Draft Revised Recovery Plan

for the N‘n‘ or Hawaiian Goose

(Branta sandvicensis)

(First Revision, July 2004)

(Original Approval: 1983)

Region 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Portland, Oregon

Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

i

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,

publish recovery plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams,

contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Objectives

will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and

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

other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific

actions and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of

any individuals or agencies involved in recovery plan formulation, other than our

own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the

Regional Director or Director as approved. Recovery plans are reviewed by the

public and submitted to additional peer review before we adopt them as approved

final documents. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated

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

actions.

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

Permission to use copyrighted illustrations and images in the revised draft

version of this recovery plan has been granted by the copyright holders. These

illustrations are not placed in the public domain by their appearance herein. They

cannot be copied or otherwise reproduced, except in their printed context within

this document, without the written consent of the copyright holder. 

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘

or Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, OR. 148 + xi pp.

Electronic copies of recovery plans can be obtained from our website at: 

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

<http://endangered.fws.gov./recovery/index.html>
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would like to thank the past and present

members of the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group for drafting portions of this revised

draft plan, and for comments provided on a previous draft. The current member

organizations of the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group are: Hawai`i Division of

Forestry and Wildlife, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, and the Zoological Society of

San Diego. Other organizations contributing to n‘n‘ conservation include: 

Ducks Unlimited, Honolulu Zoo, Kamehameha Schools, N‘n‘ O Moloka`i, The

Peregrine Fund, and The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. This plan was edited by

Colleen Henson and Dr. Ann P. Marshall. The following individuals have made

significant contributions to this document: Dr. Paul Banko, Dr. Jeff Black,

Colleen Henson, Dr. Darcy Hu, Dr. Ann Marshall, John Medeiros, Joey Mello,

Cathleen Bailey, Craig Rowland, Tom Telfer, Dr. Carol Terry, and Dr. Friederike

Woog. We also thank Kitti Jensen, Thomas Kaiakapu, Kathleen Sherry, and Joy

Tamayose for contributing to this plan.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Species Status: The n‘n‘ or Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis)

is listed as endangered by the Federal government and the State of Hawai`i. It is

considered the eighth most endangered waterfowl species in the world (Green

1994). Currently, there are populations in the wild on the islands of Hawai`i,

Maui, and Kaua`i composed of an estimated 349, 251, and 620 individuals,

respectively. In addition, 55 captive-bred n‘n‘ have been released on the island

of Moloka`i since December 2001, as part of a Safe Harbor Agreement. It is

hoped that a population of around 200 n‘n‘ will become established on Moloka!i

as a result of this Safe Harbor Agreement and an island-wide programmatic Safe

Harbor Agreement for n‘n‘ issued in April 2003.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: The n‘n‘ is highly

terrestrial, exhibiting several structural features demonstrating adaptation to life

on an island with limited freshwater. Their historic distribution (after 1778)

reflects only a portion of the range n‘n‘ once occupied as indicated by fossil

remains, but it is likely they utilized grasslands, grassy shrublands, and dryland

forest. Nesting is believed to have occurred primarily in leeward lowlands (under

700 meters [2,300 feet]) during the winter months with birds moving to montane

habitats (above 900 meters [2,900 feet]) in the nonbreeding season. Their present

statewide distribution has been determined largely by the locations of release sites

of captive-bred birds (Banko et al. 1999). N‘n‘ seem to be adaptable and are

currently found at elevations ranging from sea level to almost 2,500 meters (8,000

feet) in a variety of habitats including nonnative grasslands (such as golf courses,

pastures, and rural areas); sparsely vegetated, high elevation lava flows; cinder

deserts; native alpine grasslands and shrublands; open native and nonnative alpine

shrubland-woodland community interfaces, mid-elevation (approximately 700 to

1,200 meters [2,300 to 3,900 feet]) native and nonnative shrubland; and early

successional cinderfall.

The exploitation of n‘n‘ for food by Hawaiians and non-Polynesian settlers is

believed to have been responsible for substantial population declines in lowland

areas, and hunting was a major limiting factor until a hunting ban was passed and

enforced in 1907 (Banko et al. 1999). The main limiting factors currently

affecting n‘n‘ recovery are predation by introduced mammals, insufficient
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

iv

nutritional resources for both breeding females and goslings, limited availability

of suitable habitat, and human-caused disturbance and mortality. Additional

factors that play a role include behavioral problems associated with small

population sizes and captive-bred birds, genetic homogeneity and expression of

deleterious recessive genes, and possibly avian disease.

Recovery Priority Number: The recovery priority number for the n‘n‘ is 2. 

Recovery priority numbers are assigned to a species based on degree of threat,

recovery potential, taxonomic status, and conflict with human activities. 

Numerical ranks range from 1 to 18 with a letter designation of “C” indicating

conflict. The highest priority is 1C; the lowest priority is 18. The n‘n‘’s

recovery priority number of 2 indicates it has a high degree of threat, a high

recovery potential, it has full species status, and it is generally not in conflict with

human activities. 

Recovery Goal: The goal of this recovery plan is to remove the n‘n‘ from the

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (delisting). The

interim goal is to accomplish increases in population sizes and geographic

distribution sufficient to consider reclassification or downlisting of this

endangered species to threatened status.

Recovery Objective: Restore and maintain multiple self-sustaining n‘n‘

populations on Hawai`i, Maui Nui (Maui, Moloka`i, L~na`i, Kaho!olawe), and

Kaua`i. Additionally, the threats to the species must be reduced to allow for the

long-term viability of these populations, and sufficient suitable habitat must be

identified, protected, and managed in perpetuity on each of these islands such that

the species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the

Endangered Species Act.

Recovery Criteria: Consideration for downlisting the n‘n‘ to threatened status

can occur when each of the following criteria have been reached and maintained

for a period of 15 years:

1) Self-sustaining populations exist on Hawai`i, Maui Nui (Maui,

Moloka`i, L~na`i, Kaho!olawe), and Kaua`i. In this case, selfsustaining is defined as maintaining (or increasing) established
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

v

population levels without additional releases of captive-bred n‘n‘,

although habitat manipulation, such as predator control or pasture

management, may need to be continued. At least 7 populations must

exist with the following minimum sizes: 2 populations with 500

breeding adults each, 1 population with 300 breeding adults, 2

populations of 250 breeding adults each, and 2 populations of 100

breeding adults each. The larger three populations must be

distributed on Hawai!i, East Maui, and Kaua!i while two of the

smaller populations must occur on two of the following: East Maui,

Moloka`i, Kaho!olawe, or L~na`i. Increasing population sizes,

establishing multiple populations, and providing for breeding in the

wild will address threats to the n‘n‘ associated with reduced genetic

diversity, behavioral issues stemming from captive conditions, and

the potential for disease transmission.

2) Sufficient suitable habitat to sustain the target n‘n‘ population

levels on each island is identified, protected, and managed in

perpetuity. Securing high quality nesting and rearing habitat and

associated summer flocking habitat is key to n‘n‘ population stability

and growth. Where migration continues to be important, particularly

Hawai!i, the management of established routes and new altitudinal

migration routes must be taken into account to ensure the persistence

of all habitats necessary for the recovery and long-term existence of

n‘n‘. Both public and private lands are important to n‘n‘ recovery

and portions of some n‘n‘ populations may need to be managed on

private lands. Critical elements of habitat identification, protection,

and management will include addressing the threats to n‘n‘ posed by

introduced predators, loss of suitable lowland habitats, poor nutrition,

and human-caused disturbance and mortality.

A downlisting determination can only be made on a “listable entity” under the

Endangered Species Act; listable entities include species, subspecies, or distinct

population segments of vertebrate animals, as defined by the Endangered Species

Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy (USFWS 1996). We have not

analyzed whether any of the current n‘n‘ populations may constitute a distinct

population segment, and there is insufficient information at this time to make such
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

vi

a determination, but in the future, if warranted by additional information,

downlisting may be considered separately for a subset of the n‘n‘ population if

that population subset is shown to meet the definition of a distinct population

segment. In addition, to be proposed for downlisting, any such population subset

must be self-sustaining, have been increasing in size from a minimum of 500 to at

least 1,000 breeding adult birds over a period of 15 years, and sufficient suitable

habitat (per #2 above) must be determined to exist.

Consideration for delisting can occur once all of the downlisting criteria have

been met, and population levels on Hawai`i, Maui Nui, and Kaua`i have all shown

a stable or increasing trend (from downlisting levels) for a minimum of 15

additional years (i.e., for a total of 30 years). A monitoring plan shall be in place

and ready for implementation for a minimum of 5 years post-delisting to ensure

the continuing effectiveness of management actions and the welfare of the

species.

Recovery Actions Needed:

1) Identify and protect n‘n‘ habitat which focuses on the identification and

protection of sufficient habitat to sustain target population levels;

2) Manage habitat and existing populations for sustainable productivity and

survival complemented by monitoring changes in distribution and abundance;

3) Control alien predators which addresses control of introduced mammals to

enhance n‘n‘ populations;

4) Continue captive propagation program which describes techniques and

priorities for the captive propagation and release of n‘n‘ into the wild; 

5) Establish additional n‘n‘ populations which focuses on partnerships with

private landowners; 

6) Address conflicts between n‘n‘ and human activities which addresses

potential management and relocation of n‘n‘ in unsuitable areas;

7) Identify new research needs and continue research which describes general

categories of research needed to better evaluate threats to n‘n‘ and develop

and evaluate management strategies to address these threats;

8) Provide a public education and information program which describes

important outreach and education activities; and 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

1

Priority 1: Actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the species from declining

irreversibly in the foreseeable future. Priority 2: Actions that must be taken to prevent a

significant decline in species population or habitat quality, or some other significant negative

impact short of extinction. Priority 3: All other actions necessary to meet recovery objectives.

vii

9) Validate recovery actions which calls for formalizing the N‘n‘ Recovery

Action Group and evaluating management and research projects to determine

if recovery objectives have been met.

Date of Recovery: Downlisting to threatened could be initiated in 2019 and

delisting could be initiated in 2034, if recovery criteria are met.

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery (next 5 years): $9,958,500

Priority 1 actions1: $7,664,800

Priority 2 actions: $1,607,000

Priority 3 actions: $686,700

The total cost of the n‘n‘ recovery program over the next 30 years cannot be

realistically projected at this time. Future recovery actions will depend upon the

continual evaluation and adjustment of management actions recommended in this

recovery plan to maximize their effectiveness (adaptive management; see

Recovery Action 9). We therefore present our best estimate of recovery costs

over the 5-year timeframe presented in our recovery action implementation

schedule; there are likely to be additional costs that are yet to be determined. We

anticipate updating and revising this recovery plan on a 5-year time schedule, as

needed, and recovery cost projections will be updated accordingly at that time.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

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

II. SPECIES ACCOUNT ...........................................4

A. TAXONOMY ..............................................4

B. SPECIES DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC RANGE AND POPULATION

SIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

D. CURRENT RANGE AND POPULATION SIZE ...................9

1. Hawai`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2. Maui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Moloka`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Kaua`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

E. LIFE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

F. HABITAT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

G. REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CURRENT THREATS . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. Predation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2. Inadequate Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3. Lack of Lowland Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4. Human-Caused Disturbance and Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5. Behavioral Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6. Genetic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

a. Genetic Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

b. Hairy-Down Plumage in Goslings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

7. Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

H. CONSERVATION EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Captive Propagation and Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

a. Captive Propagation in Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

ix

b. Captive Propagation in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

c. Release of Captive-Bred N‘n‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2. Studbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3. Predator Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4. Habitat Enhancement for Wild-Breeding Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6. Monitoring Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

7. Private Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

8. N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

 9. Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

III. RECOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

A. GENERAL RECOVERY STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Hawai`i and Maui Nui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Kaua`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

B. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOVERY CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Downlisting and Delisting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

IV. RECOVERY ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

A. STEP-DOWN OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

B. NARRATIVE OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

VI. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

A. LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Appendix A-1.

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Hawai!i, 1960-2003. . . . . . 110

Appendix A-2.

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Maui, 1962-2003. . . . . . . . 112

Appendix A-3. 

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Moloka!i, 2001-2003. . . . . 114
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

x

Appendix A-4. 

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Kaua`i, 1985-2003. . . . . . . 115

Appendix B.

Native Hawaiian plants known to be food items for n‘n‘ for use by managers

interested in n‘n‘ habitat restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Appendix C.

Native Hawaiian plants n‘n‘ are known to nest under. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Appendix D.

N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Appendix E.

Private Landowner Incentives for Implementation of Conservation 

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Appendix F.

Recovery actions proposed in this plan to address factors currently limiting

the recovery of n‘n‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Appendix G.

Criteria for Reestablishment of N‘n‘ Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Appendix H.

Glossary of Technical Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Appendix I.

Peer and Stakeholder Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

xi

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 1. Total releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ and estimated 2003 population

size by island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Figure 1. Distribution of n‘n‘ on the island of Hawai`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2. Distribution of n‘n‘ on the island of Maui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3. Distribution of n‘n‘ on the island of Moloka`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 4. Distribution of n‘n‘ on the island of Kaua`i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1

Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘

or Hawaiian Goose

I. INTRODUCTION

The Hawaiian Archipelago is among

the world’s most isolated group of

islands. This isolation has produced a

high level of endemism in the flora and

fauna and many groups exhibit

outstanding examples of adaptive

radiation (Scott et al. 1986; Banko et al.

2001). Hawai`i’s remaining flora and

fauna are vulnerable to extinction, and

of the 1,258 animal and plant species

federally listed as threatened or

endangered nationwide, Hawai`i is

home to 322 or roughly 25 percent of all

listed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 2002). A total of 142 endemic

(i.e., found only in Hawai`i) species and

subspecies of birds known from

collected specimens or nonmineralized

fossils have been described from the

Hawaiian Islands (James and Olson

1991; Olson and James 1991; Giffen

1993; Pyle 1997). Following human

colonization of the Hawaiian Islands in

approximately 400 AD, endemic species

declined markedly in both numbers and

distribution (James and Olson 1991;

Olson and James 1991; Banko et al.

2001). Of the 142 endemic bird species

and subspecies, about 95 have been

extirpated since the advent of human

colonization (Banko et al. 2001). The

remaining 45 endemic taxa are also

vulnerable to extinction with 32 taxa

listed as endangered or threatened,

including 30 landbirds and 2 seabirds.

Over 11 species of waterfowl

evolved in the Hawaiian Islands, of

which only 3 are extant today, and the

other 8 or so are known only from fossil

evidence. These species comprise an

unusual assemblage of waterfowl as

most were flightless and many were

terrestrial, herbivorous, goose-like

derivatives of ducks or ancestors of

unknown affinity (Banko et al. 1999). 

In the isolated Hawaiian Islands, all

large native herbivores were waterfowl

(Olson and James 1991; Paxinos et al.

2002a).

Of the five or so endemic goose

species described from the Hawaiian

Islands, only the Hawaiian goose

(Branta sandvicensis, Vigors), better

known by its Hawaiian name, n‘n‘, has

survived to the present day (Olson and

James 1984; Olson and James 1991). 

Fossil remains of n‘n‘ have been

discovered on most of the main

Hawaiian Islands, including Hawai!i,

Maui, Kaho`olawe, L~na`i, Moloka!i,

and Kaua!i (Olson and James 1991). 

Historically (after 1778), n‘n‘ are

known with certainty only from the

island of Hawai`i. Reports of n‘n‘

occurring on Maui in the nineteenth

century are unverifiable (Baldwin 1945;

Kear and Berger 1980; Olson and James

1991). On Oahu, the Branta fossils

discovered so far have been of an extinct

form with reduced wings similar to, but

not identified as, n‘n‘ (Olson and James
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

2

1991). Although anecdotal evidence

indicates n‘n‘ may have occurred on

Ni!ihau (Baldwin 1945), fossils have not

been found there either.

Prior to the arrival of westerners, the

extent of the n‘n‘ population on the

Island of Hawai`i was unknown. 

Although Baldwin roughly estimated it

to be at least 25,000 birds (Baldwin

1945), recent genetic work by Paxinos

et al. (2002b) indicates there were many

fewer n‘n‘ on Hawai`i prior to the early

1800's. Genetic evidence indicates that

the n‘n‘ suffered a great loss in genetic

variability during prehistoric human

population growth (900 to 350 years

ago), which likely was associated with

large declines in the number of n‘n‘. 

During this time period, n‘n‘ were

extirpated on Kaua`i and at least five of

the nine large ground-dwelling

Hawaiian birds went extinct (Paxinos et

al. 2002b). In historic times, Baldwin

(1945) and Fisher et al. (1969) noted

that a significant decline in the n‘n‘

population on Hawai`i began after 1800

as birds became extirpated in lowland

habitats (under 700 meters [2,300 feet]). 

The primary causes of this decline were

habitat loss, hunting during the n‘n‘

breeding season (fall and winter), and

the impacts of alien mammals

introduced during both Polynesian and

western colonization. A variety of alien

mammals continue to negatively impact

n‘n‘. Dogs (Canis familiaris), cats

(Felis cattus), mongooses (Herpestes

auropunctatus), rats (Rattus spp.), and

pigs (Sus scrofa) prey on n‘n‘ while

feral cattle (Bos taurus), goats (Capra

hircus), pigs, and sheep (Ovis aries) can

alter and degrade n‘n‘ habitat through

their foraging activities. By 1952,

Smith estimated the remaining n‘n‘

population to number about 30 birds

(Smith 1952).

While little concern about the fate of

the n‘n‘ had been shown previously in

spite of work by authors such as Dole

(1879), Wilson (Wilson and Evans

1893), Perkins (1903), and Henshaw

(1902), the Hawai!i Board of

Agriculture and Forestry did attempt to

establish a captive flock in 1927. 

Unfortunately, this effort was shortlived and the flock was broken up in

1935 due to fears that disease would

wipe it out, with the consequence that

only one bird was left in 1942, many of

the birds having been released (Kear and

Berger 1980). Finally, in part due to the

suggestions and efforts of J. Donald

Smith (Board of Agriculture and

Forestry) and Charles and Elizabeth

Schwartz who, after 18 months of

intensive field work, wrote that n‘n‘

were facing “imminent extinction”

(Schwartz and Schwartz 1949), money

was appropriated for a n‘n‘ restoration

program (Kear and Berger 1980). The

captive propagation program began in

1949 and captive-bred n‘n‘ have been

released into the wild since 1960

(Appendix A). The success of the

captive rearing program, though off to a

slow start in the early stages (because of
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

3

inbreeding, diet, and unreliable

avicultural techniques), was due to

Herbert Shipman, John Yealland and

Peter Scott of the Wildfowl Trust, Paul

Breese, Director of the Honolulu Zoo,

and Ah Fat Lee who cared for the birds

at PÇhakuloa on Hawai!i (Kear and

Berger 1980). The first two pairs of

n‘n‘ in the program were from

Shipman’s captive flock, with the

addition of a wild female around 1950

to 1951, and another pair were taken

from the wild population on Mauna Loa

in 1960 (Kear and Berger 1980). These

efforts certainly saved the n‘n‘ from

extinction; however, survival and

breeding success in the wild remains

low in most populations (Banko 1988;

Baker and Baker 1995; Black et al.

1997; Banko et al. 1999). With the

current exception of Kaua`i, most

populations in the wild still rely on

captive releases to sustain their

population levels (Stone et al. 1983a;

Black et al. 1991; Banko 1992). 

Although the Kaua`i population is

currently increasing without further

releases, active predator control for

nesting birds has been ongoing and

mongooses have not become established

on the island (T. Telfer, pers. comm.

1998).

The n‘n‘ was declared a federally

endangered species in 1967 (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1967). It is

considered one of the most endangered

geese in the world, the second most

endangered waterfowl in the United

States, and the eighth most endangered

waterfowl species in the world out of 65

endangered waterfowl of the 231

waterfowl species world-wide (Green

1994; Black 1998). Critical habitat has

not been designated for this species. 

The n‘n‘ has a recovery priority number

of 2 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1983a,b). Recovery priority numbers

are assigned to a species based on

degree of threat, recovery potential,

taxonomic status, and conflict with

human activities. Numerical ranks

range from 1 to 18 with a letter

designation of “C” indicating conflict. 

The highest priority is 1C; the lowest

priority is 18. The n‘n‘’s recovery

priority number of 2 indicates it has a

high degree of threat, a high recovery

potential, its taxonomic rank is a full

species, and it is generally not in

conflict with human activities. 

A considerable amount of new

information has been amassed since the

N‘n‘ Recovery Plan was first written in

1983 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1983c). Progress in the fields of

genetics, paleontology, nutrition,

behavior, the effects of predation, and

predator control warrant a shift in

recovery efforts to include more

intensive habitat management and

releases of captive-reared birds at lower

elevations. Changes in captive breeding

techniques have already been adopted

following several studies illustrating the

importance of parent-rearing of goslings

(Marshall and Black 1992; Black et al.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

4

1997). This revised recovery plan

attempts to integrate the new

information into descriptions of the

biology of the n‘n‘ and to use it to

update the goals, management actions,

and research needs in order to achieve

the recovery of the n‘n‘ in the State of

Hawai`i. A list of peer and stakeholder

reviewers to whom the draft recovery

plan was sent for review is provided in

Appendix I. A glossary of technical

terms is provided in Appendix H.

II. SPECIES ACCOUNT

A. TAXONOMY

The n‘n‘ or Hawaiian goose (Branta

sandvicensis) is in the family Anseridae,

subfamily Anserinae, tribe Anserini,

with other true geese. This species is

endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and is

the only one of five or so endemic

Hawaiian goose species to survive into

historic times (Olson and James 1984;

Olson and James 1991). Using genetic

information, Quinn et al. (1991)

speculated that n‘n‘ and Canada geese

(B. canadensis) diverged from a

common North American ancestor less

than 3 million years ago. Paxinos

(1998) estimated that n‘n‘ diverged

from a subspecies of Canada goose 0.82

to 1.08 million years ago, based on

evidence from mitochondrial DNA and

geologically calibrated estimates of

time. Recent DNA analysis suggest that

a single population of Canada goose

became resident on the Hawaiian Islands

and gave rise to a number of diverse true

geese of the islands, thus the n‘n‘ is the

only extant member of an overlooked

radiation of Hawaiian Branta (Paxinos

et al. 2002a).

In the past, specializations of n‘n‘

for terrestrial life and other skeletal

features have prompted some authors to

assign the n‘n‘ to the monotypic genus

Nesochen (Miller 1937; Woolfenden

1961; American Ornithologists’ Union

1983; Quinn et al. 1991) and Quinn et

al. (1991) suggested it was premature to

place n‘n‘ in the genus Branta without

further genetic testing. However, most

recent treatments place the n‘n‘ in the

genus Branta rather than the genus

Nesochen due to the small degree of

divergence from their mainland ancestor

(Berger 1972; Weller 1980; Olson and

James 1991; American Ornithologists’

Union 1993; Paxinos et al. 2002a,b). 

The genus Branta consists of the

following five species (some of which

have subspecies): n‘n‘, Canada goose,

barnacle goose (B. leucopsis), brant (or

brent, B. bernicla), and red-breasted

goose (B. ruficollis).

B. SPECIES DESCRIPTION

The n‘n‘ is a medium-sized goose,

with an overall length of approximately

63 to 69 centimeters (25 to 27 inches). 

The plumage of both sexes is similar. 

The crown and back of the neck are

black, with a bright, buffy (creamcolored) cheek patch. The sides of the

neck are a paler beige color with deep

furrows which are unique among
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

5

waterfowl (Banko et al. 1999). The bill,

legs, feet, and tail feathers are black. 

Contour feathering of the back and

upper wing areas are gray-brown with

lighter distal edges, which gives a

heavily scaled or barred appearance. 

The feathering of the sides, chest, and

belly are lighter gray-brown with a

much less scaled appearance. The rump

is pure white. The irises of the eyes are

a deep chestnut brown. Adaptations to a

terrestrial life include greatly reduced

webbing between the toes, reduced

wings, and a relative increase in the size

of the hind-limbs (Olson and James

1991).

Hatchlings have gray and white

downy feathering, gray bills, and light

yellowish-gray legs and feet. 

Hatchlings often possess a single claw

on the tips of their aluli (the reduced

first digit that projects from the bend of

the wing), which are apparently shed at

a young age. Until the first pre-basic

molt, juveniles are more dull in color

than adults, with much less beige and

more black on the sides of the neck. 

Juveniles resemble the Canada goose

more than adults do (Miller 1937). A

key to ageing n‘n‘ goslings was

developed by Hunter (1995). By 5

months of age, juveniles are nearly

indistinguishable from adults (Banko et

al. 1999).

Males are slightly larger and heavier

than females. Weights of wild and

captive adult n‘n‘ vary over an annual

cycle, with the birds, especially females,

weighing most at the onset of nesting

(prebreeding season) (Kear and Berger

1980). Wild females weigh from 1,500

to 2,100 grams (53 to 74 ounces) and

males weigh between 1,800 and 2,500

grams (63 to 88 ounces) (Banko 1988;

Black et al. 1994). The weights of

captive birds are generally higher than

the weights of birds in the wild (Kear

and Berger 1980). Although the sexes

are very similar, it is possible to

distinguish between males and females

in the field by their size, the shape of the

head, and behavior (Kear and Berger

1980; A. Marshall, pers. comm. 2002).

The vocalizations of adult n‘n‘

include soft mewing or mooing sounds

(a low murmuring nay or nay-nay), loud

cackling calls when alarmed, and

sonorous high-pitched, and typically

goose-like trumpeting sounds for long

distance communication (Kear and

Berger 1980). The shrill, trumpeted

calls are generally disyllabic often

followed by a series of shorter, more

staccato notes and ending with a moan

(Banko et al. 1999). Vocalizations are

similar to, but quieter than, those of the

Canada goose (Johnsgard 1965). Kear

and Berger (1980) described four types

of calls given by goslings: soft pleasure

calls that maintain family contact; a

louder greeting call that may also serve

to maintain contact and family

recognition; a sleepy call given when

tired that may synchronize rest periods;

and a loud, high-pitched distress call
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

6

given when lost, cold, or hungry that

encourages parents to locate and attend

the gosling. The approach of predators

or other threats also elicit soft or loud

alarm calls. Goslings begin to develop

adult-like calls around fledging, but

gosling-like calls may persist up to a

year later (Banko et al. 1999).

As noted above, it seems clear that

n‘n‘ are derived from the genus Branta,

but this species demonstrates

adaptations to a terrestrial and largely

nonmigratory lifestyle on islands with

limited freshwater habitat (Olson and

James 1991; Banko et al. 1999),

including increased hindlimbs,

decreased forelimbs, and reduced footwebbing in comparison to other species

of Branta (Miller 1937; Olson and

James 1991). N‘n‘ also stand taller and

more upright than geese of similar

weight (Kear and Berger 1980; Banko et

al. 1999). Olson and James (1991)

showed that the sternum, bill, mandible,

and frontal bones of n‘n‘ and other now

extinct species of endemic Hawaiian

geese are unique, suggesting that the

n‘n‘ and the extinct Hawaiian Branta

geese constitute a monophyletic

assemblage derived from a single

colonization of the Hawaiian Islands

(Olson and James 1991). The ancestor

of the Hawaiian radiation of Branta

underwent two important changes in life

history: 1) a niche shift from mainly

wetland to mainly terrestrial habitats;

and 2) loss of migration (Paxinos et al.

2002a)

C. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC

RANGE AND POPULATION SIZE

Olson and James (1982, 1991)

speculated that n‘n‘ or closely related

taxa occurred on all of the main

Hawaiian islands, although subfossil

evidence has not yet been found on the

islands of Ni`ihau or O`ahu. The fossil

record shows that the distribution and

diversity of Branta in the Hawaiian

Islands was formerly much greater;

however, the complexity involved in the

systematics of the fossils has not

allowed the conclusive establishment of

all species’ geographic limits at the time

(Olson and James 1991). More recent

analysis has more definitively

established the range of at least two of

the extinct Hawaiian Branta (Paxinos et

al. 2002a).

Olson and James (1991) reported that

bones of Branta sandvicensis are

regularly found in lava tubes in various

locations on the island of Hawai`i, and

bones inseparable from these have been

found in dune and archaeological

deposits on Moloka`i, dune deposits on

L~na`i and Kaua`i, and from lava tubes

on the east slope of Haleakal~ on east

Maui. Remains are also now known

from archaeological deposits on

Kaho`olawe (Olson 1992) and from a

large sinkhole and cave system on

Kaua`i (Burney et al. 2001). No n‘n‘

remains have yet been identified from

O`ahu, where all Branta fossils appear

to be an extinct form having reduced

wings (Olson and James 1991). 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

7

Although anecdotal evidence indicates

n‘n‘ may have occurred on Ni!ihau

(Baldwin 1945), fossils have not been

found there and it is by no means clear

whether n‘n‘ did occur there.

There is limited information at this

time for estimating population numbers

of n‘n‘, either pre-Polynesian or preEuropean contact. Our ability to

estimate these populations is hampered

by a limited understanding of species

composition, or even the gross structure,

of the vegetation prior to the arrival of

the Polynesians. While we have some

knowledge of vegetation in uplands

from remnant forests and shrublands,

information about lowland areas is only

recently coming to light. A recent

examination of sediments and their

fossil contents on Kaua`i has revealed a

diverse lowland biota prior to human

arrival (Burney et al. 2001). This study

found that lowland vegetation on the

south coast of Kaua`i consisted of a

herbaceous component with strand

plants and grasses, and a woody

component that included trees (e.g.,

Pritchardia [loulu palm], Cordia

subcordata [kou], and Pandanus

tectorius [hala or screw pine]) and

shrubs now mostly restricted to a few

higher, wetter, and less disturbed parts

of the islands. Human arrival has

greatly altered these lowland areas

resulting in a different assemblage of

plants and animals today. These

changes need to be considered when

restoring n‘n‘ habitat and reintroducing

n‘n‘ to unoccupied areas. Beyond their

distribution as indicated by fossil

evidence to date (Olson and James

1982; Burney et al. 2001), we have little

idea of the past n‘n‘ populations on the

different islands.

According to Kirch (1985), n‘n‘

occurred on all or most of the main

Hawaiian Islands before and during

Polynesian colonization (around 1,600

years before present). Since the arrival

of Europeans (in the late 1700's),

naturally occurring n‘n‘ have been

known with certainty only from the

island of Hawai`i. Baldwin (1945)

wrote that early records indicate there

was a large population of n‘n‘ on

Hawai`i until at least 1823, with

declines noted by 1864. Perkins (1903)

noted that n‘n‘ were widely distributed

on Hawai`i and fairly common in some

localities. Reports from Ellis (1917 in

Baldwin 1945) of vast flocks of n‘n‘ in

the interior of the island of Hawai`i are

based on second- and third-hand reports

from local residents. Although Baldwin

(1945) determined that 25,000 n‘n‘ is a

reasonable estimate for what he terms

the original (eighteenth century)

population of n‘n‘ on Hawai`i, there is

no concrete evidence to support this

number, and actually, Baldwin notes

that he made up this population estimate

for convenience. Recent genetic work

indicates that n‘n‘ populations on

Hawai`i lost most of their mitochondrial

DNA variability long before the historic

population decline (Paxinos et al.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

8

2002b). According to this research, the

n‘n‘’s loss of genetic variability took

place during prehistoric human

population growth (900 to 350 years

ago), during which time n‘n‘ were

extirpated on Kaua`i and at least five of

the nine large ground-dwelling

Hawaiian birds went extinct. Paxinos et

al. (2002b) found a n‘n‘ haplotype

diversity of 0.802 in the paleontological

samples, but only 0.067 in the

archaeological and museum samples. 

The data suggest that there was a

prehistoric population bottleneck and

that there were far fewer n‘n‘ on

Hawai`i prior to the early 1800's than

the 25,000 estimated by Baldwin

(Paxinos et al. 2002b).

Baldwin (1945) and Fisher et al.

(1969) noted that the historic decline in

the n‘n‘ population on Hawai`i began

after 1800 as birds became extirpated in

lowland habitats. The range of n‘n‘, as

roughly estimated by Baldwin (1945),

shrank from 6,410 square kilometers

(2,475 square miles) in 1800 to 2,979

square kilometers (1,150 square miles)

during the period from 1900 to 1944, a

loss of over half the n‘n‘ habitat

remaining on Hawai`i following

European contact. Between 1900 and

1944, their range and numbers were

further restricted to the upland habitats

in more remote areas, with the majority

of the population located in the

Hualalai-Pu`uwa`awa`a area which was

then the most important breeding area

for n‘n‘. Baldwin (1945) also reported

many observations of n‘n‘ on Mauna

Loa above K§lauea Crater. Smith (1952)

estimated that the population in 1952

was about 30 birds.

Baldwin (1945) believed that

although there was not complete proof,

there were enough records to indicate

that a wild goose, which he presumed

identical to n‘n‘, formerly occurred on

Maui. Anecdotes suggest that n‘n‘

were seen on Haleakal~ Volcano, Maui,

as late as 1914 (Baldwin 1945). 

However, if there was a Maui

population of n‘n‘ at the time of

European contact, it was probably

extirpated before 1890 (Henshaw 1902). 

Anecdotal accounts of n‘n‘ on Kaua`i

and Ni`ihau in the 1800's have been

generally discounted (Henshaw 1902;

Baldwin 1945; Banko et al. 1999).

Fossil evidence suggests that on

islands less than 1,600 meters (5,248

feet) in elevation, n‘n‘ populations were

once abundant in lowland habitats

(Olson and James 1991). Following

human colonization, these lowland

populations declined or were lost due to

habitat alteration, hunting, and predation

by introduced mammals. Populations

on the higher, larger islands (Maui and

Hawai`i), however, persisted into the

historic period likely due to the

availability of larger tracts of habitat,

particularly in remote, rugged, upland

areas with less intense hunting and

predation pressure (Banko et al. 1999). 

Burney et al. (2001) also noted that
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

9

many plant and animal species,

including n‘n‘, may be restricted to

high elevations today because these

areas have resisted most human-induced

changes more effectively than the

coastal (0 to 300 meters [0 to 984 feet])

lowlands. The alteration of lowlands by

humans was caused by clearing of land

for settlements, roads, and agriculture,

browsing by introduced ungulates,

increased frequency of fires, and the

spread of alien plants and animals

(Baldwin 1945, 1947; Kirch 1982, 1983;

Scott et al. 1986; Cuddihy and Stone

1990; Banko et al. 1999).

D. CURRENT RANGE AND

POPULATION SIZE

Populations of n‘n‘ currently exist

on the islands of Hawai`i, Maui, and

Kaua`i with an estimated statewide

population of around 1,300 birds (Table

1). This estimate includes the n‘n‘

released since 2001 on the Island of

Moloka`i at Puu O Hoku Ranch as part

of their Safe Harbor Agreement with the

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Although the Moloka`i birds

are too recently reintroduced to be

considered established, they have

already begun to breed and three

goslings have been fledged to date. 

With additional releases on Moloka`i, it

is hoped that this population will

become self-sustaining in the near

future.

The statewide population estimate

represents an increase from the 1998

estimate of around 885 birds, primarily

due to increases of the number of n‘n‘

on Kaua!i. In particular, the Crater Hill

population on Kaua!i is believed to be

doing well for several reasons: 1) the

area is fenced and there is an active

predator control program; 2) mongoose

do not appear to be established on

Kaua`i, though there are increasing

verified and unverified reports of

individual mongoose on the island; 3) it

is a lowland site that may provide better

habitat for n‘n‘; and 4) irrigation of

areas around Kilauea Point may attract

nesting birds and may increase gosling

survival (Telfer 2003; Telfer and Hu,

pers. comm. 2001). There are currently

an estimated 144 n‘n‘ in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park, around 205 on

other scattered sites around Hawai`i,

200 to 230 in Haleakal~ National Park,

85 on west Maui, and 620 on Kaua`i (C.

Bailey, D. Hu, T. Kaiakapu, J.

Medeiros, J. Mello, K. Sherry, and J.

Tamayose, pers. comm. 2003). All

populations have been or are being

supplemented by captive-bred birds (see

Section H, 1. Captive Propagation and

Release). It is believed that many of the

n‘n‘ populations have suffered from the

recent drought years, including

populations on Kaua!i, and of particular 

concern is a nearly 50 percent decline in

the number of wild (in this instance wild

refers to n‘n‘ that were not captivebred) birds in Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park since the mid-1990's 
10

TABLE 1. Total releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ in Hawai`i and current estimated population size by islanHawai`i

Release Sites2

Hakalau

NWR

Hawai!i

Volcanoes NP Kahuku Kea!au Keauhou Keauhou II

K

!}

Total n‘n‘ released 33 290 418 15 418 348 

Estimated 2003 n‘n‘

population

50 144 10 60 15 5 

Maui

Release Sites

East Maui Total

East Maui

Release Site

West Maui TOTAL

Hosmer Maui

Grove Palikã Hana!ula

Total n‘n‘ released 16 495 511 87 598

Estimated 2002 n‘n‘ population 251 85 336
11

TABLE 1 (continued). Total releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ in Hawai`i and current estimated population Moloka`i

Puu O Hoku

Ranch

TOTAL

Moloaka`i

Total n‘n‘ released 55 55

Estimated 2003 n‘n‘ population 55

Kaua`i

Release Site

TOTAL

Hanalei Kaua`i

NWR

K§lauea Point

NWR/Crater

Hill K§pã Kai

N~ Pali Coast

Total n‘n‘ released 24 38 25 62 149

Estimated 2002 n‘n‘

population

24 238 219 83 564

1 Sources: N‘n‘ Restoration Project, Hawai`I Division of Forestry and Wildlife, unpublished data; Hawai`I Division of Forestry and W

Hu, J. Medeiros, J. Mello, C. Natividad, J. Tamayose, T. Kaiakapu, and T. Telfer, pers. comms. 2001-2003.

2 NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; NP = National Park.3 This estimate includes an estimated 55 wild birds at Pu!uwa!awa!a and surrounding areas.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

12

(Telfer 2003; D. Hu and K. Sherry, pers.

comms. 2003).

1. Hawai`i

On the Island of Hawai`i, n‘n‘

currently are found in a number of areas

from sea level to 2,400 meters (7,900

feet), with population centers of n‘n‘ in

the wild at the following locations: 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge;

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park;

Kahuku; Keauhou area including Kãlani;

K§puka `}inahou area including Pu`u

`Æ`Ç Ranch and Pu`u 6677 (a nearby

k§puka [vegetated area within a lava

bed]); PÇhakuloa area including Saddle

Road, and the Pu`uwa`awa`a area

including Pua Lani and Pu`uanahulu. 

Semi-captive (birds that are fed and quite

tame, but are not kept in a fenced

enclosure) flocks occur at Kings Landing

and Shipman Estate at Kea!au near Hilo

(Figure 1). Supplements of captive-bred

n‘n‘ to the wild n‘n‘ population on

Hawai`i have occurred since 1960 in

various locations (Appendix A-1). For

many years, the largest population of

n‘n‘ on Hawai`i has occurred in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park. Other

locations around the island have much

smaller numbers ranging from an

estimated 5 to 60 n‘n‘ in 2003 (Table 1). 

The six to seven discrete flocks on

Hawai!i have experienced low to

moderate levels of interchanges (Black et

al. 1997).

2. Maui

Thirty captive-bred n‘n‘ from The

Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in

Slimbridge, England, and five n‘n‘

from the State’s PÇhakuloa propagation

project on Hawai`i were first released at

Palikã in Haleakal~ Crater, Haleakal~

National Park on July 26, 1962 (Walker

1969; Kear and Berger 1980). These

n‘n‘ were the first captive-bred birds to

be released into the wild on Maui. On

east Maui, n‘n‘ currently are found

primarily within the boundaries of

Haleakal~ National Park, at elevations

of around 2,000 to 2,300 meters (6,300

to 7,700 feet). The last major release of

captive-bred n‘n‘ at this location 

numbered 47 birds and occurred in 1977

(Appendix A-2). The east Maui

population ranged from 125 (± 25) in

1980 (Devick 1981a) to 144 in 1990

(Natividad-Hodges 1991; Hawai`i

Division of Forestry and Wildlife-Maui,

and Haleakal~ National Park, unpubl.

data). The Haleakal~ National Park

n‘n‘ population has fluctuated from 200 

to 250 birds for the last 8 to 10 years (C.

Bailey, pers. comm. 2001; Table 1). 

N‘n‘ have also been observed in the

Kahikinui, Kiheo, Kula, Lahaina,

Olinda, Wailuku, and West Maui areas

on the outer slopes of Haleakal~ Crater

(J. Medeiros, pers. comm. 1998; Figure

2).

The State is attempting to establish a

second population of n‘n‘ on Maui 

through releases at a new site on west

Maui at Hana`ula. Eighty-seven n‘n‘
13

13
14
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

15

have been released at this site between

1995 and 2003 (Appendix A-2; Hawai`i

Division of Forestry and Wildlife 2000;

J. Medeiros, pers. comm. 2003). The

released birds are apparently doing well

in this lower elevation site and in 1998,

four goslings were successfully fledged

from the first nest recorded in the area

(Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife 2000).

3. Moloka`i

On August 22, 2001, we issued a

Federal permit for a Safe Harbor

Agreement2

 with Puu O Hoku Ranch on

Moloka`i and with the Hawai`i Division

of Forestry and Wildlife. This Safe

Harbor Agreement gives the landowner

assurances that if they maintain or

improve n‘n‘ habitat for at least 7 years,

no additional restrictions will be placed

on the property because of the presence

of endangered species. With the

establishment of this first Safe Harbor

Agreement to be authorized in the State

of Hawai`i, 11 n‘n‘ (10 young of the

year and 1 adult) were released in

December 2001 into an open-top pen on

the ranch. A total of 55 n‘n‘ have been

released through 2003 (Appendix A-3;

Figure 3). Two of the n‘n‘ released in

December 2001 paired and bred

successfully, fledging one gosling in

2002, and two more in 2003 (J.

Medeiros, pers. comm. 2002, 2003). 

Additional releases are planned to

supplement this group in the near future.

According to the Safe Harbor

Agreement, the ranch eventually could

support as many as 75 n‘n‘, with a goal

of reaching an island-wide population of

200 birds. It is hoped that other

landowners on Moloka`i will sign onto a

programmatic island-wide Safe Harbor

Agreement that was recently developed

by the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to help recover n‘n‘ and their

habitat. As n‘n‘ are expected to spread

out over the island from Puu O Hoku

Ranch, other landowners can sign onto

the programmatic Safe Harbor

Agreement and would then also be

covered for maintaining n‘n‘ and their

habitat while continuing operational

activities on their lands. 

4. Kaua`i

There are currently four n‘n‘

population centers on Kaua`i, each

resulting from releases of captive-bred

birds at different times (Appendix A-4). 

With the exception of the N~ Pali Coast

population, all of the Kaua`i populations

are found at low elevations, ranging

from sea level to 180 meters (600 feet)

(Figure 4). Approximately 25 captive

n‘n‘ were released by K§pã Kai Ranch

in 1985 on the southeast coastline of

Kaua`i. These birds were originally

obtained from the Shipman Estates on

Hawai`i in the late 1960's. Another 38 

2

See Appendix E for an explanation

of Safe Harbor Agreements.
16
17
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

18

captive-bred n‘n‘ have been released at

the K§lauea Point National Wildlife

Refuge since 1991. These birds have

bred successfully, and together these

populations are now estimated to

number 358 individuals. A third

population was initiated on the N~ Pali

Coast of northwestern Kaua`i with the

release of 62 captive n‘n‘ from 1995 to

1996. This population was released at

100 meters (330 feet) elevation but the

birds subsequently moved to a higher

elevation to breed (500 meters [1,650

feet]); this population currently

numbers about 61 birds. Twenty-four

n‘n‘ were introduced to the Hanalei

National Wildlife Refuge in April 2000. 

The total Kaua`i population was

estimated at 525 n‘n‘ as of April 2002

(T. Telfer, pers. comm. 2002; Table 1)

and the 2003 population estimate was

620 birds (Telfer 2003).

Rave (1995) found that n‘n‘ on

Kaua!i had a significantly higher

similarity coefficient distribution (i.e.,

the lowest level of genetic variation) of

all birds sampled from six wild

populations on Hawai!i, Maui, and

Kaua!i. Rave (1994) also found

evidence that as inbreeding increased,

hatchability and survivorship decreased

in the captive Hawai!i population, and

hatchability decreased in the The

Waterfowl and Wetlands Trust

population. The addition of wild birds

to captive populations helps to reduce

inbreeding and increase productivity

(Kear and Berger 1980; Rave 1994).

The expansion of the Kauai population

in the 1990's, while likely due primarily

to the lack of an established mongoose

population on the island, as well as the

availability of lush lowland habitat, may

have also profited by the introduction of

other captive-reared n‘n‘ in the early

part of that decade. Additional genetic

studies would establish whether genetic

variation of n‘n‘ on Kaua!i had

increased after more captive releases

occurred. Further discussion on

genetics is provided in Section G6 -

Genetic Issues.

E. LIFE HISTORY

Historical reports indicate that n‘n‘

bred and molted primarily in the

lowlands during the winter months and

moved up-slope (above 1,200 meters

[3,900 feet]) in the hotter and drier

summer months (Henshaw 1902;

Perkins 1903; Munro 1944; Banko

1988). It is thought that not only were

food resources in the lowlands improved

during the winter rains, but nesting

success and gosling survival in the

warmer, low elevation areas were likely

better as well (Henshaw 1902; Perkins

1903; Munro 1944; Baldwin 1945). 

Likewise, some foods (berries and some

grasses) were abundant in the uplands in

the summer when n‘n‘ returned with

their fledged goslings (Henshaw 1902;

Baldwin 1947). Local movements,

perhaps within a 10 kilometer (6 mile)

area, of n‘n‘ flocks out of specific

nesting areas after offspring have
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

19

fledged has been reported as occurring

between June and September; however,

no pronounced seasonal altitudinal

movements have been observed in

recent times (Stone et al. 1983b; Banko

1988; Banko et al. 1999). These

seasonal movements are best known

from a relict population nesting on

Keauhou Ranch, Mauna Loa Volcano,

Hawai`i, in the 1950's (Woodside 1956;

Elder and Woodside 1958). According

to Banko et al. (1999), populations there

today seem to behave similarly, with

birds beginning to visit nesting areas

from August to September, remaining at

these sites until April after the adults

molt and goslings fledge, and then

flocking and wandering to summering

areas in mid-June. It is not known how

the introduction of captive birds has

affected the remaining wild population,

in terms of integrating with the relict

flock; however, as noted, a population

does still occur in the area.

Because of the changes in habitats

and the fact that most existing n‘n‘

populations in the wild are the result of

reintroductions of captive-bred birds,

traditional movement patterns have been

mostly lost, though it appears new ones

may be forming: although not well

developed, flocks move seasonally

among at least four major areas around

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park (Stone

et al. 1983; Hoshide et al. 1990; Banko

et al. 1999). Banko and Manuwal

(1982) observed that n‘n‘ disperse from

breeding areas during the nonbreeding

season and wander extensively. Today,

n‘n‘ tend to move primarily within midand high-elevation habitats on Hawai!i

and Maui where lowland habitats are

generally unsuitable because of

predation and changes in vegetation

(Banko and Elder 1990; Banko et al.

1999). Many n‘n‘ at Haleakal~

National Park move from the crater

floor to surrounding ridges and outer

slopes of the volcano during the summer

(Bailey and Medeiros, pers. comms.

cited in Banko et al. 1999). On Kaua!i,

n‘n‘ tend to move between lowland

agricultural and other modified habitats

near the coast, generally traveling less

than 13 kilometers (8 miles) (Telfer

1996; Banko et al. 1999).

The n‘n‘ has an extended breeding

season with eggs reported from all

months except May, June, and July. 

This timeframe constitutes the longest

nesting season reported for wild geese

(Banko et al. 1999). However, the

majority of birds in the wild nest during

the rainy (winter) season between

October and March, with the greatest

numbers of first clutches produced

between October and December (Kear

and Berger 1980). Nesting peaks in

December and most goslings hatch from

December to January (Banko et al.

1999).

N‘n‘ are ground-nesters. The nest

consists of a shallow scrape, moderately
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

20

lined with plant materials and down,

which is usually well-hidden in the

dense shade of a shrub or other

vegetation. Nest sites include various

habitat types ranging from beach strand,

shrubland, and grassland to lava rock,

and elevations ranging from coastal

lowlands to alpine areas (Banko 1988;

Banko et al. 1999). On Hawai`i and

Maui, most nests are built under native

vegetation, which predominates in the

nesting areas, including Styphelia

tameiameia (pãkiawe), Dodonaea

viscosa (`a`ali`i), Vaccinium reticulatum

(`Çhelo), and Metrosideros spp. (`Çhia) 

(Appendix C). On Kaua`i, however,

alien plant species dominate most

nesting areas and n‘n‘ build their nests

under species such as Schinus

terebinthifolius (christmasberry),

Lantana camara (lantana), and

Casuarina equisetifolia (ironwood)

(Banko et al. 1999). While the female

incubates the eggs, the male stands

guard nearby, often from an elevated

location. When the female leaves the

nest to forage, the male generally

follows her to forage and to guard her

rather than guarding the nest (Marshall,

pers. comm. 2002). If the female

remains near the nest while foraging, the

male will guard both the female and the

nest (Banko 1988).

Banko (1988) reported that n‘n‘

generally nest in areas associated with

release sites. Recent analysis shows that

during the early stages of the

reintroduction program, the majority of

n‘n‘ reared and released in low- to midelevation sites in Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park nested close to those areas

but began moving away and utilizing

other breeding areas as bird density

around release pens increased and

maintenance of the lowland pens was

discontinued (Woog 2000). Most of the

breeding areas that were colonized were

at mid-elevations, but whether this is

due to preference of sites with higher

rainfall or simply the result of greater

availability of such sites is unknown

(Woog 2000). Additional research is

needed to determine if variation in natal

dispersal distances is the result of

adaptation to fluctuating environmental

conditions (Woog 2000). In general,

however, females remain near natal

fledging sites for nesting while males

tend to disperse, although wild females

tend to be more philopatric than released

ones (Banko and Manuwal 1982; Woog

2000). N‘n‘ usually pair for life and the

birds typically remain in close proximity

to each other during the year (Banko et

al. 1999; U. Zillich and J. Black,

unpubl. data). Extra birds have

occasionally been associated with

nesting attempts, but extra-pair

copulations have never been observed

(Banko et al. 1999). On average,

approximately 80 percent of all birds are

paired in any given year, and 40 to 60

percent of these pairs will attempt to

nest (Banko 1988). A clutch typically

contains 3 to 5 eggs (mean 3.13 ± 1.07,
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

21

range 1 to 6, n = 552 nests in the wild;

Black, unpubl. data) laid at 2 day 

intervals (n = 8 nests) (Banko 1988;

Banko et al. 1999). Incubation, by the

female only, begins immediately

following laying of the last egg and lasts

for 29 to 31 days. If eggs are abandoned

or destroyed prior to hatch, relaying

may occur (Banko 1988), usually within

14 to 60 days depending on female

condition and duration of prior

incubation. Banko (1988) found that at

least 9 percent of females in the wild

renested after predators destroyed their

first nest or the first brood died. The

fertility of second clutch eggs is less

than that of eggs in first clutches (F.

Duvall, pers. comm. 1994). Second

clutches of n‘n‘ in the wild were laid

during January to March with goslings

hatching 1 month later (Banko 1988).

Generally, all eggs in a clutch hatch

within a 24-hour period. The young

remain in the nest for 1 to 2 days

(Banko et al. 1999). Fledging of captive

birds occurs at 10 to 12 weeks posthatch, but may be longer in the wild (D.

Hu, pers. comm. 1999). During molt,

adults are flightless for a period of 4 to 6

weeks, generally attaining their flight

feathers at about the same time as their

offspring. Goslings are virtually

indistinguishable from adults at 4 to 5

months of age (Banko et al. 1999). 

When flightless, goslings and adults are

extremely vulnerable to predators such

as dogs, cats, and mongooses. From

June to September, family groups join

others in postbreeding aggregations

(flocks), often far from nesting areas. 

Family break-up occurs just prior to a

new nesting season, when the goslings

are 10 to 11 months old. Family groups

also may reunite after nesting and

siblings may continue to associate with

each other in the nonbreeding season

over their lifetimes (10+ years) (D. Hu,

pers. comm. 1999).

Compared to the Canada goose, n‘n‘

wings are reduced by about 16 percent

in size and their flight is weak. 

Nonetheless, n‘n‘ are capable of both

inter-island and high altitude flight

(Miller 1937; Banko et al. 1999). There

are at least 10 records of n‘n‘ that have

flown from Maui to Hawai`i and 1

record of a n‘n‘ that flew from Hawai`i

to Maui (Banko and Elder 1990). There

is little information on movements of

n‘n‘ prior to human contact; however,

no geographic variation is described,

probably because of inter-island

immigration (Banko et al. 1999). N‘n‘

currently range within areas of less than

200 square kilometers (772 square

miles) in size, with little dispersal

occurring from fledging to breeding

(Banko et al. 1999). Some variability in

movements of n‘n‘ has been noted by

various authors, and this may be the

result of a combination of factors,

including food availability, weather

conditions, and predation (Black et al.

1997; Woog 2000).
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

22

Sexual maturity may be reached by

11 months post-hatch, however pair

formation typically occurs in the second

year of life (Kear and Berger 1980;

Banko 1988; Banko et al. 1999). Fertile

eggs have been produced at ages

ranging from 11 months to 22 years

post-hatch, both in captivity and in the

wild. Wild females produce fertile eggs

for many years, ranging from 2 to at

least 14 years of age, while eggs have

been fertilized by wild males from 2 to

19 years of age (Banko 1988; Banko et

al. 1999). The oldest recorded n‘n‘ in

the wild was 28 years, a bird hatched at

the Waterfowl and Wetlands Trust and

released as a gosling at Haleakal~

National Park. The oldest captive bird,

from a collection in Cleres, France, was

42 years old (Banko et al. 1999). 

Studies of released birds show that

survival and mortality of n‘n‘ is

affected by year of release, age class,

and methods of release (Black et al.

1997). Hu (1998) found that annual

mortality of wild adult females aged 4

years or older was 13.2 percent ± 4.14

SD (n = 218) and 11.3 percent ± 5.22

SD (n = 186) for males more than 3

years old in habitats below 1,220 meter

(4,003 foot) elevation in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park. There also

appears to be differential survival of

males versus females in released birds,

such that males tend to be more

prevalent in the older (more than 1-year

of age) populations on Hawai`i, Maui,

and Kaua`i (Banko et al. 1999).

A list of all known n‘n‘ food plants

is being compiled in a database using

published literature, unpublished notes,

and field observations (Hu 2000; Sherry

2000). The database will also include

information on nutrient analysis, with an

emphasis on endemic and indigenous

plants, though it also includes

information on nonnative species. The

information from this database is also

being used to develop a list of native

Hawaiian plants known to be currently

or formerly utilized by n‘n‘ for use by

managers interested in habitat

restoration for n‘n‘ (Appendix B). 

N‘n‘ are browsing grazers, eating over

50 species of native and introduced

plants (Baldwin 1947; Black et al. 1994;

Banko et al. 1999). The composition of

their diet depends largely on the

vegetative composition of their

surrounding habitats and they appear to

be opportunistic in their choice of food

plant as long as they meet nutritional

demands (Banko et al. 1999; Woog

2000). Because most habitats in

Hawai`i are highly altered and have a

high proportion of nonnatives, there is a

high proportion of nonnative foods in

the n‘n‘ diet (Black et al. 1994; Banko

et al. 1999; Woog 2000). For example,

in 1947, Baldwin identified a native

grass, Deschampsia nubiena, as the

most abundant food item for n‘n‘ on

Hawai`i. However, in the early 1990's,

Black et al. (1994) found Deschampsia

only in droppings of n‘n‘ at Haleakal~

National Park, likely because of a
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

23

change in the vegetation structure over

the past 50 years, since endemic species

such as Deschampsia are outcompeted

by more vigorous, introduced species

(Cuddihy and Stone 1990). It seems

apparent that such adaptability in their

utilization of food items has allowed

n‘n‘ to survive in marginal habitats to

which they were relegated as their

traditional habitats were lost (Black et

al. 1994, 1997; Banko et al. 1999).

The majority of n‘n‘ food items are

leaves and seeds of grasses and sedges,

leaves and flowers of various

herbaceous composites, and various

fruits of several species of shrubs (Black

et al. 1994; Banko et al. 1999). Some

native foods that have been shown

through fecal sample analysis to have a

high occurrence in the n‘n‘ diet include

`Çhelo and pãkiawe berries, Carex

wahuensis (a sedge), and Deschampsia

(a grass) (Baldwin 1947; Black et al.

1994; Appendix B). Nonnative foods

that are frequently used as forage by

n‘n‘ include Pennisetum clandestinum

(kikuyu grass), Holcus lanatus

(Yorkshire fog or mesquite grass),

Sporobolus africanus (rattail grass), and

Hypochoeris radicata (gosmore)

(Baldwin 1947; Black et al. 1994). 

These formal studies on the diet

composition of n‘n‘ have been

conducted on Hawai`i and Maui

(Baldwin 1947; Black et al. 1994; Hu

2000; Sherry 2000; Woog 2000). 

Anecdotal observations of n‘n‘ on

Kaua`i indicate that they feed on

introduced grasses such as Eleusine

indica (wire grass) and Digitaria

adscendens (crabgrass), as well as

gosmore and the berries of the native

Scaevola sericea (naupaka kahakai) (T.

Telfer, pers. comm. 2000).

In general, it is believed that n‘n‘ are

generalists and currently require a

diverse suite of food availability that

may include nonnative and native

vegetation (Black et al. 1994; Banko et

al. 1999). While n‘n‘ readily feed in

both highly altered nonnative and

remaining remnant native habitats, there

have been concerns raised about

whether breeding females and goslings

in highly altered habitats are receiving

adequate nutrition since productivity is

so low in many populations, particularly

on Hawai!i and Maui (Banko 1992;

Black and Banko 1994; Black et al.

1994; Baker and Baker 1995, 1999;

Banko et al. 1999). Baker and Baker

(1995, 1999) suggested that starvation

and dehydration may be the primary

cause of gosling mortality at Haleakal~

National Park. However, these results

are not definitive and more research is

needed. Banko (1988, 1992) found that

starvation or dehydration was a major

factor in the mortality of goslings during

1978 to 1981 on Hawai`i. Black et al.

(1994) observed that n‘n‘ take their

broods to areas where foods may have

higher protein values in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park. Protein is
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

24

known to be important for developing

goslings (Sedinger and Raveling 1984). 

Females need to accumulate adequate

fat reserves for laying and incubation,

and low productivity in n‘n‘

populations has been partly attributed to

the poor nutritional value of altered

habitats (Black et al. 1994, 1997; Banko

et al. 1999). Recently, poor nutrition

has also been raised as a possible

problem on Kaua`i although it is

believed that reproduction is better there

because of the lack of an established

mongoose population as well as a

greater availability of food (Telfer 1995,

1996; Telfer, pers. comm. 1998). 

Studies on diet and nutrition should be

conducted on Kaua`i to examine these

questions.

The development of foraging

behavior in n‘n‘ goslings has recently

been assessed (Rojek 1994b; Rojek and

Conant 1997). N‘n‘ goslings were

found to exhibit food preferences,

possibly based on their early experience

with food items, but which could not be

attributed to protein or water content. 

However, prior food experience did not

preclude them from consuming novel

foods (Rojek and Conant 1997). Rojek

and Conant (1997) also found that

captive-bred goslings, raised on a

limited diet in captivity until adulthood,

do not try novel food items (berries) as

readily as wild goslings; wild-caught

adult n‘n‘ placed in captivity also

consume berries. This suggests that the

length of time in captivity is important

in considering the diet for n‘n‘ that are

reared for release (Rojek and Conant

1997). Rojek (1994b) also found that

goslings raised on a standard diet (grain

plus various plants such as kikuyu grass

and gosmore) in captivity tried a variety

of foods once released, though there was

an initial reliance on grain. Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park is currently

funding studies on the nutritional values

of native food plants and conducting

palatability trials with goslings (Sherry

2000).

F. HABITAT DESCRIPTION

The historical distribution of n‘n‘

(after 1778, the time of first European

contact) reflects only a portion of the

range n‘n‘ once occupied as indicated

by fossil remains, and while the

vegetation structure and composition of

habitats occupied by n‘n‘ before human

settlement are not described, it is likely

they utilized grasslands, grassy

shrublands, and dryland forest (Banko et

al. 1999). Historical data indicates that

they frequented lowland dry forest,

shrubland, and grassland and montane

dry forest and shrubland (Baldwin

1945). The current distribution of n‘n‘

has been highly influenced by the

location of release sites for captive-bred

n‘n‘ (Banko et al. 1999). N‘n‘

currently inhabit elevations ranging

from sea level to 2,500 meters (8,000

feet) and habitat and vegetation
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

25

community types currently utilized by

n‘n‘ range from coastal dune vegetation

and nonnative grasslands (such as golf

courses, pastures, and rural areas) to

sparsely vegetated low- and highelevation lava flows, mid-elevation

native and nonnative shrubland and

early successional cinderfall, cinder

deserts, native alpine grasslands and

shrublands, and open native and

nonnative alpine shrubland-woodland

community interfaces. The areas n‘n‘

inhabit typically have less than 229

centimeters (90 inches) of annual

rainfall.

Some early accounts suggested that

n‘n‘ nested primarily in the highlands

(Peale 1848; Dole 1869, 1879). 

However, more recent interpretations of

information indicate that the majority of

the population formerly bred and molted

in the lowlands (below 400 to 700

meters [1,320 to 2,310 feet]), exploiting

the flush of plant foods which occurred

during the usually wetter winter months,

and retreating to higher elevations

(above 1,220 to 1,520 meters [4,026 to

5,016 feet]) during summer when drier

conditions generally prevailed

(Henshaw 1902; Perkins 1903; Munro

1944; Baldwin 1945, 1947; Olson and

James 1982). Banko (1988) found nests

in the wild as low as 235 meters (775

feet) at Pu`u Kaone, Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park, and as high as 2,300

meters (7,546 feet) at Kuiki, Haleakal~

National Park. The distribution of nests

generally has been associated with the

location of release sites of captive-bred

n‘n‘ since 1960. Consequently, the

ecological zones (Mueller-Dombois and

Fosberg 1974; Mueller-Dombois 1976)

currently utilized for nesting by n‘n‘

range from coastal lowland to subalpine. 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park has

had at least one pair of n‘n‘ that nested

at sea level (Hu, pers. comm. 1999). 

The apparent success of the recently

established (1985) Hanalei National

Wildlife Refuge population on Kaua`i

supports the belief that lowland habitats

may be best able to support viable n‘n‘

populations, especially when mongoose

are not established.

There is great variability in the range

of physiographic features of the sites

currently used by n‘n‘ for nesting

(Banko et al. 1999). In the Kau desert,

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, nest

sites were located in sparsely vegetated

areas with vegetation density ranging

from 0 to 16 plants per square meter (0

to 1.5 plants per square foot) and a

substrate of volcanic rocks intermingled

with sandy patches (Black et al. 1994). 

Pãkiawe was relatively numerous at all

nest sites, while the number of other

plant species varied considerably. Nest

sites studied at Haleakal~ National Park

were located in well vegetated habitat,

13 to 676 plants per square meter (1.2 to

62.8 plants per square foot), and the

most abundant species were `Çhelo

seedlings, gosmore, and Yorkshire fog
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

26

(Black et al. 1994). During the breeding

season, n‘n‘ feed mainly on berries and

other plant items found on lava flows

near their nest sites, although some birds

supplemented their berry diet by feeding

in grasslands, perhaps due to declining

berry density, while during the pre- and

nonbreeding season, their principal

foods are cultivated grasses (Black et al.

1994). There was a seasonal decline in

food quality and density that may

restrict the time available for breeding. 

Woog and Black (2001) found that n‘n‘

selected habitats with food plants of

high protein content.

Areas used by n‘n‘ outside of the

breeding season are less well studied,

although as noted above grasslands may

be important. In some sites, such as

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife

Refuge, it is unclear where the birds go

after breeding (Black et al. 1994; J.

Jeffrey, pers. comm. 2003). A recent

study on the effects of mowing pasture

grasses on grazing intensity at Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park showed that

adult n‘n‘ grazed more in areas with the

sward-forming3

 kikuyu grass than in

areas with bunch grasses (grasses that

grow in tufts), and they preferred

patches with legumes as opposed to pure

grass sward (Woog and Black 2001). 

Adult n‘n‘ also selected sites with grass

having a high water content, grazed

most in grasses shorter than 11

centimeters (4.3 inches), and used

grasslands less during dry periods

though they may be more likely to move

to grass habitats during drought (Black

et al. 1997; Woog and Black 2001). 

Grass with low water content is lower in

protein (Woog and Black 2001).

The presence of standing or flowing

water is not necessary for successful

breeding, although observations of n‘n‘

in the lowland coastal regions of

Hawai`i and Kaua`i indicate that when

standing water is present it is often

readily utilized for drinking and bathing. 

Bodies of water may also be used to

escape from predators when goslings

have not yet fledged and when adults

molt their primary flight feathers. Even

during the non-nesting season, n‘n‘ on

Kaua`i spend much of their time near

and in water, whether at irrigation

reservoirs, golf course water hazards, or

natural or artificial lagoons and ponds. 

Little standing water is available in most

n‘n‘ habitats and water is obtained

primarily from their diet (Banko et al.

1999). As noted above, n‘n‘ are more

terrestrial than most other waterfowl

species, having evolved in habitats with

limited freshwater availability.

As mentioned previously, there is

limited understanding of the vegetation

structure, composition, and dynamics of

Hawaiian habitats occupied by n‘n‘ and

other native species prior to human 3

A sward refers to an expanse of

short grass with continuous cover.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

27

contact and there is little doubt that

changes to these habitats have been

extensive, especially in the lowlands

(Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Banko et al.

1999; Burney et al. 2001). More recent

archaeological work is allowing

examination and improved

understanding of the environmental

history of Hawai`i, including species

composition and the timing of changes,

extinctions, and exotic introductions

(Burney et al. 2001). It is likely that

this work will aid in habitat restoration

efforts for all native species, including

n‘n‘. The information being developed

for the n‘n‘ food database should also

prove helpful in current and future

habitat restoration and management

efforts for n‘n‘ (Hu 2000; Sherry 2000). 

Efforts to conduct habitat restoration by

outplanting native plants known to be

utilized by n‘n‘ are increasing, for

example, in concert with Safe Harbor

Agreements (see Section H - 

Conservation Efforts), and at Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park. Such

restoration projects will result in a

greater suite of food availability from

which it may be expected that n‘n‘ will

realize a benefit in productivity and

gosling survival (Banko et al. 1999; Hu

and Marshall, pers. comms. 2002).

G. REASONS FOR DECLINE AND

CURRENT THREATS

Fossil evidence indicates n‘n‘ were

once abundant on most of the major

Hawaiian islands (Olson and James

1991). The first humans to reach

Hawai`i exploited n‘n‘ for food,

destroyed lowland habitat, and

introduced the first mammalian

predators (Polynesian rats ([Rattus

exulans], dogs, and pigs), factors that

led to the first substantial declines of

n‘n‘ (Olson and James 1991; Banko et

al. 1999). 

It is generally agreed that the major

reasons for continued declines during

the early part of this century were

hunting, which occurred in the fall and

winter during the n‘n‘ breeding season,

continued habitat loss, and predation by

additional alien mammals introduced by

westerners after 1778 including dogs,

cats, mongooses, pigs, and rats, which

prey upon n‘n‘ adults, eggs, and young. 

Humans, feral cattle, goats, pigs, and

sheep also altered and degraded n‘n‘

habitat.

Currently, it is believed that the

following threats are major limiting

factors to n‘n‘ recovery: predation,

nutritional deficiency due to habitat

degradation, lack of lowland habitat,

human-caused disturbance and

mortality, behavioral problems, and

inbreeding depression. Predation is

believed to be the greatest factor

limiting n‘n‘ populations at this time,

and developing effective and

economical predator control will likely

play a key role in the recovery of the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

28

species. Disease may also be a limiting

factor; however, its role in affecting

n‘n‘ recovery is poorly documented and

not well understood and should be

studied further.

The threats to the n‘n‘ are detailed

below and classified according to the

five factors that may negatively impact a

species, leading to its decline, as

identified in section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act. Those five

factors are:

(A) the present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms;

(E) other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence.

1. Predation (Factor C)

Before Polynesian colonization,

only avian predators existed in Hawai`i

(Banko et al. 1999). Most of these

avian predators are now extinct, and

what impacts these avian predators may

have had on n‘n‘ in the past is

unknown. The extant Hawaiian hawk or

`io (Buteo solitarius) has never been

observed killing n‘n‘, though they have

been observed stooping on broods and

harassing adults (Rojek 1994a; Hu, pers.

obs., as cited in Banko et al. 1999). It is

the introduced mammalian predators

that have been identified as causing

significant mortality of n‘n‘ in the wild. 

A study conducted in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park demonstrated

that 77 percent of eggs lost between

1978 and 1981 were lost to mongooses

(Banko 1988). Banko (1992) found that

nesting success (at least one egg

hatched) was nearly twice as high for

n‘n‘ nesting in enclosures as it was for

n‘n‘ that were not provided such

protection. Black and Banko (1994)

reported that a study of predation on

chicken eggs found that mongooses

were the most serious egg predator in all

habitats studied and that clutches placed

in low elevation sites were destroyed

most rapidly (see also Stone et al.

1983).

Predation of n‘n‘ eggs was studied

by Baker and Baker (1995) from 1994

to 1995 at Haleakal~ National Park. 

This study indicated that both rats and

mongooses were visiting nests and

taking eggs. Mongooses predated 9

nests in 1993 to 1994 and 10 in 1994 to

1995, and rats predated 7 nests in 1993

to 1994 and 3 nests in 1994 to 1995

(Baker and Baker 1995). The

significant decrease in rat predation

between years is presumably due to the

extensive trapping and diphacinone

poisoning program conducted against

rats by Haleakal~ National Park staff in

1994 to 1995. The success of this
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

29

predator control effort was reflected by

data collected at the Palikã site: in 1993

to 1994, 12 of 19 nests were predated,

while only 1 full and 2 partial predations

of 17 nests occurred in 1994 to 1995

(Baker and Baker 1995). Goslings have

also been taken by mongooses, rats, and

cats (Hoshide et al. 1990; Banko 1992). 

Dogs and mongooses are responsible for

most of the known cases of predation on

adult birds, though cats and possibly

poachers also kill adults (Banko and

Elder 1990). Adult n‘n‘ that are

incubating eggs, have goslings, or that

are molting, are at an especially high

risk of predation.

On Kaua`i, increasing n‘n‘

populations to date attest to the

advantage of not having an established

mongoose population. However,

mongoose sightings have occurred on

the island since 1968, with at least one

lactating female killed on the road in

1976, and there is a fear that mongooses

may become established in the future. 

Efforts are currently underway to get

better tools for detecting mongooses,

and it will be important to raise public

awareness and increase the reporting of

mongoose sightings for analysis. Data

currently indicate that dogs, both feral

and domestic, and feral cats, are a

primary cause of death of adult n‘n‘ on

Kaua`i, and possibly have an impact on

the Hawai`i population as well (Telfer,

pers. comm 1998; C. Terry, pers. comm.

1999). Telfer (2003) reported that dogs

have been a continual problem to n‘n‘

on Kaua`i and found that 4 of 10 n‘n‘

mortalities recorded from July 1, 2001,

to June 30, 2002, were attributed to

predation by dogs.

Feral pigs impact n‘n‘ by

destroying nests and predating eggs,

young, and adults during their flightless

stage (Kear and Burger 1980; Hu, pers.

comm. 2002). Pigs may roam over

nearly the entire extent of the range of

n‘n‘. Their foraging activities can

result in trampled ground cover, heavily

furrowed ground, and loss of seedlings

and understory plants which can impact

n‘n‘ forage plants. The presence of

pigs can also attract feral dogs to an area

which may then predate n‘n‘ (Banko et

al. 1999).

2. Inadequate Nutrition (Factors A

and E)

Some studies (Banko 1992; Black

et al. 1994; Baker and Baker 1995)

indicate that inadequate nutritional

quality is a limiting factor on n‘n‘

reproduction and gosling survival,

especially on Hawai!i and Maui. For

instance, Baker and Baker (1995) found

that 81.5 percent of gosling mortality in

Haleakal~ National Park during the

1994 to 1995 breeding season was due

to starvation and dehydration. Lack of

adequate food or water also appears to

be a limiting factor in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park. Over 3

seasons in Hawai`i Volcanoes National
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

30

Park, 16 gosling carcasses were

recovered via telemetry. None of these

carcasses showed signs of predation and

postmortem analysis from the first two

seasons failed to find any overt sign of

disease or toxins. The carcass

conditions were consistent with a lack of

adequate food or water (R. Schmidt,

unpubl. reports in Hu 1998). Additional

discussion on this topic is provided in

Section F - Habitat Description.

3. Lack of Lowland Habitat (Factor A)

Today, many n‘n‘ nest in mid- and

high-elevation sites, although it is

believed that they once nested primarily

in leeward lowlands (Baldwin 1947;

Banko et al. 1999). Lowland areas are

used by n‘n‘ populations on Kaua`i

year-round and are seasonally important

habitats for n‘n‘ populations on

Hawai`i. In light of this information and

the fact that the n‘n‘ population in the

lowland Kaua`i sites have been the most

successful, managers have expanded

efforts to find lowland areas for

potential n‘n‘ reintroduction. Recent

n‘n‘ introductions in lowland sites

include the Hana`ula West Maui site and

Puu O Hoku Ranch on Moloka`i. A

programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement

for private lands on the Island of

Moloka`i was recently finalized and it is

hoped this will allow the expansion of

n‘n‘ into additional lowland sites there. 

The Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service intend to continue to work

cooperatively to develop Safe Harbor

Agreements for appropriate lowland

sites on other islands.

The National Park Service is

exploring the possibility of introducing

n‘n‘ to a lowland site (near sea level)

located in the `Ohe`o area of Haleakal~

National Park. This project has the

additional benefit of attempting to mesh

a native Hawaiian project, growing

organic Colocasia esculenta (taro), with

an endangered species project. The

coexistence of Hawaiian cultural

practices and native species also offers a

variety of public educational

opportunities.

4. Human-Caused Disturbance and

Mortality (Factor E)

There are a variety of human

activities that negatively impact n‘n‘. 

These activities include direct harm,

such as that caused by vehicles and golf

balls, as well as possible disturbance by

hikers, hunters, and other outdoor

recreators. For instance, a n‘n‘ was

intentionally killed by a golfer in 1998

on the Island of Maui. In addition, at

least six n‘n‘ on Hawai!i have been

struck by golf balls, and five of these

died as a result (Banko et al. 1999; G.

Phocas, pers. comm. 2002). Road

casualties are a major cause of n‘n‘

deaths in Hawai`i Volcanoes National

Park and in Haleakal~ National Park

(Hu and Bailey, pers. comms. 1998). At

least 41 birds were killed by cars in
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

31

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park

between 1989 and 1999 (Hu, unpubl.

data) and 14 n‘n‘ were killed by cars in

Haleakal~ National Park during 1988 to

1998 (Bailey, unpubl. data). Mortality

of n‘n‘ from cars has also been a

continual problem on Kaua!i (Telfer

2003). Limited facilities and

veterinarians to care for n‘n‘ has

hampered efforts to aid injured birds.

A State-sponsored monitoring

effort during the 1992 to 1993 Kapapala

gamebird hunting season and several

biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (1993, 1994, 1996)

concluded that properly conducted

gamebird hunting is not a problem for

n‘n‘ in the area (Hawai`i Division of

Forestry and Wildlife 1993). However,

the effects of gamebird hunting on n‘n‘

(e.g., potential injury from hunting dogs,

general harassment during the breeding

season, potential for shooting a n‘n‘ by

mistake) at Kapapala and other areas is

the subject of continuing debate. N‘n‘

may also be impacted by human

activities through the application of

pesticides and other contaminants,

ingestion of plastics and lead, collisions

with stationary or moving structures or

objects, entanglement in fishing nets,

habitat degradation, disturbance at nest

and roost sites, attraction to hazardous

areas through human feeding and other

activities, and mortality or disruption of

family groups through direct and

indirect human activities (Banko et al.

1999). At least one n‘n‘ has died from

lead poisoning from an unknown source

(Telfer 1995).

5. Behavioral Issues (Factor E)

Problems with n‘n‘ breeding

success may be related to social

dynamics resulting from n‘n‘ release

strategies. Continuing releases of n‘n‘

siblings, and prefamiliarized

nonsiblings, for a number of years in

identical release locations may result in

pairings between siblings or may cause

birds, especially males, to leave release

areas in search of appropriate

nonfamiliar partners. In addition, parent

or foster parent-reared goslings may be

more socially adept than group-reared

goslings (raised without parents or foster

parents) and more likely to survive

(Marshall and Black 1992). This study

showed that parent-reared birds were

dominant to, more vigilant, and vigilant

for longer periods than goslings raised

without parents or in sight of adult birds. 

The parent-reared birds also integrated

into the adult flock sooner than other

goslings. These results have been

integrated into the n‘n‘ management

program and most captive-bred n‘n‘ are

currently raised with their own parents

or with foster parents. Woog (1994)

found that goslings raised in sibling

groups and released into the wild had

lower reproductive success than parentreared goslings in both Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park and Haleakal~

National Park.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

32

Captive-bred n‘n‘ may not have

the behavioral traits (such as avoidance

of predators) necessary to succeed in the

wild. Zillich (1995) has shown that

while captive goslings exhibit an innate

response to predators, the response may

not automatically result in appropriate

avoidance behavior as they grow older. 

Studies are ongoing to determine if n‘n‘

can be taught to show appropriate

predator avoidance (U. Zillich, pers.

comm. 1998). Preliminary results show

that captive-reared goslings can be

taught to run from predators, but forget

the experience quickly and need one or

more follow-up training sessions

(Zillich, pers. comm 1998). However,

not all problems with predation are due

to a lack of experience. As noted above,

both goslings and adults that are

incubating, have goslings, or are

molting, are highly susceptible to

predation.

Black et al. (1997) found that n‘n‘

that emigrated from drought-stricken

habitats to habitats with grasslands were

better able to survive than birds that

remained at their release sites, even

though, enigmatically, n‘n‘ may use

grasslands less during dry periods

(Woog and Black 2001). Black et al.

(1997) speculated that this emigration

behavior was learned from other n‘n‘ in

the wild. Emigration during times of

drought and the knowledge of migration

routes may have been lost when n‘n‘

populations were very low. Although

Rojek and Conant (1997) found that

released n‘n‘ do not have trouble

finding food, these n‘n‘ may not know

where the most productive areas for

feeding are located and they may not

exhibit movement patterns to take

advantage of seasonal food availability,

traits that they may have learned from

their parents. However, if captive-bred

n‘n‘ are able to learn such behaviors

from n‘n‘ living in the wild, they may

survive better. To enhance the

establishment of appropriate behaviors

and ‘cultural traditions’ in future

generations of n‘n‘, their chances of

learning appropriate behaviors should be

optimized prior to releasing them in the

wild. Birds that are captive-bred for

release should continue to be raised with

parents and should be released via a

soft-release technique using open-top

pens.

6. Genetic Issues (Factor E)

a. Genetic Variation

Low genetic variation may be

limiting reproductive success and

survival of n‘n‘. Kear and Berger

(1980) had evidence that captive n‘n‘

showed symptoms of inbreeding

depression, though Carson (1989) later

stated that inbreeding has been neither

deleterious nor decreased the vigor of

n‘n‘. Recent research supports Kear

and Berger’s observation by providing

evidence that yearly mean fertility,

hatchability, and gosling survivorship

decreased in captive n‘n‘ as the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

33

coancestry coefficient (level of

inbreeding) increased (Rave 1994; Rave

et al. 1999). Genetic diversity was

examined for captive populations at the

Maui Bird Conservation Center captive

propagation facility and at the

Waterfowl and Wetlands Trust (Rave

1994; Rave et al. 1994). While both

populations showed low levels of

genetic diversity, the Maui Bird

Conservation Center birds showed

greater genetic diversity than those at

the Waterfowl and Wetlands Trust,

possibly because there were more

founders at the Maui Bird Conservation

Center than in the Waterfowl and

Wetlands Trust population (24 versus 7;

Kear and Berger 1980; Rave et al.

1994). As might be expected, within

each captive flock related birds had

higher mean similarity coefficients (i.e.,

a higher level of inbreeding) than

unrelated birds (Rave et al. 1994). DNA

fingerprints did identify one n‘n‘ that

had several bands not found in other

captive birds, and this bird was

subsequently released as part of the

recovery effort to maintain or increase

genetic diversity in the population (Rave

et al. 1994).

The genetic diversity of n‘n‘

captured from six populations in the

wild on Hawai`i (Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park, Kahuku, Kea!au, and

Pu`uwa`awa`a), Maui, and Kaua`i was

also investigated (Rave 1994, 1995). 

N‘n‘ sampled from Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park had a significantly lower

similarity coefficient distribution (i.e.,

the highest level of genetic variation)

than all other populations tested except

Kahuku; n‘n‘ from Haleakal~ National

Park had intermediate similarity

coefficient distribution values (i.e., an

intermediate level of genetic variation);

and n‘n‘ from Kaua`i had the lowest

level of genetic variation compared to

the other populations tested (Rave

1995). Rave (1995) therefore suggested

that eggs from wild n‘n‘ of known

origin, especially from Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park, should

continue to be added to captive flocks to

help reduce genetic similarity and

inbreeding depression. No unique DNA

fingerprint fragments were found in

n‘n‘ from the wild, however, not all the

Hawai!i populations were tested (Rave

1995). None of the n‘n‘ from the

Saddle Road/Mauna Loa area where the

last wild birds were found in the 1950's

were tested.

b. Hairy-Down Plumage in Goslings

In captivity, some goslings exhibit

a condition called hairy-down or cottony

plumage that seems to result from a

recessive gene causing some of the short

plumules to be missing, making the

longer ones seem more prominent (Kear

and Berger 1980). By 1973, 20 percent

of the goslings at the Waterfowl and

Wetlands Trust exhibited this trait. This

recessive gene also appeared in some

wild stock birds at PÇhakuloa, Hawai`i. 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

34

The thin down exhibited by n‘n‘

goslings with this condition makes the

goslings appear scruffy, and they are

also not waterproof and apparently less

resilient to cold weather; however, if

they survive, the adults appear normal

(Kear and Berger 1980). It has been

suggested that the hairy-down trait may

be adaptive in lower, warmer elevations

and abundant food resources (Kear and

Berger 1980; Banko et al. 1999; Duvall,

pers. comm. 1994). It has also been

suggested that hairy-down goslings

produced in captive conditions should

only be released in lowland sites

(Bailey, pers. comm. 1999). However,

at this time, no studies on this condition

have been conducted.

7. Disease (Factor C)

The role that diseases may play, or

have played, in the decline of the n‘n‘

has been poorly documented and is not

well understood. Bailey and Black

(1995) conducted a short study of

parasites, and reported on other

previously published (e.g. GassmannDuvall 1987) and unpublished findings

of parasites and diseases. They found

that endoparasites are not currently

limiting n‘n‘ recovery, but suggest that

work should continue on other diseases

that may cause poor survival and

productivity of n‘n‘. Omphalitis, an

infection of the umbilical stump, has

been found to cause mortality in both

wild and captive n‘n‘ goslings. Poxlike lesions have been reported in adult

birds (Kear and Brown 1976; Kear and

Berger 1980), but there is currently no

evidence of pox being implicated in

n‘n‘ deaths. In fact, pox scars on many

birds in the wild on Hawai`i and Maui

indicate that avian pox is common, but

generally not fatal to n‘n‘ (Banko et al.

1999).

There have been no research

studies on the impact of malarial

infections, particularly to n‘n‘ goslings,

but evidence from salvaged n‘n‘ does

not indicate that malaria is a problem (T.

Work, pers. comm. 1998). Avian

malaria has been reported in at least one

wild bird on Maui, but it appears

possible that avian pox and avian

malaria are not causing significant

declines of n‘n‘ populations, unlike

their effects on most of the Hawaiian

forest birds (van Riper et al. 1986;

Banko et al. 1999). However, concern

about potentially transferring unique

regional strains of avian malaria

between islands with the release of

infected captive-bred n‘n‘ has recently

impacted the n‘n‘ captive propagation

program. N‘n‘ currently are tested for

the presence of malarial infections prior

to release. N‘n‘ that cannot be certified

malaria-free are not released off island. 

Release restrictions on infected n‘n‘

could affect the restoration of n‘n‘

populations on islands without a captive

propagation facility. However, as long

as there are concerns about the spread of

diseases, disease screening will remain a
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

35

routine part of the release program. 

Where current management for disease

and parasite transmission conflicts with

other management directions (e.g.,

maximize genetic diversity), the

Hawaiian Endangered Bird

Conservation Program (see pages 36 and 

37) will need to determine the best

course of action. Such actions will also

need to address the potential for

transferring unique regional strains of

avian malaria to whole island avifaunas.

While disease has not been shown

to be a major cause of n‘n‘ deaths, it

could become one in the future as

captive releases continue and as n‘n‘

populations increase. Recent concern

regarding the spread of West Nile Virus

in the mainland United States has

serious implications for Hawaiian

avifauna. Although Canada geese

appear to be little affected by West Nile

Virus, the virus kills domestic geese in

Israel and n‘n‘ may also be vulnerable,

especially young birds (J. Burgett, in

litt. 2003). Given the impact disease

could have on n‘n‘ recovery, it is

critical that the potential for disease

introduction be prevented or minimized

and be considered an important part of

all n‘n‘ management decisions.

H. CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Conservation efforts to date have

included a variety of actions such as

captive propagation and release, creation

of a studbook, limited predator control,

habitat enhancement, research studies,

monitoring efforts, development of

cooperative agreements, formation of

the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group, and

public education. In the past, much of

the recovery efforts have focused on

captive propagation and release. 

However, while releases of captive-bred

birds will continue to be important in

the n‘n‘ recovery program, they should

not be relied upon as the sole

management tool to produce a selfsustaining n‘n‘ population (Banko

1992). Other tools, such as increased

and more effective predator control,

habitat enhancement for wild-breeding

birds, private conservation efforts, and

research on increasing the effectiveness

of predator control, for example, should

be fully utilized in the recovery program

for n‘n‘. The following sections

provide a brief overview of some past

and current conservation efforts.

1. Captive Propagation and Release

a. Captive Propagation in Hawai`i

Early conservation efforts

emphasized captive breeding of n‘n‘ in

Hawai`i and England. These efforts

were initiated primarily by Sir Peter

Scott at the Severn Wildfowl Trust in

Slimbridge, England, and Mr. Herbert

C. Shipman from Kea`au, Hawai`i

(Banko et al. 1999) and conducted by

Territory (State) of Hawai`i biologists. 

The Territory of Hawai`i initiated a

captive propagation program in 1927 on
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

36

O`ahu but this effort dissipated by 1935

for various reasons and was considered

a failure (Smith 1952; Kear and Berger

1980). In 1949, the Hawaiian goose or

n‘n‘ restoration program was initiated

to release captive-bred birds into native

habitat. The State of Hawai`i, with the

support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, continues to operate a

propagation program to release captivebred n‘n‘ into the wild. Birds are raised

in captivity and the young are

introduced into the wild utilizing a soft

release method to help habituate the

birds to the release area.

The soft release method includes

the use of open-top outdoor pens which

provide predator-free areas for breeding

and release. These pens are fenced to

deter predators and provide sufficient

foraging habitat as well as shrubs for

shelter from adverse weather. If needed,

supplemental food and water are

provided. For open-top pen

propagation, n‘n‘ pairs are caught in the

wild and their primary feathers clipped

before the n‘n‘ are placed in the pens. 

Adults normally molt after the eggs

hatch. Adults therefore become flighted

again at approximately the same time as

their offspring, allowing them to leave

the pen together. If it is appropriate,

adult primary feathers may be clipped in

subsequent years, for the following

years’ propagation. Goslings may be

reared with their parents or crossfostered into existing family groups for

rearing and release. Captive-bred or

translocated n‘n‘ may also be placed

into open-top pens for soft release. 

N‘n‘ are free to leave the pen once

flight feathers develop and they often

return to the pens freely in subsequent

years. Closed-top, “gentle release” pens

have also been used, in which n‘n‘ are

released by opening the gates at the

appropriate time. As the captive

propagation program has matured,

various changes have been made to the

program in order to enhance survival

and reproductive success of released

birds, including releasing n‘n‘ at lowelevation sites and assessment of birds

for exposure to malaria prior to release

on other islands. 

The captive breeding program

began in 1949 at PÇhakuloa on the

island of Hawai`i and was subsequently

downsized and relocated to the Olinda

Endangered Species Captive

Propagation Facility (now the Maui Bird

Conservation Center) in Olinda, Maui,

in August 1989. The Keauhou Bird

Conservation Center on the island of

Hawai`i has maintained n‘n‘ for

propagation from 1997 to the present.

Since their inception, the Keauhou

Bird Conservation Center and Maui Bird

Conservation Center captive

propagation facilities were overseen by

the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and for most of those years they
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

37

were operated by The Peregrine Fund. 

A unique partnership, composed of

these three organizations, was

formalized in 1994. This partnership,

known as the Hawaiian Endangered

Bird Conservation Program, works in

collaboration with many organizations

statewide to breed native and

endangered Hawaiian birds in captivity

to aid in the recovery of endangered

species. The goal of this program is to

collaborate with partners and others to

develop self-sustaining populations of

wild n‘n‘ and other Hawaiian birds. In

2000, captive propagation operations

were transferred from The Peregrine

Fund to the Zoological Society of San

Diego.

Captive n‘n‘ are now housed at

both the Keauhou Bird Conservation

Center and the Maui Bird Conservation

Center. Although the numbers of

breeding pairs have varied among years,

each facility currently houses four

breeding pairs. N‘n‘ raised at these

facilities have been released on Hawai`i,

Maui, Moloka`i, and Kaua`i. Concerns

regarding genetic management of the

flock and transfer of malaria strains

between islands may affect the future

management of the n‘n‘ captive-rearing

program.

In addition to the captive

propagation efforts of the Hawaiian

Endangered Bird Conservation Program,

the National Park Service has also

reared n‘n‘ for release into park lands. 

In 1972, the National Park Service, in

cooperation with the Hawai`i Division

of Forestry and Wildlife (known then as

the Hawai`i Division of Fish and Game),

initiated a n‘n‘ restoration project

within Hawai`i Volcanoes National

Park. This project involved the

construction of predator-resistant,

fenced enclosures in areas thought to be

utilized or formerly utilized by n‘n‘. 

The enclosures were approximately 0.1

to 1.2 hectares (0.3 to 3 acres) in size. A

pair of wing-clipped adult birds was

confined to each enclosure so that they

might live and breed under semi-natural

conditions. Offspring were permitted to

fledge from the pens on the theory that

they would occupy adjacent habitat. 

Concomitantly, habitat was improved by

such actions as the control of feral

animals and alien plants, reintroduction

of native plants, and trapping of feral

cats, mongooses, and rats. Nine

enclosures were constructed in locations

ranging from sea level to 1,200 meters

(4,000 feet) in elevation. Use of most

open-top pens was discontinued due to

the difficulty in accessing the remote

sites. The use of the last original opentop pens was discontinued in the

1996/1997 breeding season. Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park now maintains

one open-top pen that provides nesting

and brooding habitat for four to five

free-flying pairs of n‘n‘ annually. 

Maintenance of this enclosure may

facilitate successful reproduction, even
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

38

in years of poor nest and gosling

survival.

Haleakal~ National Park conducted

an open-top pen propagation program

from 1972 to 1983 with several breeding

pairs provided by the State of Hawai`i. 

Two pens were located behind the Park

Headquarters and subsequently moved

below the Park residences due to

vehicular mortalities; one large pen was

located near Hosmer Grove. During this

time period, 151 eggs were produced, 28

eggs hatched (18.5 percent), and 25

goslings fledged (Haleakal~ National

Park, unpubl. data). Reproduction was

very low, possibly due to inadequate

nutrition and weather conditions. Due

to the low reproduction and mortality of

n‘n‘ from vehicles, the project was

slowly phased out when the breeding

pairs became old or died (R. Nagata,

pers. comm. 2002). Two of the pens

remain in place and are occasionally

used as holding areas for sick or injured

birds. An open-top pen was also

constructed at Paliku in 1992 for a

backcountry propagation program. 

N‘n‘ released into this pen produced 11

goslings in the 1995 to 1996 breeding

season. The Paliku pen is still standing

and has been used intermittently for

releasing captive-bred n‘n‘. It is also

used as a temporary holding pen for sick

or injured birds.

b. Captive Propagation in England

N‘n‘ were first brought to Europe in

1823 where they were successfully

raised in private collections and zoos for

nearly 75 years (Smith 1952). By 1900,

n‘n‘ had become scarce and they had

completely disappeared from European

facilities by 1940. European captive

propagation efforts were reinitiated in

1950 by the Severn Wildfowl Trust

(now the Waterfowl and Wetlands

Trust) in England with the transfer of

three n‘n‘ from the Shipman Estate. In

spite of declines due to inbreeding, this

propagation effort has been successful

and has distributed n‘n‘ breeding stock

to many zoos and aviaries as well as

contributed birds for release on Maui.

c. Release of Captive-Bred N‘n‘

As of 2003, a total of 2,643 captivebred n‘n‘ (from England and Hawai`i)

have been released statewide either on

public lands or on private lands

managed under cooperative agreements

with State or Federal resource agencies. 

Appendix A summarizes n‘n‘ releases

from 1960 to 2003. On Hawai`i, n‘n‘

have been released at seven sites

ranging from low to high elevation: 

Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge,

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park,

Kahuku, Kea`au, Keauhou, Keauhou II,

and K§puka }inahou (Black et al. 1997)

beginning in 1960. N‘n‘ released at

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park

apparently survive better than those

released at the other sites on Hawai`I,

and several factors apparently set these

birds apart: this was the only low to
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

39

mid-elevation site, the birds at this site

had been parent or foster-parent reared,

and they had access to more grassland

habitats (Black et al. 1997). N‘n‘

released in upland sites on Hawai`i

moved away from their release sites to

areas with grasslands or supplemental

feeders, while n‘n‘ released in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park tend to move

less, also possibly due to better access to

more grassland habitat.

Releases on East Maui began in 1962

with the release of 35 birds at Palikã, an

upland site in Haleakal~ National Park. 

N‘n‘ were also released at Hosmer

Grove in Haleakal~ National Park and at

Hana`ula in West Maui. Released birds

originated from the Keauhou Bird

Conservation Center, the Waterfowl and

Wetlands Trust, a private collection in

Connecticut, and Haleakal~ National

Park pens on Maui. In contrast to n‘n‘

released in upland sites on Hawai`i, the

n‘n‘ released at Haleakal~ National

Park have fared better and have had

lower levels of mortality, again possibly

due to greater access to more grassland

habitat (Black et al. 1997). Fifty-five

n‘n‘ have also been released at Puu O

Hoku Ranch on Moloka`i following

completion of a Safe Harbor Agreement

in 2001.

An estimated 25 n‘n‘ were released

at K§pã Kai on Kaua`i in 1985. 

Concerted release efforts began in 1991

with the release of 12 n‘n‘ at K§lauea

Point National Wildlife Refuge followed

by subsequent releases along the N~ Pali

Coast and at Hanalei National Wildlife

Refuge. Releases on Kaua`i consisted

of soft releases of primarily fledging-age

goslings from closed-top pens,

following a holding period of 1 to 2

weeks. These fledglings were not

accompanied by foster parent birds. 

Each of these populations is currently

expanding with an estimated islandwide total of 620 birds (Telfer 2003).

The release of captive-bred n‘n‘ has

likely prevented the extinction of this

species, however most wild populations

are not self-sustaining (Black et al.

1997). Poor survival, low productivity,

predation, and high emigration from

upland release sites, especially in dry

years, has impacted many of the

populations. However, the continued

existence of the Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park, Haleakal~ National Park

populations, and the expanding Kaua`i

population demonstrate that predator

control, vegetation management, and

human cooperation may lead to selfsustaining n‘n‘ populations.

The distribution of n‘n‘ to zoos and

aviaries by the Waterfowl and Wetlands

Trust, the Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center in Patuxent, Maryland, which

once maintained a captive breeding

flock, and the State of Hawai`i resulted

in approximately 1,250 n‘n‘ in captivity

by 1980 (Kear and Berger 1980).
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

40

2. Studbook

Plans have been discussed for the

creation of a Species Survival Plan and a

studbook for all captive n‘n‘, including

n‘n‘ in accredited zoo collections in the

contiguous United States. A N‘n‘

Studbook now exists for captive birds in

Hawai!i (Zoological Society of San

Diego, unpubl. data). Cataloging and

analyses of DNA for both wild and

captive n‘n‘ in the State of Hawai`i has

been initiated. Genetic management of

all Hawaiian n‘n‘ (captive and wild)

should help to counteract future

increases in homozygosity. All aspects

of n‘n‘ management should incorporate

genetic management goals. To this end,

developing a master genetics

management plan should be a high

priority and should include the

formation of a genetics consulting group

of population genetics experts. This

genetics working group will be able to

review captive flock status, status of the

population in the wild, suggest new

studies and additional collection of

genetic samples, rerun demographic

models, and prepare a summary for the

N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group that it can

use to make management decisions. At

this time, the Zoological Society of San

Diego, with input from the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group, is making

decisions regarding breeding captive

birds and N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group

members are making decisions about

where and how many birds are being

released.

3. Predator Control

A key limiting factor to n‘n‘

recovery is predation on eggs, goslings,

and adults (see Section G1 - Predation). 

A variety of predator control programs

have been initiated in areas where n‘n‘

currently reside. For example,

Haleakal~ National Park staff conducted

an extensive trapping and diphacinone

poisoning program to control rats in

1994 to 1995. Ongoing efforts on the

different islands include predator control

programs aimed at mongooses, dogs,

feral cats, rodents, and pigs. Federal

and State agencies are also seeking

approval of multi-species toxicants and

the ability to aerially broadcast

toxicants. Some open-top pens

previously used to rear captive n‘n‘ on

National Park Service lands are now

often used to provide predator-free

nesting and brooding habitat for freeflying pairs or as temporary holding

pens for sick or injured birds.

While these control programs have

proven effective in localized areas,

recovery of n‘n‘ is dependent on more

aggressive and widespread control of

alien predators. Despite documentation

of the impact of mongooses, dogs, feral

cats, rodents, and pigs on n‘n‘ (Hoshide

et al. 1990; Banko 1992; Black and

Banko 1994; Baker and Baker 1995;

Telfer 1996), as well as other native

birds, there are few predator control

programs and they are not being

implemented over areas large enough to
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

41

elicit a population response by native

species (Scott et al. 2001). Known

control techniques should be applied at

all habitats needed to recover n‘n‘. 

Furthering public understanding and

support of these predator control efforts

will be essential to the recovery of n‘n‘.

4. Habitat Enhancement for WildBreeding Birds

Many of the areas where n‘n‘ occur

in the wild are afforded some level of

habitat enhancement that focuses on

increasing the survival and reproduction

of n‘n‘. Habitat enhancement can

include predator control, mowing,

outplanting, and supplemental feeding. 

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park has

areas where many of these types of

enhancement occur. For instance, at

K§puka N‘n‘ Campground, the

surrounding area is kept mowed during

the breeding season. In addition, some

areas are closed to human use during the

n‘n‘ breeding season. The Hawai`i

Division of Forestry and Wildlife also

provides supplemental food for n‘n‘

populations on Hawai`i. Haleakal~

National Park has a predator control

program and horses intermittently graze

in Palikã pasture. Kaua`i also has

predator control programs and may

provide supplemental feed during

drought years. Mowing, grazing, and

irrigating grass can improve its

attractiveness to geese by increasing the

protein content (Sedinger and Raveling

1986;Woog and Black 2001).

Habitat restoration has not yet been

well developed as a tool for n‘n‘

recovery. However, habitat restoration

and management are increasingly

believed to be important to attaining

self-sustaining n‘n‘ populations in some

areas, and Hawai`i Volcanoes National

Park in particular is concentrating on

enhancing and creating native habitat for

n‘n‘ and other species (Hu 1998; Banko

et al. 1999; Sherry 2000). To

supplement previous research efforts,

additional information is needed on: 1)

areas where n‘n‘ may be supported with

predominantly native vegetation; 2) the

former composition and distribution of

native grass and shrub communities

known or believed to be important to

n‘n‘ pre-historically; 3) the nutritional

value, palatability, and ecological

requirements of native plants utilized by

n‘n‘; and 4) methods for converting

nutritionally poor habitats dominated by

invasive alien species to nutritionally

rich habitats dominated by natives (Hu

1998; Banko et al. 1999; Sherry 2000;

Woog and Black 2001). 

Although many n‘n‘ nest in mid- and

high-elevation sites today, evidence

indicates that they once nested primarily

in leeward lowlands (Baldwin 1947;

Banko et al. 1999). Understanding the

former vegetation composition of low-,

mid-, and high-elevation sites prior to

human arrival will assist managers in

restoring native species important to

n‘n‘ reproduction and survival. 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

42

However, the role of highly altered

landscapes and of alien vegetation in

n‘n‘ recovery should not be discounted. 

For example, n‘n‘ on Kaua`i primarily

utilize lowland areas in highly altered,

human-impacted habitats such as

pastures, agricultural fields, golf

courses, and highly degraded waste

areas (Telfer, pers. comm. 2002). N‘n‘

have been very successful in these areas,

indicating their adaptability to a variety

of habitats. The recovery of n‘n‘ is

dependent on a variety of habitats

ranging from highly altered, managed

habitats to habitats consisting of

primarily native species and it may not

be feasible or necessary to restore

habitats to native species in all areas

utilized by n‘n‘. It is believed that n‘n‘

currently require a diverse suite of food

availability that may include both

nonnative and native vegetation.

5. Research

Black and Banko (1994) conducted a

Population Viability Analysis using the

VORTEX software program to model

the long-term fate of n‘n‘ under three

different management scenarios: 1) no

further releases or management; 2)

releases mirroring those of the past 30

years; and 3) increased management

without further releases. The report

concludes that only under the third

scenario can all three populations

(Hawai`i, Maui, and Kaua`i`) survive for

200 years and that reintroduction as a

management tool may continue to be

effective in delaying extinction on

Hawai`i, but will not lead to a selfsustaining population. The study

concludes that enhanced management

efforts which include an appropriate

predator control effort will enable n‘n‘

to reach a self-sustaining level.

Another Population Viability

Analysis was recently conducted on

n‘n‘ in Hawai`i Volcanoes National

Park to examine management options

more specific to Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park (Hu 1998). First year

mortality was identified as the primary

limiting factor for Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park n‘n‘. In 1990 to 1996,

survival of fledglings averaged 84

percent for females and 95 percent for

males, while survival from laying to

fledging ranged from 7 to 19.5 percent

(mean 12 percent; Hu 1998). While

predator control has reduced egg

predation, fledging success remained

low, largely due to nutritional

inadequacies. The study found that

open-top pens cannot sustain a viable

n‘n‘ population in Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park. The study suggests that

while management techniques, such as

grassland management, supplemental

feeding, and cultivation of native food

plants may sustain n‘n‘ in Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park, such efforts

are considerable and would require

increasing resource expenditures. Thus,

Hu (1998) suggested that n‘n‘ would be

more secure if they were integrated into
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

43

habitat management instituted on a

larger scale that would involve the

creation of native-dominated, fireadapted landscapes at low and midelevations in Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park; more efficient, widespread predator control techniques; and

the reestablishment of seasonal

movements patterns of n‘n‘ between

various locations.

Black et al. (1997) analyzed survival

data from 1960 through 1990 for

released n‘n‘ on the island of Hawai`i

and found that the highest mortality rate

was found among newly released

goslings during drought years. They

also found that n‘n‘ at Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park had the lowest

annual mortality rates. The three main

factors affecting mortality rates were

found to be release method, age at time

of release, and year of release. 

Releasing pre-fledged goslings with

parents or foster parents present from

open-top pens during years with

sufficient rainfall was found to be the

most successful release method on the

island of Hawai`i (Black et al. 1997). 

On Kaua`i, where mongoose are not yet

established, protecting the nesting area

from other predators, such as dogs and

cats, has been extremely successful

(Telfer, pers. comm. 1998).

A number of reports have reviewed

past n‘n‘ research and management and

provided recommendations for future

work in these areas (Stone et al. 1983a;

Morin 1986; Black et al. 1991, 1994,

1997; Black 1994; Banko et al. 1999;

Woog and Black 2001). Most of these

recommendations have been

incorporated into or are discussed in this

plan.

6. Monitoring Efforts

Managers of each n‘n‘ population

have established monitoring programs

for individual populations. These

programs include protocols for

monitoring population trends. However,

monitoring efforts remain uneven and

highly dependent on year-to-year

funding for some n‘n‘ populations. 

Inconsistent compilation and analysis of

monitoring data due to insufficient

agency resources presents a serious

impediment to the timely evaluation of

recovery actions. The establishment of

funds for yearly n‘n‘ monitoring and

analysis should be a high priority in

n‘n‘ recovery actions. To the extent

possible, managers should agree on

utilizing similar monitoring protocols so

that analysis of population trends is

easily accomplished. A statewide n‘n‘

data base that was developed in 1994

(Hunter and Black 1995) could serve as

a starting point for coordinating

monitoring efforts. A single entity, such

as the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group,

should assimilate the monitoring data

from the various agencies and annually

compile the status of n‘n‘ statewide.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

44

7. Private Conservation Efforts

A variety of private individuals and

organizations have contributed to n‘n‘

recovery efforts. The Hawai`i Division

of Forestry and Wildlife and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service have been

working together since 1997 to develop

private landowner projects. The first

Safe Harbor Agreement in the State of

Hawai`i was finalized on September 4,

2001, with Puu O Hoku Ranch,

Moloka`i, for n‘n‘. Under this Safe

Harbor Agreement, the ranch owners

agreed to maintain or improve n‘n‘

habitat for at least 7 years in return for

assurances that no additional restrictions

would be placed on the property because

of the presence of endangered species. 

In addition, the owners agreed to the

reintroduction of n‘n‘ to the ranch. 

N‘n‘ had been extirpated from Moloka`i

for over 100 years when 11 n‘n‘ were

released at Puu O Hoku Ranch on

December 21, 2001. A total of 55

captive-bred n‘n‘ have been released to

date. Additional releases are planned

for the future to increase the probability

that the n‘n‘ will thrive at the ranch.

In anticipation that these n‘n‘ will

breed and expand onto other lands on

Moloka`i, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and Hawai`i Division of

Forestry and Wildlife recently

developed and finalized a programmatic

Safe Harbor Agreement for the entire

Island of Moloka`i. Under this Safe

Harbor Agreement, interested

landowners will be able to develop

individual cooperative agreements with

the Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife that will allow monitoring,

predator control, and increased access to

suitable habitat for the n‘n‘. In return,

the landowners enrolled in the program

are allowed “incidental take” of any

n‘n‘ in excess of those that occur on the

property at the time they enter into the

cooperative agreement. It is hoped that

with these two Safe Harbor Agreements

in place, up to 200 n‘n‘ may eventually

reside on Moloka`i. The Hawai`i

Division of Forestry and Wildlife and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are

currently developing a similar Safe

Harbor Agreement that would include

building release pens, releasing captivebred n‘n‘, and native habitat restoration

for Piiholo Ranch on Maui.

In December 2001, a second Safe

Harbor Agreement was approved with

Umikoa Ranch on Hawai`i for both n‘n‘

and the Hawaiian duck or koloa (Anas

wyvilliana). Under this agreement, n‘n‘

will not be translocated but it is hoped

that n‘n‘ will disperse naturally into the

area. To improve the site for n‘n‘, the

ranch is implementing management

actions including habitat improvements

(e.g., outplanting of native food species

and fencing) and predator control. Such

actions will increase the probability that

birds finding the area will remain on-site

and will be successful in rearing young.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

45

Currently, the Hawai`i Division of

Forestry and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service are developing

another Safe Harbor Agreement for n‘n‘

and koloa with Ulupalakua Ranch,

Maui. This project will include fenced

areas with created wetlands and

outplanted native vegetation for both

species. No translocations are planned

at this time for this project and it is

hoped that n‘n‘ and koloa will disperse

naturally to the improved habitat.

Ducks Unlimited is working closely

with the Hawai`i Division of Forestry

and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service on several private

landowner projects that include native

species of waterfowl such as the n‘n‘

and koloa. Ducks Unlimited is currently

developing a plan for outplanting native

plants used by n‘n‘ which would be

initiated at Ulupalakua Ranch. Once

this plan has been developed and

finalized, it can then be modified as

needed for use with other projects where

it is anticipated that n‘n‘ will be

translocated or will disperse to naturally. 

The plan could also be used to outplant

native vegetation in areas where n‘n‘

are currently found.

The Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service expect that additional projects

with private landowners to benefit n‘n‘

will be developed on all the other

islands, and both agencies are especially

interested in other island-wide

programmatic agreements. 

Programmatic agreements are beneficial

because they streamline the Safe Harbor

Agreement process, reduce the

timeframe for developing such

agreements, and can allow a more

unified ecosystem approach to the

conservation of the species. The islandwide programmatic approach could be

particularly useful on Kaua`i where

n‘n‘ are utilizing a number of private

properties in lowland habitats. Given

the differences among islands in factors

affecting n‘n‘ populations both within

and among islands, a statewide

programmatic agreement is not being

pursued at this point (Appendix E

provides a description of the various

types of Safe Harbor Agreements).

Private organizations contributing to

n‘n‘ recovery include N‘n‘ O Moloka`i

and the Anheuser-Busch Foundation. 

N‘n‘ O Moloka`i is a nonprofit

corporation created to establish and

preserve n‘n‘ in the wild on the island

of Moloka`i. This corporation was

founded in 1994 and emphasizes

education through community

involvement. Through the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation, the AnheuserBusch Foundation contributed a

combined $127,500 towards seven

conservation and education projects in

2002. These projects will aid our

understanding of n‘n‘ and enhance our

management activities. Given the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

46

limited funds and resources available for

recovery of listed plants and animals in

Hawai`i, the dedication and

contributions of these individuals and

groups have been instrumental in the

recovery of n‘n‘.

8. N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group

The N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group is

an ad hoc organization of State

and Federal resource agencies. It was

created in 1990 with the specific

purpose of enhancing communication

between government agencies with

responsibility for managing and

recovering n‘n‘. It has continued to

perform that function and, because it has

no official legal status, it has

been able to provide an open forum for

addressing n‘n‘ management and

recovery issues in Hawai`i. A Hawai`i

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

representative chairs the group, however

the composition of the group has

changed as the n‘n‘ management

responsibilities of personnel,

organizations, and agencies have

changed. The current group consists

primarily of Hawai`i Division of

Forestry and Wildlife, National Park

Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service biologists and the organization

responsible for captive propagation, the

Zoological Society of San Diego (see

Appendix D).

9. Public Awareness

A variety of activities have been

undertaken to inform the public about

the plight of n‘n‘ and the need for

recovery. Examples of these efforts

include the Territory of Hawai`i’s active

publicity campaign in the early 1950's to

acquaint people with the scarcity of

n‘n‘ and the need for protecting them. 

On May 7, 1957, the n‘n‘ was

designated as Hawai`i’s State Bird. 

Since this time, the n‘n‘ has been used

as a symbol of the State’s efforts to

recover endangered species in

publications, classroom activities, plays,

and tourism promotions. Hawai`i's

elementary and middle school children

have voted for their favorite fiction book

and presented the author with the prized

N‘n‘ Award since 1959. The American

Zoo and Aquarium Association also

advances public education on the need

for wildlife conservation and

preservation with their collections of

n‘n‘. N‘n‘ O Moloka`i focuses on

community involvement in n‘n‘

recovery. The Adopt-a-N‘n‘ Program

was formed as a partnership between

Haleakal~ National Park and the Friends

for the N‘n‘ Adoption Project. Funds

are used to protect the n‘n‘ and

important habitats in Haleakal~ Park

from destruction by feral goats and pigs,

invasion by alien plants, and predation

by mongooses, feral cats, and rats. All

of these programs have been effective in

raising public awareness and enhancing

the recovery of endangered n‘n‘.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

47

III. RECOVERY

A. GENERAL RECOVERY

STRATEGY

In order for n‘n‘ populations to

survive they must be provided with

generally predator-free breeding areas

and sufficient food resources. Humancaused disturbance and mortality must

be minimized, and genetic and

behavioral diversity maximized. The

goal of this recovery plan is to enable

the conservation of n‘n‘ by utilizing a

mix of natural and human-altered

habitats in such a way that the life

history needs of the species are met and

the populations become self-sustaining

at or above recovery target levels. 

While it is important to restore species

as a functioning component of the native

ecosystem to ensure long-term species

survival, it should be noted that n‘n‘

successfully utilize a gradient of habitats

ranging from highly altered to

completely natural. Additionally, some

populations exhibit behaviors that differ

from what it is believed wild birds

historically displayed. N‘n‘ are a

highly adaptable species which bodes

well for our ability to recover the

species.

Conservation needs and activities to

recover n‘n‘ vary among islands due to

differences in factors affecting n‘n‘

populations both within and among

islands. For example, although

mongoose occur on Hawai`i, Maui, and

Moloka`i, Kaua`i does not yet have an

established mongoose population, thus

predator control issues are different for

Kaua`i than for the other islands. 

Elevations utilized by n‘n‘ vary among

sites and among islands, and vegetation

available to n‘n‘ also differs between

sites and by island.

Hawai`i and Maui Nui

On Hawai`i and Maui Nui, captive

releases are still considered an important

strategy for n‘n‘ recovery, to establish

new populations and to supplement

existing unstable populations, but

releases must occur in conjunction with

predator control and habitat

manipulation. Predator control is

conducted in both Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park and Haleakal~ National

Park, particularly during the breeding

season. In Hawai`i Volcanoes National

Park, human access to certain areas is

restricted during the n‘n‘ breeding

season and areas utilized by n‘n‘ around

other parts of the island are still

supplemented with food and water. It is

likely that the new founder group of

n‘n‘ on Moloka`i will continue to rely

on captive releases for several years to

come. Surveys conducted by the

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife on Hawai`i suggest that the

number of n‘n‘ in the wild began to

decrease when the number of captivebred birds released into the wild was

sharply reduced (Devick 1981). Studies
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

48

have shown that when reintroducing

captive animals, a reasonable number of

founder individuals and subsequent

supplementation improves the

probability of establishing a selfsustaining population (Pimm et al. 1988;

Griffith et al. 1989; Stanley Price 1989).

Kaua`i

Currently, the four Kaua`i n‘n‘

populations appear to be sustaining

themselves, with more annual

reproduction than mortality (Telfer,

pers. comm. 1998). At this time,

therefore, it may be most productive to

increase management efforts on Kaua`i,

such as controlling established

predators, improving genetic diversity,

and improving foraging conditions for

goslings, rather than releasing additional

captive birds in the same locations. 

Recovery efforts should also focus on

preventing the establishment of

mongoose on the island and a

biosecurity plan addressing potential

mongoose introduction needs to be

developed. It would still be feasible to

establish new breeding populations on

Kaua!i in some areas where n‘n‘ have

not nested before and where predators

can be controlled effectively, however,

there may be only a few potential future

release sites due to limited availability

of habitat (Telfer, pers. comm. 1998). 

Because little upper elevation habitat is

available on Kaua!i, altitudinal

migration may not arise on this island. 

As the n‘n‘ population on Kaua!i is

currently increasing, it is possible that it

may become self-sustaining and be of

sufficient size to be considered

separately from the other populations for

downlisting to threatened status4

 as well

as serve as a source of n‘n‘ for release

on other islands.

The basic steps for recovering n‘n‘

are as follows:

• Identify and protect year-round and

seasonally-used n‘n‘ nesting and

rearing habitat, and associated

summer flocking habitat, necessary to

sustain target population levels for

each island.

• Actively manage habitat and

populations in order to maximize the

productivity and survival of existing

and new populations of n‘n‘. 

Depending on the location,

management may or will include:

predator control during the breeding

season; vegetation management to

provide sufficient nutritional

resources, particularly thorough

outplanting indigenous food items;

release of captive-bred n‘n‘ to

augment populations and to

maximize genetic diversity; release

4

Such an action would first require a

regulatory rulemaking designating the Kauai

population of n‘n‘ as a distinct population

segment; see further discussion of this

possibility on page 51 of the Recovery

Criteria section.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

49

of captive-bred n‘n‘ in lowland sites

to establish new populations in

optimal habitats; monitoring n‘n‘

populations using a standard

monitoring protocol; and

minimization of human-caused

disturbance and mortality.

• N‘n‘ managers should develop a

long-range, statewide plan for

establishing and maintaining all n‘n‘

populations based on the knowledge

gained from implementing the

recovery actions outlined in this plan. 

Island-specific implementation plans

should form the basis of the

statewide plan. A genetics

management plan should also be

developed.

• Conduct further research to better

define limiting factors, estimate

carrying capacity of habitats, and

determine how carrying capacity can

be improved through various

management techniques, including

restoration of native vegetation.

• Measure efficiency and improve

success of predator control

techniques.

• As n‘n‘ populations increase, plans

must be developed to address

conflicts between n‘n‘ and humans

(e.g., crop depredation and nuisance

problems).

• Provide informational and

educational opportunities to build

public support for n‘n‘ recovery

efforts.

• Review and scientifically verify

recovery objectives.

A table identifying the factors

currently limiting nene recovery that

will be addressed by the specific actions

identified in this plan is provided in

Appendix F.

B. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND

RECOVERY CRITERIA

 The goal of this recovery plan is to

remove the n‘n‘ from the Federal List

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants (delisting). This plan

establishes the framework within which

recovery actions are undertaken to

ensure the long-term survival of the

n‘n‘ and to control or reduce the threats

to the species to the extent that it is no

longer in danger of extinction and

warrants delisting. The interim goal is

to accomplish increases in population

sizes and geographic distribution of

n‘n‘ concomitant with control of threats

sufficient to consider reclassification or

downlisting of this endangered species

to threatened status.

To reach the recovery goal, the target

objectives are to restore and maintain

multiple self-sustaining n‘n‘
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

50

populations on Hawai`i, Maui Nui

(Maui, Moloka`i, L~na`i, Kaho!olawe),

and Kaua`i. Additionally, the threats to

the species must be reduced to allow for

the long-term viability of these

populations, and sufficient suitable

habitat must be identified, protected, and

managed in perpetuity on each of these

islands such that the species no longer

meets the definition of endangered or

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act5

.

We set recovery criteria to serve as

objective, measurable guidelines to

assist us in determining when a listed

entity (species, subspecies, or distinct

population segment) has recovered to

the point that the protections afforded by

the Endangered Species Act (Act) are no

longer necessary. However, the actual

change in status (downlisting or

delisting) requires a separate rulemaking

process based upon an analysis of the

same five factors considered in the

listing of a species6

. The recovery

criteria presented in this recovery plan

thus represent our best assessment of the

conditions that would most likely result

in a determination that downlisting or

delisting of the n‘n‘ is warranted (i.e.,

that the n‘n‘ no longer meets the

definition of threatened or endangered

under the Act) as the outcome of a

formal five factor analysis in a

subsequent regulatory rulemaking. 

Achieving the prescribed recovery

criteria is an indication that the species

is no longer threatened or endangered,

but this must be confirmed by a

thorough analysis of the five listing

factors. 

Downlisting and Delisting Criteria

Downlisting and delisting criteria

were developed through discussions

with n‘n‘ managers on each of the

islands. To estimate population level

criteria, current populations, threats, and

the potential for expansion were

considered (Bailey, Hu, and Telfer, pers.

comms. 1998). Criteria established for

downlisting and delisting will be

revised, if necessary, as additional

information is provided by research

projects and monitoring programs.

5

An endangered species is defined in

section 3 of the Endangered Species Act as

“any species which is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.” A threatened species is defined as

“any species which is likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant portion

of its range.”

6

The five factors considered in

downlisting or delisting decisions are the

same as those considered in the initial listing

process for a species under section 4(a)(1) of

the Act: a) the present or threatened

destruction, modification, or curtailment of

its habitat or range; b) overutilization for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; c) disease or

predation; d) the inadquacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; and e) other natural

or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

51

Downlisting Criteria

Consideration for downlisting the

n‘n‘ to threatened status can occur

when each of the following criteria have

been reached and maintained for a

period of 15 years:

1) Self-sustaining populations exist on

Hawai`i, Maui Nui (Maui, Moloka`i,

L~na`i, Kaho!olawe), and Kaua`i. In

this case, self-sustaining is defined as

maintaining (or increasing) established

population levels without additional

releases of captive-bred n‘n‘, although

habitat manipulation, such as predator

control or pasture management, may

need to be continued. At least 7

populations must exist with the

following minimum sizes: 2

populations with 500 breeding adults

each, 1 population with 300 breeding

adults, 2 populations of 250 breeding

adults each, and 2 populations of 100

breeding adults each. The larger three

populations must be distributed on

Hawai!i, East Maui and Kaua!i, while

two of the smaller populations must

occur on two of the following: East

Maui, Moloka`i, Kaho!olawe, or L~na`i. 

Increasing population sizes, establishing

multiple populations, and providing for

breeding in the wild will address threats

to the n‘n‘ associated with reduced

genetic diversity, behavioral issues

stemming from captive conditions, and

the potential for disease transmission.

2) Sufficient suitable habitat to

sustain the target n‘n‘ population

levels on each island is identified,

protected, and managed in perpetuity.

Securing high quality nesting and

rearing habitat and associated summer

flocking habitat is key to n‘n‘

population stability and growth. Where

migration continues to be important,

particularly Hawai!i, the management of

established routes and new altitudinal

migration routes must be taken into

account to ensure the persistence of all

habitats necessary for the recovery and

long-term existence of n‘n‘. Both

public and private lands are important to

n‘n‘ recovery and portions of some

n‘n‘ populations may need to be

managed on private lands. Critical

elements of habitat identification,

protection, and management will include

addressing the threats to n‘n‘ posed by

introduced predators, loss of suitable

lowland habitats, poor nutrition, and

human-caused disturbance and

mortality.

A downlisting determination can

only be made on a “listable entity”

under the Endangered Species Act;

listable entities include species,

subspecies, or distinct population

segments of vertebrate animals, as

defined by the Endangered Species Act

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

policy (USFWS 1996). We have not

analyzed whether any of the current

n‘n‘ populations may constitute a
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

52

distinct population segment, and there is

insufficient information at this time to

make such a determination, but in the

future, if warranted by additional

information, downlisting may be

considered separately for a subset of the

n‘n‘ population if that population subset

is shown to meet the definition of a

distinct population segment. In

addition, to be proposed for downlisting,

any such population subset must be selfsustaining, have been increasing in size

from a minimum of 500 to at least 1,000

breeding adult birds over a period of 15

years, and sufficient suitable habitat (per

#2 above) must be determined to exist.

Delisting Criteria

Consideration for delisting can occur

once all of the downlisting criteria have

been met, and population levels on

Hawai`i, Maui Nui, and Kaua`i have all

shown a stable or increasing trend (from

downlisting levels) for a minimum of 15

additional years (i.e., for a total of 30

years). A monitoring plan shall be in

place and ready for implementation for a

minimum of 5 years post-delisting to

ensure the continuing effectiveness of

management actions and the welfare of

the species.

IV. RECOVERY ACTIONS

The Step-Down Outline and StepDown Narrative Outline of Recovery

Actions are organized into nine broad

categories:

1) Identify and protect n‘n‘ habitat

which focuses on the identification

and protection of sufficient habitat to

sustain target population levels;

2) Manage habitat and existing

populations for sustainable

productivity and survival

complemented by monitoring

changes in distribution and

abundance;

3) Control alien predators which

addresses control of introduced

mammals to enhance n‘n‘ populations;

4) Continue captive propagation

program which describes techniques

and priorities for the captive

propagation and release of n‘n‘ into

the wild; 

5) Establish additional n‘n‘

populations which focuses on

partnerships with private landowners; 

6) Address conflicts between n‘n‘ and

human activities which addresses

potential management and relocation

of n‘n‘ in unsuitable areas;
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

53

7) Identify new research needs and

continue research which describes

general categories of research needed

to better evaluate threats to n‘n‘ and

develop and evaluate management

strategies to address these threats;

8) Provide a public awareness and

information program which

describes important outreach and

education activities; and 

9) Validate recovery actions which

calls for formalizing the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group and

evaluating management and research

projects to determine if recovery

objectives have been met.

These general step-down categories

listed above do not have priority

numbers for implementation, but each

specific recovery action within each

category was assigned an

implementation priority number (see

Implementation Schedule, page 86). 

A. STEP-DOWN OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS

1. Identify and protect n‘n‘ habitat.

1.1. Identify year-round and seasonally-used suitable n‘n‘ nesting and rearing

habitat, and associated summer flocking habitat, necessary to sustain target

populations.

1.1.1. Develop criteria for identifying suitable n‘n‘ recovery habitat.

 1.2. Protect and restore sufficient suitable n‘n‘ habitat to sustain target population

levels on each island.

1.2.1. Develop strategies and techniques for protecting and restoring n‘n‘

habitat.

1.2.2. Identify the desired outcome of restoration activities.

1.3. Identify, map, and, where necessary, protect present and potential migratory

routes as populations increase in size.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

54

1.4. Develop island-specific implementation plans to meet population level targets

for downlisting and delisting criteria.

2. Manage habitat and existing populations for sustainable productivity and

survival.

2.1. Manage habitat to provide sufficient nutrition.

2.2. Minimize human-caused disturbance and mortality.

2.3. Continue release of captive-bred n‘n‘ to improve demographic (e.g., sex ratio

and age structure) and genetic characteristics of n‘n‘ populations in the wild,

where warranted.

2.4. Develop a genetics management plan.

2.5. Develop an injured bird salvage protocol for each n‘n‘ population.

2.6. Continue banding adults and young of the year.

2.7. Monitor n‘n‘ populations and evaluate annual trends.

3. Control alien predators in n‘n‘ habitat.

3.1. Develop and implement a mongoose control program for Hawai`i, Maui, and

Moloka`i.

3.2. Develop and implement a mongoose prevention and interdiction program for

Kaua`i.

3.3. Develop and implement a dog control program.

3.4. Develop and implement a feral cat control program.

3.5. Develop and implement a rodent control program.

3.6. Develop and implement a pig control program.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

55

4. Continue captive propagation program.

4.1. Maintain captive breeding flocks at Keauhou Bird Conservation Center and

Maui Bird Conservation Center.

4.2. Establish or maintain captive breeding flocks in open-top pens.

4.3. If warranted, explore the possibility of releasing zoo-bred n‘n‘.

4.4. If warranted, explore propagation of n‘n‘ by private organizations.

4.5. Prevent or minimize disease and parasite transmission.

4.5.1 Prevent or minimize transmission of avian malaria and other diseases

or parasites between captive and wild n‘n‘ flocks.

4.5.2. Prevent, detect, and minimize transmission of novel diseases and

parasites.

4.6. Where warranted by the environmental conditions of the release site,

incorporate improved rearing and release techniques into the captive

propagation and release program.

4.6.1. Depending on the environmental conditions of the release site,

provide captive n‘n‘ with a structurally diverse environment.

4.6.2. Depending on the environmental conditions of the release site,

implement prerelease human and predator-avoidance training of

n‘n‘.

4.7. Monitor captive-released birds.

5. Establish additional n‘n‘ populations in suitable, uninhabited areas that are

protected.

5.1. Establish cooperative agreements on private lands.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

56

5.2. Establish new populations of n‘n‘ on existing managed lands and on private

lands with cooperative agreements.

6. Address conflicts between n‘n‘ and human activities.

6.1. Develop safe and effective methods for managing n‘n‘ in unsuitable habitats.

6.2. Develop contingency plans for relocating n‘n‘ utilizing unsuitable habitats or

causing human safety hazards.

7. Identify new research needs and continue research on known limiting factors and

management techniques.

7.1. Identify limiting factors.

7.2. Conduct research on the control of predators.

7.2.1. Conduct research on the prevention, interdiction, and control of

mongooses.

7.2.2. Conduct research on the control of dogs.

7.2.3. Conduct research on the control of feral cats.

7.2.4. Conduct research on the control of rodents.

7.2.4. Conduct research on the control of pigs.

7.3. Conduct research to improve nutritional quality and availability of n‘n‘ food.

7.3.1. Develop methods for improving the quality and availability of n‘n‘

food.

7.4. Conduct research on habitat restoration.

7.5. Conduct research on n‘n‘ movements and evaluate the importance of seasonal

habitat use.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

57

7.6. Determine minimum viable population size for n‘n‘ on Hawai`i, Maui Nui,

and Kaua`i.

7.7. Determine carrying capacity of different habitats and methods to enhance

carrying capacity.

7.8. Refine monitoring methods.

7.9. Utilize results of genetic studies on wild and captive n‘n‘ flocks to enhance

flock management.

7.10. Identify, evaluate, and incorporate improved rearing and release techniques for

release sites with limited environmental conditions.

7.11. Conduct research on inter-island malarial strains.

7.12. Conduct research on topics of management concern.

7.13. Report results on all aspects of n‘n‘ research and management at least every 5

years.

8. Provide a public awareness and information program to build public support for

n‘n‘ recovery.

8.1. Work with nonprofit organizations to promote n‘n‘ appreciation.

8.2. Provide educational and informational opportunities for the public about the

need for predator control and the application of control methods for

conservation purposes.

8.3. Enlist the public’s aid in n‘n‘ recovery efforts through responsible pet

ownership and minimization of human disturbance.

8.4. Promote interpretation and educational programs.

9. Validate recovery objectives.

9.1. Formalize the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

58

9.1.1. Conduct semi-annual N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group meetings.

9.1.2. Annually compile monitoring data and determine the status of n‘n‘

statewide.

9.1.3. Develop and distribute annual reports on n‘n‘ recovery actions.

9.2. Review recovery objectives at every 5 years, or as appropriate.

B. NARRATIVE OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS

1. Identify and protect n‘n‘ habitat.

N‘n‘ were once abundant on most of the main Hawaiian islands. Although many

n‘n‘ nest in mid- and high-elevation sites today, it is believed they once nested

primarily in lowland areas. Reintroduced populations in lowland areas have been the

most successful and additional effort should be made to identify, protect, and manage

lowland sites in addition to mid- and high-elevation sites. Upland sites are also an

important component in the life cycle of n‘n‘, particularly in certain areas, and efforts

should be made to protect areas that birds may migrate/move to in the summer.

1.1. Identify year-round and seasonally-used suitable n‘n‘ nesting and rearing

habitat, and associated summer flocking habitat, necessary to sustain

target populations.

Key habitats for n‘n‘ introductions were previously determined based largely

on the locations of the last historically known wild populations. However,

these remaining wild populations are now known to have been stranded in

marginal habitats due to human development and the introduction of alien

species. The present locations of reestablished n‘n‘ populations have been

determined largely by the locations of release sites. Therefore, existing and

potential n‘n‘ habitats should be reevaluated using archaeological evidence

and n‘n‘ fossils, in addition to Baldwin’s observations (1945), to better

identify areas that were historically used by n‘n‘. This information should be

used to guide future management actions of releasing n‘n‘ and restoring or

enhancing habitat. Areas that can provide the best habitat for sustaining n‘n‘
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

59

populations with the least management effort should be emphasized with a

focus on low- to mid-elevation sites. Habitats used both year-round or which

are seasonally important should be identified.

Potential n‘n‘ habitat may exist on lands that are either currently protected

(such as National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and State Natural Area

Reserves) or unprotected. These areas need to be identified and utilized to

expand n‘n‘ populations and distribution. The amount of nesting, rearing, and

associated summer flocking habitat necessary to sustain target population

levels on each island should be identified. Lands on currently unoccupied

islands (such as L~na`i and Kaho`olawe) that may have potential n‘n‘ habitat

also should be identified for future release efforts.

1.1.1. Develop criteria for identifying suitable n‘n‘ recovery habitat.

Criteria for identifying suitable habitat for n‘n‘ should be developed

utilizing recent scientific findings. Criteria to consider include: 

availability and quality of nutritious forage plants, water, and shelter

over time and space; habitat type (e.g., alpine shrubland, wetland,

managed grassland, etc.); spatial geography (i.e., size, configuration,

elevation, leeward verses windward, topography); predator and

disease levels; feasibility of managing the area; potential for human

disturbance and mortality (e.g., roads, residential threats, poaching,

contaminants, etc.); fire regime and ecology; potential interchange of

n‘n‘ among nearby areas; potential for population growth or

estimated carrying capacity of the area; year-round and seasonally

important habitats; as well as historic use by n‘n‘. These and other

criteria should be used to evaluate all existing and potential n‘n‘

habitat areas. Consideration should be given to moving existing

populations living in areas not meeting the criteria, particularly if

they are not doing well in those locations.

The 1983 N‘n‘ Recovery Plan identifies some recovery habitat,

including Tax Map Keys and landownership (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1983c). These areas should be incorporated into a

Geographic Information Systems database. Other recovery habitats

must also be identified with Tax Map Keys and landownership and

incorporated into the Geographic Information Systems database. 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

60

From the above evaluation, a list of areas where n‘n‘ management

would be the most successful should be produced with Geographic

Information Systems, including private lands.

1.2. Protect and restore sufficient suitable n‘n‘ habitat to sustain target

population levels on each island.

Sufficient habitat to sustain target population levels on each island as identified

under Recovery Action 1.1 must be protected and restored through

conservation easements, agreements, leases, land acquisition, or other means,

where possible. Without a specific goal to manage for n‘n‘, changing

priorities by land managers may jeopardize n‘n‘ populations. Habitat

protection and restoration will require an indefinite commitment by current

land managers, whether public or private, for n‘n‘ habitat management. A

variety of habitats (low-, mid-, and high-elevation) should be protected and

restored to ensure adequate breeding and foraging, and summer and winter

habitat for n‘n‘ recovery.

1.2.1. Develop strategies and techniques for protecting and restoring

n‘n‘ habitat.

Land managers will need to develop strategies and techniques for

protecting and restoring n‘n‘ habitat which may be identified on

public and private lands. Landownership, elevation, and habitat type

may influence protection and restoration opportunities and methods. 

Restoration activities should take into account that n‘n‘ are

generalists and are currently believed to require a diverse suite of

food availability that may include nonnative and native vegetation

(Black et al. 1994; Banko et al. 1999).

1.2.2. Identify the desired outcome of restoration activities.

Managers need to identify the desired condition of restored habitat to

be able to determine if restoration goals are being met. Research is

needed on the former or potential composition and distribution of

native grass and shrub communities (Banko et al. 1999).
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

61

1.3. Identify, map, and, where necessary, protect present and potential

migratory routes as populations increase in size.

As n‘n‘ populations expand and traditional patterns of migration between

breeding and foraging grounds become reestablished, or new ones established,

these migratory routes should be identified and mapped. Additional areas that

are utilized by n‘n‘ for feeding, roosting, resting, and nesting should also be

identified and mapped. By documenting these sites, n‘n‘ managers can focus

their habitat protection and management efforts to incorporate these habitats.

1.4. Develop island-specific implementation plans to meet population level

targets for downlisting and delisting criteria.

Implementation plans for each island which address all of the factors

influencing n‘n‘ recovery should be developed within 3 years. These plans

should utilize the results gathered from the preceding and other appropriate

recovery tasks to determine the best island-based process for meeting the

population target levels resulting in self-sustaining n‘n‘ populations in

suitable, protected habitats. Given the differences in habitat use, forage

quality, predators, genetic diversity, and human pressures on each island, these

plans should be developed on an island by island basis. Members of the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group, with assistance from other experts as needed, should

take the lead in developing the island-specific plans. These plans should then

form the basis of a long-range, statewide plan for identifying, protecting, and

managing sufficient suitable habitats and establishing additional n‘n‘

populations. 

2. Manage habitats and existing populations for sustainable productivity and

survival.

Habitat must be actively managed in order for populations of n‘n‘ to exist without the

continued release of captive-bred birds. Habitat management plans should be written

for all protected areas. Management of various n‘n‘ habitat areas should be a

cooperative effort to allow the use of pooled resources and information and to take

into account the fact that n‘n‘ frequently move between various habitat areas.

The following factors are necessary for successful n‘n‘ populations:
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

62

• Predator-free areas or areas where predator populations are minimized.

• Sufficient food resources.

• Minimal human-caused disturbance and mortality.

• Maximum genetic diversity.

The basic steps for managing n‘n‘ habitat are listed below. Not all of these actions

are possible or needed in each n‘n‘ habitat area. The priority of recovery actions may

differ from area to area.

2.1. Manage habitat to provide sufficient nutrition.

Active habitat management in protected nesting and brooding areas should

improve productivity and survival, as well as keep birds within areas that can

be protected. Such efforts will occur on a site-by-site basis. Each land

manager should incorporate habitat manipulation consistent with their

organization’s overall objectives and available resources. Where appropriate,

work with researchers, non-governmental organizations, and private

landowners to develop outplanting plans for native habitat restoration efforts.

Management actions may include:

• Mow, fertilize, and irrigate existing pasture areas to improve

n‘n‘ foraging areas.

• Plant foods such as native berries (e.g., `Çhelo and pãkiawe),

native grasses (e.g., Agrostis avenacea), and other species

such as sedges and Canavalia hawaiiensis that are known to

be nutritious or important foods for n‘n‘ (Appendix B). 

Native plant species should be emphasized for enhancement

of n‘n‘ foraging areas.

• If needed, provide watering areas such as water units or

ponds or catchments designed to be safe for goslings.

• Managers may provide temporary supplemental feeding and

watering stations when appropriate, such as under extreme

environmental conditions (e.g., drought or fire).

• If mechanical mowing of pastures is not feasible, explore

alternate methods of keeping grass short, such as grazing.

• Larger-scale restoration of native habitat.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

63

2.2. Minimize human-caused disturbance and mortality.

Human-caused disturbance and mortality takes many forms and includes direct

injury caused by vehicles, golf balls, and poaching as well as less direct

disturbance by outdoor recreationists and roadside feeding of n‘n‘. Public

education can aid in minimizing such impacts to n‘n‘. Actions to prevent

disturbance and mortality include:

• Place signs (e.g., road signs noting the presence of n‘n‘,

educational signs stating ‘Please do not feed the n‘n‘,’

interpretive displays, posters, or flyers) in areas subject to

human disturbance, including hunting areas.

• Work with government transportation and maintenance

departments to decrease vehicular speed in areas frequented

by n‘n‘ (e.g., speed bumps, speed limits, and road signs) and

to decrease attraction of n‘n‘ to roadsides through

appropriate vegetation management.

• Evaluate impact of pesticide and herbicide use on n‘n‘

forage, health, and reproduction.

• Develop and implement a public education and information 

program.

• Manage operational activities, such as maintenance and other

resource management activities, to prevent or minimize

disturbance to n‘n‘, particularly during the breeding season.

• Manage recreational activities, such as camping, hiking, and

hunting, to prevent or minimize disturbance to n‘n‘.

2.3. Continue release of captive-bred n‘n‘ to improve demographic (e.g., sex

ratio and age structure) and genetic characteristics of n‘n‘ populations in

the wild, where warranted.

In order to augment populations and to maximize the genetic diversity of n‘n‘

populations in the wild, captive-bred n‘n‘ representing select genotypes should

be released in suitable habitats as identified under the development of islandspecific implementation plans (see Recovery Action 1.4). N‘n‘ released into

these areas could be from breeding pens in the wild or from an established

captive propagation facility. Appendix G contains general criteria for

reestablishing n‘n‘ populations.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

64

2.4. Develop a genetics management plan.

No genetics management plan has been developed for n‘n‘ and given concerns

about inbreeding depression, a plan should be developed within the next 5

years. A genetics consulting group of population genetics experts, including

the flock manager, should be established. This group will be able to review the

captive flock status, status of the population in the wild, suggest new studies,

rerun demographic models, and prepare an annual summary for the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group that it can use to make management decisions.

2.5. Develop an injured bird salvage protocol for each n‘n‘ population.

Adult survival is critical to long-term persistence of n‘n‘ populations; thus

n‘n‘ that are injured in the wild must be evaluated by biologists in each area. 

Biologists must determine if an injured n‘n‘ should be salvaged (i.e., removed

from the wild for examination or treatment) or left in the wild. Managers of

each population must develop salvaging protocols for injured, dying, or dead

n‘n‘, as well as for goslings and eggs. Protocols should be as consistent as

possible among populations and reviewed for commentary by the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group. Protocols must incorporate the following items:

• Objectives of salvage.

• Methods for salvage.

• Final disposition of salvaged n‘n‘ or eggs.

• Authorization protocol - State and Federal permits and policies

require authorization from the State biologist and the Federal

biologist. The approval of an attending veterinarian may also be

required before salvage of live n‘n‘.

2.6. Continue banding adults and young of the year.

The use of individually recognizable plastic leg bands along with U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service aluminum leg bands permits the most accurate method for

tracking n‘n‘ movements, assessing their genealogy, longevity, productivity,

and population size. Due to the importance of banding in n‘n‘ population

assessment, banding of adults and young of the year should continue.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

65

2.7. Monitor n‘n‘ populations and evaluate annual trends.

Monitoring various parameters is necessary to determine the effectiveness of

recovery actions and evaluate recovery of the species. Population and flock

numbers, habitat use, dispersal, reproductive success, survival, mortality,

predator control effectiveness, and health are among the parameters that should

be monitored. Information from banded n‘n‘ will be valuable in assessing

populations. Survey methods currently vary between locations, but have

generally been consistent within a given location. Ideally, managers

responsible for n‘n‘ restoration should evaluate monitoring methods and

coordinate with each other to gather core monitoring parameters with

customization for their particular populations and resources. Combining this

information into a single database will allow statewide evaluation of population

trends. To the extent possible, managers should try to develop similar or

standardized monitoring protocols for all locations so that analysis of

population trends is easily accomplished.

Specific monitoring and evaluation actions may include:

• Implant microchips in goslings when possible.

• Continue annual surveys of all known n‘n‘ populations.

• Locate nests and determine nesting success.

• Survey nesting attempts by identifying females with brood

patches.

• Conduct radio-telemetry studies.

3. Control alien predators in n‘n‘ habitat.

Control of predators in n‘n‘ habitat, especially during the breeding season, is

essential. One of the major threats to n‘n‘ populations is predation of eggs, goslings,

and adults by introduced mammals. N‘n‘ evolved in the absence of mammalian

predators and are thus extremely vulnerable to these species.

Mongooses, dogs, cats, pigs, and rats must be controlled using available legal

methods. Methods of predator control include fencing, trapping, shooting, and

poisoning. As additional methods are developed and approved, they should be

incorporated into management protocols. In particular, multi-species toxicants and

aerial broadcasts of toxicants are control methods currently being developed that may
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

66

be appropriate for use in remote areas. Under toxicant label restrictions, no impacts to

nontarget species are expected (K. Swift, pers. comm. 2003). If other predators are

identified, such as the introduced barn owl (Tyto alba), predator control methods for

those species also should be developed and implemented. The importance of each

predator species should be evaluated in order to focus predator control efforts cost

effectively. The importance of a particular predator species to n‘n‘ populations is

likely to vary among islands. For example, mongoose predation currently does not

appear to be an issue on Kaua!i, but dog control is a concern, while mongoose and

feral cat control is important at Haleakal~ National Park (Telfer and Bailey, pers.

comm. 1998).

3.1. Develop and implement a mongoose control program for Hawai`i, Maui,

and Moloka`i.

As evidenced by the success of n‘n‘ on Kaua`i, mongoose predation is

believed to be a primary factory preventing the recovery of n‘n‘. Control of

mongoose in other areas could lead to similar increases in n‘n‘ populations and

possibly natural dispersal and range expansion.

 Immediate mongoose control actions can include:

• Develop mongoose control programs in prime n‘n‘ breeding

areas.

• Develop effective predator-proof fencing.

• Continue to pursue approval and registration of additional

toxicants.

• Evaluate current control programs in all locations.

• Research improved methods of detection and control.

• Increase public awareness of mongoose impacts on n‘n‘

recovery and build support for mongoose control actions.

3.2. Develop and implement a mongoose prevention and interdiction program

for Kaua`i.

The lack of an established mongoose population on Kaua`i has enhanced the

ability of n‘n‘ populations to expand on this island. Preventing mongoose

from becoming established on Kaua`i and detection of mongoose accidentally

released is critical to the continued recovery of n‘n‘ on Kaua`i.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

67

Immediate mongoose prevention and interdiction actions can include:

C Develop improved detection techniques.

C Investigate the temporal and geographic pattern of mongoose

sightings.

C Develop improved techniques to capture mongoose.

• Develop effective predator-proof fencing.

C Develop a biosecurity plan.

3.3. Develop and implement a dog control program.

Dogs are known to be serious predators of n‘n‘. Both feral and stray dogs

have preyed upon adult n‘n‘ in the N~ Pali and Crater Hill populations on

Kaua!i. The agencies responsible for n‘n‘ restoration must develop a control

program sensitive to public response. Awareness programs should be

implemented that incorporate information for both the general public and

hunters that hunt with dogs on the danger dogs present to n‘n‘ populations.

Immediate dog control actions can include:

• Develop dog control programs in prime n‘n‘ breeding areas.

• Enlist the aid of Wildlife Services (U.S. Department of

Agriculture) or local resource management agencies to remove

dogs from areas accessible by the public.

• Develop effective predator-proof fencing.

• Use box traps, leg-hold traps, or other appropriate means to

capture dogs.

• Allocate funds for use of helicopters to remove dogs from

remote areas.

• Send press releases to local media to provide information to the

public on the impacts of dogs on n‘n‘.

• Incorporate discussion of the problem uncontrolled or escaped

hunting dogs pose to n‘n‘ in hunter education efforts.

• Consider enacting no hunting zones near important nesting or

molting habitat.

• Support the development of humane capture and control

techniques.

• Increase public awareness of dog impacts on n‘n‘ recovery and

build support for dog control actions.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

68

3.4. Develop and implement a feral cat control program.

Feral cats have been documented to predate goslings. 

Immediate feral cat control actions can include:

• Develop feral cat control programs in prime n‘n‘ breeding areas.

• Develop effective predator-proof fencing.

• Evaluate current trapping efforts in all locations.

• Increase public awareness of feral cat impacts on n‘n‘ recovery

and build support for feral cat control actions.

3.5. Develop and implement a rodent control program.

Rodents have been documented to predate n‘n‘ eggs and goslings.

 Immediate rodent control actions can include:

• Develop rodent control programs in prime n‘n‘ breeding areas.

• Develop effective predator-proof fencing.

• Continue to pursue approval and registration of additional

toxicants.

• Evaluate current trapping efforts in all locations.

• Increase public awareness of rodent impacts on n‘n‘ recovery

and build support for rodent control actions.

3.6. Develop and implement a pig control program.

Pigs have been documented to predate n‘n‘ eggs, goslings, and flightless

adults.

 Immediate pig control actions can include:

• Develop pig control programs in prime n‘n‘ breeding areas.

• Develop effective predator-proof fencing.

• Evaluate current trapping efforts in all locations.

• Increase public awareness of pig impacts on n‘n‘ recovery and

build support for pig control actions.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

69

4. Continue captive propagation program.

In order to maximize genetic diversity, augment existing populations, and establish

new populations, captive flocks should be maintained. Captive propagation programs

are developed in accordance with the guidelines established by the U.S. Department of

the Interior’s Policy on Controlled Propagation (U.S. Department of the Interior

2000), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World

Conservation Union’s Conservation Breeding Specialist Group’s policy on captive

propagation (International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1987, 2000), the

World Conservation Union’s Reintroduction Specialist Group’s Guidelines for

Reintroduction (International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1998), the

American Zoo and Aquarium Association Reintroduction Advisory Group’s

guidelines (Beck 1992), Conservation Breeding Specialist Group’s Conservation

Assessment Management Plan recommendations (Ellis et al. 1992), and the Small

Population Management Advisory Group Guidelines (American Zoo and Aquarium

Association 2003).

4.1. Maintain captive breeding flocks at Keauhou Bird Conservation Center

and Maui Bird Conservation Center.

The captive breeding facilities at the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center and

the Maui Bird Conservation Center should continue in order to produce n‘n‘ to

augment populations in the wild, establish new populations, and to maximize

genetic diversity. Salvaged eggs from populations in the wild may provide an

additional source of genetic diversity. Emphasis should continue to be placed

on producing parent-reared goslings as opposed to sibling-reared groups

because parent-reared goslings adapt better to living in the wild.

Captive breeding stocks should be managed for maximum genetic diversity

(i.e., composed of birds from different populations and diverse genetic stocks). 

Egg from pairs from the wild of known origin, especially from Hawai`i

Volcanoes National Park, should be added to the captive flocks to further

reduce similarity among captive n‘n‘ breeding stock (Rave 1995). The

pedigree of pairs from the wild will be important in selecting appropriate eggs

for inclusion in the captive flock. Where management for maximum genetic

diversity conflicts with other management directions (e.g., prevention and

minimization of disease transmission), the Hawaiian Endangered Bird

Conservation Program will need to determine the best course of action.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

70

The n‘n‘ captive propagation strategy should be evaluated and implemented

through the development of annual work plans and 5-year work plans

established between the operators of the captive propagation facilities, the

Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. The plans should include input from the public, N‘n‘ Recovery

Action Group, and related working groups. The plans should incorporate the

most current n‘n‘ information including the dynamics of the population in the

wild, available funding, research developments, disease information, available

release sites, the relative benefit of captive release strategies compared to other

recovery strategies, and the progress made in the captive maintenance and

propagation of n‘n‘.

4.2. Establish or maintain captive breeding flocks in open-top pens.

Captive breeding in open-top pens in the wild may be necessary if existing

propagation facilities cannot produce sufficient n‘n‘ needed for release. 

Management of open-top pen propagation should be complimentary to and part

of captive propagation efforts. Such coordination will ensure that the same

guidelines will be followed for both open-top and captive breeding facilities

and allow for unified genetic management.

4.3. If warranted, explore the possibility of releasing zoo-bred n‘n‘.

The potential for releasing n‘n‘ or utilizing eggs produced by n‘n‘ from

locations such as the Honolulu Zoo or the Waterfowl and Wetlands Trust

facility in England should be examined. These facilities have the potential to

contribute a large number of captive-bred n‘n‘ or eggs in the event that

Recovery Actions 4.1 and 4.2 cannot be accomplished. However, the genetic

characteristics of these captive animals may preclude their usefulness for

supplementing populations in the wild and establishing new n‘n‘ populations. 

Wildlife health officials should be consulted regarding the risk of introducing

diseases to n‘n‘ flocks in the wild. Guidelines for health screening and

studbook records would also need to be established if this recovery action were

to be undertaken. The high costs in time and resources associated with the

identification of zoos, and quarantining and testing of animals, limit the

viability of this action for repopulating or expanding n‘n‘ into unoccupied

habitat.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

71

4.4. If warranted, explore propagation of n‘n‘ by private organizations.

Propagation of n‘n‘ by private organizations and zoos should be explored,

particularly in the event that Recovery Actions 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 cannot be

accomplished. N‘n‘ produced by these organizations can be utilized as

sources of n‘n‘ for release into the wild if deemed appropriate. The selected

organization(s) must agree to work cooperatively with the agencies that

manage n‘n‘, for the release of n‘n‘ to augment or establish populations in the

wild. They must have a written, N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group-approved

agreement to propagate n‘n‘ (i.e., a Memorandum of Understanding or a Safe

Harbor Agreement). The organization(s) must also agree to abide by health

screening standards and other permit conditions including studbook record

guidelines.

4.5. Prevent or minimize disease and parasite transmission.

Although diseases and parasites have the potential to seriously impact n‘n‘

recovery efforts (Kear and Brown 1976; Kear and Berger 1980), fortunately

they have not seriously impacted wild or captive n‘n‘ flocks to date (Banko

and Manuwal 1982; Gassmann-Duvall 1987; Bailey and Black 1995; Banko et

al. 1999). Guidelines are in place to prevent or minimize the transmission of

diseases and parasites within captive flocks and all birds are given health

screenings prior to being moved to release sites. However, the impact of avian

malaria on n‘n‘ populations is unknown and could potentially be minor. 

However, further research is needed given malaria’s devastating impacts on

native Hawaiian forest birds (van Riper et al. 1986; Banko et al. 1999; Shehata

et al. 2001). In the absence of this information, additional methods (e.g.,

raising captive birds under mosquito netting) to address avian malaria

transmission and genetic considerations need to be further explored. Plans also

need to be developed to address novel diseases such as West Nile Virus.

4.5.1 Prevent or minimize transmission of avian malaria and other

diseases or parasites between captive and wild n‘n‘ flocks.

The inter-island transport and release of birds that are reared in

captive propagation facilities can be a route for movement of disease

organisms between isolated populations and facilities if these birds

are not reared under mosquito netting or in isolation from wild and
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

72

domestic birds. Currently, captive n‘n‘ are not reared under

mosquito netting nor are they all raised in isolation from wild and

domestic birds. Due to concerns about potentially transferring

unique regional strains of avian malaria among islands with the

release of infected captive-bred n‘n‘, n‘n‘ are currently tested for

the presence of malarial infections prior to release. N‘n‘ that cannot

be certified malaria-free are not released off island. These protocols

are important to protect both n‘n‘ as well as the more susceptible

native forest birds.

Release restrictions on infected n‘n‘ could potentially affect the

restoration of n‘n‘ populations on islands without a captive

propagation facility. Until disease concerns are ruled out, methods

to prevent or minimize the potential for disease introduction should

continue to be incorporated into all n‘n‘ management decisions. 

However, these decisions will also need to take into the account the

impact of disease prevention and minimization methods on both the

genetic heterozygosity in the captive flock and the behavioral

management of the flock. Where current management for disease

and parasite transmission conflicts with other management directions

(e.g., maximize genetic diversity), the Hawaiian Endangered Bird

Conservation Program will need to determine the best course of

action (e.g., raising n‘n‘ under mosquito netting, transferring fertile

eggs or goslings between facilities). Such actions will also need to

address the potential for transferring unique regional strains of avian

malaria to whole island avifaunas. Disease screening should be

expedited to minimize any release restrictions and allow for

maximum flock management while still maintaining disease

precautions.

4.5.2. Prevent, detect, and minimize transmission of novel diseases and parasites.

N‘n‘ and other Hawaiian avifauna may be threatened by the

introduction of novel diseases, such as West Nile Virus, or parasites. 

Some of these diseases have the potential to decimate n‘n‘

populations. Managers should interface with other agencies to

identify potential threats, reduce the chances of introducing novel

diseases or parasites, and to produce strategies to minimize the threat
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

73

of diseases and parasites that are detected or become established in

Hawai`i. Specific actions could include:

• Work with State and Federal agencies to prevent the

introduction of novel diseases and parasites.

• If needed, develop methods to detect diseases and

parasites.

• Evaluate the risk of novel diseases and parasites to n‘n‘.

• Identify potential remedies such as vaccines.

• Develop biosecurity plans addressing emergency salvage

of healthy birds, protection of genetic stock, process for

emergency exemptions for effective vaccines, etc.

4.6. Where warranted by the environmental conditions of the release site,

incorporate improved rearing and release techniques into the captive

propagation and release program.

Current captive-breeding techniques have been very successful in producing

n‘n‘ for release. However, the environmental conditions of different release

sites may necessitate some changes in the rearing and release techniques to

enable newly released n‘n‘ to better adapt to their surroundings. Results from

studies on captive-breeding and release techniques should be incorporated into

the captive propagation program, where appropriate, to enhance survival of

released birds. 

4.6.1. Depending on the environmental conditions of the release site,

provide captive n‘n‘ with a structurally diverse environment.

If n‘n‘ are to be released in areas with a limited range of

environmental conditions (e.g., Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park),

mimicking n‘n‘ habitat as closely as possible in the captive

environment may enhance the ability of newly released n‘n‘ to adapt

to their environment. Incorporation of native forage plants and

plants used for nesting habitat may also enhance the survival and

future reproduction of recently released birds in areas where native

forage is available.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

74

4.6.2. Depending on the environmental conditions of the release site,

implement pre-release human and predator-avoidance training

of n‘n‘.

N‘n‘ generally show little fear of humans. This lack of fear has

resulted in inappropriate behaviors, such as begging, that have

proven to lead to injuries or deaths (e.g., n‘n‘ begging for food have

been struck by cars). Human contact in the captive-rearing process

should be reduced whenever possible. Prerelease predatoravoidance training of n‘n‘ may increase the survival rate of released

captive-bred n‘n‘. While it does appear that captive goslings

recognize and respond to predators by freezing and becoming

quieter, they may not automatically exhibit appropriate avoidance

behavior later on (Zillich 1995). Various methods of teaching

goslings predator avoidance are also being examined (Zillich 1995;

Zillich, pers. comm. 1998). If proven effective, methods of reducing

predator interactions could be incorporated into the captive

propagation program if it is deemed appropriate for the targeted

release site.

4.7. Monitor captive-released birds.

Birds which are released from the captive propagation program should be

monitored to determine their behavior, habitat use, survival, and reproduction

following release. Results from the monitoring can potentially be used to

further refine rearing and release techniques (see Recovery Action 2.6).

5. Establish additional n‘n‘ populations in suitable, uninhabited areas that are

protected.

Areas with current n‘n‘ populations are not producing n‘n‘ without intensive

management. Following the identification and protection of suitable n‘n‘ habitat (see

Recovery Action 1), additional n‘n‘ populations should be established.

5.1. Establish cooperative agreements on private lands.

Private lands identified as potential n‘n‘ habitat should be considered for

cooperative agreements. Landowners should be made aware of Safe Harbor
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

75

Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that allow such cooperative

agreements. Tax incentives should be sought for private landowners that are

interested in having endangered species on their lands. The U.S. Department

of Agriculture has a conservation division that administers the Wildlife Habitat

Enhancement Program that may be a source of funds to private landowners

wishing aid for n‘n‘ conservation efforts on their lands. Where possible,

agreements should be established on an island-wide basis.

5.2. Establish new populations of n‘n‘ on existing managed lands and on

private lands with cooperative agreements.

N‘n‘ should be released on private or public lands that have been identified as

suitable and where landowners have agreed to cooperate with Federal and State

resource managers. These releases will be conducted using the most

appropriate methods, agreed on by the managing agencies, and should include

long-term maintenance and monitoring.

6. Address conflicts between n‘n‘ and human activities.

As n‘n‘ populations increase, particularly in heavily populated lowland areas, they

may often come into conflict with human activities. For example, n‘n‘ on Kaua`i

utilize a variety of lowland areas including truck farms, golf courses, and airport

runway aprons. N‘n‘ utilizing these areas may present a safety hazard to humans. 

Humans may also inadvertently harm n‘n‘ by feeding them which could result in n‘n‘

showing aggressive behaviors towards humans, being injured or killed by vehicles, or

being placed at increased risk from predators. Methods and plans to prevent and

address these potential human-n‘n‘ conflicts must be developed. Such methods and

plans will alleviate potential safety problems, provide managers with flexible and

effective means to deal with problem n‘n‘, and provide for continued public support

of n‘n‘ recovery actions. Addressing these conflicts will allow n‘n‘ to coexist with

areas of established human activity. 

6.1. Develop safe and effective methods for managing n‘n‘ in unsuitable

habitats.

Measures for safely and effectively managing n‘n‘ in unsuitable habitats such

as airport runways, need to be developed. These measures should be made

available to land managers as a tool to address n‘n‘ conflicts.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

76

6.2. Develop contingency plans for relocating n‘n‘ utilizing unsuitable habitats

or causing human safety hazards.

If removal of n‘n‘ from unsuitable habitats or from areas where they are

causing human safety hazards is warranted, plans must be in place to govern

the methods and processes for relocating n‘n‘ to other habitats. N‘n‘

managers should develop and periodically reevaluate these plans with

assistance from the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group.

7. Identify new and continue research on known limiting factors and management

techniques.

Research on factors limiting n‘n‘ recovery and improved management techniques

should be conducted in order to enhance the effectiveness of n‘n‘ recovery actions.

7.1. Identify limiting factors.

Although many factors limiting n‘n‘ recovery have been identified and at least

partially addressed, there still remains uncertainty regarding the factors

affecting some populations. Despite controlling known limiting factors, some

n‘n‘ populations are still not doing well. Identification of additional factors

that may be limiting the growth or survival of these populations needs to be

conducted. Once identified, research on these limiting factors should be

considered to develop appropriate management techniques.

7.2. Conduct research on the control of predators.

Predation continues to be a major limiting factor for n‘n‘ populations. The

effectiveness of current predator control efforts needs to be evaluated and

methods that are practical for management in n‘n‘ habitat should be identified. 

Managers need to know the relative efficacy and cost of whatever method is

used. In addition, the measure of success of predator control techniques should

be evaluated independently of n‘n‘ reproductive success, as factors other than

predator control also influence n‘n‘ reproductive success (E. Campbell, pers.

comm. 2002).

Live-trapping, shooting, and toxicants are the predator control methods

currently in use. Live trapping is extremely labor-intensive and costly, and its
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

77

effectiveness varies depending upon the targeted species. A rodenticide,

diphacinone, is used in bait stations to control rats and mongooses. Within the

next few years diphacinone should be approved by the State of Hawai`i and the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for aerial broadcast to cover larger

areas more effectively. Better control methods for cats, dogs, and pigs must be

identified. The development of better lures, and more effective humane livetrapping techniques for these species is critically needed (Campbell, pers.

comm. 2002).

7.2.1. Conduct research on the prevention, interdiction, and control of

mongooses.

Development of mongoose detection and control techniques needs to

focus on the identification of effective lures for traps. Effective lures

are particularly important for the island of Kaua`i which does not yet

have an established population of mongooses. Trapping in areas in

which sightings have occurred has not been successful, likely

because of an abundant prey source and/or low density of

mongooses (Campbell, pers. comm. 2003; Telfer, in litt. 2003).

Numerous sightings since 1968 suggest that there may be individual

mongooses that have arrived on Kaua!i which could become

established. If mongooses are determined at any time to be present

on Kaua!i, it could prove a serious blow to n‘n‘ and other native

species on the island.

7.2.2. Conduct research on the control of dogs.

The development of humane live-trapping techniques is necessary

for increasing the effectiveness of dog control. Techniques already

in use for coyotes and wolves on the mainland United States could

be adapted relatively easily to target dogs in Hawai`i.

7.2.3. Conduct research on the control of feral cats.

Currently, there are no effective techniques for controlling feral cats. 

Better lures for use in live traps and the adaptation of humane traps,
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

78

such as padded leg-holds, is needed. Design and testing of predatorproof fences may prove to be the most useful deterrent.

7.2.4. Conduct research on the control of rodents.

Diphacinone, a rodenticide, is used in bait stations to control rodents. 

Aerial broadcast of diphacinone in select areas will allow managers

to more effectively control rodents. Following approval of this

control technique, rodent populations should be monitored and the

effectiveness of this technique evaluated.

7.2.5. Conduct research on the control of pigs.

Techniques currently employed for controlling pigs include fencing,

dogs trained to hunt pigs, and hunting in select areas. Research

funds should be used to monitor the effectiveness of these various

techniques.

7.3. Conduct research to improve nutritional quality and availability of n‘n‘

food.

Recent studies have looked at the nutritional needs of adult n‘n‘ and their use

of habitats in Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park as well as in Haleakal~

National Park showing that a diversity of foods are utilized by adults (Black et

al. 1994; Woog and Black 2001). Additional studies need to be initiated to

look at the nutrition of food items utilized by goslings. Preliminary work

shows that starvation and/or dehydration may be primary causes of gosling

death in Haleakal~ National Park (Baker and Baker 1995). It has been noted

that gosling mortality is high in certain areas (Haleakal~ National Park and

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park) and recently, gosling mortality appeared to

be a problem on Kaua!i (Baker and Baker 1995; Telfer, pers. comm. 1999). At

this time, native food plants have been poorly studied. Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park is currently funding studies on nutritional values of native food

plants and conducting palatability trials with goslings (Sherry 2000).
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

79

7.3.1. Develop methods for improving the quality and availability of

n‘n‘ food.

Recent work (see above) shows high rates of gosling mortality which

may be due to food quality and availability. Methods for

determining and improving food quality and availability for n‘n‘

goslings should be field tested and critically analyzed. The focus of

these studies should be to determine why available nutritional

resources are not sufficient for gosling growth and to develop

methods that can be utilized for enhancing nutritional resources for

goslings. Recent studies show that adult n‘n‘ selected sites with

grass having a high water content, grazed most in grasses shorter

than 11 centimeters (4.3 inches), and used grasslands less during dry

periods though they may be more likely to move to grass habitats

during drought (Black et al. 1997,;Woog and Black 2001). Grass

with low water content is lower in protein (Woog and Black 2001).

There have been recent concerns on Kaua`i regarding gosling

mortality due to nutritional deficiencies. Since formal studies on

nutrition have only been conducted on Hawai`i and Maui, there is a

need to conduct such studies on Moloka`i and Kaua`i as well.

7.4. Conduct research on habitat restoration.

Habitat restoration and management is increasingly believed to be important to

attaining self-sustaining n‘n‘ populations, particularly in certain areas (Hu

1998; Banko et al. 1999), however, habitat restoration has not yet been well

developed as a tool for n‘n‘ recovery. Previous research efforts need to be

supplemented by gathering additional information on: 1) areas within their

former range where n‘n‘ may be supported with predominantly native

vegetation; 2) the potential former composition and distribution of native grass

and shrub communities with reference to native plant species known or

believed to be important to n‘n‘ prehistorically; 3) the nutritional value,

palatability, and ecological requirements of native plants utilized by n‘n‘; and

4) methods for converting habitats dominated by invasive alien species to

habitats dominated by natives (Hu 1998; Banko et al. 1999; Sherry 2000;

Woog and Black 2001).
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

80

7.5. Conduct research on n‘n‘ movements and evaluate the importance of

seasonal habitat use.

Telemetry studies should be undertaken to elucidate movements of some n‘n‘

populations and determine their habitat use and migration pathways. For

example, it is not known where the n‘n‘ that nest in the Hakalua National

Wildlife Refuge go during the nonbreeding season (Jeffrey, pers. comm. 2003). 

New and existing data should be further analyzed to better evaluate the

importance of seasonal habitat use by some n‘n‘ populations.

7.6. Determine minimum viable population size for n‘n‘ on Hawai`i, Maui

Nui, and Kaua`i.

Ecological, demographic and genetic data should be compiled and used to

devise more comprehensive Population Viability Analysis models, using

current knowledge of parameters and planned recovery actions. Population

Viability Analysis or other population modeling programs should be run

periodically (at least every 2 years). A Population Viability Analysis

workshop should be conducted for n‘n‘ managers in which the most recent

data are run at the workshop and the results discussed during the workshop by

the managers and Federal and State agency personnel. Managers should be

trained to perform this analysis and to understand its implications for n‘n‘

management. Data needs to be collected in a consistent manner in order to

compare the different populations.

7.7. Determine carrying capacity of different habitats and methods to enhance

carrying capacity.

The carrying capacity of habitats utilized by n‘n‘ and identification of

management methods to enhance the carrying capacity of these areas should be

determined. Understanding the carrying capacity of different habitat types will

allow land managers to better plan habitat protection and develop more specific

habitat restoration and management goals.

7.8. Refine monitoring methods.

Monitoring methods need to be reviewed and altered if necessary so that

census results are comparable between years and sites. Managers of each
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

81

population should periodically review their monitoring methods with each

other and with the agencies responsible for n‘n‘ restoration. It would also be

useful if monitoring protocols were standardized so that analysis of population

trends is easily accomplished and if monitoring was designed with the potential

for use in post-delisting monitoring. Population and flock numbers, habitat

use, reproductive success, predator control effectiveness, and avian health are

among the parameters that should be monitored.

The use of implantable identification markers (microchips), in addition to leg

bands, should be used to mark goslings when they can be captured along with

parent birds, so that their family identity can be determined if they are

subsequently recaptured as adults. Efforts should continue to find long-lasting,

readable colored plastic or metal bands for field identification, especially as

most birds will be resighted rather than recaptured.

7.9. Utilize results of genetic studies on wild and captive n‘n‘ flocks to enhance

flock management.

Recent studies showed that n‘n‘ within some populations are more inbred, but

are not necessarily related between populations (Rave et al. 1994; Rave 1995). 

N‘n‘ on Kaua`i are more closely related to each other than Hawai`i Volcanoes

National Park n‘n‘ are to each other, for example (Rave 1995). To increase

genetic diversity, n‘n‘ can be translocated between populations that are least

related.

Captive breeding stocks should include the most genetically diverse stock of

n‘n‘ as possible. Eggs from pairs in the wild of known origin, should be added

to propagation facilities to further reduce similarities among captive n‘n‘

breeding stock (Rave 1995).

7.10. Identify, evaluate, and incorporate improved rearing and release

techniques for release sites with limited environmental conditions.

A review of past rearing and release techniques has shown that n‘n‘ survival is

affected by both how n‘n‘ are reared and how they are released (Marshall and

Black 1992; Black et al. 1997). Managers should continue to parent-rear n‘n‘

goslings. Releases should continue to be from open-top or closed-top gentle

release pens and with parents or foster parents. These techniques have proven
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

82

highly successful in producing n‘n‘. Rearing and release techniques that

enhance the survival of released n‘n‘, particularly when n‘n‘ are released into

areas lacking a diversity of habitat types (e.g., Hawai`i Volcanoes National

Park), should continue to be developed and implemented. The effects of

reduced human contact prior to release should be researched. Humanavoidance training should also be explored to enhance n‘n‘ survival in the

wild.

7.11. Conduct research on inter-island malarial strains.

The potential for transferring unique regional strains of avian malaria between

islands with the release of infected captive-bred n‘n‘ has led to the testing of

all n‘n‘ for malarial infections prior to release. N‘n‘ that cannot be certified

malaria-free are not released off island since it is currently unknown if different

malarial strains exist on each island. Research to determine the presence or

absence of unique regional strains of avian malaria should be conducted and

the results incorporated into the captive propagation and release of n‘n‘. 

7.12. Conduct research on topics of management concern.

Increasing n‘n‘ populations and expansion of n‘n‘ into unoccupied habitats

may lead to additional areas of management concern. For example, as n‘n‘

populations increase and migrate between low and high elevation areas,

research projects should address the establishment of new flyways. The

introduction of n‘n‘ to unoccupied habitats and the role of n‘n‘ in managed

habitats should also be examined. 

The impact of alien species on n‘n‘ should also be assessed. For instance, the

alien plant Senecio madagascariensis is toxic to livestock and may also be

toxic to n‘n‘ (Hu, pers comm. 2002). This plant is found on the islands of

Hawai`i, Maui, and Kaua`i. Its spread could have negative consequences for

n‘n‘ if it is proved to be toxic and n‘n‘ inadvertently forage on it.

7.13. Report results on all aspects of n‘n‘ research and management at least

every 5 years.

Successful management of n‘n‘ populations is dependent on knowledge gained

from research projects and testing of management techniques. Regular
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

83

reporting of research and management activities will aid managers in the

recovery of this species. Activities should be summarized on a regular basis

with 5 years as a maximum time period. The N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group

would be an appropriate venue to compile and report on n‘n‘ research and

management activities.

8. Provide educational and informational opportunities to build public support for

n‘n‘ recovery.

A public awareness and information program is crucial for increasing both general

public and lawmaker support for n‘n‘ recovery actions. Land managers should work

with existing public information divisions within their agencies and with nonprofit

organizations to develop information materials and programs to build public support

for n‘n‘ recovery.

8.1. Work with nonprofit organizations to promote n‘n‘ appreciation.

Nonprofit and volunteer organizations can develop and implement educational

strategies and materials that can be made available to all sectors of the public

about n‘n‘. Information should be disseminated on current conservation

measures, threats to n‘n‘, methods for keeping n‘n‘ from becoming suburban

nuisances, status on n‘n‘ in Hawaiian culture, and basic biology. Media for

transmitting this information could include interpretive displays, television and

radio spots, newspaper and magazine articles, posters, t-shirts, classroom

materials, and the internet. An Adopt-A-N‘n‘ program, developed through the

Friends of Haleakal~ National Park, Inc., is proving to be a successful means of

public awareness and fund raising and could be carried out on other islands.

8.2. Provide educational and informational opportunities to the public about

the need for predator control and the application of control methods for

conservation purposes.

Predator control is an extremely important and effective recovery action. 

Public understanding and support of predator control efforts is essential to the

recovery of n‘n‘. The public education campaign explaining the need for

aerial broadcast of diphacinone for conservation purposes and the relative

risk(s) of this predator control method should be continued. Other predator

control measures should also be brought to the public’s attention to aid in their
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

84

understanding of n‘n‘ recovery actions and to build public support for n‘n‘

recovery. The role of humans in contributing to n‘n‘ predation should also be

addressed in educational programs and materials.

8.3. Enlist the public’s aid in n‘n‘ recovery efforts through responsible pet

ownership and minimization of human disturbance.

The public should be informed about the role of humans in n‘n‘ recovery. 

Release of domesticated dogs and cats, and human feeding and disturbance of

n‘n‘ in the wild can all negatively affect n‘n‘ survival, reproduction, and

behavior. The public should be encouraged to be responsible pet owners and to

obey signs and regulations regarding interactions with n‘n‘.

8.4. Promote interpretation and educational programs.

Public awareness and environmental education should be promoted and

supported through development of interpretive and educational displays,

establishment of visitor centers, and implementation of school educational

programs. Increased public awareness and support for native species and their

habitats can be accomplished through development of visitor centers and

interpretive materials. Funding and support of teacher education programs and

the development and distribution of educational materials will aid in educating

the community and increasing support for recovery actions.

9. Validate recovery objectives.

The scientific validity of the stated recovery objectives must be evaluated periodically

to assess whether the projected number of populations and individuals will prove to be

adequate to safeguard against catastrophic events and long-term processes over the

next 200 years.

9.1. Formalize the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group.

N‘n‘ management and recovery actions are currently coordinated by the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group. The N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group is comprised of

n‘n‘ experts and resource managers but its effectiveness has been hampered

due to infrequent meetings resulting in limited coordination and evaluation of

management and research projects across the main Hawaiian Islands. 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

85

Formalizing the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group through semi-annual meetings

and annual reporting of activities should aid managers in their recovery work. 

If the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group is unable to accomplish these recovery

actions, consideration should be given to reestablishing and funding a formal

N‘n‘ Recovery Team.

9.1.1. Conduct semi-annual N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group meetings.

Conducting semi-annual meetings will provide a venue for land

managers and researchers to discuss and evaluate their activities. 

These meetings will also allow the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group to

evaluate the recovery objectives on a regular basis and revise them if

necessary.

9.1.2. Annually compile monitoring data and determine the status of

n‘n‘ statewide.

Various agencies are responsible for monitoring n‘n‘ populations. 

Since these agencies are represented in the N‘n‘ Recovery Action

Group, the N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group should compile the

monitoring data from these agencies and annually determine the

status of n‘n‘ statewide. Such a compilation would provide

managers with a measure of the success of recovery actions and the

ability to identify areas where additional work is needed.

9.1.3. Develop and distribute annual reports on n‘n‘ recovery actions.

The N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group should compile and distribute

annual reports on management, research, and public education

activities addressing n‘n‘ recovery. These reports will allow the

N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group and others to assess the progress being

made in implementing recovery actions.

9.2. Review recovery objectives every 5 years, or as appropriate.

Recovery objectives should be reviewed on a regular basis with a maximum

review period of 5 years. If analysis suggests that the current objectives are

inadequate to recover n‘n‘, the recovery objectives should be revised.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

86

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The Implementation Schedule that

follows outlines the actions and

estimated costs for the n‘n‘ recovery

program, as set forth in this plan. It is a

guide for accomplishing the objectives

and actions suggested in this recovery

plan. The schedule describes and

prioritizes recovery actions, provides an

estimated timeframe for performance of

recovery actions, the parties responsible

for the actions (either funding or

carrying out), and estimates costs. The

actions identified in this Implementation

Schedule, when accomplished, should

achieve the recovery of the n‘n‘.

We have the statutory responsibility

for implementing this recovery plan;

only Federal agencies are mandated to

take part in recovery efforts. However,

n‘n‘ recovery will require the

involvement of the full range of Federal,

State, private, and local interests. The

expertise and contributions of additional

agencies and interested parties has been

and will continue to be needed to

implement certain recovery actions and

to accomplish education and outreach

objectives. The “responsible parties”

identified in the implementation

schedule are those agencies, nongovernmental organizations, or

interested individuals, such as private

landowners, that may voluntarily

participate in any aspect of

implementation of recovery actions

listed. Responsible parties may

willingly participate in project planning,

funding, provide technical assistance,

staff time, or any other means of

implementation. The listing of a party

in the Implementation Schedule does not

require the identified party to implement

the action(s) or to secure funding for

implementing the action(s). 

Definition of Action Priorities:

Priority 1—An action that must be

taken to prevent extinction or

prevent the 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.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

87

Definition of Action Durations:

Continual (C)—An action that will

be implemented on a routine basis

once begun.

Ongoing (O)—An action that is

currently being implemented and

will continue until it is no longer

necessary.

To Be Determined (TBD)—Either

action duration or associated costs

are not known at this time or

implementation of the action is

dependent on the outcome of other

recovery actions.

Key to Responsible Parties (potential

lead parties identified in bold type):

BRD U.S. Geological Survey,

Biological Resources

Division

DOFAW Hawai`i Division of Forestry

and Wildlife

NGO Non-Governmental

Organization

NPS National Park Service

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NRAG N‘n‘ Recovery Action

Group

TBD To Be Determined

USDA U.S. Department of

Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

ZSSD Zoological Society of San

Diego
88

Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

1 1.1 Identify year-round and seasonallyused suitable n‘n‘ nesting and

rearing habitat, and associatedsummer flocking habitat, necessaryto sustain target populations.

2 NRAG 100.8 80 20.8 

1 1.1.1 Develop criteria for identifying

suitable n‘n‘ habitat.

1 NRAG 11.2 11.2 — 

1 1.2 Protect and restore sufficient

suitable n‘n‘ habitat to sustaintarget population levels on eachisland.

O USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/NGO/private

232.0 46.4 46.4 

1 1.2.1 Develop strategies and techniques

for protecting and restoring n‘n‘

habitat.

O USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/NGO/Private

100.0 30 30 

1 1.2.2 Identify the desired outcome of

restoration activities.

5 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD/NRAG

120.0 40 30 

1 1.4 Develop island-specific

implementation plans to meetpopulation level targets fordownlisting and delisting criteria.

3 NRAG 225.0 75 75 

1 2.1 Manage habitat to provide

sufficient nutrition.

C NWR/NPS

DOFAW/NGO

Private

174.0 34.8 34.8 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

89

1 K-3 2.3 Continue release of captive-bred

n‘n‘ to improve demographic and

genetic characteristics of n‘n‘

populations in the wild, wherewarranted.

O NRAG 50.0 10 10 

1 2.4 Develop a genetics management

plan.

5 NRAG 14.0 4 4 

1 2.6 Continue banding adults and young

of the year.

O NRAG 30.0 6 6 

1 2.7 Monitor n‘n‘ populations and

evaluate annual trends.

O NRAG 676.0 135.2 135.2 

1 K-3 3.1 Develop and implement a

mongoose control program forHawai`i, Maui, and Moloka`i.

O NWR/DOFAW

NPS

120.0 24 24 

1 H-3

M-3

3.2 Develop and implement a

mongoose prevention andinterdiction program for Kaua`i.

C NWR/DOFAW

NPS

200.0 25 25 

1 3.3 Develop and implement a dog

control program.

O NWR/DOFAW

NPS

350.0 50 50 

1 3.4 Develop and implement a feral cat

control program.

C NWR/DOFAW

NPS

625.0 125 125 

1 3.5 Develop and implement a rodent

control program.

O NWR/DOFAW

NPS

925.0 185 185 

1 3.6 Develop and implement a pig

control program.

O NWR/DOFAW

NPS

50.0 10 10 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

90

1 K-3 4.1 Maintain captive breeding flocks at

Keauhou Bird Conservation Centerand Maui Bird ConservationCenter.

O USFWS/DOFAW

ZSSD

175.0 35 35 

1 K-3 4.5.1 Prevent or minimize transmission

of avian malaria and other diseasesor parasites between captive andn‘n‘ flocks in the wild.

O USFWS/DOFAW

ZSSD/BRD

55.0 20 20 

1 4.5.2 Prevent, detect, and minimize

transmission of novel diseases andparasites.

C USFWS/DOFAW

ZSSD/BRD

47.4 22.4 10 

1 K-3 4.7 Monitor captive-released birds. O NWR/NPS

DOFAW

52.5 10.5 10.5 

1 5.1 Establish cooperative agreements

on private lands.

5 USFWS/DOFAW

NGO/private

550.0 110 110 

1 K-2 5.2 Establish new populations of n‘n‘

on existing managed lands and onprivate lands with cooperativeagreements.

O USFWS/DOFAW

NGO/private

100.0 20 20 

1 7.2.1 Conduct research on the prevention,

interdiction, and control ofmongooses.

2 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

200.0 100 100 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

91

1 7.2.2 Conduct research on the control of

dogs.

3 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

150.0 50 50 

1 7.2.3 Conduct research on the control of

feral cats.

C USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

1,875.0 375 375 

1 7.2.4 Conduct research on the control of

rodents.

2 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

50.0 10 10 

1 7.2.5 Conduct research on the control of

pigs.

C USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

50.0 10 10 

1 7.8 Refine monitoring methods. 3 NRAG 22.4 11.2 5.6 1 8.2 Inform the public about the need for

predator control. and theapplication of control methods forconservation purposes.

C NRAG 220.0 44 44 

1 9.1.1 Conduct semi-annual NRAG

meetings.

O NRAG 112.0 22.4 22.4 

1 9.1.2 Annually compile monitoring data

and determine the status of n‘n‘

Statewide.

C NRAG 2.5 .5 .5 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

92

2 2.2 Minimize human-caused

disturbance and mortality.

O NWR/NPS

DOFAW/NGO

Private

185.5 59.5 31.5 

2 K-3 4.2 Establish or maintain captive

breeding flocks in open-top pens.

NPS/ZSSD 50.0 10 10 

2 7.1 Identify limiting factors. C USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

60.0 15 15 

2 7.3.1 Develop methods for improving the

quality and availability of n‘n‘

food.

6 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

339.0 67.8 67.8 

2 7.4 Conduct research on habitat

restoration.

C USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

375.0 75 75 

2 K-3 7.5 Conduct research on n‘n‘

movements and evaluate theimportance of seasonal habitat use.

C USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

200.0 40 40 

2 7.6 Determine minimum viable

population size for n‘n‘ on

Hawai`i, Maui-Nui, and Kaua`i.

2 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD/ZSSD

Research

Institutions

100.0 — 50 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

93

2 7.9 Utilize results of genetic studies on

wild and captive n‘n‘ flocks to

enhance flock management.

C NRAG

Research

Institutions

15.0 3 3 

2 7.11 Conduct research on inter-island

malarial strains.

3 NRAG, BRD,

Research

Institutions

150.0 60 50 

2 7.13 Report results on all aspects of n‘n‘

research and management at leastevery five years.

C NRAG

Research

Institutions

15.0 15 — 

2 8.3 Enlist the public’s aid in n‘n‘

recovery efforts through responsiblepet ownership and minimization ofhuman disturbance.

C NRAG 100.0 20 20 

2 9.1.3 Develop and distribute annual

reports on n‘n‘ recovery actions.

NRAG 17.5 3.5 3.5 

3 1.3 Identify, map, and, where

necessary, protect present andpotential migratory routes aspopulations increase in size.

C NRAG 3.6 — 1.8 

3 2.5 Develop an injured bird salvage

protocol for each n‘n‘ population.

1 NRAG 5.6 — — 

3 4.3 If warranted, explore the possibility

of releasing zoo-bred n‘n‘.

2 NRAG/Zoos TBD — — 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

94

3 4.4 If warranted, explore propagation

of n‘n‘ by private organizations.

2 NRAG/Private TBD — — 

3 4.6.1 Depending on the environmental

conditions of the release site,provide captive n‘n‘ with a

structurally diverse environment.

C NRAG 40.0 8 8 

3 4.6.2 Depending on the environmental

conditions of the release site,implement pre-release predatoravoidance training of n‘n‘.

C NRAG 5.0 1 1 

3 K-1 6.1 Develop safe and effective methods

for managing n‘n‘ in unsuitable

habitats.

C NRAG 35.0 10 5 

3 K-1 6.2 Develop contingency plans for

relocating n‘n‘ utilizing unsuitable

habitats or causing human safetyhazards.

C NRAG 35.0 10 5 

3 7.7 Determine carrying capacity of

different habitats and methods toenhance carrying capacity.

3 USFWS/DOFAW

NPS/BRD

Research

Institutions

300.0 — 100 

3 7.10 Identify, evaluate, and incorporate

improved rearing and releasetechniques for release sites withlimited environmental conditions.

C NRAG

Research

Institutions

45.0 15 15 
Implementation Schedule for N‘n‘ Draft Revised Recovery Plan Act

Statewide

Priority

Number

Island

Priority

Number1

Action

Number

Action Description Action

Duration

(Years)

Responsible

Parties

Cost Estimates (

Total

Costs

FY

2004

FY 

2005

95

3 7.12 Conduct research on topics of

management concern.

C NRAG

Research

Institutions

150.0 30 30 

3 8.1 Work with non-profit organizations

to promote n‘n‘ appreciation.

C NRAG/NGO 20.0 2 2 

3 8.4 Promote interpretation and

educational programs.

C NRAG 25.0 5 5 

3 9.2 Review recovery objectives every 5

years, or as appropriate.

NRAG 22.5 — — 

TOTAL 9,958.5

1 Island Priority Number: priority numbers are noted by island (H=Hawai`i, M=Maui Nui, K=Kaua!i) if the island priority differs from the statewide p

Note: These actions are not required by law, but are recommended in this recovery plan. Actions can only be implemented subject to available fundin
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

96

VI. REFERENCES

A. LITERATURE CITED

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th edition. 

Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1993. Thirty-ninth supplement to the American

Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American birds. Auk 110:675-682.

Anderson Brown, A.F. 1979. The incubation book. BPCC Wheatons Ltd., Exeter, U.K.

American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA). 2003. Population management

handbook: integrating data analysis for breeding recommendations. Unpublished

handbook by The American Zoo and Aquarium Association.

Bailey, T. and J. M. Black. 1995. Parasites of wild and captive nene Branta sandvicensis

in Hawaii. Wildfowl 46:59-65.

Baker, P.E. and H. Baker. 1995. Nene report: egg and gosling mortality in Haleakal~

National Park, 1994-95. Unpublished report to Hawai`i Division of Forestry and

Wildlife, HI. 45 pp.

Baker, P.E. and H. Baker. 1999. Nene gosling mortality in Haleakal~ National Park,

Maui, 1995/96 breeding season. Unpublished report to Hawai`i Division of

Forestry and Wildlife, HI. 31 pp.

Baldwin, P.H. 1945. The Hawaiian goose, its distribution and reduction in numbers. 

Condor 47:27-37.

Baldwin, P.H. 1947. Foods of the Hawaiian goose. Condor 49:108-120.

Banko, P.C. 1988. Breeding biology and conservation of the nene, Hawaiian goose

(Nesochen sandvicensis). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle,

WA.

Banko, P.C. 1992. Constraints on productivity of wild nene or Hawaiian geese Branta

sandvicensis. Wildfowl 43:99-106.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

97

Banko, P.C. and D.A. Manuwal. 1982. Life history, ecology, and management of nene

(Branta sandvicensis) in Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakal~ National Parks. Final

Report to the National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA. 153 pp.

Banko, P.C., J.M. Black, and W.E. Banko. 1999. Hawaiian Goose (Nene). The Birds of

North America, No. 434, A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). The Birds of North

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Banko, P.C., R.E. David, J.D. Jacobi, and W.E. Banko. 2001. Conservation status and

recovery strategies for endemic Hawaiian birds. Studies in Avian Biology

22:359-376.

Banko, W.E. and W.H. Elder. 1990. History of endemic Hawaiian birds. Part I.

Population histories–species accounts: scrub-grassland birds: N‘n‘–Hawaiian

Goose. Avian History Report 13A. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies

Unit, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, HI.

Beck, B. 1992. Guidelines for reintroduction of animals born or held in captivity. AZA

(American Zoo and Aquarium Association) Reintroduction Advisory Group (3

June, 1992).

Berger, A.J. 1981. Hawaiian birdlife, Second edition. The University of Hawaii Press,

Honolulu, HI.

Black, J.M. 1994. The nene Branta sandvicensis recovery initiative: research against

extinction. Ibis 137:S153-S160.

Black, J.M. 1998. Threatened waterfowl: recovery priorities and reintroduction potential

with special reference to the Hawaiian Goose. Pages 125-140 in J.M. Marzluff

and R. Sallabanks (editors). Avian conservation: research and management. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Black, J.M. and P.C. Banko. 1994. Is the Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis) saved

from extinction? Pages 394-410 in P.J.S. Olney, G.M. Mace and A.T.C. Feistner

(editors). Creative conservation - interactive management of wild and captive

animals. Chapman and Hall, London, U.K.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

98

Black, J.M., F. Duvall, H. Hoshide, J. Medeiros, C. Natividad Hodges, N. Santos, and T.

Telfer. 1991. The current status of the Hawaiian goose Branta sandvicensis and

its recovery programme. Wildfowl 42:149-154.

Black, J.M., J. Prop, J.M. Hunter, F. Woog, A.P. Marshall, and J.M. Bowler. 1994. 

Foraging behaviour and energetics of the Hawaiian goose Branta sandvicensis. 

Wildfowl 45:65-109.

Black, J.M., A.P. Marshall, A. Gilburn, N. Santos, H. Hoshide, J. Medeiros, J. Mello, C.

Natividad Hodges, and L. Katahira. 1997. Survival, movements, and breeding of

released Hawaiian geese: an assessment of the reintroduction program. Journal of

Wildlife Management 6:1161-1173.

Brown, J.H. and A.C. Gibson. 1983. Biogeography. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, MI.

Burney, D.A., H.F. James, L.P. Burney, S.L. Olson, W. Kikuchi, W.L. Wagner, M.

Burney, D. McCloskey, D. Kikuchi, F.V. Grady, R. Gage II, and R. Nishek. 

2001. Fossil evidence for a diverse biota from Kaua`i and its transformation since

human arrival. Ecological Monographs 71:615-641.

Carson, H.L. 1989. Gene pool conservation. Pages. 118-124 in C.P. Stone and D.B.

Stone, (editors). Conservation biology in Hawai`i. University of Hawaii Press,

Honolulu, HI.

Conant, S. and M. Stemmerman. 1979. Haleakal~ National Park Crater District

Resources Basic Inventory: Birds. CPSU/UH Technical Report 26 (Dept. of

Botany, University of Hawaii). 53 pp.

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

humans, their activities and introductions. Cooperative National Park Resources

Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, HI.

Devick, W.S. 1981a. Status of the nene population on the island of Hawaii between 1975

and 1980. Unpublished report to Hawai`i Division of Forestry and WildlifeDepartment of Land and Natural Resources, HI. 52 pp. + appendix.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

99

Devick, W.S. 1981b. Status of the nene population on Maui between 1975 and 1980. 

Unpublished report to Hawai`i Division of Forestry and Wildlife- Department of

Land and Natural Resources, HI. 12 pp.

Dole, S.B. 1869. A synopsis of birds hitherto described from the Hawaiian Islands. 

Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. 12:294-309.

Dole, S.B. 1879. List of birds of the Hawaiian Islands. Pages 41-58 in Thrum's Hawaiian

Almanac and Annual for 1879. Thos. Thrum, Honolulu, HI.

Elder, W.H. and D.H. Woodside. 1958. Biology and management of the Hawaiian goose. 

Pages 198-215 in Transactions of the Twenty-third North American Wildlife

Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Ellis, W. 1917. Narrative of a tour through Hawaii, etc. Reprint of the London, 1827, ed. 

Honolulu Gazette. 367 pp.

Ellis, S., C. Kuehler, R. Lacy, K. Hughes, and U.S. Seal. 1992. Hawaiian forest birds:

conservation assessment and management plan. Captive Breeding Specialist

Group, IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Species Survival Commission. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI.

Fiedler, P.L. and K.J. Subohd (eds.) 1992. Conservation biology: the theory and practice

of nature conservation preservation and management. Chapman and Hall, New

York, NY.

Fisher, J., N. Simon, and J. Vincent. 1969. Wildlife in Danger. Viking Press, New York,

NY. 368 pp.

Gassmann-Duvall, R. 1987. An acute Cyathostoma bronchialis outbreak in the Hawaiian

goose and other parasite findings. Pages 61-68 in Proceedings of the Conference

of Avian Veterinarians and American Association of Zoo Veterinarians. O`ahu,

HI.

Giffen, J.G. 1993. New species of fossil birds found at Puu Waawaa. `Elepaio 53:1-3.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

100

Gilpin, M.E. and M.E. Soulé 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species

extinction. Pages 19-34 in M.E. Soulé (editor). Conservation biology: the science

of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

Green, A. 1994. Taxa for consideration. Threatened Waterfowl Research Group

Newsletter 5:2-3.

Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species

conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245: 477-80.

Guppy, H.B. 1906. Observations of a naturalist in the Pacific between 1890 and 1899. 

Macmillan & Co., Ltd., London, U.K. 627 pp.

Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). 1993. Report of nene activity in

Kapapala Cooperative Game Management Area in association with the 1992-1993

game bird hunting season.

Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). 2000. Survey of the nene

population on Maui. `Elepaio 60:25-28.

Henshaw, H.W. 1902. Birds of the Hawaiian Islands, being a complete list of the birds of

the Hawaiian possessions, with notes on their habits. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu,

HI. 146 pp.

Hoshide, H.M., A.J. Price, and L. Katahira. 1990. A progress report on nene Branta

sandvicensis in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park from 1974-89. Wildfowl

41:152-155.

Hu, D.E. 1998. Causes of extinction and endangerment in Hawaiian birds. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA.

Hu, D. 2000. Nene conservation update from Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The

Bulletin of the Threatened Waterfowl Specialist Group 12:8-9

Humphrey, P.S. and K.C. Parkes. 1959. An approach to the study of molts and plumages. 

Auk 76:1-31.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

101

Hunter, J.M. 1995. A key to ageing goslings of the Hawaiian goose Branta sandvicensis. 

Wildfowl 46:55-58.

Hunter, J.M. and J. Black 1995. Guide to the statewide database on Hawaiian geese,

version 2. Unpublished report by The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, December

1995. 35 pp. + appendices.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1987. Guidelines for Captive

Breeding. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 1998. Guidelines for

Reintroductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2000. Guidelines for Captive

Breeding. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.

James, H.F. and S.L. Olson. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from

the Hawaiian Islands. Part II. Passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 46:1-

88.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1965. Handbook of waterfowl behavior. Cornell University Press,

Ithaca, NY.

Kear, J. and A.J. Berger. 1980. The Hawaiian goose: an experiment in conservation. 

Buteo Books, Vermillion, SD.

Kear, J. and M. Brown. 1976. A pox like condition in the Hawaiian Goose. International

Zoo Yearbook 16:133-134.

Kirch, P.V. 1982. The impact of the prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem. 

Pacific Science 36:1-14.

Kirch, P.V. 1983. Man’s role in modifying tropical and subtropical Polynesian

ecosystems. Archaeol. Oceania 18:26-31.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

102

Kirch, P.V. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: an introduction to Hawaiian

archaeology and prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

Koford, R.R., J.B. Dunning, Jr., C.A. Ribic, and D.M. Finch. 1994. A glossary for avian

conservation biology. Wilson Bulletin 106:121-137.

Long, J.L. 1981. Introduced birds of the world. Universe Books, New York, NY.

Lyons, S.L.K. 2002. Determining distribution and hjabitat preference of the nene

population on Kauai: specifically the Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge. M.S.

thesis. University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, HI.

Marshall, A.P. and J.M. Black. 1992. The effect of rearing experience on subsequent

behaviour traits in Hawaiian geese Branta sandvicensis: implications for the

recovery programme. Bird Conservation International 2:131-147.

May, R.M. and S.K. Robinson. 1985. Population dynamics of avian brood parasitism. 

American Naturalist 126:475-494.

Miller, A.H. 1937. Structural modifications in the Hawaiian goose (Nesochen

sandvicensis): a study in adaptive evolution. University of California Publications

in Zoology 42(1):1-80.

Morin, M. 1987. Nene restoration plan. State of Hawaii, Division of Forestry and

Wildlife, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Unpublished report, November 1986, re-edited 1987. 44 pp.

Mueller-Dombois, D. 1976. The major vegetation types and ecological zones in Hawaii

Volcanoes National Park and application to park management and research. 

Proceedings of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Natural Sciences Conference

1:149-161.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and F.R. Fosberg. 1974. Vegetation map of Hawaii Volcanoes

National Park. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit Technical

Report 4. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 44 pp.

Munro, G.C. 1944. Birds of Hawaii. Tongg Publishing Company, Honolulu, HI.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

103

Natividad Hodges, C.S. 1991. Survey of nene (Nesochen sandvicensis) at Haleakal~

National Park 1988 through 1990. `Elepaio 51:38-39.

Olson, S.L. 1992. Survey of Kaho!olawe for bones of extinct birds. Appendix C in

Kaho!olawe Biological Database and Reconnaissance Survey of Kaho!olawe

Island including rare plants, animals and natural communities. Unpublished

report by The Nature Conservancy.

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian

Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology No. 365:1-59. Washington, D.C.

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1984. The role of Polynesians in the extinction of the

avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Pages 768-780 in P.S. Martin and R.G. Klein

(eds.). Quaternary extinctions: a prehistoric revolution. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson, AZ.

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from

the Hawaiian islands: Part I. Non-passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs

45:1-88.

Palmer, D.D. 2003. Hawai!i’s ferns and fern allies. University of Hawai!i Press,

Honolulu, HI.

Paxinos, E. 1998. Prehistoric Anseriform diversity the Hawaiian Islands: a molecular

perspective from the analysis of subfossil DNA. Ph.D. dissertation, Brown

University, Providence, RI.

Paxinos, E.E., H.F. James, S.L. Olson, M.D. Sorenson, J. Jackson, and R.C. Fleisher. 

2002a. mtDNA from fossils reveals a radiation of Hawaiian geese recently

derived from the Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 99:1399-1404.

Paxinos, E.E., H.F. James, S.L. Olson, J.D. Ballou, J.A. Leonard, and R.C. Fleisher. 

2002b. Prehistoric decline of genetic diversity in the nene. Science 296:1827.

Peale, T.R. 1848. Mammalia and ornithology. U.S. Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842,

Vol. 8. Sherman, Philadelphia, PA.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

104

Perkins, R.C.L. 1903. Vertebrata. Pages 365-466 in D. Sharp (editor). Fauna

Hawaiiensis. Vol. 1, Part IV. The University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Pimm, S.L., H.L. Jones, and J.D. Diamond. 1988. On the risks of extinction. American

Naturalist 132:757-85.

Pope, W.T. 1932. The Hawaiian goose or nene. Pages 107-112 in Hawaiian Annual for

1933. Printshop Co., Honolulu, HI.

Proctor, N.S. and P.J. Lynch. 1993. Manual of ornithology: avian structure & function. 

Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Pyle, R.L. 1997. Checklist of the birds of Hawaii – 1997. `Elepaio 57:129-138.

Quinn, T.W., G.F. Shields, and A.C. Wilson. 1991. Affinities of the Hawaiian goose

based on two types of mitochondrial DNA data. Auk 108:585-593.

Ralph, C.J. 1981. Terminology used in estimating numbers of birds. Pages 577-578 in

C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott (editors). Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. 

Studies in Avian Biology 6.

Rave, E.H. 1994. Genetic analysis of captive and wild populations of Hawaiian geese. 

M.S. thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. 100 pp.

Rave, E.H. 1995. Genetic analysis of wild populations of Hawaiian geese using DNA

fingerprinting. Condor 97:82-90.

Rave, E.H., R.C. Fleischer, F. Duvall, and J.M. Black. 1994. Genetic analysis through

DNA fingerprinting of captive populations of Hawaiian geese. Conservation

Biology 8:744-751.

Rave, E.H., R.C. Fleischer, F. Duvall, and J.M. Black. 1999. Effect of inbreeding on

reproductive success in captive populations of Hawaiian geese. Wildfowl 49: 36-

44.

Ricklefs, R.E. 1979. Ecology. Chiron Press, New York, NY.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

105

Robinson, K.D. and J.T. Rotenberry. 1991. Clutch size and reproductive success of house

wrens rearing natural and manipulated broods. Auk 108:277-284.

Rojek, N.A. 1994a. Notes on the behavior of released nene: interactions with !io and a

lava tube incident. `Elepaio 54:41-43.

Rojek, N.A. 1994b. The development of feeding behavior in nene (Branta sandvicensis)

goslings: implications for captive propagation and release. M.S. thesis, University

of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, HI.

Rojek, N.A. and S. Conant 1997. Food preferences and response to novel native berries

by captive-reared nene Branta sandvicensis goslings. Wildfowl 48:26-39.

Scott, J.M., S. Conant, and C. van Riper, III (eds.) 2001. Evolution, ecology,

conservation, and management of Hawaiian birds: a vanishing avifauna. Studies

in Avian Biology No. 22.

Scott, J.M., S. Mountainspring, F.L. Ramsey, and C.B. Kepler. 1986. Forest bird

communities of the Hawaiian Islands: their dynamics, ecology, and conservation. 

Studies in Avian Biology 9:1-431.

Scott, P. 1962. A project for a nene park in Hawaii. !Elepaio 22:80-81.

Sedinger, J.S. and D.G. Raveling. 1984. Dietary selectivity in relation to availability and

quality of food for goslings of cackling geese. Auk 101:295-306.

Shehata, C., L. Freed, and R.L. Cann. 2001. Changes in native and introduced bird

populations on O`ahu: infectious diseases and species replacement. Studies in

Avian Biology No. 22:264-273.

Sherry, K. 2000. Nene gosling nutritional study: Progress report. Unpublished report to

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry and Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park files. 2

pp.

Smith, J.D. 1952. The Hawaiian goose (nene) restoration program. Journal of Wildlife

Management 16:1-9.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

106

Stanley Price, M.R. 1989. Animal reintroductions: the Arabian oryx in Oman. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, U.K

Stone, C.P., R.L. Walker, J.M. Scott, and P.C. Banko. 1983a. Hawaiian goose research

and management - where do we go from here? `Elepaio 44:11-15.

Stone, C.P., H.M. Hoshide, and P.C. Banko. 1983b. Productivity, mortality, and

movements of nene in the Ka’u desert, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, 1981-

1982. Pacific Science 38:301-311.

Telfer, T.C. 1994. Survey of the nene population on Kauai. Pittman-Robertson Report

W-18-R-20, Job R-I-G, July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993. Hawaii Department of

Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI.

Telfer, T.C. 1995. Survey of the nene population on Kauai. Pittman-Robertson Report

W-18-R-20, Job R-I-G, July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1994. Hawaii Department of

Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI.

Telfer, T.C. 1996. Survey of the nene population on Kauai. Pittman-Robertson Report

W-18-R-20, Job R-I-G, July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. Hawaii Department of

Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI.

Telfer, T.C. 2003. Nene surveys, Kauai County. Pittman-Robertson Report W-35-NGS,

Project No. 1, Job 3, July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Hawaii Department of Land

and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Policy regarding controlled propagation of species

listed under the endangered species act. Federal Register 65:56916-56922.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1967. Endangered Species List - 1967. 

Federal Register 32:4001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983a. Endangered and threatened species

listing and recovery priority guidance. Federal Register 48:43098-43105.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983b. Endangered and threatened species

listing and recovery priority guidelines correction. Federal Register 48:51985.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

107

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983c. Nene (Hawaiian Goose) Recovery

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 62 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of

distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. 

Federal Register 61:4722.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered Species Bulletin. 

March/June 2002. Vol. XXVII, No. 2. Washington, D.C.

van Riper III, C., S.G. van Riper, M.L. Goff, and M. Laird. 1986. The epizootiology and

ecological significance of malaria in Hawaiian land birds. Ecological

Monographs 56:327-344.

van Tyne, J. and A.J. Berger. 1976. Fundamentals of ornithology, Second edition. John

Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of

Hawai<i, Revised edition, Volumes 1 and 2. University of Hawaii Press,

Honolulu, HI.

Walker, R. 1969. Nene restoration project report. Unpublished document, Division of

Fish and Game, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu, HI. 9pp.

Walker, R. 1977. How to save an endangered species - the Hawaiian goose (nene). 

Presented to the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, Honolulu, HI, Oct.

31, 1977. 9pp.

Weller, M.W. 1980. The island waterfowl. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

Welty, J.C. 1975. The life of birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.

Wilson, S.B. and A.H. Evans. 1893. Aves Hawaiiensis: the birds of the Sandwich

islands. R.H. Porter, London.

Woodside, D.H. 1956. Wild nene on Hawaii. `Elepaio 16:67-68.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

108

Woog, F. 1993. Ökologie der Hawaiigans (Branta sandvicensis) in vershiedenen

Habitaten des Haleakal~ Nationalparks auf Maui (Hawai`i, U.S.A.) zur Brutzeit

mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nahrungsökologie. Diploma thesis,

Universität Hohenheim.

Woog, F. 2000. Ecology and behavior of reintroduced Hawaiian geese. Ph.D.

dissertation, Universität Hannover, Germany.

Woog, F. and J.M. Black. 2001. Foraging behavior and the temporal use of grasslands by

n‘n‘: implications for management. Studies in Avian Biology 22:319-328.

Woolfenden, G.E. 1961. Post cranial osteology of the waterfowl. Bulletin of the Florida

State Museum Biological Sciences 6:1-129.

Zillich, U. 1995. Teaching Hawaiian geese predator avoidance behaviour. Threatened

Waterfowl Research Group Newsletter 7:16-17.

B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Bailey, Cathleen. National Park Service, Haleakal~ National Park, Makawao, Maui, HI.

Campbell, Earl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,

Honolulu, HI.

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

and Wildlife, Wailuku, Maui, HI.

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

Hilo, HI.

Hu, Darcy. National Park Service, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI.

Kaiakapu, Thomas. Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of

Forestry and Wildlife, Lihue, Kaua`i, HI.

Marshall, Annie. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,

Honolulu, HI.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘ July 2004

109

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

and Wildlife, Wailuku, Maui, HI.

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

and Wildlife, Hilo, HI.

Nagata, Ron. National Park Service, Haleakal~ National Park, Makawao, Maui, HI.

Phocas, George. Law Enforcement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI.

Pratt, Thane. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, K§lauea Field

Station, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI.

Sherry, Kathleen. National Park Service, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI.

Swift, Katie. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,

Honolulu, HI.

Tamayose, Joy. National Park Service. Haleakal~ National Park, Makawao, Maui, HI.

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

and Wildlife, Lihue, Kaua`i, HI.

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

and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI.

Work, Thierry. U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Research Center,

Honolulu, HI.

Zillich, Ute. The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucester, U.K.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix A-1 July 2004

110

Appendix A-1.

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Hawai!i, 1960-20031.

Year

Release Sites2 Total

Released

Islandwide

Population

Hakalau Estimate

NWR

HAVO Kahuku Kea!au Keauhou Keauhou

II

K§puka

!}inahou

1960 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 <503

1961 0 0 0 0 11 20 0 31 no data

1962 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 <1004

1963 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 42 no data

1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005

1965 0 0 0 0 30 19 0 49 no data

1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~1606

1967 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 75 ~2406

1968 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 85 ~2206

1969 0 0 122 0 0 33 0 155 ~4806

1970 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 106 no data

1971 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 94 ~4906

1972 0 0 0 0 2 35 0 37 no data

1973 0 0 0 0 13 0 61 74 ~4906

1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 123 ~6506

1975 0 4 0 0 0 0 135 139 6506

1976 0 15 0 0 0 164 0 179 3966

1977 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 4576

1978 0 4 47 0 0 0 0 51 3066

1979 0 5 35 0 0 0 0 40 2686

1980 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 20 3006

1981 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 757

1982 0 6 0 0 19 0 0 25 no data

1983 0 0 0 0 0000 390±1208
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix A-1 July 2004

111

Appendix A-1 (continued). Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Hawai`i, 1960-20021.

Year

Release Sites2 Total

Released

Islandwide

Population

Hakalau Estimate

NWR

HAVO Kahuku Kea!au Keauhou Keauhou

II

K§puka

!}inahou

1984 0 37 0 4 5 0 0 46 no data

1985 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 23 no data

1986 0 17 25 2 17 0 0 61 no data

1987 0 17 2 0 8 0 0 27 128

1988 0 13 0 0 25 0 0 38 1797

1989 0 8 7 0 0 0 0 15 no data

1990 0 14 8 9 6 0 0 37 260-3399

1991 0 17 0 0 8 0 0 25 no data

1992 0 9 0 0 20 0 0 29 158

1993 0 2 0 0 34 0 0 36 no data

1994 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 160

1995 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 195

1996 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 14 201

1997 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 39310

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41111

1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39011

2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 no data

2001 17 36 0 0 0 0 0 53 no data

2002 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 331-34312

2003 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 34912

Total 

released

33 290 418 15 418 348 319 1841

1

 Source: N‘n‘ Restoration Project, DOFAW, unpublished data; J. Mello and D. Hu, pers. comms. 2001-2003.

2

 NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; HAVO = Hawai!i Volcanoes National Park.

3

 Banko and Elder 1990, 4 Scott 1962, 5Kridler 1964 in litt., 6 Devick 1981a, 7 Hoshide et al. 1990,

8

 Scott et al. 1986, 9 Black et al. 1991, 10 Banko et al. 1999,11 Hu 2000

12 Includes an estimated 50-55 wild birds at Pu!uwa!awa!a and surrounding areas.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix A-2 July 2004

112

Appendix A-2.

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Maui, 1962-20031.

Year

Release Sites

East Maui Total

East Maui

Release Site

West Maui Total

Released

Island-wide

Population

Hosmer Estimate

Grove

Palikã Hana!ula

1962 0 35 35 0 35 no data

1963 0 29 29 0 29 no data

1964 0 28 28 0 28 852

1965 0 34 34 0 34 no data

1966 0 25 25 0 25 523

1967 0 0 0 0 0 393

1968 0 20 20 0 20 403

1969 0 72 72 0 72 593

1970 0 55 55 0 55 1173

1971 0 0 0 0 0 873

1972 0 44 44 0 44 863

1973 5 50 55 0 55 1273

1974 4 0 4 0 4 1033

1975 2 0 2 0 2 150-2004

1976 4 34 38 0 38 80-1005

1977 0 47 47 0 47 80-1005

1978 1 0 1 0 1 80-1005

1979 0 0 0 0 0 1066

1980 0 0 0 0 0 1186

1981 0 0 0 0 0 1306

1982 0 0 0 0 0 1086

1983 0 0 0 0 0 1126

1984 0 0 0 0 0 1196

1985 0 0 0 0 0 1286
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix A-2 July 2004

113

Appendix A-2 (continued). Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Maui,

1962-20031

.

Year

Release Sites

East Maui Total

East Maui

Release Site

West Maui Total

Released

Island-wide

Population

Hosmer Estimate

Grove

Palikã Hana!ula

1986 0 0 0 0 0 1296

1987 0 0 0 0 0 no data

1988 0 0 0 0 0 1046

1989 0 0 0 0 0 1196

1990 0 0 0 0 0 1456

1991 0 0 0 0 0 1406

1992 0 4 4 0 4 2886

1993 0 0 0 0 0 1716

1994 0 0 0 0 0 1566

1995 0 0 0 22 22 245-2757

1996 0 0 0 12 12 2276

1997 0 0 0 16 16 2016

1998 0 4 4 12 16 2296

1999 0 10 10 4 14 2086

2000 0 0 0 0 0 2196

2001 0 0 0 13 13 2496

2002 0 4 4 6 10 ~2516

2003 0 0 0 2 2 2178

Total n‘n‘

released

16 495 511 87 598

1

 Sources: N‘n‘ Restoration Project, DOFAW, unpublished data; J. Medeiros, C. Bailey, and J. Tamayose,

pers. comms. 2001-2003.

2

 Kridler 1964 in litt., 3 Banko and Elder 1990, 4 Devick 1981b, 5 Conant and Stemmerman 1979

6

 DOFAW 2000, 7 Baker and Baker 1995 estimate for east Maui

8

 Survey conducted August 2003.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix A-3 July 2004

114

Appendix A-3. 

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of

Moloka!i, 2001-20031

.

Year Puu O Hoku

Ranch

Total

Released

Population

Estimate

2001 11 11 11

2002 13 13 25

2003 31 31 55

Total n‘n‘ released 55

1

 Sources: N‘n‘ Restoration Project, DOFAW, unpublished data;

J. Medeiros, pers. comm. 2003.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix A-4 July 2004

115

Appendix A-4. 

Releases of captive-bred n‘n‘ on the island of Kaua`i, 1985-20031.

Year

Release Site

Total

Released

Population

Estimate

Hanalei

NWR

K§lauea Point

NWR/Crater

Hill

K§pã

Kai

N~ Pali

Coast

1985 0 0 252 0 25 183

1990 0 0 0 0 0 323

1991 0 12 0 0 12 no data

1992 0 0 0 0 0 120

1993 0 6 0 0 6 1004

1994 0 20 0 0 20 1565

1995 0 0 0 32 32 200

1996 0 0 0 30 30 280

1997 0 0 0 0 0 2566

1998 0 0 0 0 0 2927

1999 0 0 0 0 0 3377

2000 24 0 0 0 24 no data

2001 0 0 0 0 0 440

2002 0 0 0 0 0 5648

2003 0 0 0 0 0 620

Total n‘n‘

released

24 38 25 62 149

1

 Sources: N‘n‘ Restoration Project, DOFAW, unpublished data; T. Telfer and T. Kaiakapu, pers. comms. 2001-

2003.

2

 This number is an estimate of birds released as the exact number was never known (Telfer, pers. comm. 2001)

3

 Black et al. 1991, 4 Telfer 1994, 5 Telfer 1995, 6 Banko et al. 1999, 7 Hu 2000, 8 Telfer 2003
116

Appendix B.Native Hawaiian plants known to be food items for n‘n‘ for use by managers interested in n‘n‘ habitat reFamily Common Name

(Scientific Name)

Status1 Part Eaten Protein

Rank2

Islands3/Elevation Inform

Asteraceae (Sunflowerfamily)

Kookoolau(Bidens hawaiensis)

E leaves high H/50-1,400 m HAVO 

2001

Naenae(Dubautia scabra)

E flowers,

leaves, seeds

low H, L, M, Mo/75-

2,500 m

Black e

2000

`Ena`ena(Pseudognaphalium

sandwicensium)

E flowers,

leaves

high H, K, L, M, Mo, N,

O/0-3,000 m

Baldwin 

Caryophyllaceae (Pinkfamily)

Catchfly(Silene hawaiiensis)

E leaves high H/900-1,300(-

3,050) m

Sherry 2

Cyperaceae (Sedgefamily)

Sedge(Carex macloviana)

I leaves, seeds not tested H, M /1,190-2,740

m

Baldwin 

Sedge(Carex wahuensis)

E seeds low H, K, L, M, Mo, O

/(10-)250-2,500 m

Baldwin 

Mau`u `aki`aki(Fimbristylis cymosa)

I leaves, seeds not tested H, K, L, M, Mo, N,

O/0-60 m

Sherry 2

Kilioopu(Cyperus polystachyos)

I leaves, seeds low H, K, L, M, Mo, N,

O/0-1,420 m

Baldwin 

Epacridaceae (Epacrisfamily)

Pãkiawe

(Leptecophylla tameiameiae)

I berries,

leaves

low H, K, L, M, Mo, O

(may have occurredon N and Ko inpast)/15-3,230 m

Baldwin 

1994, K1980, R2000, W
117

Appendix B (continued). Native Hawaiian plants known to be food items for n‘n‘ for use by maninterested in n‘n‘ habitat restoration.Family Common Name Status1 Part Eaten Protein

Rank2

Islands/Elevation Inform

Ericaceae (Heathfamily)

!Æhelo5(Vaccinium reticulatum)

E berries low H, M, (rare on K,

Mo, O)/640-3,700m

Balwin 

1994, HBerger Woog 1

Fabaceae (Pea family) `}wikiwiki

(Canavalia hawaiiensis)

E leaves, pods? high H, L, M/120-1,220

m

Banko 1

Kolomona, heuhiuhi(Senna gaudichaudii)

I leaves high H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, O/5-920 m

HAVO Sherry 2

Goodeniaceae(Goodenia family)

Naupaka kuahiwi(Scaevola kilaueae)

E leaves not tested H/1,000-1,460 m HAVO 

Naupaka kahakai(Scaevola taccada)

I berries not tested H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, N, O/0-300 m

Tom Tenotes

Iridaceae (Iris family) Mau`u l~`ili

(Sisyrinchium acre)

E seeds not tested H, Maui (east)/

1,550-2,950 m

Baldwin 

Juncaceae (Rushfamily)

Wood rush(Luzula hawaiiensis)

E seeds? low H, K, L, M, Mo, O/

730-2,5600 m

Baldwin 

Lythraceae (Loosestrifefamily)

Pãk~mole, n§nika

(Lythrum maritimum)

I? H, K, L, M, Mo, O/

0-2,450 m

Sherry 2

Malvaceae (Mallowfamily)

!Ilima

(Sida fallax)

I H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, N, O/0-1,980 m

Sherry 2

Poaceae (Grass family) He`upueo

(Agrostis avenacea)

I leaves, seeds high H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, O/260-2,520 m

Baldwin 
Appendix B (continued). Native Hawaiian plants known to be food items for n

‘

n

‘ for use by man

interested in n

‘

n

‘ habitat restoration.

Family Common Name Status1 Part Eaten Protein

Rank2

Islands/Elevation Inform

118

Hair grass(Deschampsia nubigena)

E seeds, leaves,

stems?

low H, K, M, Mo/

(30-)600-2,830 m

Baldwin 

1994, R1993

Kãkaepua`a, Itchy crabgrass

(Digitaria setigera)

I? leaves, seeds high H, K, L, M, Mo, N,

O/10-980 m

Baldwin 

K~welu

(Eragrostis variabilis)

E leaves,

seeds?

low H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, N, O/0-1,130 m

HAVO 

Pili(Heteropogon contortus)

I? leaves,

seeds?

low H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, N, O/0-700m

Hu 199

Mountain pili(Panicum tenuifolium)

E leaves, seeds low H, K, L, M, Mo, O/

1,200-2,300 m

Baldwin 

Polygonaceae(Buckwheat family)

P~wale

(Rumex skottsbergii)

E leaves high H/460-1,300 m Baldwin 

Woog 1

Rosaceae (Rose family) `

Æhelo papa, white strawberry

(Fragaria chiloensis)

I berries not tested H, M (east)/

1,160-3,070 m

Pope 19

`âlei

(Osteomeles anthyllidifolia)

I berries not tested H, K, L, M, Mo, O/

2-2,320 m

Sherry 2

`}kala

(Rubus hawaiensis)

E berries not tested H, K, M, Mo/

660-3,070 m

Pope 19

`}kala

(Rubus macraei)

E berries not tested H, M (east)/

1,610-2,080 m

Pope 19
Appendix B (continued). Native Hawaiian plants known to be food items for n

‘

n

‘ for use by man

interested in n

‘

n

‘ habitat restoration.

Family Common Name Status1 Part Eaten Protein

Rank2

Islands/Elevation Inform

119

Rubiaceae (Coffeefamily)

Kãkaen‘n‘

(Coprosma ernodeoides)

E berries,

leaves?

low H, M (east)/

1,220-2,590 m

Baldwin 

1994, K1980, R1993

Pilo(Coprosma montana)

E berries? not tested H, M (east)/

1,830-3,050 m

Black e

Solanaceae(Nightshade family)

P

Çpolo, glossy nightshade

(Solanum americanum)

I? berries,

leaves

high H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, N, O/0-2,380 m

Baldwin notes 19

Urticaceae (Nettlefamily)

M~maki

(Pipturus albidus)

E berries low H, K, L, M, Mo, O/

(0-)70-1,870 m

Black e

1994

1 E=endemic, I=indigenous, I?=questionably indigenous (see Wagner et al. 1999)2 Protein Rank = % crude protein. High = $12%, Low <12% (K. Sherry, unpublished data)3H=Hawai!i, K=Kaua!i, Ko=Kaho!olawe, L=L~na!i, M=Maui, Mo=Moloka!i, N=Ni!ihau, O=O!ahu4 The following information sources are unpublished data: HAVO field notes, Hu, Sherry, Swift, and Telfer.5 The natural dispersal of !Çhelo, according to Guppy (1906), is affected by n‘n‘ (Wagner et al. 1999)
120

Appendix C.Native Hawaiian plants n‘n‘ are known to nest under.

Family Common name

(Scientific name)

Status1 Island(s)2 Elevation Habitat 

Vascular Plants3Epacridaceae(Epacris family)

Pãkiawe

(Leptecophylla tameiameiae)

I H, K, L, M, Mo

(may haveoccurred in thepast on Ko, N)

15-3,230m Ranges from dry to wet habitats;

mesic forest to open areas of lowelevation or montane wet forest,fogswept alpine shrubland, andbogs, rarely windward coastalsites.

Ericaceae (Heathfamily)

<Æhelo4(Vaccinium reticulatum)

E H, M, rare on

K, Mo, O

640-3,700m Common shrub of disturbed sites,

usually occurring as member ofthe pioneer community found onlava flows, ash dunes, and cinderbeds, or of exposed sites such asalpine or subalpine shrubland;much less common in mature orstable plant communities such asgrassland, wet forest, or bogs.

Goodeniaceae(Goodeniafamily)

Naupaka kahakai(Scaevola taccada)

I H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, N, O

0-300m Common in coastal sites. 

Myrtaceae(Myrtle family)

<Æhi<a, <Æhi<a lehua5(Metrosideros polymorpha)

E H, K, L, M,

Mo, O 

from near sealevel to2,200m 

Ranges from dry to wet habitats;inhabits many ecologicalsituations. 8 varieties recognized.
121

Appendix C (continued). Native Hawaiian plants n‘n‘ are known to nest under.Family Common name

(Scientific name)

Status1 Island(s)2 Elevation Habitat 

Rubiaceae(Coffee family)

<Aiakan‘n‘, Kãkaen‘n‘(Coprosma ernodeoides)

E H, M (east) 1,220-2,590m Dry? Primarily occurs in open

sites, often on lava or cinderfields in subalpine woodland.

Sapindaceae(Soapberryfamily)

<A<ali<i, <A<ali<i kã makani, 

kãmakani

(Dodonaea viscosa)

I H, K, L, M,

Mo, N, O

3-2,350m Ranges from dry to wet habitats,

from coastal dunes, low elevationshrublands to dry mesic and wetforest and subalpine shrubland.

Ferns 6

Blechnaceae !Ama!u

(Sadleria cyatheoides)

E H, K, Ko, L, M,

Mo, O, N

(5-)75-2,200m Common in exposed habitats,

mesic and wet forests andshrublands and a primary invaderof new lava flows.

1 E=endemic, I=indigenous, I?=questionably indigenous (see Wagner et al. 1999)2 H=Hawaii, K=Kauai, Ko=Kahoolawe, L=Lanai, M=Maui, Mo=Molokai, N=Niihau, O=Oahu3 From Wagner et al. 19994 Although flowering and fruiting occur year round, flowering is most prolific from April to September, and the peak of berry production o

September (Wagner et al. 1999).

5 Banko and Manuwal (1982) found 3 n‘n‘ nests in the wild under short (less than 4m) <Æhi<a plants6 From Palmer 2003
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix D July 2004

122

Appendix D.

N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group

N‘n‘ Recovery Action Group (NRAG) - Agency Representatives

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

Wildlife

Hawai`i

Joey Mello

1643 Kilauea Avenue

Hilo, HI 96720

ph: (808) 974-4229/1 

fax: (808) 974-4226

email: jmello@dofawhi.org

Maui

Dr. Greg Massey

2600 Pii Holo Road

Makawao, HI 96768

ph: (808) 573-8794

email: vetFiveO@aol.com

John Medeiros

685 Haleakala Hwy.

Kahului, HI 96732

ph: (808) 873-3510

fax: (808) 873-3505

email: ma_nene@aloha.net

O`ahu

Dr. Scott Fretz

1151 Punchbowl Street, Rm. 325

Honolulu, HI 96813

ph: (808) 587-4188

fax: (808) 587-0160

email: fretz@hawaii.edu
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix D July 2004

123

Dr. Carol Terry - NRAG Chairperson

1151 Punchbowl Street, Rm. 325

Honolulu, HI 96813

ph: (808) 587-4184

fax: (808) 587-0160

email: carol_j_terryw@exec.state.hi.us

Kaua`i

Thomas Kaiakapu

3060 Eiwa Street, Rm. 306

Lihue, HI 96766-1875

ph: (808) 274-3433

fax: (808) 274-3438

email: thomas.j.kaiakapu@hawaii.gov

National Park Service

Hawai`i

Darcy Hu

P.O. Box 52

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718-0052

ph: (808) 985-6092

fax: (808) 985-6029

email: darcy_hu@nps.gov

Kathleen Sherry

P.O. Box 52

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park, HI 96718-0052

ph: (808) 985-6092

fax: (808) 985-6029

email: kathleen_sherry@nps.gov

Maui

Cathleen Bailey

Haleakal~ National Park

P.O. Box 369

Makawao, HI 96768

ph: (808) 572-4491 (direct)

fax: (808) 572-4498

email: cathleen_bailey@nps.gov
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix D July 2004

124

Joy Tamayose

Haleakal~ National Park

P.O. Box 369

Makawao, HI 96768

ph: (808) 572-4492 (direct)

fax: (808) 572-4498

email: joy_tamayose@nps.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Hawai`i

Jack Jeffrey

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge

32 Kinoole Street, Suite 101

Hilo, HI 96720

ph: (808) 933-6915

fax: (808) 933-6917

e-mail: john_jeffrey@fws.gov

Kaua`i

Biologist

K§lauea Point National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 1128

K§lauea, HI 96754

ph: (808) 828-1413

fax: (808) 828-6634

O`ahu

Dr. Ann Marshall

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 3-122

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

ph: (808) 541-3441

fax: (808) 541-3470

email: annie_marshall@fws.gov
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix D July 2004

125

Dr. Eric VanderWerf

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 3-122

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

ph: (808) 541-3441

fax: (808) 541-3470

email: eric_vanderwerf@fws.gov

Marilet Zablan

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 3-122

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

ph: (808) 541-3441

fax: (808) 541-3470

email: marilet_zablan@fws.gov

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division

Dr. Paul Banko

Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center

K§lauea Field Station

P.O. Box 44

Hawai!i National Park, HI 96718

ph: (808) 967-7396 (ext. 235)

fax: (808) 967-8568

e-mail: Paul_Banko@usgs.gov

Zoological Society of San Diego

Al Lieberman

P.O. Box 39

Volcano, HI 96785

ph: (808) 985-7218

fax: (808) 985-7034

email: liebermana@prodigy.com
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix E July 2004

126

Appendix E.

Private Landowner Incentives for Implementation of Conservation

Measures

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programs

1. Safe Harbor Agreements

Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) are voluntary, cooperative ventures

between a non-Federal landowner and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries)

that can provide benefits to both the landowners and listed species. Under these

agreements, a landowner would be encouraged to maintain or enhance existing

populations of listed species, to create, restore, or maintain habitats, and/or to

manage their lands in a manner that will benefit listed species. In return, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries would provide assurances that

future landowner activities would not be subject to Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (Act), restrictions above those applicable to the property at the

time of enrollment in the program.

The Safe Harbor Agreement spells out the existing responsibility of the

landowner (e.g., the baseline or agreed upon target conditions), what activities the

landowner is willing or intends to do that will benefit listed species, and the

expected benefit to those species. The arrangements of the Safe Harbor

Agreement are then formalized through an enhancement of survival permit that

authorizes take above the baseline or target condition. Before the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries issues these permits, there is a notice of

availability published in the Federal Register and a 30-day public review period.

The primary benefit to landowners is that the Safe Harbor Agreement

creates an incentive for them to participate in proactive species conservation. 

These Safe Harbor Agreements also allow flexibility in managing the land and

provide regulatory certainty. Benefits to the species include reducing habitat

fragmentation rates, providing for habitat connectivity, increasing available

habitat by restoration or enhancement, and providing buffers for protected areas. 

It is important to note that the Safe Harbor Agreement mechanism may really aid

conservation efforts for those species that rely on habitats that need continual

management.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix E July 2004

127

2. Habitat Conservation Plans

Non-Federal property owners, such as private landowners, corporations,

or state or local governments, wishing to conduct activities on their land that

might result in incidental take of a listed species must first obtain an incidental

take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To obtain a permit, the

applicant must develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) designed to offset any

harmful effects the proposed activity might have on the species. The Habitat

Conservation Plan process allows private development to proceed while

promoting endangered species conservation.

While U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel provide detailed guidance

and technical assistance throughout the process, the development of a Habitat

Conservation Plan is driven by the applicant. The applicant is responsible for

submitting a completed permit application. The necessary components of a

completed permit application are: a standard application form, a Habitat

Conservation Plan, an Implementing Agreement (if required), and, if appropriate,

a draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. While processing

the permit application, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will prepare an intraService biological opinion under section 7 of the Act and the incidental take

permit, and finalize the NEPA analysis documents. Consequently, an incidental

take permit has a number of associated documents besides the Habitat

Conservation Plan. The contents of a Habitat Conservation Plan are defined in

section 10 of the Act and its implementing regulations. The Habitat Conservation

Plan must detail, among other things: an assessment of impacts likely to result

from the proposed taking of the listed species; measures the applicant will

undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate for such impacts; the funding that

will be made available to implement such measures; and the procedures to deal

with unforseen or extraordinary circumstances; alternative actions to the taking

that the applicant analyzed and the reasons why the applicant did not adopt such

alternatives; and additional measures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may

require as necessary or appropriate.

Mitigation measures can take many forms, such as: preservation (via

acquisition or conservation easement) of existing habitat; enhancement or

restoration of degraded or a former habitat; creation of new habitats;

establishment of buffer areas around existing habitats; modifications of land use

practices; and restrictions on access.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix E July 2004

128

The Habitat Conservation Plan process includes a public comment period

on the application for the incidental take permit as public comments must be

considered in the permit decision. The Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Region decides whether to issue the permit based on findings

that: the taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; the impacts will

be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; adequate funding

will be provided; the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the

survival and recovery of the species; and any other necessary measures are met.

The permit allows a landowner to legally proceed with an activity that

would otherwise result in the illegal take of a listed species. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service also developed a regulation to address the problem of

maintaining regulatory assurances and providing certainty to landowners

thorough the Habitat Conservation Plan process, the “No Surprises” regulation. 

Although an incidental take permit is required only for listed species, many

Habitat Conservation Plans provide conservation measures for proposed and

candidate species under the Act, as well as other rare or vulnerable species that

live in the plan area. By adequately covering such unlisted species, developers

and landowners can help prevent their decline and avoid having to add new

conservation measures during the length of the permit. Habitat Conservation

Plans offer the opportunity to address conservation issues on a landscape or

ecosystem level and help conserve biological diversity.

3. Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Partners for Fish and Wildlife is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

habitat restoration cost-sharing program for private landowners. The program

was established to offer technical advice and financial assistance to landowners

who wish to restore wildlife habitat on their property. On-the-ground habitat

improvement projects that benefit Federal trust species include restoration of

wildlife habitat on degraded or converted wetlands, riparian areas, native

grasslands, and streams. The assistance provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service can range from giving informal advice on the design and location of a

potential restoration project, to designing a project and funding up to 50 percent

of the implementation costs under a formal cooperative agreement with the

landowner. Projects with the highest priorities are those that reestablish the

natural historical communities and provide benefits to migratory birds,
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix E July 2004

129

anadromous fish, and threatened and endangered species. Projects include efforts

such as creating shallow water areas, revegetating with native plants, erecting

fences along riparian areas to exclude livestock, developing grazing plans to

benefit livestock and wildlife; reducing pesticide use, and improving soil and

water quality.

To initiate the partnership, the landowner and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and any representative from other cooperating agencies or organizations,

meet on the property to discuss the landowner’s goals and objectives. Technical

advice on project design, material, and engineering is provided by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service as appropriate. Cost sharing is proposed. A habitat

restoration proposal, developed by the landowner and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service staff, is submitted to one of our State offices to compete for funds. After

funding is approved, the Wildlife Extension Agreement is signed. Upon project

completion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will reimburse the landowner after

receipts and other documents are submitted according to the agreement.

Hawaii Department of Lands and Natural Resources Programs

1. Safe Harbor Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans

The Endangered Species Act of the State of Hawaii, HRS 195D, with the

addition of Act 380 in 1997, provides for the development of Safe Harbor

Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans. The Department of Lands and

Natural Resources (DLNR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific

Islands Fish and Wildlife Office have cooperated in streamlining the process an

applicant must go through to develop such projects. Although the two agencies

work hand-in-hand with private landowners to develop Safe Harbor Agreements

and Habitat Conservation Plans, there are some differences. The main differences

between the State process and the Federal process are that: 1) the State law

mandates that an Endangered Species Committee oversees the processing and

monitoring of projects; 2) the State Board of Land and Natural Resources must

approve the project; and 3) the public comment period is 60 days.
130

Appendix F.Recovery actions proposed in this plan to address factors currently limiting the recovery of n‘n‘; addressed by each action are identified by a solid circle.

Primary

Recovery Action

Number*

Predation(Factor A)

Inadequate

Nutrition

(Factors A

and E)

Lack of

Lowland

Habitat

(Factor A)

Human-caused

Disturbance and

Mortality

(Factor E)

Behavioral

Issues

(Factor E)

Gen

(F

1.Identify and protect n‘n‘ habitat. !! ! ! 2. Manage habitat and existingpopulations for sustainableproductivity and survival.

!! ! ! 

3. Control alien predators. !4. Continue captive propagation. !5. Establish additional n‘n‘populations in suitable, uninhabitedareas that are protected. !! 6. Address conflicts between n‘n‘and human activities.

!

7. Identify new and continueresearch on known limiting factorsand management techniques.

!! ! ! ! 

8. Conduct a public awareness andinformation program to build publicsupport for n‘n‘ recovery.

! !

9. Validate recovery objectives. !! ! ! ! 

* Includes all subcategories identified under the primary recovery action number in the step-down narrative outline of recovery actions (pag
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix G July 2004

131

Appendix G.

Criteria for Reestablishment of N‘n‘ Populations

Reestablishment of n‘n‘ populations is necessary for managers to recover the

species. Attempts to reintroduce or establish n‘n‘ should be made only if the following

list of criteria applies. The basis for each criterion is also explained.

Reestablishment Criteria:

1. Habitat Suitability: Habitat elements are suitable and the habitat is under longterm protection (e.g., the release site occurs on State or Federal lands or on

private lands managed under a cooperative agreement). Habitat restoration or

enhancement, such as outplanting of native food items for n‘n‘, may need to

occur at selected release sites. Summer and winter habitat needs must be met. 

Potentially hazardous sites should be avoided.

Background: N‘n‘ habitat has been described in Section II, F. Habitat

Description. Various accounts suggest n‘n‘ bred in lowlands in the winter and

retreated to higher elevations in the summer. Because habitats, particularly in the

lowlands have been highly altered, there is a high proportion of non-native food

plants in the n‘n‘ diet. With concerns raised regarding whether highly altered

habitats offer adequate nutrition for both breeding females and goslings,

managers should be attuned to whether habitat improvements may aid in the

reintroduction and restoration of n‘n‘ populations. Because research on habitat

restoration for n‘n‘ is still being developed, managers should offer a mix of

habitats that include suitable breeding, rearing and non-breeding areas. 

Outplanting of native food plants in habitats where n‘n‘ are found or will be

introduced should also be incorporated into management plans. N‘n‘ move

seasonally and most sites do not sustain birds year-round. It may therefore be

important to have links between winter and summer habitat. In addition, a

reasonable effort should be made to keep birds away from potentially hazardous

sites such as major roads, airports, water sources that may trap goslings, and

possibly golf courses. Habitat restoration or enhancement efforts may eventually

be modified based on ongoing and future research results. 

Areas selected for n‘n‘ reintroduction or establishment should be under longterm protection. This protection may be in the form of private landowner

agreements, such as Habitat Conservation Plans which may be long term,

conservation easements, or public lands including National Parks, National
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix G July 2004

132

Wildlife Refuges, or State Natural Area Reserves. Reintroduction sites should

not be located near potentially hazardous areas.

2. Predator Control: Predators, particularly mongooses, pigs, cats, dogs, and rats,

can either be eliminated or kept to manageable levels.

Background: Predation is a major limiting factor for n‘n‘ populations (see

Section H, 1. Predation). Managers should evaluate which predators are a

problem in each area where n‘n‘ occur or will be introduced, and the most

effective predator control techniques should be utilized. Control measures

should be evaluated on a consistent basis for cost, success, and whether new

techniques or methods are available and should be employed.

3. Captive Propagation and Release: Captive-bred n‘n‘ identified for release

must be free of parasites and diseases which could pose a risk to wild

populations. Several successive groups of n‘n‘ should be introduced to the

release site over a period of time to maximize the probability of successful

establishment of n‘n‘ in the area. Genetic management must also be taken into

account to prevent inbreeding depression.

Background: Protocols have been drafted for screening captive-bred n‘n‘ for

the presence of parasites and diseases prior to release. The results of the

screening tests determine where, and if, the n‘n‘ can be released. Adherence to

these protocols will help reduce the possibility of transferring parasites or

diseases to n‘n‘ populations in the wild. The introduction of unique regional

strains of avian malaria or other disease and parasites to other areas will also be

limited by following screening protocols

For reintroductions to new areas, several groups of n‘n‘ will be introduced to the

area over a period of time. Continued releases at the same location maximizes

the probability of successful establishment of n‘n‘ in the area.

4. Proximity to Other N‘n‘ Populations: The release site will not be completely

isolated from other n‘n‘ populations in the long-term (i.e., other release sites will

occur nearby within 5-8 years, if not already present).

Background: The isolation of reintroduction sites from other n‘n‘ populations

should be considered in identifying appropriate release sites. Other potential

release sites or sites that may be managed for n‘n‘ (e.g., as in a Safe Harbor

Agreement) should be present nearby within 5 to 8 years, if not already present,
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix G July 2004

133

to facilitate the dispersal and exchange of n‘n‘ between populations. Movement

of n‘n‘ between populations will reduce the possibility of isolated n‘n‘ groups

being scattered over the islands with no chance of contributing to the overall

recovery of n‘n‘ in the State.

5. Monitoring: Annual monitoring and reporting on the n‘n‘ population will be

conducted for at least 10 years after the final release. Annual reports should

include numbers and sex of birds released by location, mortalities, reproduction,

problems, and suggestions for improvements (adaptive management).

Background: Monitoring must be conducted during releases and continue after

the final release to increase the probability of success of the reintroduction. 

Monitoring will allow managers to determine the status of the population,

identify problems, and develop and implement adaptive management measures to

ensure the establishment of the n‘n‘ population.

6. Public Outreach: Informational materials and programs should be developed to

build public support for the n‘n‘ program. Public support for predator control

will also be crucial.

Background: Public information campaigns may increase funding opportunities. 

The possibility of human-n‘n‘ interactions will increase as the number of birds

increases state-wide and it will be important to have public acceptance. The n‘n‘

is the State bird and could therefore promote conservation measures that may

also help conserve other native Hawaiian species and their habitats.
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix H July 2004

134

Appendix H.

Glossary of Technical Terms

Term Definition

allele alternate forms of genes that code for the same trait (at the

same locus in homologous chromosomes)

alpine pertaining to habitats at high elevations (over 3,000 m),

especially above tree line

altitudinal migration a vertical pattern of migration in which populations that breed

in one zone (elevation) move to a lower or higher zone

(elevation) at the end of the breeding season (Welty 1975)

alula/aluli first digit located at the bend of the wrist area of the wing

(Proctor and Lynch 1993)

auto-thermoregulate the ability to regulate one’s own body temperature

Branta genus of true geese, often called the ‘black” geese, and

including n‘n‘, brant, barnacle,and red-breasted geese as well

as the Canada goose complex.

chromosome a self-duplicating body composed of DNA (deoxyribonucleic

acid), the repository for genetic information

coancestry

coefficient

the probability that genes, taken at random from each of the

concerned individuals, are identical by descent

dispersal the movement or organisms away from the place of birth or

from centers of population density (Ricklefs 1979)

disyllabic having two syllables

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid, the genetic material of most living

organisms

egg tooth a small pointed knob on the tip of the upper surface of the beak

that helps the young bird break out of its shell more easily and

that disappears within a few days to a week after hatching

(Anderson Brown 1979)

endemic native or restricted to a limited or certain geographical region

(Fiedler and Subohd 1992)

endoparasite a parasite that lives within its host
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix H July 2004

135

Term Definition

extirpation the elimination of a species from an island, local area, or region

(Koford et al. 1994)

extinction the loss of a species throughout its entire range

feral animals that have escaped from domestication or their

descendants (Long 1981)

first prebasic molt the postjuvenile molt, between juvenile plumage and the first

basic (or first winter) plumage (Humphrey and Parkes 1959;

Van Tyne and Berger 1976)

fledging success the average number of offspring that fledge per female (May

and Robinson 1985) or the percentage of hatched young that

fledge (Robinson and Rotenberry 1991)

fledgling a juvenile bird that has acquired the feathers necessary for

flight and has left the nest

gene a unit of heredity composed of DNA

genus a subdivision of a family that includes one or more closely

related species

generalist a species with broad food preferences (Ricklefs 1979)

genetic

homogeneity

consisting of homologous parts, lacking genetic diversity

gosling a subadult goose

habitat the environment in which a species or populations lives;

different habitats may be used at different life stages; often

characterized by a dominant plant form or physical

characteristic (Ricklefs 1979)

haplotype a combination of alleles of closely linked loci that are found in

a single chromosome and tend to be inherited together

hatchling a bird that has recently hatched

Hawaiian Islands

(main)

Hawai!i, Maui, Kaho’olawe, L~na`i, Moloka`i, O!ahu, Kaua`i,

and Ni!ihau

herbivore an herbivorous animal

herbivorous feeding or subsisting entirely on plants or plant products
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix H July 2004

Term Definition

136

historic period for

Hawai!i

after 1778

homologous a pair of chromosomes which have identical genes or their

alleles located at corresponding loci

homozygous in which the pair of alleles for a trait is composed of the same

genes (either dominant or recessive)

incipient beginning to exist or manifest itself

indigenous native, belonging to the locality; not imported (Wagner et al.

1990)

introduced species a species that has been introduced and become established

outside its former range through the deliberate or accidental

involvement of humans

iris the pigmented portion of the eye

k§puka an oasis within a lava bed where there may be vegetation

lava tube the longest and most complicated of volcanic caves formed by

channels of flowing rivers of lava and by the effects of

volcanic gases

locus/loci the position of a gene on a chromosome

lowlands elevational zone of terrestrial habitats at 15-2,000 m, beyond

the immediate influence of sea spray

Maui nui includes the islands of Maui, Moloka`i, L~na`i, and

Kaho’olawe

migration regular, extensive, seasonal movement of animals between

their breeding/nesting areas to their “wintering” feeding areas

(Welty 1975)

molt the process of shedding and replacing worn feathers (Proctor

and Lynch 1993)

mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus is a carnivorous mammal of the

Family Viverridae distributed throughout Asia and Africa 

monitoring measuring population trends using any of various counting or

survey techniques

monophyletic derived from a single ancestral stock or type
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix H July 2004

Term Definition

137

monotypic in taxonomy, having only one subordinate unit, as a genus with

a single species

montane elevational zone from 500-2,700 m, includes an assemblage of

communities, including bogs, grasslands, shrublands, and

forests

MVP minimum viable population size is the smallest population of a

species that will ensure (with some probability level) that a

population will persist for some “relatively long temporal

interval” (Gilpin and Soulé 1986)

natal pertaining to birth

n‘n‘ local name for the Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis)

omphalitis an infection of the umbilical stump

paleontology the study of plants and animals of former geological periods as

represented by their fossil forms

philopatric tendency for offspring to breed in their natal home range 

Polynesian

colonization of

Hawai!i

around 400 A.D. or 1600 years before present

pox a viral condition of n‘n‘ that closely resembles avian pox, a

disease thought to have been absent from Hawaii until the

introduction of non-native songbirds and that is carried by the

mosquito, Culex pipiens fatigans (Kear and Berger 1980)

plumage feather ‘coats’ or covering worn by birds between molts

(Proctor and Lynch 1993)

plumule a down feather

pre-historic period

in Hawai!i

before 1778

PVA population viability analysis uses models and numerical

estimation procedures to determine minimum viable population

size (MVP)

recessive gene a gene that is only expressed when two identical copies coding

for the same trait are present, one from the mother, one from

the father
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix H July 2004

Term Definition

138

refugium an area that remains unchanged while areas surrounding it

change markedly, thus the area serves as a refuge for species

that require specific habitats (Brown and Gibson 1983)

riparian along the bank of a river or lake (Ricklefs 1979)

soft release when animals are held at or near the release site (with food and

water available) in a pen or other structure for at least 24 hours

before release to allow animal to become somewhat familiar

with local conditions

species a group of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that

are reproductively isolated from all other kinds of organisms

(Ricklefs 1979)

staccato cut short or apart in performing

subalpine elevational zone of 1,700 - 3,000 m

survey an enumeration or index of the number of individuals in an

area from which inferences about the population can be made

(Ralph 1981)

sternum breastbone

taxonomy the science of classification; the arrangement of organisms into

groups based on their natural relationships

terrestrial adapted to and living on the land; not aquatic

translocation a management technique often used for conservation of species

in which individuals of a species are removed from their

habitat and established in another area of similar habitat

(Fiedler and Subohd 1992)

uplands higher elevations of terrestrial habitats not included in riparian

zones

viability capability or capacity to survive

waterfowl ducks, geese, and swans of the Anatidae family
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

139

Appendix I.

Peer and Stakeholder Reviewers

In addition to public review of this recovery plan, the plan will be sent to the

following peer and stakeholder reviewers for comment prior to development of the final

recovery plan. A technical draft of the recovery plan was sent to members of the N‘n‘

Recovery Action Group in October 1999 and July 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

Washington, D.C.

Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Endangered Species

Arlington Square Building

4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 452

Arlington, VA 22203

Chief, Office of Public Affairs

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI

Main Interior Building

1849 C. St, NW, Room 3447

Washington, D.C. 20240

Chief, Office of Internal Affairs

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Washington, DC 20240

Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Refuges and Wildlife

4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Rm. 670

Arlington, VA 22203

Others - Washington, D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency

Hazard Evaluation Division - EEB

(TS769C)

401 M St., SW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Biological Resources Division

U.S. Geological Survey

Office of Research Support

4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 725

Arlington, VA 22203

Ms. Peggy Olwell

Bureau of Land Management

Room 204, Building LJB

Washington, DC 20240-0001

Dr. Loyal Mehrhoff

T&E Species Coordinator

National Park Service

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200

Fort Collins, CO 80525

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

Pacific Islands Ecoregion

Mr. Eugene Hester

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Law Enforcement

P.O. Box 50223

Honolulu, HI 96850
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

140

Mr. Ernie Kosaka

Federal Aid Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm. 3315A

P.O. Box 50167

Honolulu, HI 96850

Mr. Jerry Leinecke

Refuge Complex Manager

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands National

Wildlife Refuge Complex

P.O. Box 50167

Honolulu, HI 96850

Ms. Barbara Maxfield

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Public Affairs

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Dr. Paul Henson

Field Supervisor - Ecological Services

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Ms. Gina Shultz

Assistant Field Supervisor 

Endangered Species

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Mr. Jeff Newman

Assistant Field Supervisor

Habitat Conservation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Dr. Earl Campbell, III

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Ms. Christa Russell

Plant Conservation Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Mr. Michael Molina

Environmental Review Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Mr. Craig Rowland

Conservation Partnerships Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

141

Ms. Arlene Pangelinan

Conservation Planning & Permits

Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Ms. Marilet Zablan

Vertebrate Conservation Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

Ms. Lorena Wada

Invertebrate Conservation Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 50088

Honolulu, HI 96850

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

National Wildlife Refuges

Mr. Richard Wass

Refuge Manager

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife

Refuge

32 Kinoole St., Suite 101

Hilo, HI 96720

Mr. Dave Ledig

Kona Forest National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 244

Honaunau, HI 96726

Mr. Michael Hawkes

Refuge Manager

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 1128

Kilauea, HI 96754

Ms. Glynnis Nakai

Refuge Manager

Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 1042

Kihei, HI 96753

Ms. Donna Stovall

Refuge Manager

Oahu National Wildlife Refuge

Complex

66-950 Kamehameha Hwy., Room 2 C

Haleiwa, HI 96712

Nene Recovery Action Group

(refer to Appendix D for members)

Other Federal Offices

Biological Resources Division, 

U.S. Geological Survey

Office of Research Support

4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 725

Arlington, VA 22203

Ms. Lauren Bjorkman

Resource Conservationist

USDA - Natural Resources

Conservation Service

P.O. Box 50004

Honolulu, HI 96850
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

142

Ms. Mary Blevins

Environmental Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne Street, H-32

San Francisco, CA 94105

Director, Pacific Area Office

National Park Service

P.O. Box 50165

Honolulu, HI 96850

Mr. Don Reeser, Superintendent

Haleakala National Park

P.O. Box 369

Makawao, HI 96768

Mr. Jim Martin, Superintendent

Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park

P.O. Box 52

Hawai`i National Park, HI 96718

Dr. Jack Ewel

Director

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry

U.S. Forest Service

1151 Punchbowl St., Rm. 323

Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. Tim J. Ohashi

Assistant State Director

USDA Animal & Plant Health

Inspection Service, Wildlife Services

3375 Koapaka St., Suite H420

Honolulu, HI 96819

Ms. Terrell Erickson

State Biologist

U.S. Department of Agriculture

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm 4-118

P.O. Box 50004

Honolulu, HI 96850

Military

U.S. Army Garrison Hawai`i

Directorate of Public Works

ATTN: APVG GWV

Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000

U.S. Department of the Navy

Natural Resource Management

Specialist

Naval Facility Engineering Service

Center (Code ESC 413)

c/o PACNAVFACENGCOM-PLN23

258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100

Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-3134

Environmental Protection Specialist

Director of Public Works

U.S. Army

Attn: APVG-GWV

Schofield Barracks, HI 96857

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Environmental Branch

Attn: CEPOD-ED-ME

Bldg. T223

Fort Shafter, HI 96858
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

143

Chief, Environmental Division

Engineering & Services Directorate

HQ Air Force

Bolling Air Force Base

Washington, D.C. 20332-5000

Dr. Diane Drigot

Environmental Compliance &

Protection Department

Marine Corps Base Hawai`i

Building 1360, Box 63002

MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI 96863-3002

Mr. Tim Sutterfield

c/o Commander Pacific Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Building 258, Makalapa, Attn: 232TS

Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-7300

State of Hawai`i

The Honorable Benjamin Cayetano

Governor, State of Hawai`i

State Capitol

Honolulu, HI 96813

Chairperson

Board of Land and Natural Resources

1151 Punchbowl St.

Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. Michael G. Buck

Administrator

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Dept. of Land & Natural Resources

1151 Punchbowl St., Rm. 325

Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. Paul Conry

Hawai`i Department of Land and

Natural Resources

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

1151 Punchbowl Street, Rm. 325

Honolulu, HI 96813

Mr. William Evanson

Natural Area Reserve Specialist

Natural Area Reserve System

686 Haleakala Highway

Kahului, HI 96732

Director, Department of Transportation

State of Hawai`i

869 Punchbowl Street

Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813

Mr. Randy Kennedy, Director

Dept. of Land and Natural Resources

Natural Area Reserve System

Kendall Building

888 Mililani St., Suite 700

Honolulu, HI 96813

Ms. Betsy Harrison-Gagne

Dept. of Land and Natural Resources

Natural Area Reserve System

Kendall Building

888 Mililani St., Suite 700

Honolulu, HI 96813

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500

Honolulu, HI 96813
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

144

Chair, Board of Agriculture

Hawai`i Dept. of Agriculture

1428 King St.

Honolulu, HI 96814

Land Use Commission

P.O. Box 2359 

Honolulu, HI 96804-2359

Libraries

Hawai`i State Library

478 South King Street

Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813

Kaua`i Regional Library

4344 Hardy Ave.

Lihue, HI 96766

Lanai Public and School Library

P.O. Box 550

Lanai City, HI 96763

Wailuku Regional Library

251 S. High Street

Wailuku, HI 96793

Maui Community College Library

310 Kaahumanu Avenue

Kahului, HI 96732

Kailua-Kona Public Library 75-138

Hualai Rd.

Kailua-Kona, HI 96740

Hilo Public Library

300 Waianuenue Ave.

Hilo, HI 96720

Kahului Public Library

90 School Street

Kahului, HI 96732

Moloka`i Public Library

15 Ala Malama Street

Kaunakakai, HI 96748

Counties

Mayor

County of Hawai`i

25 Aupuni

Hilo, HI 96720

Mayor

Maui County

200 S. High Street

Wailuku, HI 96793

Mayor

County of Kaua`i

4396 Rice St., Suite 101

Lihue, HI 96766

Honorable Jeremy Harris

Mayor, City and County of Honolulu

City Hall

Honolulu, HI 96813
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

145

Other Interested Parties

Dr. Carter T. Atkinson

Research Microbiologist

U.S. Geological Survey

Biological Resources Division

Hawai`i National Park, HI

Dr. Helen Baker

Etwall, Derbyá 

United Kingdom

Dr. Paul Baker

Lennoxtown, East Dunbartonshire 

United Kingdom

Bishop Museum

Honolulu, HI

Dr. Jeffrey M. Black

Associate Professor

Department of Wildlife

Humboldt State University

Arcata, CA

Ms. Tonnie Casey

Kamehameha Schools/B.P. Bishop

Estate

Hilo, HI

Dr. Sheila Conant

General Science Dept.

Univ. of Hawai`i, Manoa

Honolulu, HI

Dr. Scott Derrickson

National Zoological Park

Conservation and Research Center

Front Royal, VA

Ms. Arleone Dibben-Young

Director, N‘n‘ O Moloka`i

Kaunakakai, HI 

Dr. Fern Duvall

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Kahului, HI 

Mr. John Engbring

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

California/Nevada Operations

Sacramento, CA

Mr. Andrew Engilis, Jr.

Museum Wildlife Fisheries Biology

Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation

Biology

University of California

Davis, CA

Ms. Karen Evans

Assistant Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

Carlsbad, CA

Field Museum of Natural History

Department of Zoology

Bird Division

Attn: David Willard

Chicago, IL 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

146

Dr. Robert Fleischer

Molecular Genetics Lab

National Zoological Park

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Jon Giffin, District Manager

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Hawai`i District

Hilo, HI 

Hawai`i Audubon Society

Honolulu, HI 

Hawai`i Forest Industry Association

Hilo, HI 

Dr. Baz Hughes

The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

Slimbridge, Gloucester

United Kingdom

Dr. James Jacobi

U.S. Geological Survey - Biological

Resources Division

Kilauea Field Station

Hawai`i National Park, HI 

Dr. Helen James

Museum Specialist, Division of Birds

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Lloyd Kiff

The Peregrine Fund, Inc.

Boise, ID 

Mr. Peter Luscomb

Honolulu Zoo

Honolulu, HI 

Ms. Shannon McElvaney, Director

Hawai`i Natural Heritage Program

Center for Cons. Research/Training

University of Hawai`i at Manoa

Honolulu, HI 

Dr. Steven Montgomery

Conservation Council of Hawai`i

Honolulu, HI 

Dr. Marie Morin

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office

Portland, OR 

Mr. Chris Nagano

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

Carlsbad, CA 

Dr. Storrs L. Olson

Senior Biologist, Division of Birds

National Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Dan Orodenker

Director, Hawai`i Natural Heritage

Program

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i

Honolulu, HI 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

147

Mr. George Phocas

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Law Enforcement

Honolulu, HI 

Dr. Jouke Prop

Ezinge

The Netherlands

Dr. Elizabeth Rave

Department of Biology

Bemidji State University

Bemidji, MN 

Ms. Sharon Reilly

Ducks Unlimited

Honolulu, HI 

Ms. Alenka Remec

Director of Science and Stewardship

The Nature Conservancy of Hawai`i

Honolulu, HI 

Dr. Judith Rhymer

Department of Wildlife Ecology

University of Maine

Orono, ME 

Ms. Nora A. Rojek

Oakland, CA 

Mr. Fred C. Schmidt

Head, Documents Department

The Libraries

Colorado State University

Ft. Collins, CO 

Dr. J. Michael Scott

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Unit

College of Natural Resources

University of Idaho

Moscow, ID 

Secretariat for Conservation Biology

University of Hawai`i at M~noa

Pacific Biomedical Research Center

Honolulu, HI 

Mr. Jon Seltz

Sedgwick County Zoo

Wichita, KS 

Mr. Michael Sherwood

EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

San Francisco, CA 

Sierra Club

Honolulu, HI 

Mr. Dave Smith

Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Honolulu, HI 

Mr. Tom Telfer

Germantown, TN

Mr. Jan Tenbruggencate

Honolulu Advertiser

Lihue, HI 

The Nature Conservancy

Honolulu, HI 
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the N‘n‘, Appendix I July 2004

148

Dr. Friederike Woog

Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde

Stuttgart

Zentrum für Biodiversitätsforschung

Ornithologie

Stuttgart Germany

Dr. Thierry Work

National Wildlife Health Research

Center

Honolulu, HI 

Ms. Marjorie F.Y. Ziegler

EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, Inc.

Honolulu, HI 

Ms. Ute Zillich

The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

Slimbridge, Gloucester 

United Kingdom

Zoology Department

University of Hawai`i at M~noa

Honolulu, HI 

Appropriate Landowners/Managers

Agro Resources, Inc.

Kamuela, Hawai`i 

Trustees

Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate

Honolulu, HI 

Mr. Paul Higashino

Kahoolawe Island Restoration

Commission

Wailuku, HI 

Kamehameha Schools

Mr. Peter Simmons

Paauilo, HI 

Kealia Ranch

Captain Cook, HI 

McCandless Land and Cattle Co.

Honaunau, HI 

Palani Ranch Co., Inc.

Honolulu, HI 

Parker Ranch

Kamuela, HI 

Pu'u O Hoku Ranch

Kaunakakai, HI 

Ulupalakua Ranch

Kula, HI 

Umikoa Ranch

Hilo, HI