longer threatened with extinction. Criteria for 

downlisting and delisting may be revised, as necessary, if additional information 

provided by the recommended research projects and monitoring programs 

indicates that a change is appropriate.

1. Downlisting Criteria

Phyllostegia hispida may be considered for downlisting to threatened 

status when the criteria outlined below are met:

Downlisting Criterion 1: Population size. A total of at least five viable 

populations of Phyllostegia hispida are documented in suitable habitat on 

Moloka‘i. Each of these populations must be naturally reproducing, stable or 

increasing in number, and threats must be managed so that a minimum of 300 

mature individuals are maintained per population. (Factor E, small population 

size and limited distribution).

Downlisting Criterion 2: Management and monitoring plans. Habitat around 

each population must be managed to ensure that it will support the long-term 

persistence of Phyllostegia hispida. To achieve this, each of the five populations 

identified in Downlisting Criterion 1 must have implemented management and 

monitoring plans that will identify actions and procedures necessary to ensure that 

all threats are controlled and populations are stable or increasing. (Factor A, 

habitat degradation by invasive introduced plants and feral pigs; Factor A, climate 

change; Factor A, landslides and flooding; Factor C, herbivory by unknown 

native caterpillar species; Factor C, predation or herbivory by rats and nonnative 

slugs; Factor E, small population size and limited distribution; Factor E, lack of 

mature reproductive individuals; and Factor E, competition with invasive 

introduced plants).

Downlisting Criterion 3: Habitat quality. All of the populations that meet 

Downlisting Criterion 1 above must be fenced and protected from ungulates, with 

agreements from conservation partners to maintain those protections in perpetuity. 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

25

The agreements will also include provisions for removal of invasive introduced 

plants, as appropriate, and adaptive management plans to address habitat 

degradation by feral pigs and herbivory by caterpillars and other unforeseeable 

threats. In addition, the agreements will include provisions for maximizing native 

plant biodiversity in these areas that is appropriate for that particular habitat and 

location. (Factor A, habitat degradation by invasive introduced plants and feral 

pigs; Factor A, climate change; Factor A, landslides and flooding; Factor C, 

herbivory by unknown native caterpillar species; Factor C, predation or herbivory 

by rats and nonnative slugs; Factor E, small population size and limited 

distribution; and Factor E, competition with invasive introduced plants).

2. Delisting Criteria

Phyllostegia hispida may be considered for delisting when the criteria 

outlined below are met:

Delisting Criterion 1: Population size. A total of at least eight viable populations 

are documented in suitable habitat on Moloka‘i. Each of these populations must 

be naturally reproducing, stable or increasing in number, and threats must be 

managed so that a minimum of 300 mature individuals are maintained per 

population. (Factor E, small population size and limited distribution).

Delisting Criterion 2: Management and monitoring plans. Habitat around each 

population must be managed to ensure that it will support the long-term 

persistence of Phyllostegia hispida. To achieve this, each of the eight populations 

identified in Delisting Criterion 1 must have implemented management and 

monitoring plans that will identify actions and procedures necessary to ensure that 

all threats are controlled and populations are stable or increasing. (Factor A, 

habitat degradation by invasive introduced plants and feral pigs; Factor A, climate 

change; Factor A, landslides and flooding; Factor C, herbivory by unknown 

native caterpillar species; Factor C, predation or herbivory by rats and nonnative 

slugs; Factor E, small population size and limited distribution; Factor E, lack of 

mature reproductive individuals; and Factor E, competition with invasive 

introduced plants).

Delisting Criterion 3: Habitat quality. All of the populations that meet Delisting 

Criterion 1 above must be fenced and protected from ungulates, with agreements 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

26

from conservation partners to maintain those protections in perpetuity. The 

agreements will also include provisions for invasive introduced plant removal, as 

appropriate, and adaptive management plans to address habitat degradation by 

feral pigs and herbivory by caterpillars and other unforeseeable threats. In 

addition, the agreements will include provisions for maximizing native plant 

biodiversity in these areas that is appropriate for that particular habitat and 

location. (Factor A, habitat degradation by invasive introduced plants and feral 

pigs; Factor A, climate change; Factor A, landslides and flooding; Factor C, 

herbivory by unknown native caterpillar species; Factor C, predation or herbivory 

by rats and nonnative slugs; Factor E, small population size and limited 

distribution; and Factor E, competition with invasive introduced plants).

D. RECOVERY ACTIONS

Recovery actions are taken from the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1996) and are summarized in Appendix A of this Addendum.

See the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996), beginning 

on page 65, for the outline of recovery actions for Phyllostegia hispida.

See the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996), beginning 

on page 67, for the narrative outline of recovery actions for Phyllostegia hispida. 

These recovery actions articulate several elements of our Strategic Habitat 

Conservation framework. These elements include program delivery of 

conservation actions, outcome-based monitoring to evaluate success, and targeted 

assumption-driven research to correct uncertainties in the biological foundation 

for management (USFWS 2008b). Because the ongoing management actions for 

Phyllostegia hispida are critically important to its survival and are inherently 

based on limited information, it is crucial to effectively use adaptive management 

to iteratively assess successes and failures and modify management in response.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

27

IV. Implementation Schedule

The Implementation Schedule outlines the recovery actions and estimated 

costs for the recovery program for Phyllostegia hispida, as set forth in this 

recovery plan. It is a guide for meeting the objectives and actions suggested in

this plan. The Implementation Schedule includes the following elements:

A. DEFINITION OF RECOVERY ACTION PRIORITIES

Priorities in the Implementation Schedule are assigned according to the 

following definition for recovery actions:

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 the recovery objectives.

B. RECOVERY ACTION NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION

The recovery action number and description are extracted from the 

recovery action narrative found in the original Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1996). 

C. RECOVERY ACTION DURATION 

The action duration column indicates the number of years estimated to 

complete the action if it is a discrete action, or if it is a continuous or ongoing 

action. Actions are defined as follows:

C Continuous; action will be implemented on an annual basis once it 

has begun.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

28

O Ongoing; action is currently being implemented and will continue 

until no longer necessary for recovery.

D. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs all Federal agencies to utilize their 

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for 

the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Recovery actions 

identified in this plan imply no legal obligations of State and local government 

agencies or private landowners. However, the recovery of Phyllostegia hispida

may require the involvement and cooperation of Federal, State, local, and private 

interests. For each recovery action described, the column titled “Responsible 

Parties” lists the primary Federal and State agencies we have identified as having 

the authority and responsibility for implementing recovery actions and other 

groups, partners, and partnerships, who are actively involved in recovery

implementation. However, the list of possible stakeholders is not limited to those

below; other stakeholders are invited to participate. When more than one party 

has been identified, the proposed lead party is indicated by an asterisk (*). The 

listing of a party in the Implementation Schedule does not require, nor imply a 

requirement, that the identified party has agreed to implement the action(s) or to 

secure funding for implementing the action(s). However, parties willing to 

participate may benefit by being able to show in their own budgets that their 

funding request is for a recovery action identified in an approved recovery plan 

and is therefore considered a necessary action for the overall coordinated effort to 

recover P. hispida. 

E. COST ESTIMATES

The Implementation Schedule provides total estimated costs of 

implementing recovery actions for the fiscal years 2014 through 2018. Cost 

estimates for recovery actions are based on estimated time to delisting. The

inclusion of estimated costs in this recovery plan does not commit any agency or

party to an expenditure of funds. Therefore, initiation and completion of these

actions is subject to the availability of funds, as well as other constraints affecting

the stakeholders involved.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

29

F. ACRONYMS AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

BOT Various Botanical Gardens (e.g., National Tropical 

Botanical Garden, Lyon Arboretum, Waimea Botanical 

Garden)

BRD U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

DOFAW Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Hawai‘i Department of 

Land and Natural Resources

HDOA Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture

NPS National Park Service

PEP Plant Extinction Prevention Program

TNCH The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawai‘i
30

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Molokai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

Implementation Schedule for Phyllostegia hispida

Priority 

Number

Recovery

Action 

Number

Recovery Action 

Description

Action 

Duration 

(Years)

Responsible 

Parties

(* = lead)

Total 

Costs 

through 

2034

Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

1 111

Collect, propagate, and 

maintain ex situ genetic 

stock of taxa facing 

imminent extinction

O

PEP 86.0 9 9 9 9 9

DOFAW 66.0 5 5 5 5 5

USFWS 50.0 5 5 5 5 5

BOT* 86.0 9 9 9 9 9

NPS 54.0 5 5 5 5 5

1 112

Protect remaining wild 

individuals facing imminent 

extinction from immediate 

threats

O

DOFAW* 74.0 7 7 7 7 7

USFWS 74.0 7 7 7 7 7

TNCH 74.0 7 7 7 7 7

1 151 Construct and maintain 

fencing C

DOFAW* 445.0 35 35 35 35 35

NPS 290.0 35 35 35 35 35

TNCH 290.0 35 35 35 35 35

USFWS 290.0 35 35 35 35 35

1 155

Propagate and maintain 

genetic stock of P. hispida

ex situ

O

DOFAW 280.0 29 29 29 29 29

USFWS 82.0 5 5 5 5 5

NPS 125.0 7 7 7 7 7

BOT* 125.0 7 7 7 7 7

1 157

Protect areas from human 

disturbance O

DOFAW* 94.0 9 9 9 9 9

TNCH 68.0 5 5 5 5 5

NPS 58.0 5 5 5 5 5

USFWS 48.0 5 5 5 5 5
31

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Molokai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

Implementation Schedule for Phyllostegia hispida

Priority 

Number

Recovery

Action 

Number

Recovery Action 

Description

Action 

Duration 

(Years)

Responsible 

Parties

(* = lead)

Total 

Costs 

through 

2034

Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

2 12 Identify and map all extant 

wild populations O

DOFAW 34.0 5 5 5 2 2

USFWS* 27.0 5 5 5 2 2

TNCH 27.0 5 5 5 2 2

NPS 27.0 5 5 5 2 2

PEP 49.0 15 10 5 2 2

2 13 Delineate management 

units 5

USFWS* 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

DOFAW 10.0 2 2 2 2 2

TNCH 10.0 2 2 2 2 2

NPS 10.0 2 2 2 2 2

2 14 Ensure long-term protection 

of habitat O

DOFAW* 31.0 3 3 3 3 3

NPS 26.0 2 2 2 2 2

TNCH 26.0 2 2 2 2 2

USFWS 31.0 3 3 3 3 3
32

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Molokai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

Implementation Schedule for Phyllostegia hispida

Priority 

Number

Recovery

Action 

Number

Recovery Action 

Description

Action 

Duration 

(Years)

Responsible 

Parties

(* = lead)

Total 

Costs 

through 

2034

Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

2 1512

Evaluate the potential for 

controlling ungulates 

through eradication 

programs or establishment 

of game preserves

10

DOFAW* 25.0 3 3 3 3 3

USFWS 24.0 3 3 3 3 3

NPS 25.0 3 3 3 3 3

TNCH 26.0 3 3 3 3 3

2 152 Conduct introduced plant 

control O

DOFAW* 385.0 35 35 35 35 35

NPS 110.0 9 9 9 9 9

TNCH 174.0 15 15 15 15 15

USFWS 104.0 9 9 9 9 9

2 153 Provide appropriate fire 

protection, if necessary C

DOFAW* 49.0 5 5 5 5 5

NPS 35.0 3 3 3 3 3

TNCH 35.0 3 3 3 3 3

USFWS 35.0 3 3 3 3 3

2 154 Control rodents, if 

necessary

O

USFWS* 55.0 7 7 7 7 7

DOFAW 40.0 4 4 4 4 4

NPS 40.0 4 4 4 4 4

TNCH 40.0 4 4 4 4 4

2 156 Ensure availability of 

pollination vectors O DOFAW* 28.0 4 4

USFWS 28.0 4 4
33

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Molokai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

Implementation Schedule for Phyllostegia hispida

Priority 

Number

Recovery

Action 

Number

Recovery Action 

Description

Action 

Duration 

(Years)

Responsible 

Parties

(* = lead)

Total 

Costs 

through 

2034

Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

2 158 Control insects and/or 

disease, if necessary O

DOFAW* 55.0 6 6 6 6 6

TNCH 45.0 4 4 4 4 4

HDOA 45.0 4 4 4 4 4

NPS 31.0 4 4 4 4 4

USFWS 31.0 4 4 4 4 4

2 21 Select populations for 

expansion O

PEP* 15.0 1 1 1 1 1

DOFAW 5.0 1 1 1 1 1

USFWS 5.0 1 1 1 1 1

NPS 5.0 1 1 1 1 1

TNCH 5.0 1 1 1 1 1

2 22 Prepare sites and plant O

PEP* 56.0 3 3 3 3 3

DOFAW 15.0 3 3 3 3 3

USFWS 15.0 3 3 3 3 3

NPS 15.0 3 3 3 3 3

TNCH 15.0 3 3 3 3 3

2 31

Collect diagnostic data on 

crucial associated 

ecosystem components

15

BRD* 77.0 13 13 13 13 13

DOFAW 37.0 5 5 5 5 5

2 32 Map introduced vegetation O

BRD* 59.0 9 9 9 9 9

DOFAW 30.0 5 5 5 5 5

TNCH 32.0 5 5 5 5 5

USFWS 30.0 5 5 5 5 5
34

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Molokai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

Implementation Schedule for Phyllostegia hispida

Priority 

Number

Recovery

Action 

Number

Recovery Action 

Description

Action 

Duration 

(Years)

Responsible 

Parties

(* = lead)

Total 

Costs 

through 

2034

Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

2 33 Study various aspects of 

growth O

BRD* 59.0 9 9 9 9 9

DOFAW 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

USFWS 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

PEP 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

BOT 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

2 34 Study reproductive viability O

BRD* 59.0 9 9 9 9 9

DOFAW 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

USFWS 39.0 5 5 5 5 5

TNCH 25.0 5 5 5 5 5

2 35 Determine parameters of 

viable populations O

USFWS* 58.0 9 9 9 9 9

DOFAW 45.0 9 9 9 9 9

BRD 49.0 9 9 9 9 9

2 36

Determine effective control 

methods for insects and/or 

diseases, as needed

O

DOFAW* 39.0 5 5 5 5 5

USFWS 24.0 4 4 4 4 4

BRD 24.0 4 4 4 4 4

TNCH 26.0 4 4 4 4 4

2 37

Evaluate results of actions 

31 through 36 and use in 

future management

O

DOFAW 22.0 1 1 1 1 1

USFWS* 22.0 1 1 1 1 1
35

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Molokai Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

Implementation Schedule for Phyllostegia hispida

Priority 

Number

Recovery

Action 

Number

Recovery Action 

Description

Action 

Duration 

(Years)

Responsible 

Parties

(* = lead)

Total 

Costs 

through 

2034

Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

3 4 Develop and maintain longterm monitoring program C

USFWS* 39.0 5 5 5 5 5

NPS 24.0 3 3 3 3 3

TNCH 44.0 3 3 3 3 3

PEP 44.0 3 3 3 3 3

BOT 43.0 3 3 3 3 3

DOFAW 24.0 3 3 3 3 3

3 51

Investigate feasibility and 

desirability of 

reintroduction, as needed

10

USFWS* 12.0 3 3

DOFAW 12.0 3 3

BRD 12.0 3 3

3 52

Develop and implement a 

plan for reestablishment of 

P. hispida

O

DOFAW 48.0 6 6 7 7 6

USFWS* 33.0 3 3 4 4 3

PEP 33.0 3 3 4 4 3

BRD 33.0 3 3 4 4 3

3 61

Determine number of 

populations and individuals 

needed for long-term 

survival

10

USFWS* 25 3 3 3 3 3

DOFAW 25 3 3 3 3 3

BRD 25 3 3 3 3 3

3 62 Refine downlisting and 

delisting criteria

10

BRD 11 3 3 3

DOFAW 9 3 3 3

USFWS* 11 3 3 3

TOTAL COST 6131 683 673 655 640 621
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

36

V. References

A. LITERATURE CITED

Atkinson, I. A. E., and T. J. Atkinson. 2000. Land vertebrates as invasive species 

on islands served by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 

Pages 19–84 in G. Sherley (technical editor), Invasive species in the 

Pacific: a technical review and draft regional strategy. South Pacific 

Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa.

Benning, T. L., D. LaPointe, C. T. Atkinson, and P. M. Vitousek. 2002. 

Interactions of climate change with biological invasions and land use in 

the Hawaiian islands: modeling the fate of endemic birds using a 

geographic information system. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 99:14246-14249.

Chu, P. S., and H. Chen. 2005. Interannual and interdecadal rainfall variations in 

the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Climate 18:4797-4813.

Cuddihy, L. W., and C. P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of native Hawaiian 

vegetation: effects of humans, their activities and introductions. 

University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. 138 pp.

Diaz, H. F., P.-S. Chu, and J. K. Eischeid. 2005. Rainfall changes in Hawai‘i 

during the last century. 16th conference on climate variability and change, 

American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.

Giambelluca, T. W., J. F. Diaz, and M. S. A. Luke. 2008. Secular temperature 

changes in Hawai‘i. Geophysical Research Letters 35(L12702):1-5.

Gilpin, M. E., and M. E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes 

of species extinction. Pages 19-34 in M. Soule (editor), Conservation 

biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., 

Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

37

Hanley, M. E., M. Fenner, and P. J. Edwards. 1995. The effect of seedling age 

on the likelihood of herbivory by the slug Deroceras reticulatum.

Functional Ecology 9:754–759.

Hawai‘i Biodiversity and Mapping Program. 2005. Program database. 

Unpublished.

Hawai‘i Biodiversity and Mapping Program. 2007. Program database. 

Unpublished.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth assessment report. 

Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Summary for policymakers. 

Available online at <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf>. Accessed 31 January 2008.

Joe, S. M. 2006. Impact of alien slugs on native plant seedlings in a diverse 

mesic forest, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, and a study of slug food plant preferences. 

Master’s thesis for Department of Botany-Ecology, Evolution, and 

Conservation Biology, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, May 2006. 95 pp.

Joe, S. M., and C. Daehler. 2008. Invasive slugs as under-appreciated obstacles 

to rare plant restoration: evidence from the Hawaiian Islands. Biological 

Invasions 10: 245–255.

Lindqvist, C., and V. A. Albert. 2002. Origin of the Hawaiian endemic mints 

within North American Stachys (Lamiaceae). American Journal of Botany 

89:1709-1724.

Lyon Arboretum Micropropagation Laboratory. 2011. Controlled propagation 

report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished.

Mangel, M., and C. Tier. 1994. Four facts every conservation biologist should 

know about persistence. Ecology 75:607-614.

Oki, D. S. 2004. Trends in streamflow characteristics in Hawai‘i, 1913-2002. 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3104. 4 pp.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

38

Olinda Rare Plant Facility. 2009. Report on controlled propagation of listed and 

candidate species, as designated under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

Unpublished.

Pimm, S., H. L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. 

American Naturalist 132:757-785.

Plant Extinction Prevention Program. 2009. Annual report for Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program, fiscal year 2009 (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009). 115 

pages. Unpublished.

Plant Extinction Prevention Program. 2010. Annual report for Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program, fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010). 122 

pages. Unpublished.

Plant Extinction Prevention Program. 2011. Annual report for Plant Extinction

Prevention Program, fiscal year 2011 (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011). 200

pages. Unpublished.

Plant Extinction Prevention Program. 2012. Annual report for Plant Extinction 

Prevention Program, fiscal year 2012 (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012). 169

pages. Unpublished.

Pounds, J. A., M. P. Fogden, and J. H. Campbell. 1999. Biological response to 

climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398:611-615.

Still, C. J., P. N. Foster, and S. H. Schneider. 1999. Simulating the effects of 

climate change on tropical montane cloud forests. Nature 398:608-610.

Stone, C. P. 1985. Alien animals in Hawai‘i’s native ecosystems: toward 

controlling the adverse effects of introduced vertebrates. Pages 254-255, 

261-264 in C.P. Stone and J.M. Scott (editors), Hawai‘i’s terrestrial 

ecosystems: preservation and management. Cooperative National Park 

Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i. 1997. Emergency management of at-risk 

plants. Final report for Kamakou Preserve, Moloka‘i. Submitted to the 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

39

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Agreement 14-48-0001-

95701. 10 pp. + Appendix.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i. 1998a. Kamakou Preserve Moloka‘i, 

Hawai‘i FY 1998 semi-annual progress report. Submitted to Department 

of Land and Natural Resources, Natural Area Partnership Program, and 

Moloka‘i Ranch, Ltd. 11 pp.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i. 1998b. Progress report on the protection of 

10 rare plant species on Moloka‘i. Unpublished report submitted to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, under FWS 

Agreement #1448-12200-97-J136. 12 pp. + Appendix.

Timm, O. and H. F. Diaz. 2009. Synoptic-statistical approach to regional 

downscaling of IPCC twenty-first-century climate projections: seasonal 

rainfall over the Hawaiian Islands. American Meteorological Society 

22:4261-4280.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Endangered and threatened 

species listing and recovery priority guidance. Federal Register 48:43098-

43105. September 21, 1983.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Endangered and threatened 

species listing and recovery priority guidelines correction. Federal 

Register 48:51985. November 15, 1983.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery plan for the Moloka‘i 

plant cluster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 143 pp. 

Available online at 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/960926b.pdf>.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. 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; 

notice of review. Federal Register 62:49398-49411. September 19, 1997.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

40

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Moloka‘i II: Addendum to the 

recovery plan for the Moloka‘i plant cluster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, Oregon. 52 pp. Available online at 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980520.pdf>.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Captive propagation database. 

Unpublished.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; review of native species that are candidates or 

proposed for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings 

on resubmitted petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions; 

notice of review. Federal Register 71:53755-53835. September 12, 2006.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; listing Phyllostegia hispida (no common name) as 

endangered throughout its range; proposed rule. Federal Register 

73:9078-9085. February 19, 2008.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Strategic Habitat 

Conservation handbook: A guide to implementing the technical elements 

of Strategic Habitat Conservation (Version 1.0). Report from the National 

Technical Assistance Team, February 11, 2008. 22 pages.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; listing Phyllostegia hispida (no common name) as 

endangered throughout its range; final rule. Federal Register 74:11319-

11327. March 17, 2009.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Draft recovery plan for 

Phyllostegia hispida: addendum to the Moloka‘i plant cluster recovery 

plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 38 pp.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; notice of availability of draft recovery plan for 

Phyllostegia hispida; addendum to the Moloka‘i plant cluster recovery 

plan. Federal Register 76:31973-31975. June 2, 2011.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

41

Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1999a. Manual of flowering 

plants of Hawai‘i, revised edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Bishop 

Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 1,853 pp.

Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1999b. Climate [adapted from

Price (1983) and Carlquist (1980]. Pages 36–44 in W. L. Wagner, D. R. 

Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer (editors), Manual of flowering plants of 

Hawai‘i. University of Hawai‘i Press, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, 

Hawai‘i.

Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and D. H. Lorence. 2005. Flora of the Hawaiian 

Islands website. Available online at 

<http://botany.si.edu/pacificislandbiodiversity/hawaiianflora/index.htm>.

Accessed September 2012.

Zimmerman, E. C. 1958. Insects of Hawai‘i. Vol. 8. University of Hawai‘i 

Press, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. ix + 456 pp.

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Aruch, Sam. 2006. Assistant Natural Resources Manager, The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai‘i, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Karen Rosa, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated 

May 1, 2006. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida.

Bakutis, Ane. 2011. Moloka‘i Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Chelsie Javar, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated February 

3, 2011. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida – Pelekunu Preserve.

Bakutis, Ane. 2012a. Moloka‘i Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Marie Bruegmann, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated February 

15, 2012. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida final recovery plan.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

42

Bakutis, Ane. 2012b. Moloka‘i Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Chelsie Javar, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated 

September 11, 2012. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida final recovery plan.

Bakutis, Ane. 2012c. Moloka‘i Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Chelsie Javar, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated 

September 12, 2012. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida final recovery plan.

Garnett, Bill. 2006. Horticulturist, Kalaupapa National Historical Park, National

Park Service, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, 

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

dated February 1, 2006.

Hobdy, Robert. 2006. Director, Robert Hobdy Environmental Consultant, Maui, 

Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated May 1, 2006.

Hughes, Guy. 2006a. Natural Resources Chief, Kalaupapa National Historical

Park, National Park Service, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by 

Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office, dated January 27, 2006.

Hughes, Guy. 2006b. Natural Resources Chief, Kalaupapa National Historical

Park, National Park Service, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by 

Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office, dated April 28, 2006.

Kallstrom, Russell. 2012. Information Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy, 

Kualapu‘u, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Marie Bruegmann, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated February 15, 2012. 

Subject: Phyllostegia hispida final recovery plan.

Lau, Joel. 2006. Botanist, Hawai‘i Biodiversity and Mapping Program, 

Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and 
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

43

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated May 1, 

2006.

Misaki, Ed. 2006. Moloka‘i Program Director, The Nature Conservancy of 

Hawai‘i, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated April 14, 

2006. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida outplantings.

Nohara, Torrie. 2006. Na Ala Hele biologist, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, 

Maui, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated April 27, 

2006.

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2007. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated June 

11, 2007.

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2008a. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Karen Marlowe, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated June 9, 

2008. Subject: Current status of wild P. hispida.

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2008b. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Karen Marlowe, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated 

September 29, 2008. Subject: Update on P. hispida.

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2008c. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated May 

27 and 28, 2008.

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2009. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Marie Bruegmann, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated 

November 18, 2009. Subject: Phyllostegia hispida current status.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

44

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2011a. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Chelsie Javar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated January 28, 2011. 

Subject: Phyllostegia hispida – Pelekunu Preserve.

Oppenheimer, Hank. 2011b. Maui Nui Coordinator, Plant Extinction Prevention 

Program, Maui, Hawai‘i. Memo to Loyal Merhoff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated July 8, 2011. 

Subject: Peer review comments for the draft recovery plan for 

Phyllostegia hispida: addendum to the Moloka‘i plant cluster recovery 

plan.

Perlman, Steve. 2005. Research Biologist, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Christa Russell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated December 5, 2005. 

Subject: Phyllostegia hispida.

Perlman, Steve. 2006a. Research Biologist, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated March 27, 2006. Subject: 

Phyllostegia hispida info.

Perlman, Steve. 2006b. Research Biologist, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated April 13, 

2006.

Perlman, Steve. 2006c. Research Biologist, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated May 24, 

2006.

Stevens, Bryon. 2006. Natural Area Reserve Specialist, Maui Department of 

Forestry and Wildlife, Maui, Hawai‘i. Telephone interview by Karen 

Rosa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 

Office, dated June 9, 2006.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

45

Wood, Ken. 2005. Research biologist, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Marie Bruegmann, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated June 22, 2005. 

Subject: Potential candidates.

Wood, Ken. 2006. Research biologist, National Tropical Botanical Garden, 

Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. E-mail to Karen Rosa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, dated February 28, 2006. 

Subject: Phyllostegia hispida info.
APPENDIX A. Summary of Threats for Phyllostegia hispida and Recommended Recovery Actions

(Action numbers are taken from the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan).

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

46

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT

RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTIONS

A Degradation of habitat by invasive 

introduced plant species 2, 3

Protect remaining wild individuals facing imminent 

extinction from immediate threats, identify and map all 

extant wild populations, delineate management units, ensure 

long-term protection of habitat, construct and maintain 

fencing, map introduced vegetation, conduct introduced

plant control (see Actions 112, 12, 13, 14, 1511, 32, 152)

A Destruction and degradation of habitat 

by feral pigs 2, 3

Protect remaining wild individuals facing imminent 

extinction from immediate threats, identify and map all 

extant wild populations, delineate management units, ensure 

long-term protection of habitat, construct and maintain 

fencing, evaluate the potential for controlling ungulates 

through eradication programs or establishment of game 

preserves (see Actions 112, 12, 13, 14, 1511, 1512)

A Habitat degradation by landslides and 

flooding 2, 3

Propagate and maintain genetic stock of P. hispida ex situ, 

construct and maintain fencing, evaluate the potential for 

controlling ungulates through eradication programs or 

establishment of game preserves (see Actions 155, 151, 

1512)
APPENDIX A. Summary of Threats for Phyllostegia hispida and Recommended Recovery Actions

(Action numbers are taken from the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan).

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

47

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT

RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTIONS

A Degradation of habitat from climate 

change 2, 3

Collect, propagate, and maintain ex situ genetic stock of taxa 

facing imminent extinction, protect remaining wild 

individuals facing imminent extinction from immediate 

threats, identify and map all extant wild populations, 

delineate management units, ensure long-term protection of 

habitat, collect diagnostic data on crucial associated 

ecosystem components, propagate and maintain genetic 

stock of P. hispida ex situ, select populations for expansion, 

study various aspects of growth, determine parameters of 

viable populations, develop and maintain long-term 

monitoring program, develop and implement a plan for 

reestablishment of P. hispida, determine number of 

populations and individuals needed for long-term survival

(see Actions 111, 112, 12, 13, 14, 31, 155, 21, 33, 35, 37, 4, 

52, 61)

C Herbivory by unknown native 

caterpillars 2, 3

Identify and map all extant wild populations, delineate 

management units, ensure long-term protection of habitat, 

control insects and/or disease, if necessary, determine effect 

of and control methods for insects and/or diseases, as 

needed, develop and maintain long-term monitoring program

(see Actions 12, 13, 14, 158, 36, 4)

C Predation or herbivory by nonnative

slugs 2, 3

Identify and map all extant wild populations, delineate 

management units, ensure long-term protection of habitat,

control all other threats, develop and maintain long-term 

monitoring program (see Actions 12, 13, 14, 159, 4)
APPENDIX A. Summary of Threats for Phyllostegia hispida and Recommended Recovery Actions

(Action numbers are taken from the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan).

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

48

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT

RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTIONS

C Predation or herbivory by rats 2, 3

Identify and map all extant wild populations, delineate 

management units, ensure long-term protection of habitat,

control rodents if necessary, develop and maintain long-term 

monitoring program (see Actions 12, 13, 14, 154, 4)

E Competition with invasive introduced

plant species 2, 3

Protect remaining wild individuals facing imminent 

extinction from immediate threats, identify and map all 

extant wild populations, delineate management units, ensure 

long-term protection of habitat, construct and maintain 

fencing, conduct introduced plant control, map introduced

vegetation (see Actions 112, 12, 13, 14, 1511, 152, 32)

E Small population size and restricted 

distribution 1, 2, 3

Collect, propagate and maintain ex situ genetic stock of 

taxon facing imminent extinction, protect remaining wild 

individuals facing imminent extinction from immediate 

threats, identify and map all extant wild populations, 

delineate management units, ensure long-term protection of 

habitat, construct and maintain fencing, conduct introduced 

plant control, propagate and maintain genetic stock of P. 

hispida ex situ, control other threats, select populations for 

expansion, prepare sites and plant, ensure availability of 

pollination vectors, develop and maintain long-term 

monitoring programs, develop and implement specific plans 

for reestablishment, determine number of populations and 

individuals needed for long-term survival, refine downlisting 

and delisting criteria (see Actions 111, 112, 12, 13, 14, 151, 

152, 155, 159, 21, 22, 156, 4, 52, 61, 62)
APPENDIX A. Summary of Threats for Phyllostegia hispida and Recommended Recovery Actions

(Action numbers are taken from the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan).

Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

49

LISTING 

FACTOR

THREAT

RECOVERY 

CRITERIA

RECOVERY ACTIONS

E Lack of mature reproductive 

individuals 1, 2, 3

Protect remaining wild individuals facing imminent 

extinction from immediate threats, identify and map all 

extant wild populations, delineate management units, ensure 

long-term protection of habitat, construct and maintain 

fencing, conduct introduced plant control, control other 

threats, collect, propagate, and maintain ex situ genetic stock 

of taxa facing imminent extinction, propagate and maintain 

genetic stock of P. hispida ex situ, select populations for 

expansion, prepare sites and plant, ensure availability of 

pollination vectors, study reproductive viability, determine 

parameters of viable populations, develop and maintain 

long-term monitoring programs, develop and implement 

specific plans for reestablishment, refine downlisting and 

delisting criteria (see Actions 112, 12, 13, 14, 151, 152, 159, 

111, 155, 21, 22, 156, 34, 35, 4, 52, 62)

Listing Factors: 

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (not a threat factor for Phyllostegia 

hispida)

C. Disease or predation 

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (not a threat factor for Phyllostegia hispida)

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

50

APPENDIX B. Summary of the comments on the Draft Recovery Plan for 

Phyllostegia hispida: Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant 

Cluster Recovery Plan

In June 2011, the Draft Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida: 

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan was released for review 

and comment by Federal agencies, the State of Hawai‘i, and the members of the 

public (USFWS 2011a). The public comment period was announced in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 31973) on June 2, 2011, and closed on August 2, 2011 

(USFWS 2011b). More than 100 copies of the draft plan were sent out for review 

during the comment period, including distribution to scientific peer reviewers.

Four letters/comments were received during the comment period. 

Comments were received from three peer reviewers and one State agency. All 

comments received have been considered and incorporated into the approved 

recovery plan, as appropriate. A summary of the substantive comments received 

and the Service’s responses follows below.

Issue 1: Recovery goals and criteria

Comment: Revise description of threats in the recovery objectives to include 

more specific examples of threats to control such as feral ungulates 

and invasive plants.

Response: We have added the suggested examples to the recovery objectives.

Comment: Recovery criteria should focus on establishing viable populations 

of Phyllostegia hispida in appropriate habitat on Moloka‘i.

Response: We agree that viable populations should be established in 

appropriate habitat to ensure the recovery of this species. We 

revised downlisting criterion 1 and delisting criterion 1 to 

emphasize “viable populations”.

Comment: Pollinator studies may help in recovery efforts. If a pollinator is 

identified, its distribution and abundance may be determined.

Response: Research to identify pollinators and dispersal agents has been 

added to the recovery strategy.
Recovery Plan for Phyllostegia hispida:

Addendum to the Moloka‘i Plant Cluster Recovery Plan

51

Issue 2: Management and threats

Comment: Tibouchina herbacea is also well established on Moloka‘i and 

should be added to the list of invasive plants.

Response: We agree and have added it to the list of invasive plants in this 

plan.
Region 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-4181

http://www.fws.gov

July 2013