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

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

A Vision of Conservation 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (Ka Pu‘uhonua Waonahele Aupuni ‘o Hakalau) 

Aia nō i uka i ke kua ko‘olau o Mauna Kea ka pu‘uhonua waonahele aupuni ‘o 

Hakalau. He wahi kēia e hui ai kānaka e laulima ma o ke ka‘analike aku, ka‘analike 

mai i ka ‘ike, ka no‘eau, a me ka mana i mea e ho‘opalekana, ho‘oikaika, a ho‘ōla hou 

ai i ke ola maoli e noho ana ma ka waonahele. Ua kapa ‘ia ka inoa ‘o Hakalau no ka 

nui o nā haka e noho ‘ia e nā manu ‘ōiwi. I kēia lā ‘o Hakalau kekahi o nā home nunui 

no ka hui manu Hawai‘i ‘ane make loa. Kīkaha a‘ela nā manu, nā pua laha ‘ole ho‘i, i 

ka ‘ohu‘ohu o Hakalau a ma lalo iki e mūkīkī i ka wai pua ‘ōhi‘a. Ua nani nō ka ‘ikena 

a ‘upu a‘ela nō ke aloha no kēia ‘āina nei no nā kau a kau. 

On the windward slope of majestic Mauna Kea, midway between summit and sea, 

lies Hakalau Forest NWR, a place where people come together to laulima, “many 

hands working together,” to share their knowledge, to share their skills, and to 

share their energy to protect, to enhance, to restore, and to respect Hawaiian 

wildlife. Known to Hawaiians as “place of many perches,” verdant rainforest 

supports the largest populations of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Crimson, 

orange, yellow and green hued birds, the jewels of Hakalau, flit through the mist, 

pausing to sip nectar from ‘ōhi‘a lehua, inspire joy and wonder for present and 

future generations. 

Kona Forest Unit (Ka Waonahele o Kona) 

Mai Mauna Kea nō a ka‘a i lalo, a hiki aku i Mauna Loa, ma laila nō ka waonahele o 

Kona, kahi e noho lewalewa ana nā ao ‘ōpua i ka ‘uhiwai e hō‘olu‘olu ana i ka ulu lā‘au. 

‘Ike ‘ia ka ‘io e kīkaha ana ma luna loa o ka papa kaupoku i ho‘owehiwehi ‘ia me ka 

limu. Ma lalo o ke kaupoku koa me ‘ōhi‘a, e ‘imi ana ka ‘alalā me kona hoa manu i ka 

hua‘ai, wai pua, a me nā mea kolokolo i mea ‘ai na lākou. Aia nō ma ka malumalu o nā 

ana kahe pele kahiko nā mea kanu kāka‘ikahi o ka ‘āina, a me nā iwi o nā manu make 

loa ma Hawai‘i. Kuahui maila nō nā hoa mālama ‘āina i ola hou ka nohona o nā mea 

‘ane make loa ma kēia ‘āina nui ākea. 

On leeward Mauna Loa, where the clouds kiss the slopes with cool gray fog, lies the 

Kona Forest. ‘Alalā and other Hawaiian forest birds forage for fruit, nectar, and 

insects amongst the lichen-draped branches and canopy of the old-growth koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forest, while the ‘io soars overhead. In their damp darkness, ancient lava tubes and 

cave systems shelter rare plants, archaeological resources, and the bones of extinct 

birds. Conservation partners collaborate to restore habitat for the native and 

endangered species across the landscape. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set 

forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s 

best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes 

substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic 

planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 

‘Ōhi‘a tree 

©Lesa Moore

Executive Summary 


Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Hakalau Forest NWR Background: 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) consists of the Hakalau Forest Unit and the Kona 

Forest Unit, collectively managed as the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Hakalau 

Forest Unit was established in 1985 to protect and manage endangered forest birds and their 

rainforest habitat. Located on the windward slope of Mauna Kea, Island of Hawai‘i, this 32,733-acre 

unit supports a diversity of native birds and plants (27 of which are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act). The Kona Forest Unit was set aside in 1997 to protect native forest birds, the 

endangered ‘alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis, Hawaiian crow), and several listed plants. Located on the 

leeward slope of Mauna Loa, this 5,300-acre unit supports diverse native bird and plant species, as 

well as rare lava tube and lava tube skylight habitats. 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process Summary: 

Initial preplanning activities began in 2007. This period included team development and 

identification of management issues, vision, goals, and objectives. Public involvement began in 2009 

with the scoping process and publication of our notice of intent to prepare a CCP. This period 

involved mailings of the planning update, a news release and website posting, two public open 

houses, an interagency scoping meeting, and briefings of public officials. In 2010, the draft CCP/EA 

was developed and circulated for public comment. Notification of this document as well as 

solicitation of public comment during the 30 day comment period was accomplished through a 

planning update, a notice of availability in the Federal Register, a news release and website posting, 

holding of a public open house meeting, and circulating announcements via email and list serves. 

Refuge responses to public comments received were incorporated as part of Appendix K. 

Alternative Selected (Summary of Management): 

Three alternatives were analyzed during the CCP process and public comment review period. 

Alternative B (the Refuge’s preferred alternative) was chosen for implementation. This alternative 

focuses on protecting additional habitat; increasing management activities related to restoration and 

reforestation as well as controlling threats such as feral ungulates, invasive weed species, predator 

mammals, and other pests; better focusing and prioritizing of data collection and research for 

adaptive management; and expanding public use activities and collaborative partnering. 

The vision (with Hawaiian translation) for Hakalau Forest NWR: 


Aia nō i uka i ke kua ko‘olau o Mauna Kea ka pu‘uhonua waonahele aupuni ‘o Hakalau. He wahi 

kēia e hui ai kānaka e laulima ma o ke ka‘analike aku, ka‘analike mai i ka ‘ike, ka no‘eau, a me ka 

mana i mea e ho‘opalekana, ho‘oikaika, a ho‘ōla hou ai i ke ola maoli e noho ana ma ka waonahele. 

Ua kapa ‘ia ka inoa ‘o Hakalau no ka nui o nā haka e noho ‘ia e nā manu ‘ōiwi. I kēia lā ‘o 

Hakalau kekahi o nā home nunui no ka hui manu Hawai‘i ‘ane make loa. Kīkaha a‘ela nā manu, nā 

pua laha ‘ole ho‘i, i ka ‘ohu‘ohu o Hakalau a ma lalo iki e mūkīkī i ka wai pua ‘ōhi‘a. Ua nani nō 

ka ‘ikena a ‘upu a‘ela nō ke aloha no kēia ‘āina nei no nā kau a kau.



On the windward slope of majestic Mauna Kea, midway between summit and sea, lies Hakalau 

Forest NWR, a place where people come together to laulima, “many hands working together,” to 

share their knowledge, to share their skills, and to share their energy to protect, to enhance, to restore, 

and to respect Hawaiian wildlife. Known to Hawaiians as “place of many perches,” verdant 

rainforest supports the largest populations of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Crimson, orange, 

yellow, and green hued birds, the jewels of Hakalau, flit through the mist, pausing to sip nectar from 

‘ōhi‘a lehua, inspire joy and wonder for present and future generations. 


Mai Mauna Kea nō a ka‘a i lalo, a hiki aku i Mauna Loa, ma laila nō ka waonahele o Kona, kahi e 

noho lewalewa ana nā ao ‘ōpua i ka ‘uhiwai e hō‘olu‘olu ana i ka ulu lā‘au. ‘Ike ‘ia ka ‘io e kīkaha 

ana ma luna loa o ka papa kaupoku i ho‘owehiwehi ‘ia me ka limu. Ma lalo o ke kaupoku koa me 

‘ōhi‘a, e ‘imi ana ka ‘alalā me kona hoa manu i ka hua‘ai, wai pua, a me nā mea kolokolo i mea ‘ai 

na lākou. Aia nō ma ka malumalu o nā ana kahe pele kahiko nā mea kanu kāka‘ikahi o ka ‘āina, a 

me nā iwi o nā manu make loa ma Hawai‘i. Kuahui maila nō nā hoa mālama ‘āina i ola hou ka 

nohona o nā mea ‘ane make loa ma kēia ‘āina nui ākea. 

On leeward Mauna Loa, where the clouds kiss the slopes with cool gray fog, lies the Kona Forest. 

‘Alalā and other Hawaiian forest birds forage for fruit, nectar, and insects amongst the lichen-draped 

branches and canopy of the old-growth koa/‘ōhi‘a forest while the ‘io soars overhead. In their damp 

darkness, ancient lava tubes and cave systems shelter rare plants, archaeological resources, and the 

bones of extinct birds. Conservation partners collaborate to restore habitat for the native and 


The six goals (with Hawaiian translation) for Hakalau Forest NWR: 

Pahuhopu 1: E ho‘opalekana, mālama, a ho‘ōla hou i ka waonahele ma Mauna Loa ma ke ‘ano he 

wahi noho no nā mea a pau i mea e kū‘ono‘ono hou ai ka nohona o nā mea ‘ane make loa ‘o ia nō ‘o 

‘oe ‘o nā manu, nā ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, nā mea kanu, a me nā mea kolokolo ‘āina. 

Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community on the leeward slope of 

Mauna Loa as habitat for all life-history needs to promote the recovery of endangered species (e.g., 

forest birds, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, plants, and invertebrates). 

Pahuhopu 2: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i nā ana kahe pele a me ke ola i ka puka mālamalama o nā 

ana kahe pele ma ka waonahele o Kona, e kālele ana ho‘i i ke ola o nā lā‘au ‘ōiwi. 

Goal 2: Protect and maintain lava tube and lava tube skylight habitat throughout the Kona Forest 

Unit, with special emphasis on their unique and endemic flora and fauna. 

Pahuhopu 3: E ho‘opalekana, mālama, a hō‘ola hou i ka waonahele ma ka ‘ao‘ao ko‘olau o Mauna 

Kea ma ke ‘ano he wahi noho no nā mea a pau a me ko lākou pono ‘oia nō ‘oe ‘o nā manu, nā 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a, nā mea kanu, a me nā mea kolokolo ‘āina. 

Executive Summary




Goal 3: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community, on the windward slope of 

Mauna Kea as habitat for all life-history needs of endangered species (e.g., forest birds, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, 

plants, and invertebrates). 

Pahuhopu 4: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i ka ‘āina nenelu ma Hakalau. 

Goal 4: Protect and maintain wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., streams and their associated riparian 

corridors, ponds, and bogs) on the Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Pahuhopu 5: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i ka ‘āina mau‘u i mea e kāko‘o ai i ka ho‘ōla hou ‘ana i ka 

hui manu nēnē. 

Goal 5: Protect and maintain grassland habitat to support nēnē population recovery. 

Pahuhopu 6: E ‘ohi‘ohi i ka ‘ikepili ‘epekema (waihona ‘ike, nānā pono, ‘imi noi‘i, ana ‘ike) e pono 

ai ka ho‘oholo ‘ana i ke ‘ano o ka ho‘okele ‘ana iā Hakalau ma Mauna Kea a me Mauna Loa. 

Goal 6: Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, assessments) necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions on both units of the Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Pahuhopu 7: E kipa mai ka po‘e malihini a me ka po‘e maka‘āinana no ka hana manawale‘a ‘ana i 

mea e kama‘āina ai lākou i ka nohona o ka waonahele a me ka ‘oihana mālama ma Hakalau. 

Goal 7: Visitors, with a special emphasis on experience gained through volunteer work groups and 

local residents, understand and/or value the native forest environment and management practices at 

Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Pahuhopu 8: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i nā kumu waiwai a me nā wahi pana Hawai‘i no ka 

ho‘ona‘auao ‘ana i nā hanauna o kēia wā a me ka wā e hiki mai ana. 

Goal 8: Protect and manage cultural resources and historic sites for their educational and cultural 

values for the benefit of present and future generations of Refuge users and communities.



The objectives and major management strategies: 

Objectives CCP Action 

1.1: Restore and Protect Native 

Montane Wet ‘Ōhi‘a Forest 

(2,000-4,500 ft elevation) at KFU 

1.2: Restore, Protect, and Maintain 

Native Montane Mesic Koa/‘Ōhi‘a 

Forest 


1.3: Protect, Maintain, and Restore 

Native Dry Koa/‘Ōhi‘a/Māmane Forest 


1.4: Develop and Implement 

Propagation and Outplanting Program 

at KFU 

1.5, 5.3: Investigate and Initiate 

Landscape-level Habitat Conservation 

Measures 

2.1: Protect & Maintain 

Lava Tube and Skylight Communities 

at KFU 

3.1: Protect and Maintain Native 

Montane Wet ‘Ōhi‘a/Uluhe 

(Dicranopteris sp.) Forest (2,500-4,000 

ft elevation) at HFU 

3,000 acres. Remove ranch debris. Build and maintain 

17 mile ungulate-proof fence. Remove pest animals. 

Eradicate/control invasive plants. Conduct annual invasive 

plant survey; conduct survey for pest animals (based on 

surveys control threats). Outplant threatened and endangered 

(T&E) plants in units 2 and 3 and build site specific fencing 

for these plants. 


fence, eradicate/control invasive plants, and remove pest 

animals. Conduct annual invasive plant survey; conduct 

survey for pest animals (based on surveys control threats). 

Outplant native plants. Address wildfire through hazardous 

fuels treatment, maintaining fuelbreaks, developing fire 

prevention program. 

500 acres. Remove ranch debris. Build and maintain fence, 

eradicate/control invasive plants, and remove pest animals. 

Conduct annual invasive plant survey; conduct survey for 

pest animals (based on surveys control threats). Outplant 

T&E plants and build site specific fencing for these plants. 

500 T&E plants and 2,000 native plants provided annually 

for restoration. Develop native plant nursery at Mauna Loa 

field camp site, collect seeds and cuttings, develop (in 

7 years) staff, volunteer, and partnering programs. 

LPP completed within one year. Identify habitats to support 

focal species; develop protection strategies; work proactively 

with partners, neighbors, and private landowners where 

appropriate to meet conservation goals and develop specific 

project proposals for land acquisition, cooperative 

agreements, and/or conservation easements as key 

conservation opportunities arise and willing parties are 

identified. 

Remove ranch debris. Build and maintain fence and develop 

site specific access protocols to limit human disturbance to 

habitat. Eradicate/control invasive plants, and remove pest 

animals. Conduct survey for pest animals (based on surveys 

control threats). Inventory and map communities and 

support additional investigations and research. 

7,000 acres. Remove pest animals, eradicate/control invasive 

plants, build site-specific fencing to protect T&E plant 

populations and Carex sp. bogs. Conduct annual invasive 


surveys control threats). Inventory vegetation, complete 

Wilderness Study. 

Executive Summary







(4,000-5,000 ft elevation) at HFU 


Native Montane Wet Koa/‘Ōhi‘a 

Forest 



Montane Mesic Koa Forest (6,000- 

6,600 ft elevation) at HFU 

3.5: Restore/Reforest Native Montane 

Mesic Koa Forest 


3.6: Maintain and Enhance 


at HFU 

4.1: Protect and Maintain Streams and 

Stream Corridors at HFU 

4.2: Protect and Maintain 

Semipermanent Natural Ponds at HFU 

4.3: Protect and Maintain Carex Bogs 

within the Montane Wet ‘Ōhi‘a/Uluhe 

Forest at HFU 

8,200 acres. Maintain existing fence (units 1-8), build and 

maintain fence. Eradicate/control invasive plants and remove 

pest animals. Conduct annual invasive plant survey; conduct 


Outplant native overstory koa and ‘ōhi‘a, T&E plants, and 

common understory plants. Build site specific fencing for 

T&E plants. Complete Wilderness Study. 

5,000 acres. Maintain existing fence, build and maintain 

fence along Middle Maulua tract boundary (unit 9). 

Eradicate/control invasive plants and remove pest animals. 


pest animals (based on surveys control threats, particularly 

Vespula sp. ). Outplant T&E plants and build site-specific 

fencing to protect T&E plant populations. 

3,500 acres. Maintain existing fence. Eradicate/control 

invasive plants and remove pest animals. Conduct annual 

invasive plant survey; conduct survey for pest animals (based 

on surveys control threats, particularly Vespula sp. ). 

Outplant T&E plants and build site-specific fencing to 

protect T&E plant populations. Address wildfire through 

hazardous fuels treatment, maintaining fuelbreaks, 

developing fire prevention program. 

2,500 acres. Maintain fence. Eradicate/control invasive 

plants and remove pest animals. Conduct annual invasive 


surveys control threats). Outplant 300 koa per acre, use 

excluder devices to deter turkeys on koa seedlings, outplant 

native understory species and ‘ōhi‘a at 150 per acres, 

outplant 100-300 T&E plants and build site-specific fencing 

to protect these plants. Address wildfire through hazardous 



Plant 10,000 koa per year for 5 years: 5,000 per year for the 

next 10 years, 8-10,000 natives and 300-1,200 T&E 

plantings per year. Expand native plant nursery at Mauna 

Kea administration site, collect seeds and cuttings, outplant, 

and develop partnerships to assist with propagation program. 

Maintain fencing. Eradicate/control invasive plants. Conduct 

annual invasive plant survey; conduct survey for pest 

animals (based on surveys control threats). Inventory streams 

and stream corridors. 

Maintain fencing, conduct survey for pest animals (based on 

surveys control threats). 

Install fencing to protect bogs, conduct survey for pest 

animals (based on surveys control threats), survey extent and 

number of bogs.




5.1: Maintain Managed Grassland for 

Foraging Nēnē at HFU 

5.2: Maintain Grassland Habitats for 

Nēnē Nesting at HFU 

6.1: Conduct High-Priority Inventory 

and Monitoring (Survey) Activities that 

Evaluate Resource Management and 

Public-Use Activities to Facilitate 

Adaptive Management 

6.2: Conduct High-Priority Research 

Projects that Provide the Best Science 

for Habitat and Wildlife Management 

On and Off the Refuge 

6.3: Conduct Scientific Assessments to 

Provide Baseline Information to 

Expand Knowledge Regarding the 

Status of Refuge Resources to Better 

Inform Resource Management 

Decisions 

7.1: Establish Compatible Wildlife 

Observation and Photography 

Opportunities 

7.2: Promote and Enhance Volunteer 

Program 

7.3: Support Existing Outside 

Programs for On and Off Site 

Environmental Education and Develop 

Interpretive Opportunities 

7.4: Enhance Outreach Targeting 

Local Communities to Promote 

Appreciation of and Generate Support 

for the KFU 

65 acres. Maintain fuel breaks and fence corridors, build and 

maintain fence. Eradicate/control invasive plants. Conduct 


15 acres. Maintain fence and build predator proof fence on 

15-acre grassland breeding site away from administrative site 

at Pua ‘Ākala tract. Eradicate/control invasive plants and 

remove pest animals. Conduct survey for pest animals (based 

on surveys control threats). 

An initial list of survey and monitoring activities have been 

identified and include examples such as monitoring nesting 

density and success of nēnē, inventorying all endemic 

species, instituting early detection and rapid response 

monitoring for threat management, monitoring plant and 

animal diseases, and others. 

An initial list of research projects have been identified and 

include examples such as investigating and monitoring 

endangered plant propagation and outplanting, research on 

arthropod abundance, researching demography, life-history, 

carrying capacity, and competition for native forest birds, 

and others. 

An initial list of scientific assessments have been identified 

and include examples such as determining ecological 

parameters for ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, determining the role of predators 

in native flora and fauna abundance, assessing global climate 

change impacts on the Refuge, and others. 

Develop Upper Maulua Tract interpretive trail (0.3-0.5 mile) 

and parking area. Work with Friends of Hakalau Forest to 

develop brochure. 

Maintain volunteer program and current 35-40 service 

weekends at HFU, develop seasonal volunteer program to 

supplement staffing and weekend programs, develop KFU 

volunteer program similar to HFU. 

Increase environmental education and interpretive programs 

(via coordinating more with County, State, and nongovernmental 

organizations and expanding interpretive 

programs relative to cultural resources/historic sites) to 

include 168 participants annually. Continue interpretive 

walks offered during annual Refuge open house. 

Work with existing partners to promote awareness and 

appreciation. Develop and cultivate new partners and 

outreach efforts. 

Executive Summary





8.1: Increase Identification, 

Monitoring, Protection, and 

Restoration of all Cultural Resources 

and Historic Sites, while Increasing 

Staff and Public Support and 

Appreciation 

Evaluate known/potential Refuge cultural resources and 

historic sites, develop guidelines for cultural activities, 

identify cultural practitioners to develop understanding of 

cultural/historic sites at the Refuge, develop interpretive 

programming and products relative to cultural and historic 

sites in partnership with Native Hawaiian groups; conduct 

comprehensive cultural resources investigation of both units. 

Implementation of the Plan: 

Over the next 15 years, Refuge staff will be implementing these various strategies as funding and 

staffing allow. We look forward to continue working with our partners and the public as we 

strive to attain our goals and vision for these unique Hawaiian rainforests and the numerous 

native plants and animals that depend upon them for their survival.



Table of Contents 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ..................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-1 

1.3 Content and Scope of the CCP ........................................................................................... 1-2 

1.4 Planning and Management Guidance ................................................................................ 1-2 

1.4.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission ....................................................................... 1-2 

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System ................................................................................. 1-9 

1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act ............................................... 1-10 

1.5 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans ........................................................ 1-11 

1.5.1 Previous Plans ............................................................................................................ 1-11 

1.5.2 Future Planning .......................................................................................................... 1-12 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ................................................................................ 1-12 

1.6.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Purposes .................................................................................. 1-13 

1.6.2 Kona Forest Unit Purposes ...................................................................................... 1-13 

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals or Plans ............................................... 1-13 

1.7.1 Landscape Level Initiatives ..................................................................................... 1-13 

1.7.2 Statewide Plans (including Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery Plans) ...................................................................................................... 1-18 

1.8 Planning and Issue Identification ..................................................................................... 1-27 

1.8.1 Public Scoping Sessions ............................................................................................. 1-27 

1.8.2 Interagency Scoping ................................................................................................... 1-29 

1.8.3 Forest Bird Workshop ................................................................................................ 1-30 

1.9 Refuge Vision ..................................................................................................................... 1-32 

1.10 Refuge Goals ...................................................................................................................... 1-33 

1.11 References .......................................................................................................................... 1-34 

Chapter 2. Refuge Management Direction .................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Considerations in the Design of the CCP........................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 General Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..................................................................................... 2-12 

2.3.1 Kona Forest Unit ........................................................................................................ 2-13 

2.3.1.1 Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community 

on the leeward slope of Mauna Loa as habitat for all life-history needs 

to promote the recovery of endangered species (e.g., forest birds, 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a, plants, and invertebrates). ............................................................... 2-13 

2.3.1.2 Goal 2: Protect and maintain lava tube and lava tube skylight habitat 

throughout the Kona Forest Unit, with special emphasis on their unique 

and endemic flora and fauna. ............................................................................. 2-19 

2.3.2 Hakalau Forest Unit .................................................................................................... 2-20 

2.3.2.1 Goal 3: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community 

on the windward slope of Mauna Kea as habitat for all life-history needs 

of endangered species (e.g., forest birds, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, plants, and 

invertebrates) ..................................................................................................... 2-20 

Table of Contents i



2.3.2.2 Goal 4: Protect and maintain wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., streams 

and their associated riparian corridors, ponds, and bogs) on the Hakalau 

Forest Unit. ........................................................................................................ 2-28 

2.3.2.3 Goal 5: Protect and maintain grassland habitat to support nēnē population 

recovery ............................................................................................................. 2-30 

2.3.3 Both Hakalau Forest and Kona Forest Units .............................................................. 2-33 

2.3.3.1 Goal 6: Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, 

assessments) necessary to support adaptive management decisions on 

both units of Hakalau Forest NWR. .................................................................. 2-33 

2.3.3.2 Goal 7: Visitors, with a special emphasis on experience gained through 

volunteer work groups and local residents, understand and/or value 

the native forest environment and management practices at Hakalau 

Forest NWR. ...................................................................................................... 2-37 

2.3.3.3 Goal 8: Protect and manage cultural resources and historic sites for their 

educational and cultural values for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Refuge users and communities. ................................................. 2-40 

2.4 References ........................................................................................................................... 2-42 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment .................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Climate ........................................................................................ 3-2 

3.1.2 Kona Forest Unit Climate ............................................................................................. 3-3 

3.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Geology and Soils ....................................................................... 3-4 

3.2.2 Kona Forest Unit Geology and Soils ............................................................................ 3-6 

3.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 3-8 

3.3.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Hydrology ................................................................................. 3-10 

3.3.2 Kona Forest Unit Hydrology ...................................................................................... 3-11 

3.4 Topography ........................................................................................................................ 3-11 

3.4.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Topography ............................................................................... 3-12 

3.4.2 Kona Forest Unit Topography .................................................................................... 3-12 

3.5 Environmental Contaminants .......................................................................................... 3-12 

3.5.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Contaminants ............................................................................ 3-12 

3.5.2 Kona Forest Unit Contaminants ................................................................................. 3-13 

3.6 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-13 

3.6.1 Local Land Use Designations: Hakalau Forest Unit ................................................. 3-13 

3.6.2 Local Land Use Designations: Kona Forest Unit ...................................................... 3-15 

3.7 Global Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 3-17 

3.8 References ........................................................................................................................... 3-20 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats ...................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis ............................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Conservation Target Selection and Analysis ..................................................................... 4-2 

4.3 Habitats ................................................................................................................................. 4-5 

4.3.1 Hakalau Forest Unit ...................................................................................................... 4-5 

4.3.2 Kona Forest Unit ........................................................................................................ 4-10 

4.4 Endangered Hawaiian Forest Birds ................................................................................. 4-14 

4.4.1 ‘Akiapōlā‘au ............................................................................................................... 4-16 

ii Table of Contents



4.4.2 Hawai‘i ‘Ākepa .......................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.4.3 Hawai‘i Creeper .......................................................................................................... 4-24 

4.4.4 ‘Ō‘ū ............................................................................................................................ 4-25 

4.4.5 ‘Ālalā .......................................................................................................................... 4-27 

4.4.6 ‘Io ............................................................................................................................... 4-29 

4.5 Other Native Hawaiian Forest Birds ............................................................................... 4-31 

4.5.1 ‘I‘iwi ........................................................................................................................... 4-32 

4.5.2 Common ‘Amakihi ..................................................................................................... 4-33 

4.5.3 ‘Apanane..................................................................................................................... 4-35 

4.5.4 Hawai‘i ‘Elepaio ......................................................................................................... 4-36 

4.5.5 ‘Ōma‘o ........................................................................................................................ 4-38 

4.5.6 Pueo ............................................................................................................................ 4-39 

4.6 Endangered Hawaiian Waterbirds .................................................................................. 4-40 

4.6.1 Nēnē ............................................................................................................................ 4-41 

4.6.2 Koloa Maoli ................................................................................................................ 4-42 

4.6.3 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o ............................................................................................................ 4-43 

4.7 Endangered Mammal ........................................................................................................ 4-44 

4.7.1 ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a .................................................................................................................. 4-44 

4.8 Native Hawaiian Invertebrates ......................................................................................... 4-45 

4.8.1 Picture-wing Flies ....................................................................................................... 4-46 

4.8.2 Koa Bug ...................................................................................................................... 4-47 

4.8.3 Cave Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 4-48 

4.8.4 Arthropods .................................................................................................................. 4-49 

4.8.5 Mollusks ..................................................................................................................... 4-56 

4.9 Endangered and Threatened Plants ................................................................................. 4-57 

4.9.1 Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare .......................................................................... 4-58 

4.9.2 Clermontia lindseyana ................................................................................................ 4-59 

4.9.3 Clermontia peleana .................................................................................................... 4-60 

4.9.4 Clermontia pyrularia .................................................................................................. 4-61 

4.9.5 Hāhā ............................................................................................................................ 4-62 

4.9.6 ‘Aku‘aku ..................................................................................................................... 4-62 

4.9.7 Cyanea shipmanii ....................................................................................................... 4-63 

4.9.8 Cyanea stictophylla .................................................................................................... 4-64 

4.9.9 Ha‘iwale ..................................................................................................................... 4-65 

4.9.10 ‘Aiea ......................................................................................................................... 4-65 

4.9.11 Phyllostegia floribunda ............................................................................................ 4-66 

4.9.12 Kīponapona ............................................................................................................... 4-67 

4.9.13 Phyllostegia velutina ................................................................................................ 4-68 

4.9.14 Po‘e ........................................................................................................................... 4-68 

4.9.15 ‘Ānunu ...................................................................................................................... 4-69 

4.9.16 Silene hawaiiensis .................................................................................................... 4-70 

4.10 Other Native Plants ......................................................................................................... 4-70 

4.10.1 Koa ........................................................................................................................... 4-76 

4.10.2‘Ōhi‘a .......................................................................................................................... 4-78 

4.10.3 Māmane ..................................................................................................................... 4-80 

4.11 Cave Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-80 

4.12 Threats .............................................................................................................................. 4-82 

4.12.1 Introduced Forest Birds ............................................................................................ 4-83 

Table of Contents iii



4.12.2 Introduced Game Birds ............................................................................................. 4-85 

4.12.3 Introduced Mammals ................................................................................................ 4-85 

4.12.4 Introduced Reptiles and Amphibians ....................................................................... 4-93 

4.12.5 Introduced Arthropods .............................................................................................. 4-94 

4.12.6 Introduced Plants ...................................................................................................... 4-96 

4.12.7 Introduced Mollusks ............................................................................................... 4-109 

4.13 Special Designation Areas ............................................................................................ 4-109 

4.14 References ....................................................................................................................... 4-109 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment ............................................................................. 5-1 

5.1 Refuge Infrastructure and Administrative Facilities ....................................................... 5-1 

5.1.1 Hakalau Forest Unit ...................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Kona Forest Unit .......................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.1.3 Hilo Administrative Office ........................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2 Public Use Overview ............................................................................................................ 5-2 

5.2.1 Federal, State, and County Recreational Parks ............................................................ 5-2 

5.2.2 Wildlife Observation and Environmental Education .................................................. 5-11 

5.2.3 Camping ..................................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.4 Hiking ......................................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.5 Hunting ....................................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.6 Refuge Public Use Opportunities ............................................................................... 5-14 

5.2.7 Recreational Trends and Demands ............................................................................. 5-17 

5.2.8 Impact of Illegal Uses ................................................................................................ 5-17 

5.2.9 Historic/Cultural Sites ................................................................................................ 5-17 

5.2.10 Special Designation Areas ......................................................................................... 5-20 

5.3 Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................... 5-20 

5.3.1 Population ................................................................................................................... 5-20 

5.3.2 Housing ...................................................................................................................... 5-21 

5.3.3 Education .................................................................................................................... 5-21 

5.3.4 Employment and Income ............................................................................................ 5-22 

5.3.5 Economy ..................................................................................................................... 5-23 

5.3.6 Refuge Contribution ................................................................................................... 5-25 

5.4 References ........................................................................................................................... 5-25 

Tables 

Table 2-1 Summary of CCP Actions. ............................................................................................... 2-9 

Table 3-1 Average Monthly Rainfall (inches) at the Kona Forest Unit, April 1995- 

November 1998. .............................................................................................................. 3-3 

Table 3-2 Soil types Found Within the Hakalau Forest Unit and Key Characteristics. .................... 3-6 

Table 3-3 Soil Types Found Within the Kona Forest Unit and Key Characteristics. ....................... 3-8 

Table 3-4 Streams and Tributaries on the Hakalau Forest Unit. ..................................................... 3-10 

Table 4-1 Refuge Conservation Targets. .......................................................................................... 4-3 

Table 4-2 Endangered and Rare Native Invertebrate Species Occurring or Potentially 

Occurring on Hakalau Forest NWR. ............................................................................. 4-46 

Table 4-3 Endemic Arthropods in Three Cave Systems at the KFU. ............................................. 4-49 

Table 4-4 Arthropods Occurring at the HFU and KFU. ................................................................. 4-53 

Table 4-5 Endangered and Threatened Plant Species that Occur (or Potentially Occur) 

at Hakalau Forest NWR. ............................................................................................... 4-58 

iv Table of Contents



Table 4-6 Native Hawaiian Plants Found on the Units of Hakalau Forest NWR. .......................... 4-71 

Table 4-7 Total Native Seedlings Outplanted at the HFU 1987-2007. ........................................... 4-76 

Table 4-8 Introduced Forest Birds Present at HFU and KFU. ........................................................ 4-84 

Table 4-9 Introduced Game birds Present at HFU and KFU. ......................................................... 4-85 

Table 4-10 List of Invasive Plant Species Known to Currently Occur at Hakalau Forest NWR. ... 4-98 

Table 5-1 Legend ID and Facility Name for the Vicinity Recreation Map. ..................................... 5-9 

Table 5-2 FY 2010 Visitation at the Hakalau Forest Unit. ............................................................. 5-16 

Table 5-3 Population Figures for Selected Areas. .......................................................................... 5-21 

Table 5-4 Hawai‘i County Industry Job Counts and Average Annual Wages. .............................. 5-23 

Figures 

Figure 1-1 Refuge Vicinity ................................................................................................................ 1-3 

Figure 1-2 HFU Location ................................................................................................................... 1-5 

Figure 1-3 KFU Location ................................................................................................................... 1-7 

Figure 2-1 HFU CCP Management ................................................................................................... 2-5 

Figure 2-2 KFU CCP Management ................................................................................................... 2-7 

Figure 3-1 Soil Map of the Hakalau Forest Unit ............................................................................... 3-5 

Figure 3-2 Soil Map of the Kona Forest Unit .................................................................................... 3-7 

Figure 3-3 Land Use District Boundaries – Hakalau Forest Unit .................................................... 3-15 

Figure 3-4 Land Use District Boundaries – Kona Forest Unit ........................................................ 3-16 

Figure 4-1 Native Forest Bird Trends on Hawai‘i Island .................................................................. 4-2 

Figure 4-2 HFU Vegetation Type ...................................................................................................... 4-7 

Figure 4-3 KFU Vegetation Type .................................................................................................... 4-11 

Figure 4-4 North Hāmākua Study Area ........................................................................................... 4-15 

Figure 4-5 Annual Forest Bird Survey Transects ............................................................................ 4-17 

Figure 4-6 Central Windward Study Area ....................................................................................... 4-20 

Figure 4-7 Hakalau Forest Unit 2007 Weed Survey Map ............................................................. 4-101 

Figure 5-1 Hakalau Forest Volunteer Cabin ...................................................................................... 5-1 

Figure 5-2 HFU Administrative Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................ 5-3 

Figure 5-3 KFU Administrative Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................ 5-5 

Figure 5-4 Recreation Opportunities on Hawai‘i Island .................................................................... 5-7 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Species Lists for Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... A-1 

Appendix B. Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations ................................................ B-1 

Appendix C. Plan Implementation ................................................................................................... C-1 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review for Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge ............................ D-1 

Appendix E. Forest Bird Workshop Report .................................................................................... E-1 

Appendix F. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

and Resources of Concern ..................................................................................... F-1 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management Program ........................................................................ G-1 

Appendix H. Statement of Compliance ........................................................................................... H-1 

Appendix I. Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... I-1 

Appendix J. CCP Team Members ................................................................................................... J-1 

Appendix K. Summary of Public Involvement ................................................................................ K-1 

Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management ............................................................... L-1 

Table of Contents v

vi 



Note to Reviewers: Throughout the CCP document, all attempts have been made 

to use appropriate diacriticals related to the Native Hawaiian language 

(i.e., ‘okina and kahakō). However, places where diacriticals may not appear are 

in the maps, appendices, and references. Due to limitations of the Geospatial 

Information System (GIS) software used for the maps developed in the plan, 

diacriticals were unable to be used where place names or legend text appear. For 

items in the appendices, if documents were minutes or summaries of meetings or 

documents not created for the CCP that did not use diacriticals originally, the 

document was left as is. For references identified, if the title of the publication or 

original citation does not use diacriticals, references were left as is.

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

Above: ‘Io/Robert Shallenberger 

Right: ‘Amakihi/Jack Jeffrey Photography 

Hakalau Forest Unit rainforest/Dick Wass



Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 

1.1 Introduction 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge consists of the Hakalau Forest Unit and the Kona Forest 

Unit (Figure 1-1) collectively managed as the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(Complex). The Hakalau Forest Unit (HFU) (Figure 1-2) was established in 1985 to protect and 

manage endangered forest birds and their rainforest habitat. Located on the windward slope of 

Mauna Kea, Island of Hawai‘i, the 32,733 acre unit supports a diversity of native birds and plants. 

The Kona Forest Unit (KFU) (Figure 1-3) was set aside in 1997 to protect native forest birds and the 

‘alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis, Hawaiian crow). Located on the leeward slope of Mauna Loa, the 

5,300 acre KFU supports diverse native bird and plant species as well as the rare lava tube and lava 

tube skylight habitats. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the CCP 

The purpose of the CCP is to provide the Complex, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 

Service, partners, and citizens with a management plan for improving fish and wildlife habitat 

conditions and infrastructure for wildlife, staff, and public use on the Refuge over the next 15 years. 

An approved CCP will ensure that the Complex staff manages Hakalau Forest NWR to achieve 

Refuge purposes, vision, goals, and objectives to help fulfill the Refuge System mission. 

The CCP will provide reasonable, scientifically grounded guidance for managing and improving the 

Refuge’s forest, subterranean, riparian, aquatic, and grassland habitats for the long-term conservation 

of native plants and animals. Appropriate actions for protecting and sustaining the biological and 

cultural features of forest communities; endangered species populations and habitats; and threatened 

or rare species have been identified. The CCP also promotes priority public use activities on the 

Refuge including wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. 

The CCP is needed for a variety of reasons. Primary among these is the need to conserve the 

Refuge’s forest, subterranean, riparian, aquatic, and grassland habitats that are in various stages of 

(1) degradation by pest plants and animals (most notably ungulates and invasive plants), (2) recovery 

from cattle grazing activities by past owners, and (3) restoration by Refuge staff. The CCP is needed 

to address the Refuge’s contributions to aid in the recovery of listed species, and assess and possibly 

mitigate potential impacts of global climate change. The staff also needs to effectively work with 

current partners such as the Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), the U.S. 

Geological Survey-Biological Resources Discipline (USGS-BRD), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), and the National Park Service (NPS). The 

Refuge also needs to seek new partnerships to restore habitats, improve the volunteer program, and 

identify to what extent improvements or alterations should be made to existing visitor programs. In 

addition, the Refuge will continue to work with the Friends of Hakalau Forest on various Refuge 

programs, community outreach, and Refuge management needs. These activities will allow the 

Refuge staff to ensure the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the units are 

restored or maintained. 

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1-1



1.3 Content and Scope of the CCP 

This CCP provides guidance for management of Refuge habitats and wildlife and administration of 

public uses on Refuge lands. The Hakalau Forest NWR CCP is also intended to comply with the 

requirements set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

(Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

(16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Information in the CCP includes: 

� An overall vision for the Refuge, each unit’s establishment history and purposes, and their role in 

the local ecosystem (Chapter 1); 

� Goals and objectives for specific conservation targets and public use programs, as well as 

strategies for achieving the objectives (Chapter 2); 

� A description of the physical environment of the Refuge (Chapter 3); 

� A description of the conservation targets, their condition and trends on the Refuge and within the 

local ecosystem, a presentation of the key desired ecological conditions for sustaining the targets, 

and a short analysis of the threats to each conservation target (Chapter 4); 

� An overview of the Refuge’s public use programs and facilities, a list of desired future conditions 

for each program, and other management considerations (Chapter 5); 

� A list of resident species (both native and nonnative) known from the Refuge (Appendix A); 

� Evaluations of existing and proposed appropriate public and economic uses for compatibility 

with the Refuge’s purposes (Appendix B); 

� An outline of the projects, staff, and facilities needed to support the CCP (Appendix C); 

� A review for wilderness designation (Appendix D); 

� Summary of a workshop held for implementing recovery for endangered forest birds 

(Appendix E); 

� A Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Table (Appendix F); 

� Integrated Pest Management Program (Appendix G); 

� Statement of Compliance for CCP (Appendix H); 

� List of acronyms (Appendix I); 

� A list of CCP Team Members (Appendix J); 

� A summary of public involvement (Appendix K); and 

� A summary of past and current management (Appendix L). 

1.4 Planning and Management Guidance 

1.4.1 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission 

The mission of the Service is “working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” National natural 

resources entrusted to the Service for conservation and protection include migratory birds, 

endangered and threatened species, interjurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain marine mammals. 

1-2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Figure 1-1. 

Refuge vicinity. 

Chapter 1. Introduction and a Backgroun nd 

Hakalau H Forest National Wilddlife 

Refuge 

Comprehens sive Conservatiion 

Plan 

1-3



To preserve the quality of this figure, this side was left blank intentionally. 


Figure 1-2. 

HFU location. 



Refuge 



1-5





Figure 1-3. 

KFU location. 



Refuge 



1-7







The Service also manages national fish hatcheries, enforces Federal wildlife laws and international 

treaties on importing and exporting wildlife, assists with State/Territorial fish and wildlife programs, 

and helps other countries develop wildlife conservation programs. The Service is an agency within 

the Department of the Interior (DOI), and is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. 

1.4.2 National Wildlife Refuge System 

The Refuge System is the world’s largest network of public lands and waters set aside specifically 

for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. From its inception in 1903, the Refuge System 

has grown to encompass 553 national wildlife refuges in all 50 States, 4 U.S. territories, and a 

number of unincorporated U.S. possessions, and waterfowl production areas in 10 States, covering 

more than 150 million acres of public lands. It also manages four marine national monuments in the 

Pacific in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 

affected States/Territories. More than 40 million visitors annually fish, hunt, observe and photograph 

wildlife, or participate in environmental education and interpretive activities on these refuges. 

Refuges are guided by various Federal laws and Executive orders, Service policies, and international 

treaties. Fundamental are the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the designated purposes of 

the Refuge unit as described in establishing legislation, Executive orders, or other documents 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge. 

Key concepts and guidance for the Refuge System derive from the Administration Act, the Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The Administration Act is implemented 

through regulations covering the Refuge System, published in Title 50, subchapter C of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. These regulations govern general administration of units of the Refuge System. 

This CCP complies with the Refuge Administration Act. 

1.4.2.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals 

The mission of the Refuge System is: 

“to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 

and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended)(16 U.S.C. 668dd). 

Wildlife conservation is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The goals of the Refuge 

System, as articulated in the Mission, Goals, and Refuge Purposes Policy (601 FW1) are: 

� Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are 

endangered or threatened with becoming endangered; 

� Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and 

carefully managed to meet important life-history needs of these species across their ranges; 




� Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international significance 

and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in existing 

protection efforts; 

� Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation); and 

� Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. 

1.4.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 

Of all the laws governing activities on refuges, the Administration Act exerts the greatest influence. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) amended the 

Administration Act by including a unifying mission for all refuges as a system, a new process for 

determining compatible uses on refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a 

CCP developed in an open public process. 

The Administration Act states the Secretary of the Interior shall provide for the conservation of fish, 

wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System as well as ensure that the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained. House 

Report 105–106 accompanying the Improvement Act states ‘‘… the fundamental mission of our 

System is wildlife conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.’’ Biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) are critical components of wildlife 

conservation. As later made clear in the BIDEH Policy, “the highest measure of biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health is viewed as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife 

populations that existed during historic conditions.” 

Under the Administration Act, each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System mission as 

well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The Administration Act requires the 

Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 

Additionally, the Administration Act identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses for priority 

consideration. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Under the Administration Act, the Refuge is to grant 

these six wildlife-dependent public uses special consideration in the planning for, management of, 

and establishment and expansion of units of the Refuge System. The overarching goal is to enhance 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and access to quality visitor experiences on refuges while 

managing refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. New and ongoing recreational 

uses should help visitors focus on wildlife and other natural resources. These uses should provide an 

opportunity to make visitors aware of resource issues, management plans, and how the refuge 

contributes to the Refuge System and the Service mission. When determined compatible on a refugespecific 

basis, these six uses assume priority status among all uses of the refuge in question. The 

refuge is then directed to make extra effort to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities. 




When preparing a CCP, refuge managers must reevaluate all general public, recreational, and 

economic uses (even those occurring to further refuge habitat management goals) proposed or 

occurring on a refuge for appropriateness and compatibility. No refuge use may be allowed or 

continued unless it is determined to be appropriate and compatible. Generally, an appropriate use is 

one that contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan, such as this CCP. A compatible use is a use that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. 

Updated Appropriateness Findings and Compatibility Determinations for existing and proposed uses 

for Hakalau Forest NWR are in Appendix B. 

The Administration Act also requires that, in addition to formally established guidance, the CCP 

must be developed with the participation of the public. Issues and concerns articulated by the public 

played a role in guiding the development of the CCP, and together with the formal guidance, played a 

role in development of the final CCP. It is the Service’s policy to invite public participation in CCP 

development, to carry out an open public CCP process, and secure public input throughout the 

process. 

1.5 Relationship to Previous and Future Refuge Plans 

Planning has been a part of refuge operations since establishing refuges began. However, not all 

plans were completed in a comprehensive fashion, or with public participation considered adequate 

today. For Hakalau Forest NWR, a considerable number of plans were completed over the years to 

guide managers. 

1.5.1 Previous Plans 

Plans and/or management agreements (plans addressing one program or resource) have been 

developed for Hakalau Forest NWR (Hakalau Forest Unit and Kona Forest Unit). Existing plans 

include: 

� Refuge Management Plan (1989); 

� Feral Ungulate Management Plan (1996); 

� Draft Reforestation Management Plan (May 1996); 

� Wildland Fire Management Plan-Hakalau (2002); 

� Wildland Fire Management Plan-Kona (2002); 

� Occupant Emergency Plan (2003); 

� Annual Habitat Work Plan (2004); 

� Visitor Services Evaluation Report (2004); 

� Safety Plan, Hakalau Forest Unit (April 2004); 

� Aviation Mishap Response Plan (2005); 

� Continuity of Operations Plan (2009); 

� Fleet Management Plan (2009); 

� USFWS Pandemic Influenza Plan (2009); and 

� Medical Emergency Dispatch Plan (2009). 


1.5.2 Future Planning 



The CCP will be revised every 15 years or sooner if monitoring and evaluation determine that 

changes are needed to achieve the Refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, or objectives. The CCP provides 

guidance in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for Refuge program areas but may lack some 

of the specifics needed for implementation. Stepdown management plans may be developed for 

individual program areas, as needed, following completion and approval of the CCP. Stepdown plans 

may require additional NEPA and other compliance. Several stepdown plans (e.g., Habitat 

Management Plan, Inventory and Monitoring Plan, and Integrated Pest Management Plan) are 

appropriate to develop and/or update following the CCP completion; all of these will be founded on 

the management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the CCP. The Integrated Pest 

Management Plan (IPM) should address coordination with all other Federal, State, and regional 

agencies as well as neighboring private landowners in order to effectively combat the spread of 

invasive species. 

In addition, national wildlife refuges may serve as important strategic anchor points for area 

conservation efforts. With the completion of the CCP, the Refuge staff has initiated and will 

complete a Land Protection Planning effort in cooperation with other agencies and interested parties 

to assess and identify land conservation priorities and opportunities in the vicinity of Refuge units. 

The Refuge staff will expand coordination efforts with existing partners on both the windward 

Mauna Kea (Hakalau Forest Unit) and the South Kona (Kona Forest Unit) sides of Hawai‘i Island to 

seek input on potential Refuge involvement in area conservation efforts and needs beyond our 

current boundaries in order to determine a desired goal and appropriate role for the Refuge. Potential 

additions or expansion of Hakalau Forest NWR and examination of various land protection tools will 

be explored. Land protection as part of the Refuge System may include fee title acquisition, 

conservation easements, and/or cooperative agreements. 

Currently, the Refuge identifies parcels on a case-by-case basis for protection as they become 

available from willing sellers. A landscape approach on the slopes of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa 

will allow staff to focus efforts and work with partners to ensure that habitat needs are met over a 

larger area. In addition, corridors between patches of protected habitat are critical for species 

migration in response to climate change. Species distribution and abundance is likely to change based 

upon precipitation patterns, temperature variations, and shifts in mosquito zones. The Refuge will 

take a landscape level view of opportunities to augment the habitat protection currently provided by 

the existing Refuge lands. 

1.6 Refuge Establishment and Purposes 

The Administration Act directs the Service to manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the Refuge 

System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established. Refuge purposes are 

the driving force in developing refuge vision statements, goals, objectives, and strategies in the CCP. 

Refuge purposes are also critical to determining the appropriateness and compatibility of all existing 

and proposed refuge uses. 

Lands within the Refuge System are acquired and managed under a variety of legislative acts, 

administrative orders, and legal authorities. The official purpose or purposes for a refuge are 




specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, Executive order, agreement, public land order, 

donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, 

refuge unit, or refuge subunit. The Service defines the purpose of a refuge when it is established or 

when new land is added to an existing refuge. When an addition to a refuge is acquired under an 

authority different from the authority used to establish the original refuge, the addition takes on the 

purposes of the original refuge, but the original refuge does not take on the purposes of the addition. 

Refuge managers must consider all of these purposes. Additionally, refuge boundaries may 

encompass lands that the refuge itself does not own. Therefore, note in Figures 1-2 and 1-3 the 

distinction between Refuge ownership and authorized boundaries. 

1.6.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Purposes 

Established on October 29, 1985, the purposes of Hakalau Forest Unit are: 

� “… to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species. 

. . or (B) plants . . . (C) the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species 

depend . . .” (Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1534); 

� “To assure the perpetuation of native forest habitats of the Upper Hakalau Forest for the 

protection of a number of endangered animals and plants endemic to the area. . . .” (FONSI for 

the Environmental Assessment: Proposal to Establish an Upper Hakalau National Wildlife 

Refuge, Hawai‘i County, Hawai‘i, May 1985). 

1.6.2 Kona Forest Unit Purposes 

The Kona Forest Unit, acquired on December 12, 1997, has the following purposes: 

� The purposes listed for the Hakalau Forest Unit also apply to the Kona Forest Unit; 

� In addition, “. . .to protect, conserve, and manage a portion of the native forest in south Kona, 

primarily for the benefit of the ‘alalā and other endangered and threatened species” (1997 Final 

Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kona Forest Unit of the Hakalau Forest NWR). 

1.7 Relationship to Ecosystem Management Goals or Plans 

1.7.1 Landscape Level Initiatives 

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC): Through a cooperative effort culminating in the 2006 

National Ecological Assessment Team Report, the Service and USGS outlined a unifying adaptive 

resource management approach for conservation at “landscape” scales, the entire range of a priority 

species or suite of species. Known as “strategic habitat conservation” or SHC, it is a way of thinking 

and of doing business that requires us to set biological goals for priority species populations, allows 

us to make strategic decisions about our work, and encourages us to constantly reassess and improve 

our actions – all critical steps in dealing with large-scale conservation challenges and the uncertainty 

of accelerated climate change. 

In April 2009, Service leadership set up a national geographic framework for implementing 

landscape conservation. This framework has led to the creation of Landscape Conservation 




Cooperatives (LCCs). The LCCs are conservation-science partnerships between the Service, Federal 

agencies, States, Territories, tribes, NGOs, universities, and other entities. They are fundamental 

units of planning and science capacity to help us carry out the functional elements of SHC, biological 

planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, monitoring, and research, and inform our 

strategic response to accelerated climate change. 

The Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC) is the LCC focused on Hawai‘i, the 

Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Established in late 2009, it will create the technical capacity, 

decision support tools, and organizational structure to address landscape-scale conservation issues 

using SHC. These tools will help managers reach explicit conservation objectives for native species 

and habitats in the face of climate change and ongoing threats such as fire, land conversion, and 

invasive species. Under the direction of a steering committee that includes Service representatives, 

the PICCC will develop models that predict how natural resources and processes may respond to 

climate change, assess management options using models and historical data, and collectively 

determine priority conservation strategies. To make the link between modeling and management, the 

PICCC will assess the vulnerability of targeted species and ecosystems, and assist partners in 

choosing among potential management strategies based on their likelihood for success. Monitoring of 

response variables and ecosystem change will be coordinated across agencies and jurisdictions, and 

will include the structures provided by the Refuge System’s Inventory and Monitoring program. 

The Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWRs anticipate using climate change information provided by 

the PICCC as foundational products from which to do more detailed site-specific and species-specific 

analyses critical to the preparation of planning documents and to prioritize on-the-ground 

conservation actions. Although the information developed by PICCC will be focused on priority 

species and habitats determined by the partnership and may not be specifically targeting all of the 

Service climate science needs, it is hoped that it will provide much of the basic scientific information 

needed to design and deliver climate-informed conservation actions. 

Watershed Partnerships: The Hawai‘i Association of Watershed Partnerships (HAWP) was 

established in 2003. HAWP includes 9 island-based Watershed Partnerships, including more than 60 

public and private partners on 6 islands. Over 1.2 million acres of forest lands are covered by existing 

plans. The Watershed Partnerships consist of public and private landowners and other partners 

working in voluntary collaboration to protect forested watersheds and preserve ecosystem services. 

The HAWP works to facilitate sharing of watershed management knowledge, build public support 

and awareness of watershed values, and develop sustainable funding sources for the Watershed 

Partnerships. 

Forested watersheds are vital recharge regions for Hawai‘i’s underground aquifers and a dependable 

source of clean water for its streams and people. They are also home to the last remaining native 

ecosystems in Hawai‘i and house thousands of native species of animals and plants found nowhere 

else on Earth. Most management actions are habitat based and revolve around combating the main 

threats of ungulates (hoofed animals such as goats, deer, sheep, pigs, etc.) and invasive species. 

Partnership activities include fencing and ungulate removal, invasive species control, rare plant 

outplanting and native habitat restoration, and outreach and education. These management actions 

make a critical difference by benefitting native forests, watersheds, coastal, and coral reef areas by 

reducing erosion and sedimentation runoff into streams. 




On the Island of Hawai‘i, there are presently two Watershed Partnerships in the vicinity of the 

Refuge: Three Mountain Alliance and the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance. The Big Island National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex participates in both of these groups. 

The largest Watershed Partnership in the islands, the Three Mountain Alliance (originally known as 

the ‘Ōla‘a-Kīlauea Partnership), was formed in 2007 and covers 1,116,300 ac. With nine partners, the 

overall goal of the Three Mountain Alliance (TMA) is to sustain the multiple ecosystem benefits of 

the three mountains of Kīlauea, Mauna Loa, and Hualālai by responsibly managing its watershed 

areas, native habitats and species, and historic, cultural, and socioeconomic resources for all who 

benefit from the continued health of these three mountains. 

The TMA was formed when members of the ‘Ōla‘a-Kīlauea Partnership (OKP), based on their 

10-year success of partnering, decided to enlarge watershed protection and management to more than 

1 million acres across Mauna Loa, Kīlauea, and Hualālai as part of an expanded Partnership. 

Members have agreed there is a compelling need to collaborate on a wide variety of land 

management issues in forested watersheds across this TMA landscape. Coordinated management 

across this landscape is critical to sustain adequate quality and quantity of water and to provide 

important habitat for a wide diversity of native plants and animals, including endangered species. In 

addition, the health of these lands is strongly connected with the quality of life for people and local 

communities. Even in the absence of a formal partnership, private and public landowners in this 

region have recognized the value of collaboration to address shared management challenges such as 

invasive weeds, fire, and feral cattle. 

The OKP has been highly successful in addressing conservation challenges within a 30,000 ac area, 

centered on the ‘Ōla‘a Tract of Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park (HAVO). The OKP includes the 

State (DLNR, Department of Public Safety), National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Geological Survey Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Kamehameha Schools, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, and The Nature Conservancy. 

Cooperating in the areas of staff expertise and funding to conserve native ecosystems for over a 

decade has significantly reduced the threats of invasive ungulates and weeds on Federal, State, and 

private lands. 

The TMA includes the original Federal, State, and private partners of the OKP, as well as the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. Other agencies and key 

private landowners with a management interest in the landscape issues will be invited to join the 

TMA to participate in collaborative efforts addressing specific management challenges. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlines the following overall principles that serve as the 

foundation of the TMA: 

� The three mountains of Kīlauea, Mauna Loa, and Hualālai are ancient, sacred to Hawaiians, and 

critically important to the life, health, and well being of the native ecosystems and human 

communities that inhabit them; 

� TMA members have a responsibility (kuleana) to care for these mountains, including native 

ecosystems and human communities that share this landscape; 

� Management is needed to maintain healthy forested watersheds on the slopes of Kīlauea, Mauna 

Loa, and Hualālai to sustain the future quality and quantity of fresh water; 




� Other lands (e.g., younger lava flows, grasslands, crop land and coastal lands) within the TMA 

area also contribute to water quality and quantity; 

� The health of the nearshore ocean resources are intimately connected to the health of the uplands 

in the traditional ahupua‘a; 

� Management of these lands would benefit Hawai‘i’s native flora and fauna; 

� Many of the threats to the watershed, such as ungulates, fire, insects, diseases, and invasive 

nonnative plants, occur across common land ownership boundaries; and 

� Effective management is best achieved through the coordinated actions of all major landowners 

in the TMA area irrespective of property lines. 

Approximately 85 percent of the total TMA land area is comprised of native ecosystems. The TMA 

contains some of the largest expanses of intact native forest remaining in the Hawaiian Islands 

(approximately 50 percent of the State’s remaining native habitat). Due to the variations in elevation, 

climate, and vegetation, the TMA is home to thousands of native species, as well as rare and 

threatened or endangered species (many of which are endemic to the island). 

Management programs address habitat protection and restoration, watershed protection, compatible 

economic use, compatible recreation and ecotourism, education, awareness and public outreach, 

cultural resource protection and research, and monitoring and management program indicators. 

The Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance (MKWA) encompasses over 525,000 ac or over 820 mi 2 above 

the 2,000 ft elevation on the windward slopes of Mauna Kea, Hawai‘i Island’s tallest mountain. 

Members of this newly formed collaboration include the Hawai‘i DLNR, by and through its Division 

of Forestry and Wildlife and its Land Management Division, Kamehameha Schools, Parker Ranch, 

U.S. Army (Pōhakuloa Training Area), the Service, DHHL, University of Hawai‘i (Office of Mauna 

Kea Management), and Kūka‘iau Ranch. A draft management plan for the watershed was completed 

in 2010. 

The vision of the MKWA is to protect and enhance watershed ecosystems, biodiversity, and 

resources through responsible management, while promoting economic sustainability and providing 

recreational, subsistence, educational, and research opportunities. The MKWA will identify 

Watershed Areas of importance on Mauna Kea that include lands owned or controlled by one or 

more of the members for which coordinated care and management would be suitable; and where 

appropriate, with the consent of the members owning or controlling lands within the Watershed Area, 

cooperate in the development and implementation of watershed management plans that will 

document resource values and identify priority watershed management objectives and strategies. 

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ‘Āina Mauna Legacy Program: Land use is subject to the 

Hawaiian Homes Commission. The DHHL owns and manages the Humu‘ula/Pi‘ihonua area 

adjacent to the HFU. This area, at 56,000 acres, represents 48 percent of the entire land acreage 

owned by DHHL on Hawai‘i Island. Two plans guide the management of these lands, the Hawai‘i 

Island Plan and the ‘Āina Mauna Legacy Plan (2009). The mission of the ‘Āina Mauna Legacy 

Program (the Legacy Program) and its implementation is to protect approximately 56,000 ac of 

native Hawaiian forest that is ecologically, culturally, and economically self‐sustaining for the 

Hawaiian Home Lands Trust, its beneficiaries and the community. Initial goals for the ‘Āina Mauna 

Legacy Program include: 




Goal 1: Develop an economically self‐sustaining improvement and preservation program for the 

natural and cultural resources (invasive species eradication and native ecosystem restoration) and 

implementation strategy. 

The focus of the ‘Āina Mauna Legacy Program shall be on: 

� Restoration and enhancement of DHHL trust resources; 

� Identification of immediate and future opportunities for DHHL beneficiaries; 

� Removal of invasive species – gorse, etc.; 

� Conserve natural and cultural resources and endangered species; 

� Address reforestation and restoration of the ecosystem; 

� Develop revenue generation, reinvestment in land to sustain activities; 

� Provide educational and cultural opportunities; 

� Identify and secure partners to sustain activities; 

� Identify opportunities for alternative/renewable energy projects; and 

� Be a lead and/or model for others to engage in ecosystem restoration in a culturally sensitive 

manner based on partnerships to develop a self‐sustaining model. 

Goal 2: Develop an outreach program to gain interest, participation, and support from the Hawaiian 

Homes Commission, DHHL staff, beneficiaries groups, cultural practitioners, natural resource 

scientists, and the broader community for the Legacy Program and its implementation. 

The goals and actions of the Legacy Program mesh very well with the vision, goals, and objectives of 

the Hakalau Forest NWR CCP. Specifically, the removal of invasive species, conservation of natural 

and cultural resources and endangered species, habitat restoration, reforestation, fencing, and climate 

change, along with partnership opportunities, are all key components where we can work together. 

We look forward to the exchange of ideas, resources, and technical assistance that coordination with 

this important adjacent landowner can provide. 

Hawai‘i Experimental Tropical Forest: Established in 2007, the mission of the Hawai‘i 

Experimental Tropical Forest (HETF) is to provide landscapes, facilities, and data/information for 

those wishing to conduct research and education activities contributing to a better understanding of 

the biological diversity and functioning of tropical forest and stream ecosystems and their 

management. The HETF represents a significant contribution in the global effort that is necessary to 

understand and protect some of the most threatened and endangered ecosystems in the world. This 

can best be accomplished by facilitating tropical natural areas/species research, fostering an 

environment for interaction and exchange of information among scientists and to those outside the 

scientific community, and providing education and demonstration opportunities for those interested 

in tropical forest studies and management. Major research topics of the HETF are: 

1. Structure and function of tropical wet forest and dry forest watersheds and their 

component parts. 

This emphasis area will focus on how tropical forest ecosystems work. Research will strive to 

gain a better understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes at all relevant 

geographic and time scales. 

2. Structure and function of freshwater and nearshore marine ecosystems in tropical 

landscapes. 




3. Invasive Alien Species. 

One of the greatest threats Hawaiian forests currently face are invasive alien species. It is 

impossible to determine what new challenges resource managers will be faced with in the 

future. But this underscores the need for long-term databases in Hawai‘i. 

4. Methods/tools for restoration of tropical forest ecosystems. 

Hawaiian forests have been subject to a number of natural and human-induced perturbations 

over the last 250 years. A key information need for land managers involves learning the most 

effective and cost-efficient methods for restoring disturbed habitats and landscapes. There are 

ample opportunities for investigating different restoration methods in different kinds of plant 

communities that are found on the HETF. 

5. Impact of global climate change on tropical ecosystems. 

6. Native Hawaiian/traditional resource management techniques. 

There is a need to provide opportunities for investigation of traditional land management 

practices originally used by Native Hawaiians (Polynesians). The HETF has the capacity to 

accommodate some experimentation of customary traditional uses and learn how the forest 

ecosystem responds to these methods of management. 

7. Specialty wildland management topics. 

Some special or unique land and resource management activities require additional research 

or demonstration to hone management techniques and inform future decisionmaking. Some 

examples that could be accommodated in the HETF include: 

� Impacts of fire/fire ecology; 

� Reintroduction of threatened and endangered species; and 

� Introduction of biocontrol agents for invasive species. 

The geographic study areas of the HETF are located adjacent to the Refuge. The HETF investigators 

and their associates have study plots on the Refuge for a number of collaborative research efforts. It 

is anticipated that many of the research findings from this initiative will assist the Refuge with 

management of similar habitats and species, especially given the long relationship that the Refuge 

has had with the USFS in testing applied research to improve management at the Refuge. 

1.7.2 Statewide Plans (including Threatened and Endangered Species 

Recovery Plans) 

Hawai‘i’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Mitchell, C. et al., 2005): Hawai‘i’s 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (now known as Hawai‘i’s Wildlife Action 

Plan) presents strategies for long-term conservation of the full range of the State’s native terrestrial 

and aquatic species, over 10,000 of which are found nowhere else on earth, and their habitats. The 

reason for developing a CWCS is to continue participation in the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 

program administered by the Service. The Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources took 

the lead in preparing the CWCS and went beyond simply meeting mandated requirements by making 

the CWCS a useful document to guide conservation efforts across the State. The CWCS builds on 

and synthesizes information gathered from existing conservation partnerships and cooperative 

efforts, such that the development of this Strategy is based on collaboration with other local, State, 

and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private landowners, and interested citizens. 

Recognizing the effectiveness of taking conservation actions at a habitat level in addition to a 

species-specific level, the CWCS emphasizes threats to species and their habitats and conservation 




needs at three levels: Statewide, islandwide, and taxa-specific. The CWCS presents an overview of 

Hawai‘i’s unique species and their habitats, identifies the major threats to the long-term conservation 

of these species and habitats, and presents seven conservation objectives to address these threats. 

Under each objective, strategies of highest priority are labeled; however, because conservation needs 

in Hawai‘i far exceed the resources available, implementation of any of the identified strategies will 

benefit native wildlife and habitats. 

Hawai‘i’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) include the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, the only native 

terrestrial mammal in the State, all endemic aquatic animals, additional indigenous aquatic animals 

identified as in need of conservation attention, a range of native plants identified as in need of 

conservation attention, and all identified endemic algae. The SGCN includes: terrestrial mammal 

(1), birds (77), terrestrial invertebrates (approximately 5,000), freshwater fishes (5), freshwater 

invertebrates (12), anchialine pond-associated fauna (20), marine mammals (26), marine reptiles (6), 

marine fishes (154), marine invertebrates (197), and flora (over 600). 

The major threats facing Hawai‘i’s native wildlife are common to most species groups and habitats 

and include: 

� Loss and degradation of habitat resulting from human development, alteration of hydrology, 

wildfire, invasive species, recreational overuse, natural disaster, and climate change; 

� Introduced invasive species (e.g., habitat modifiers, including weeds, ungulates, algae and corals, 

predators, competitors, disease carriers, and disease); 

� Limited information and insufficient information management; 

� Uneven compliance with existing conservation laws, rules, and regulations; 

� Overharvesting and excessive extractive use; 

� Management constraints; and 

� Inadequate funding to implement needed conservation actions. 

To address these threats, the CWCS identifies multiple strategies to implement the following seven 

priority conservation objectives for the State: 

1. Maintain, protect, manage, and restore native species and habitats in sufficient quantity and 

quality to allow native species to thrive; 

2. Combat invasive species through a three-tiered approach combining prevention and interdiction, 

early detection and rapid response, and ongoing control or eradication; 

3. Develop and implement programs to obtain, manage, and disseminate information needed to 

guide conservation management and recovery programs; 

4. Strengthen existing and create new partnerships and cooperative efforts; 

5. Expand and strengthen outreach and education to improve understanding of our native wildlife 

resources among the people of Hawai‘i; 

6. Support policy changes aimed at improving and protecting native species and habitats; and 

7. Enhance funding opportunities to implement needed conservation actions. 

The Hakalau Forest NWR CCP includes strategies that address these priority conservation objectives. 

In particular, objectives 1, 2, 4, and 5 are key components of Refuge management programs. 

Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds (USFWS 2006): The Recovery Plan for 

Hawaiian Forest Birds applies to 21 species. It identifies four species that are found on Hakalau 

Forest NWR (Hakalau Forest and Kona Forest Units). The overall recovery plan efforts are outlined 




here followed by specific recommendations for the individual species. The individual species 

sections focus only on Recovery Strategies, as life-history and habitat requirements are covered in 

Chapter 4. 

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

agriculture, urbanization, cattle grazing, browsing by ungulate species, timber harvesting, and 

invasion of nonnative plant species into native-dominated plant communities; predation by alien 

mammals; and diseases carried by alien mosquitoes. The periodic dieback of native plant species due 

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

actions therefore address threats to habitat, disease, and predation. The direct overutilization of 

Hawaiian forest birds for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; and the 

inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms are not considered significant current threats. 

Several Hawaiian forest birds now occur in such low numbers and in such restricted ranges that they 

are threatened by natural processes, such as inbreeding depression and demographic stochasticity, 

and by natural and manmade factors such as hurricanes, wildfires, and periodic vegetation dieback. 

Impacts of alien birds are not well understood, but include aggressive behavior toward native bird 

species; possible competition for food, nest sites, and roosting sites; and possibly supporting elevated 

predator population levels. 

Recovery Objectives: The primary recovery objectives for each species (taxon) are to: 

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

environmental stochasticity and that are large enough to allow natural demographic and 

evolutionary processes to occur; 

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

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

Recovery Criteria: Recovery criteria were developed for each taxon to guide recovery efforts and 

ensure that all their recovery needs are addressed. The criteria are similar for all species because they 

face similar threats and many of them occur in the same geographic areas, but the first criterion in 

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

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

A taxon may be downlisted from endangered to threatened when all four of the following criteria 

have been met, as well as any species-specific criteria listed in Table 6 (Section III, Recovery 

Criteria): 

(1) The species occurs in two or more viable populations or a viable metapopulation that represent 

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

(2) Viability of the populations is demonstrated through either (a) quantitative surveys show that the 

number of individuals in each isolated population or in the metapopulation has been stable or 

increasing for 15 consecutive years, or (b) demographic monitoring shows that each population 

or the metapopulation exhibits an average growth rate (lambda, λ) not less than 1.0 over a period 

of at least 15 consecutive years; and total population size is not expected to decline by more than 

20 percent within the next 15 consecutive years for any reason; 

(3) Sufficient habitat in recovery areas is protected and managed to achieve criteria 1 and 2 above; 

and 

(4) The threats that were responsible for the decline of the species have been identified and 

controlled. 




A taxon may be delisted when all four of the criteria above have been met for a 30-year period. 

‘Ō‘ū (Psittirostra psittacea): The ‘ō‘ū is currently one of the rarest birds in Hawa‘i, and may 

possibly be extinct, although past survey efforts have been insufficient to determine its status 

(Reynolds and Snetsinger 2001). The most recent observations indicate any remaining populations 

are extremely localized in occurrence and are restricted to only a fraction of their former range in the 

midelevation ‘ōhi‘a forest on the islands of Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i only. 

No conservation efforts have been initiated specifically targeting ‘ō‘ū, but several research projects 

and Federal and State land management programs aimed at removing limiting factors for endangered 

birds and plants have been undertaken since 1985, and these provide some benefits to ‘ō‘ū. On 

Hawai‘i Island, large tracts of State and federally owned land are being intensively managed for 

habitat restoration. Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park, Hakalau Forest NWR, Pu‘u Maka‘ala Natural 

Area Reserve, and the ‘Ōla‘a-Kīlauea Partnership (now TMA) area have been known to harbor ‘ō‘ū 

in the past 25 years, and each area currently has management programs aimed at removing ungulates 

to restore native forest habitat and ongoing research into eliminating other threats. 

‘Akiapōlā‘au (Hemignathus munroi): Four categories of recovery strategies have been identified; 

research, recovery areas, predator control, and captive propagation/reintroduction. For research, 

studies are identified as necessary in four main areas: (1) testing of survey methodology, followed by 

surveying and mapping of all populations and long-term monitoring; (2) demographic studies to 

measure life-history parameters such as population structure, dispersion, dispersal, adult 

survivorship, clutch size, nesting success, social system, and phenology of nesting and molting; 

(3) habitat selection and foraging ecology, including diet and food availability, particularly in 

regenerating forest, as well as the role that koa silviculture practices play in the creation of suitable 

habitat; and (4) response of ‘akiapōlā‘au populations to control of mammalian predators, particularly 

in low-stature dry forests where the species has difficulty maintaining itself. 

For recovery areas, the most important component of the recovery strategy for the ‘akiapōlā‘au is 

protection, management, and restoration of koa/‘ōhi‘a forests above 4,400 ft elevation. Fencing 

and/or removal of ungulates from the remaining high elevation forests will protect these areas and 

allow natural regeneration. Predator control is identified as an effective method of increasing 

reproduction and survival in other Hawaiian forest birds (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). However, 

the degree of threat from alien rodents may vary among species and locations, and rodent control 

programs initially should be conducted in an experimental way to document their effect on 

‘akiapōlā‘au populations. 

Finally, captive propagation and reintroduction can augment natural recovery of ‘akiapōlā‘au and 

reestablishment of wild populations in portions of the former range. Captive propagation techniques 

such as collection of eggs from the wild, artificial incubation and hand rearing, captive breeding, and 

reintroduction may be required to speed recovery. Feasibility should be determined for reintroducing 

‘akiapōlā‘au into now protected areas of its former range, particularly at the Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a Forest 

Bird Sanctuary, the KFU of the Hakalau Forest NWR, Mauna Loa Strip of Hawai‘i Volcanoes 

National Park, and, if it is managed as planned, the upper forests of Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area 

Reserve. 

Hawai‘i creeper (Oreomystis mana): The primary strategy for the recovery of the Hawai‘i creeper is 

the protection and management of remaining koa/‘ōhi‘a forests above 4,900 ft elevation, and the 




restoration of degraded forests. Because the population is relatively large and the threat of extinction 

is not imminent, recovery may be achieved more cost effectively through habitat management, 

therefore captive propagation currently is of lower priority for this species. 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa (Loxops coccineus coccineus): The following four strategies have been identified for 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa; (1) habitat protection and nest site management, (2) disease resistance, (3) predator 

control, and (4) captive propagation. The recovery plan identifies the most important component of 

the recovery strategy for the Hawai‘i ‘ākepa as habitat protection and nest site management. This 

includes protection of old-growth forest ecosystems, the use of artificial cavities to enable existing 

populations to hold their own despite loss of nest-site trees, and research to address factors that affect 

the growth form of regenerating ‘ōhi‘a. 

Next, management of disease is identified as a major recovery strategy. Since eradication of 

mosquitoes is not practical with methods currently available, the birds themselves may be the best 

way of addressing the threat from disease. If individuals are discovered that tolerate disease, then 

genetic techniques can determine if those genotypes are present outside the range of disease. If those 

genotypes are not present outside the range, then an appropriate management strategy would be to 

move birds with pertinent genotypes into populations of birds that are not tolerant. 

Third, predator control, especially rats, has been shown to be an effective method of increasing 

reproduction and survival in other Hawaiian forest birds (VanderWerf and Smith 2002). However, 

the degree of threat from alien rodents may vary among species and locations, and rodent control 

programs initially should be conducted in an experimental way to document their effect on ‘ākepa 

populations. 

Finally captive propagation is not considered essential for recovery at this time. However, it is 

anticipated that the Hawai‘i ‘ākepa will breed in captivity when they reach reproductive age. Progeny 

from such captive propagation efforts would provide birds for reintroduction in order to establish and 

enhance wild populations. 

Since native forest birds are a Refuge purpose species, many of the CCP goals, objectives, and 

strategies tie directly to forest bird recovery. Native forest restoration, including plant and animal 

species that are components of the forest, is the key component of this CCP and future management 

at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Recovery Plan for the ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus, Hawaiian Hoary Bat) (USFWS 

1998): The ‘ōpe‘ape‘a is the only native land mammal in the Hawaiian Islands. Research is the key 

to reaching the ultimate goal of delisting the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, because currently available information is so 

limited that even the most basic management actions cannot be undertaken with the certainty that 

such actions will benefit the subspecies. The initial focus for developing standardized survey and 

monitoring techniques and collecting basic life-history information will be on ‘ōpe‘ape‘a populations 

on the Island of Hawai‘i, which apparently has the largest population of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. Completion of 

research tasks will not only establish the distribution and abundance of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, but will also 

provide information on specific roosting habitat associations and food habits. 

With basic information on the location of ‘ōpe‘ape‘a and their resource needs, threats can then be 

identified and managed. Management actions that may be needed to address threats include 

protection of key roosting and foraging areas, particularly if ‘ōpe‘ape‘a or their food resources 




depend on native vegetation. Predation, the potential impacts of pesticides to bats or their food 

resources, and other threats may also need to be addressed. 

Refuge staff are interested in helping to learn more about the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a to assist in developing 

conservation strategies that could be incorporated into management actions at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Recovery Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster (I & II) (USFWS 1996, 1998): The recovery plan 

and addendum for plants that are found on Hawai‘i Island include 13 species that are or have been 

found on one or both of the units of Hakalau Forest NWR. For the purposes of this review, we have 

grouped the endangered plants according to recovery actions. This allows Refuge staff to review 

recovery actions to determine the greatest conservation benefit that Refuge habitat management 

actions can have on various species. 

Species: Clermontia lindseyana, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii, Portulaca sclerocarpa 

Recovery Action: Current populations of these species should be protected from ungulates wherever 

possible, and their habitat managed for deterrence of nonnative plant invasions. Propagation and 

outplanting efforts should be encouraged and continued. 

Species: Clermontia peleana, Clermontia pyrularia, Cyanea shipmanii 

Recovery Action: In order to prevent possible extinction of these taxa, maintenance of ex situ genetic 

stock is necessary. The known plants should be protected from ungulates, particularly pigs, via 

fencing or other means. Propagation and outplanting of ex situ stock will likely be needed in order to 

establish a sufficient number of plants for recovery within each location and an additional location 

will need to be established. 

Species: Cyanea stictophylla 

Recovery Action: In order to prevent possible extinction of this taxon, maintenance of ex situ genetic 



establish a sufficient number of plants for recovery within each location and an additional two 

locations will need to be established. 

Species: Cyrtandra tintinnabula 

Recovery Action: In order to prevent possible extinction of this taxon, maintenance of ex situ genetic 



establish a sufficient number of plants for recovery within each location and an additional location 

will need to be established. Research into pollination vectors is needed. 

Species: Nothocestrum breviflorum 

Recovery Action: Propagation and maintenance of ex situ genetic stock is necessary. Populations 

should be protected from cattle via fencing or other means, and competing alien plant taxa, 

specifically Schinus terebinthifolius, lantana, and fountain grass, should be controlled. Habitat of this 

species should be protected from residential and recreational development in sufficient area to allow 

for full recovery of the species. 




Species: Silene hawaiiensis 

Recovery Action: Recent discoveries of several large populations indicate that this plant is not as rare 

as once thought. Populations should be monitored to ensure that numbers are being maintained. After 

habitat on which at least five of the larger populations occur is managed to control threats from feral 

animals, alien taxa, and military training, delisting of this species can be considered. 

Species: Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, Sicyos macrophyllus 

Recovery Actions: Construct fenced exclosures around the known populations, and initiate removal 

of ungulates and alien plant taxa. Once they are fenced, ungulates and alien plants should be 

removed. Outplant new populations in areas of reduced threat. Prior to and following outplanting, the 

sites’ alien plants should be removed. 

Since endangered plants are a Refuge Purpose species, many of the CCP goals, objectives, and 

strategies tie directly to plant recovery. Native forest restoration, including plant and animal species 

that are components of the forest, is the key element of this CCP and future management at Hakalau 

Forest NWR. 

Recovery Plan for Four Species of Hawaiian Ferns (USFWS 1998): The most important recovery 

action for these taxa is to protect high elevation lava tubes, including removal of feral animals. 

Asplenium fragile var. insulare (now named Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare) has a very 

scattered distribution and surveys will help determine the best areas for habitat protection. Optimal 

survey areas can be determined by considering the age of the substrate and the vegetation type. 

Protection of high elevation lava tubes is included as Goal 2. The key elements of fencing and 

ungulate removal will provide a direct benefit to this species. 

Revised Recovery Plan for the ‘Alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis) (USFWS 2009): The ‘alalā is listed 

as endangered without critical habitat. No individuals are known to exist in the wild. As of 2010, 

77 ‘alalā, representing the entire population of the species, are in captivity; including 1 bird at the 

San Diego Wild Animal Park and the remaining 76 at the Keauhou and Maui Bird Conservation 

Centers on Hawai‘i and Maui islands, respectively. 

Recovery Objective: The ‘alalā currently exists only as a small population in captivity, and so the 

exact needs of the recovery program cannot be specified beyond a relatively short time horizon. 

Recovery of this species will require both sustained, long-term conservation actions and repeated 

experimentation to determine the optimal means to reestablish wild populations. This recovery plan’s 

structure reflects these needs by articulating both long-term strategies (the Strategic Plan) and shortterm 

actions (Implementation Plans) which will be revised regularly. The elements of the recovery 

strategy are to (1) expand captive propagation to minimize the loss of genetic diversity, (2) identify, 

protect, and manage suitable habitat, and reduce threats at the selected release sites, (3) introduce 

birds into the wild in suitably managed habitat once the captive population is stabilized, (4) garner 

public support and funding, and (5) conduct research and adaptively manage the ‘alalā recovery 

program. 

Recovery Actions: 

1. Manage the population of ‘alalā by increasing the number of captive ‘alalā to at least 75 

individuals to retain all possible genetic diversity and provide individuals for release into the 




wild. This will require construction and appropriate staffing of the captive propagation 

infrastructure necessary to accommodate the increasing size of the captive population. 

2. Identify suitable habitat and manage threats by selecting and managing at least one site within 

historical habitat so that threats, including disease and predator numbers, are minimized to the 

extent the site is suitable for the release of captive reared ‘alalā. 

3. Establish new populations in suitable habitat by selecting and preparing captive-reared ‘alalā for 

release, and planning release protocols to maximize survival and obtain crucial information for 

improvement of subsequent releases. 

4. Garner public support using professionally designed strategies to develop nongovernmental 

funding sources to support expanded captive propagation, habitat management and ‘alalā 

reintroduction. Also, achieve stakeholder support for predator and ungulate management and 

post-release ‘alalā monitoring. 

5. Conduct research and adaptively manage the recovery program by establishing a recovery 

implementation working group involving key stakeholders and by assigning overall recovery 

coordination to a single individual with performance milestones to be reviewed annually by the 

recovery team. 

The KFU was originally acquired and set aside specifically for protection of the ‘alalā. Native forest 

restoration at KFU is a key component of recovery actions 2 and 3. 

The Hawaiian Hawk Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984): The ‘io (Buteo solitarius, Hawaiian hawk) 

was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, based on its restricted range (found only on the Island 

of Hawai‘i), its small population size, and the loss of native forest habitat from agriculture, logging, 

and commercial development. 

However, at the time of listing there had been no systematic surveys or ecological studies of the 

species, and the only information available was from anecdotal accounts that gave differing reports 

on its abundance and population trend in various parts of the island. 

Due to implementation of recovery actions and other conservation efforts, the species is now found 

throughout the Island of Hawai‘i and has had a stable population for at least 20 years. It is nesting 

and foraging successfully in both native and altered habitats and has large areas of protected habitat. 

The ‘io is not currently believed to be threatened by overutilization, disease, predation, contaminants, 

lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms, or other factors. 

On August 6, 2008, the Service proposed to remove the ‘io from its current listing as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act. On February 11, 2009, the Service formally announced the 

availability of the draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the ‘io and reopened a 60-day public 

comment period that closed on April 13, 2009 (74 FR 6853). The Service is considering public 

comments received during the public review periods and has not yet published a final rule. 

The recovery plan for ‘io has not been updated since 1984. The recovery objectives listed here are 

relevant; however, review and update will help to obtain current data and refine or adjust recovery 

objectives and/or actions. 




Recovery Criteria: The prime objective is to ensure a self-sustaining ‘io population in the range of 

1,500-2,500 adult birds in the wild, as distributed in 1983, and maintained in stable, secure habitat. 

For purposes of tracking the progress, 2,000 will be used as a target to reclassify to threatened status. 

Both units of Hakalau Forest NWR provide habitat for the ‘io. Management strategies that improve 

native habitat conditions will benefit ‘io populations. 

Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Nēnē or Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis) (USFWS 

2004): Of the five or so endemic goose species described from the Hawaiian Islands, only the nēnē 

has survived to the present day (Olson and James 1984; Olson and James 1991). Fossil remains of 

nēnē have been discovered on most of the main Hawaiian Islands, including Hawai‘i, Maui, 

Kaho‘olawe, Lāna‘i, Moloka‘i, and Kaua‘i (Olson and James 1991). Historically (after 1778), nēnē 

are known with certainty only from the Island of Hawai‘i. The nēnē was declared a federally 

endangered species in 1967. It is considered one of the most endangered geese in the world and is the 

second most endangered waterfowl in the United States. 

Recovery Criteria: Restore and maintain multiple self-sustaining nēnē populations on Hawai‘i, Maui 

Nui (Maui, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘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 Actions: 

1. Identify and protect nēnē habitat, focusing 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 nēnē 

populations; 

4. Continue captive propagation program, which describes techniques and priorities for the captive 

propagation and release of nēnē into the wild; 

5. Establish additional nēnē populations, which focuses on partnerships with private landowners; 

6. Address conflicts between nēnē and human activities, which includes potential management and 

relocation of nēnē in unsuitable areas; 

7. Identify new research needs and continue research, which describes general categories of 

research needed to better evaluate threats to nēnē 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 




9. Validate recovery actions, which calls for formalizing the Nēnē Recovery Action Group and 

evaluating management and research projects to determine if recovery objectives have been met. 

The CCP identifies specific management actions that will benefit the nēnē population on the Hakalau 

Forest Unit. Strategies include nonnative predator control and maintenance of firebreaks and access 

roads for nēnē foraging. 

1.8 Planning and Issue Identification 

In February 2009, we mailed approximately 150 copies of Planning Update 1 to interested 

individuals, local conservation and interest groups, research organizations, Native Hawaiian 

organizations, and local, State, and Federal government agencies.. Planning Update 1 was available 

at two public open house meetings we held in Hilo and Captain Cook, Hawai‘i, in March 2009. It 

was also posted on the Refuge’s website (http://www.fws.gov/hakalauforest/planning.html) and the 

Service’s Pacific Region refuge planning website 

(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/HI-PI/docshakalau.htm). 

In Planning Update 1, we described the CCP planning process; Refuge purposes; draft wildlife, 

habitat, and public use goals; and preliminary issues to be considered in the CCP. In Planning 

Update 2 (made available in October 2009 and similarly circulated as the first update), we 

summarized the comments we received and listed primary management issues we used to draft 

alternatives and refine draft goals and objectives. We also included draft vision statements for both 

units. A full summary of public involvement is in Appendix K. 

1.8.1 Public Scoping Sessions 

The public scoping period for this CCP opened February 25, 2009, and ended March 27, 2009. Two 

public meetings were held, in Hilo and Captain Cook, Hawai‘i, on March 3, 2009, and March 4, 

2009, respectively. At the meetings, Refuge staff explained the CCP planning process; the Refuge 

purposes, vision, and management; and preliminary management issues, concerns, and opportunities. 

Refuge staff also answered questions from attendees and received written comments. Twelve private 

citizens and representatives from various organizations attended the meetings and commented on the 

issues and opportunities we presented. Six written responses were received from individuals or 

organizations during scoping. The comments we received addressed broad or long-range issues and 

very specific or detailed strategies that could be used to achieve biological or public use objectives. 

Summaries of the issues identified and Service responses are provided follow. 

How can we best protect endangered forest birds and the nēnē? 

The primary purpose of the Refuge is protection of endangered species. We manage Refuge 

resources to ensure high-quality habitat is available for endangered species, especially forest birds. 

Drawing on 20 years of Refuge management experience at the HFU, we have included objectives 

and strategies in this Draft CCP/EA for maintaining and enhancing native habitat communities to 

provide the life-history needs of Hakalau Forest NWR’s endangered species. 




How can we best protect montane wet koa/‘ōhi‘a forest, montane dry koa/‘ōhi‘a/māmane 

forest, lava tubes, and lavatube skylights? 

These habitat types are key to the survival of endangered species. Refuge management objectives and 

strategies will be designed to protect these habitat types, and where appropriate, restore areas to highquality 

habitat. We describe alternatives for managing these important resources in Chapter 2. 

What opportunities exist for expanding environmental education through outreach and onsite 

programs? 

Refuge staff have worked with ‘Imi Pono no ka ‘Āina on environmental education opportunities 

onsite and offsite in local schools. Through the CCP planning process, we have identified additional 

partnerships or opportunities to expand upon the work that is already in place (e.g., through the 

Friends of Hakalau Forest Refuge). 

How can we best prepare for, manage, and prevent the spread of wildfires? 

There is concern, especially from adjacent landowners, that a wildfire could be ignited on the Refuge 

then spread onto private land. The Refuge currently coordinates with the County of Hawai‘i to 

provide wildland fire fighting capabilities. We are also concerned about the potential for wildfire as 

habitat restoration efforts are implemented. Within the past year, a fire adjacent to the HFU came 

close to spreading onto Refuge lands. Close coordination with the County, other agencies, and 

adjacent landowners is essential to ensure an efficient response to fire threats. As part of the Draft 

CCP/EA, Refuge staff will review options for creating firebreaks and obtaining the equipment and 

personnel required to meet firefighting needs at both units. 

How can we keep refuge visitors and others (e.g., contractors, Service staff) from trespassing 

on adjacent lands? 

The KFU is currently closed to the public. At both units, a number of contractors and Refuge staff 

use the easements for accessing the Refuge. We continue to impress upon all individuals who access 

the areas the importance of using only the authorized and in some cases court-ordered easements. 

Where appropriate, trespass incidents will be referred to Service law enforcement. 

Is acquiring additional easements for accessing the Kona Forest Unit feasible? 

The existing easement includes difficult access from the Mamalahoa Highway, steep slopes, and 

multiple gates. At this point, no additional access or easement opportunities have been identified. 

We will continue to explore options if they arise. 

What Native Hawaiian gathering activities occur on the Refuge? 

To date, there have been very few access requests for gathering activities. As part of the CCP, 

Refuge staff plan to review the process for granting Special Use Permits for gathering activities. 




Can we maintain public access to the historic Kaunene Trail? 

We have reviewed options for access to the trail. At this time access, safety, and resource 

management needs preclude maintenance and public access to the trail. Over time, we could revisit 

opportunities to reopen the Kaunene Trail. 

Do the Refuge units meet the minimum requirements for a wilderness designation nomination? 

A wilderness review, as required by Service policy, has been conducted as part of the CCP planning 

process and is included as Appendix D. 

Is there the potential to protect habitat for endangered forest birds through additional land 

acquisition or conservation easements? 

At each unit we will consider opportunities for Refuge boundary expansion on a case-by-case basis, 

and in accordance with Service policy. The Refuge is working with nongovernment conservation 

organizations (NGOs) that are familiar with private lands in the vicinity of existing Refuge units in 

evaluating any feasible acquisition opportunities that may arise. Currently, two tracts of land with 

high-quality habitat within the HFU’s approved acquisition boundary have not been acquired and are 

being managed by an agency partner. All of the land within the acquisition boundary for the KFU has 

been acquired. We encourage landowners with high-quality habitat for forest birds to manage their 

lands for conservation. In addition, Refuge staff will work with Regional staff to develop a land 

conservation plan as outlined in objectives 1e and 3e in Chapter 2. 

How can we better manage the Kona Forest Unit’s ungulate populations? 

Refuge staff are in the process of administering a contract to build a perimeter fence around the unit 

and two interior fences that would create three management areas within the unit. Options and 

opportunities for ungulate management, including removal, are included as part of the management 

of the KFU in the preferred alternative. 

How will climate change impact the Refuge? 

The Refuge’s two units are unique in the Hawaiian Islands because of the range of elevations that 

occur on Refuge lands. Through the CCP planning process we will evaluate the effectiveness, 

impacts, and benefits of providing wildlife habitats at a variety of elevations, temperatures, and 

rainfall regimes, so that wildlife can move between as conditions are altered through climate change 

processes. 

1.8.2 Interagency Scoping 

On July 1, 2009, Refuge and Hawaiian and Pacific Islands staff members met with some of our 

agency partners to discuss planning for Hakalau Forest NWR. Individuals from the DLNR, DHHL, 

USGS-BRD, and USFS attended the meeting. Refuge staff provided an overview of the planning 

process and current management of the Refuge. The following list of issues was developed based 

upon feedback received from these individuals. 




� Desire by partners to see staff and a satellite office in the vicinity of the KFU; 

� Potential for some joint planning with NPS at Kahuku; 

� Interest in developing some sort of “Partnership Boundary” that could include Three Mountain 

Alliance, Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, Wai‘ea; 

� Need for strong management partnerships at KFU; 

� Climate Change 

o Issues that will likely become larger in the context of climate change include avian malaria, 

the need for corridors to connect habitat fragments; 

o Quote - “This is one of Hawai‘i’s great opportunities to deal with climate change”; 

o The Plan should look for opportunities to connect the subalpine habitat with wet-lower 

elevation habitats; 

� On adjacent lands, DHHL is considering māmane restoration, bird corridors, koa restoration, and 

gorse control. [Since this meeting DHHL’s ‘Āina Mauna Legacy Program more completely 

outlines specific plans for adjacent areas.]; 

� Endangered plants are an important piece of the habitats that are being restored. We should 

specify actions and species; 

� There should be more exploration into carbon sequestration. Previous efforts did not get off the 

ground, but there is an emerging market for “boutique” carbon that could serve Hakalau well; 

� Research 

o There is a need for research into habitat and species responses to adaptive management to 

help make adjustments over time; 

o There is a greater need for monitoring than for pure research; 

o Consider developing a Research Management Plan with a formal subcommittee; 

o Need a way to filter research requests; 

� Additional enforcement should be present at both units; 

� Education/Outreach 

o Consider expanding the open house to twice per year; 

o Develop an airport kiosk; 

o Host an annual “low-budget” research symposium: potential ideas include poster sessions, 

keynote speakers, in conjunction with other events that may be occurring on island. 

� Hakalau nēnē appear to be a migratory subpopulation that could provide an additional avenue for 

education about management at Hakalau; 

� Develop a bibliography of Hakalau research; and 

� Review and use the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park ungulate control Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

1.8.3 Forest Bird Workshop 

The Service held a workshop with partner agencies, renowned forest bird researchers, and 

statisticians in Hilo October 8-10, 2008, to expand a review of the current status of the Hawai‘i 

‘ākepa and other endangered Hawaiian forest birds at the Refuge for development of options for 

management alternatives for the CCP. 

The Service has received contradictory information over the population status of the endangered 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa in a portion of the Refuge, a major stronghold of the species, over the last several 

years. The Regional Director obtained the assistance of the USGS’ Dr. J. Michael Scott in 




conducting a review of available information on the Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, and this workshop was an 

extension of the review. 

The agenda was focused on the endangered Hawaiian forest birds found at the Refuge. It was 

anticipated that although the workshop focused specifically on the Refuge, much of the information 

shared would be applicable to these species throughout their ranges and to the broader Mauna Kea 

and Hawai‘i Island ecosystems or forest bird survey methodology in general. 

The workshop purposes and objectives were: 

1. Identify and prioritize management needs and activities, including research, at Hakalau Forest 

NWR to recover endangered Hawaiian forest birds; 

2. Incorporate identified needs and activities in the Hakalau Forest 15-year CCP; and 

3. Extrapolate Hakalau-specific information to the broader Mauna Kea area and other geographic 

areas and bird species and suites of birds as appropriate. 

A number of suggestions came out of the workshop, as listed below. The rankings for each of the 

lists are based upon voting by workshop participants. The complete forest bird workshop summary is 

included as Appendix E. 

Immediate Threats to Hawaiian Forest Birds at Hakalau Forest NWR 

1. Ungulates; 

2. Lack of Habitat; 

3. Invasive Plants; 

4. Predation; 

5. Data Insufficient to Meet Management Needs; 

6. Parasites; and 

7. Interspecific Competition. 

Management Actions (Priority Ranking by Workshop Participants) 

1. *Grazers/browsers (Habitat destruction/relative to mosquito production) (High) 

� Fence construction, maintenance, and removal of animals; 

� See Research Priorities; 

2. Habitat Restoration (High) 

� Revegetation of pasture land; 

� Improve ‘ōhi‘a densities; 

3. Invasive plants (High) 

� Continue invasive species control (e.g., blackberry, banana poka, gorse); 

� Prevent and eliminate incipient weeds; 


4. Monitoring and Data Needs (High) 

� See Research priorities; 

� Delivery of technical information; 

5. Predation (Medium) 


6. Parasites (Low) 




� Incipient invasive parasites, true population counts, delouse birds; 

7. Interspecific competition (Low) 


� Identify ectoparasites/mites. 

Research Priorities (Priority Ranked by Workshop Participants) 

1. Monitoring and Data: Expand point counts/banding data (combined primary counter training, 

consider use of a B-Bird (Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database) system 

(http://www.umt.edu/bbird/info.htm), and threat surveillance); 

2. Predation: Investigate effects of rats on forest birds; rodent population index; 

3. Invasive Plants: Develop effective biocontrols; 

4. *Grazers/Browsers: Predator proof fencing; 

5. Invasive Plants: Develop more efficient control methods and registration of herbicides; 

5. Determine the effects of global climate change at the Refuge; 

6. Develop more effective cat control techniques; 

6. Determine effects of ectoparasites on non-endangered bird populations; and 

7. Experimental control of Japanese white-eyes. 

*Caveat: Activities to construct an ungulate-proof fence and a predator-proof fence caused some 

confusion. Dr. Scott obtained consensus that these activities could be combined with a third separate 

but related activity of removing ungulates. 

1.9 Refuge Vision 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and 

larger-scale plans as appropriate. Public use and wildlife/habitat management goals then define 

general targets in support of the vision, followed by objectives that direct effort into incremental and 

measurable steps toward achieving those goals. Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions 

to accomplish objectives. 


Aia nō i uka i ke kua ko‘olau o Mauna Kea ka pu‘uhonua waonahele aupuni ‘o Hakalau. He wahi 

kēia e hui ai kānaka e laulima ma o ke ka‘analike aku, ka‘analike mai i ka ‘ike, ka no‘eau, a me ka 

mana i mea e ho‘opalekana, ho‘oikaika, a ho‘ōla hou ai i ke ola maoli e noho ana ma ka waonahele. 

Ua kapa ‘ia ka inoa ‘o Hakalau no ka nui o nā haka e noho ‘ia e nā manu ‘ōiwi. I kēia lā ‘o 

Hakalau kekahi o nā home nunui no ka hui manu Hawai‘i ‘ane make loa. Kīkaha a‘ela nā manu, nā 

pua laha ‘ole ho‘i, i ka ‘ohu‘ohu o Hakalau a ma lalo iki e mūkīkī i ka wai pua ‘ōhi‘a. Ua nani nō 

ka ‘ikena a ‘upu a‘ela nō ke aloha no kēia ‘āina nei no nā kau a kau. 

On the windward slope of majestic Mauna Kea, midway between summit and sea, lies Hakalau 

Forest NWR, a place where people come together to laulima, “many hands working together,” to 

share their knowledge, to share their skills, and to share their energy to protect, to enhance, to restore, 

and to respect Hawaiian wildlife. Known to Hawaiians as “place of many perches,” verdant 




rainforest supports the largest populations of endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Crimson, orange, 

yellow, and green hued birds, the jewels of Hakalau, flit through the mist, pausing to sip nectar from 

‘ōhi‘a lehua, inspire joy and wonder for present and future generations. 


Mai Mauna Kea nō a ka‘a i lalo, a hiki aku i Mauna Loa, ma laila nō ka waonahele o Kona, kahi e 

noho lewalewa ana nā ao ‘ōpua i ka ‘uhiwai e hō‘olu‘olu ana i ka ulu lā‘au. ‘Ike ‘ia ka ‘io e kīkaha 

ana ma luna loa o ka papa kaupoku i ho‘owehiwehi ‘ia me ka limu. Ma lalo o ke kaupoku koa me 

‘ōhi‘a, e ‘imi ana ka ‘alalā me kona hoa manu i ka hua‘ai, wai pua, a me nā mea kolokolo i mea ‘ai 

na lākou. Aia nō ma ka malumalu o nā ana kahe pele kahiko nā mea kanu kāka‘ikahi o ka ‘āina, a 

me nā iwi o nā manu make loa ma Hawai‘i. Kuahui maila nō nā hoa mālama ‘āina i ola hou ka 

nohona o nā mea ‘ane make loa ma kēia ‘āina nui ākea. 

On leeward Mauna Loa, where the clouds kiss the slopes with cool gray fog, lies the Kona Forest. 

‘Alalā and other Hawaiian forest birds forage for fruit, nectar, and insects amongst the lichen-draped 

branches and canopy of the old-growth koa/‘ōhi‘a forest while the ‘io soars overhead. In their damp 

darkness, ancient lava tubes and cave systems shelter rare plants, archaeological resources, and the 

bones of extinct birds. Conservation partners collaborate to restore habitat for the native and 


1.10 Refuge Goals 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and 

focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the 

Refuge System mission. 

The goal order does not imply any priority in this CCP. 

Pahuhopu 1: E ho‘opalekana, mālama, a ho‘ōla hou i ka waonahele ma Mauna Loa ma ke ‘ano he 

wahi noho no nā mea a pau i mea e kū‘ono‘ono hou ai ka nohona o nā mea ‘ane make loa ‘o ia nō ‘o 

‘oe ‘o nā manu, nā ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, nā mea kanu, a me nā mea kolokolo ‘āina. 

Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community on the leeward slope of 

Mauna Loa as habitat for all life-history needs to promote the recovery of endangered species (e.g., 


Pahuhopu 2: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i nā ana kahe pele a me ke ola i ka puka mālamalama o nā 

ana kahe pele ma ka waonahele o Kona, e kālele ana ho‘i i ke ola o nā lā‘au ‘ōiwi. 

Goal 2: Protect and maintain lava tube and lava tube skylight habitat throughout the Kona Forest 

Unit, with special emphasis on their unique and endemic flora and fauna. 

Pahuhopu 3: E ho‘opalekana, mālama, a hō‘ola hou i ka waonahele ma ka ‘ao‘ao ko‘olau o Mauna 

Kea ma ke ‘ano he wahi noho no nā mea a pau a me ko lākou pono ‘oia nō ‘oe ‘o nā manu, nā 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a, nā mea kanu, a me nā mea kolokolo ‘āina. 




Goal 3: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community, on the windward slope of 

Mauna Kea as habitat for all life-history needs of endangered species (e.g., forest birds, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, 

plants, and invertebrates). 

Pahuhopu 4: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i ka ‘āina nenelu ma Hakalau. 

Goal 4: Protect and maintain wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., streams and their associated riparian 

corridors, ponds, and bogs) on the Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Pahuhopu 5: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i ka ‘āina mau‘u i mea e kāko‘o ai i ka ho‘ōla hou ‘ana i ka 

hui manu nēnē. 

Goal 5: Protect and maintain grassland habitat to support nēnē population recovery. 

Pahuhopu 6: E ‘ohi‘ohi i ka ‘ikepili ‘epekema (waihona ‘ike, nānā pono, ‘imi noi‘i, ana ‘ike) e pono 

ai ka ho‘oholo ‘ana i ke ‘ano o ka ho‘okele ‘ana iā Hakalau ma Mauna Kea a me Mauna Loa. 

Goal 6: Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, assessments) necessary to 

support adaptive management decisions on both units of the Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Pahuhopu 7: E kipa mai ka po‘e malihini a me ka po‘e maka‘āinana no ka hana manawale‘a ‘ana i 

mea e kama‘āina ai lākou i ka nohona o ka waonahele a me ka ‘oihana mālama ma Hakalau. 

Goal 7: Visitors, with a special emphasis on experience gained through volunteer work groups and 

local residents, understand and/or value the native forest environment and management practices at 


Pahuhopu 8: E ho‘opalekana a mālama i nā kumu waiwai a me nā wahi pana Hawai‘i no ka 

ho‘ona‘auao ‘ana i nā hanauna o kēia wā a me ka wā e hiki mai ana. 

Goal 8: Protect and manage cultural resources and historic sites for their educational and cultural 

values for the benefit of present and future generations of Refuge users and communities. 

1.11 References 

Mitchell, C., C. Ogura, D.W. Meadows, A. Kane, L. Strommer, S. Fretz, D. Leonard, and A. 

McClung. October 2005. Hawaii’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department of 

Land and Natural Resources. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 722 pp. 

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. 




U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. Region 1, 

Portland, OR. 622 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Hoary Bat. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 50 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Portland, OR. 202+ pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Recovery Plan for the `Alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis). Portland, 

Oregon. xiv + 105 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Big Island II: Addendum to the Recovery Plan for the Big 

Island Plant Cluster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 80 pages + appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Four Species of Hawaiian Ferns. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 78 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. The Hawaiian Hawk Recovery Plan. Under contract with 

Curtis R. Griffin, Missouri Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. 48 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Nēnē or Hawaiian Goose 

(Branta sandvicensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 148 + xi pp. 





Chapter 2. Refuge Management Direction 

‘Hawai‘i ‘Elepaio/Jack Jeffrey Photography 

Thousands of koa trees planted in corridors are the first step toward restoring degraded habitat/USFWS



Chapter 2. Refuge Management Direction 

2.1 Considerations in the Design of the CCP 

The Refuge reviewed and considered a variety of resource, social, economic, and organizational 

aspects important for managing the Refuge. These background conditions are described more fully in 

Chapters 3, 4, and 5. In addition, past and current management actions were also considered (a 

summary of which can be found in Appendix L). As is appropriate for a national wildlife refuge, 

resource considerations were fundamental in designing alternatives. House Report 105-106 

accompanying the Improvement Act states “…the fundamental mission of our System is wildlife 

conservation: wildlife and wildlife conservation must come first.” The CCP team reviewed scientific 

reports and studies to better understand ecosystem trends and the latest scientific recommendations 

for species and habitats. Refuge staff met with elected officials and staff from local, State, and 

Federal agencies to ascertain priorities and problems as perceived by others. Refuge staff also met 

with Refuge users, nonprofit or nongovernmental groups (NGOs), university/academic members, and 

community organizations to ensure that their comments and ideas were considered during CCP 

development. 

Refuge staff developed tables of focal species, conservation targets, and supporting habitats for 

Refuge management (Appendix F) based upon the Refuge purposes for Hakalau Forest NWR, a 

variety of national, regional, and State plans, and discussion with Service biologists, managers, and 

outside researchers. These conservation targets provide the basis for our habitat management goals, 

objectives, and strategies. 

2.2 General Guidelines 

General guidelines for implementing the CCP follow, as do maps that summarize the CCP actions by 

the Refuge. To reduce the length and redundancy of the descriptions for each unit, common features 

are presented below. 

Ungulate-proof Boundary Fencing and Sequence of Management Actions (HFU and KFU): 

The perimeter (ownership) boundary of Hakalau Forest NWR will be enclosed by fencing, with 

internal fencing to divide into management units following. Establishing perimeter boundary fencing 

is a critical first step in habitat protection and restoration to deter major threats to the ecosystem and 

their impacts to wildlife population and species recovery. Once fences are established, the standard 

management strategy sequence would be to remove ungulates, then concentrate on invasive species 

control (e.g., invasive plants, predators such as rats, mongooses, cats, and dogs) while simultaneously 

restoring habitat through native plant outplantings. Surveys and monitoring for threats (e.g., invasive 

weeds, ungulates, predators, etc.) would be ongoing as well as species and habitat monitoring. If 

threats are found, they will be eradicated or controlled. Protection of special habitats (e.g., Carex sp. 

bogs) and endangered plant outplantings would occur once habitats are stabilized and threats 

managed and include actions such as site-specific fencing. 

Maintaining/Upgrading Existing Facilities and Fences: Periodic maintenance and upgrading of 

Refuge buildings, fences, and facilities will be necessary for safety and accessibility and to support 

Chapter 2. Refuge Management Direction 2-1



management and public use needs. Periodic maintenance and upgrading of fences is necessary to 

exclude ungulates from management units. The use of a helicopter is required in remote areas of the 

Refuge to deliver management materials. 

Invasive Species Control and Integrated Pest Management: In accordance with 517 DM 1 and 

569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach would be utilized, where practicable, to 

eradicate, control, or contain pest and invasive species (herein collectively referred to as pests) on 

refuge lands. The IPM would involve using methods based upon effectiveness, cost, and minimal 

ecological disruption, which considers minimum potential effects to nontarget species and the refuge 

environment. Pesticides may be used where physical, cultural, and biological methods or 

combinations thereof, are impractical or incapable of providing adequate control, eradication, or 

containment. If a pesticide would be needed on refuge lands, the most specific (selective) chemical 

available for the target species would be used unless considerations of persistence or other 

environmental and/or biotic hazards would preclude it. In accordance with 517 DM 1, pesticide use 

would be further restricted because only pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in full compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and 

as provided in regulations, orders, or permits issued by EPA may be applied on lands and waters 

under refuge jurisdiction. 

Environmental harm by pest species would refer to a biologically substantial decrease in 

environmental quality as indicated by a variety of potential factors including declines in native 

species populations or communities, degraded habitat quality or long-term habitat loss, and/or altered 

ecological processes. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of pests on native species 

including preying and feeding on them; causing or vectoring diseases; preventing them from 

reproducing or killing their young; outcompeting them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites or other 

vital resources; or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly 

native individuals remain. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of pest 

species. For example, decreased waterfowl use may result from invasive plant infestations reducing 

the availability and/or abundance of native wetland plants that provide forage during the winter. 

Environmental harm may involve detrimental changes in ecological processes. Environmental harm 

may also cause or be associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant, and animal 

health. For example, invasions by fire-promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal 

communities, eliminating or sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species, 

can also greatly increase firefighting costs. 

The greatest threats to most habitat types on the Refuge are invasive plant and animal species. 

Therefore, control of invasive species that negatively impact Refuge wildlife populations or habitats 

will be a priority management strategy. The top priorities for invasive plant control are gorse, banana 

poka, and Florida blackberry. The top priorities for invasive animal control are ungulates (including 

pigs, sheep, cattle, donkeys, and horses) as described in the Refuge’s Feral Ungulate Management 

Plan. Control of introduced mammalian predators include pest animals such as rats, cats and dogs, 

and mongooses supports recovery of federally endangered species by reducing the loss of eggs and 

nestlings. Vertebrate pests damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the 

management program of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal 

Control Operations). Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 (Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats 

running at large on a national wildlife refuge and observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or 




molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of in the interest of public safety and protection of the 

wildlife. 

Invasive plants and animals will be treated with IPM techniques and tools. Refer to Appendix G for 

the Refuge’s IPM program documentation to manage pests for this CCP. Along with a more detailed 

discussion of IPM techniques, this document describes the selective use of pesticides for pest 

management on Refuge lands, where necessary. 

Quarantine Protocols: Staff currently employ strict quarantine protocols with all staff, Service 

authorized agents (e.g., researchers, USDA–APHIS/WS), and visitors to both units of the Refuge. 

These techniques, including cleaning of equipment and personal gear, will be used under all 

alternatives in all habitat types to prevent movement of invasive species from one area to another. 

Land Protection: The Refuge has begun a Land Protection Planning process that will be completed 

within 1 year of CCP completion. This effort is in cooperation with other agencies and interested 

parties to assess and identify land conservation priorities in the vicinity of Refuge units. Potential 

additions or expansion of the Hakalau Forest NWR and examination of various land protection tools 

will be explored. Land Protection as part of the Refuge System may include fee title acquisition, 

conservation easements, and/or cooperative agreements. 

Adaptive Management: Based upon 522 DM 1 (Adaptive Management Implementation policy), 

refuge staff shall utilize adaptive management for conserving, protecting, and, where appropriate, 

restoring lands and resources. Within 43 CFR 46.30, adaptive management is defined as a system of 

management practices based upon clearly identified outcomes, where monitoring evaluates whether 

management actions are achieving desired results (objectives). The recently published DOI Adaptive 

Management Technical Guide also defines adaptive management as a decision process that 

“promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from 

management actions and other events become better understood.” Adaptive management accounts 

for the fact that complete knowledge about fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and the ecological 

processes supporting them may be lacking. The role of natural variability contributing to ecological 

resilience also is recognized as an important principle of adaptive management. It is not a “trial and 

error” process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing based upon available scientific 

information and best professional judgment considering site-specific biotic and abiotic factors on 

refuge lands. This policy will be adopted by the Refuge throughout the lifespan of its CCP. 

Implementation Subject to Funding Availability: Actions (strategies) will be implemented over 

the 15 year life span of the CCP, contingent upon available funding. It is the intent of the Refuge that 

annual priorities will follow the final CCP guidelines, although funding initiatives, unforeseeable 

management challenges, and varying budgets may impact feasibility of actions from year to year. 

The CCP will be reviewed every 5 years and updated as necessary throughout its life. 

Permanent Full Time Staffing Additions: This CCP proposes adding 11 new permanent full time 

positions to the staff of the Hakalau Forest NWR (HFU and KFU) to achieve the goals and objectives 

outlined in the plan. All staffing additions are subject to Regional approval and allocation of 

additional base funding. 

Participation in Planning and Review of Regional Development Activities: The Refuge will 

actively participate in and contribute to planning and studies for ongoing and future industrial, urban, 




housing and energy development, contamination, and other potential concerns that may adversely 

affect Refuge wildlife resources and habitats. Working with the Ecological Services program of the 

Service, the Refuge will cultivate working relationships with pertinent local, County, State, and 

Federal agencies to stay abreast of current and potential developments and will utilize outreach, 

education and information as needed to raise awareness of Refuge resources and dependence on the 

local environment. 

State Coordination: The Refuge will continue to maintain regular discussions with the State of 

Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Division of Forestry of Wildlife 

(DOFAW). Key topics for discussion with DOFAW will be wildlife monitoring, forest bird 

monitoring and management, threatened and endangered species management, wildlife mortality and 

disease monitoring, predator management, and response to climate change. Public use opportunities, 

as well as protection of Refuge wildlife and habitat, will be the primary topics of discussion with 

DLNR and its other divisions. 

Volunteer Opportunities and Partnerships: Volunteer opportunities and partnerships are key 

components of the successful management of public lands and vital to implementation of Refuge 

programs, plans, and projects, especially in times of declining budgets. 

Requests for Public Uses on Refuge Lands: Nonwildlife-dependent recreational activities will be 

subject to the criteria of Appropriate Refuge Use Policy, and if found appropriate, will be analyzed 

through a Compatibility Determination (CD). Existing public uses (wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education and interpretation, hunting, and fishing) were evaluated 

through CDs, as appropriate. Through the CCP development process, public hunting was determined 

as an incompatible use; therefore, public hunting is closed on both units. Appropriate use findings for 

nonwildlife-dependent public uses were made based on policy guidance in the Service’s Appropriate 

Refuge Uses Policy; 603 FW 1, and were documented on the Service’s Form 3-2319 (finding of 

appropriateness of a refuge use) in Appendix B. Compatibility determinations are also included in 

Appendix B. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment: Annual payments to the County of Hawai‘i under the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Program will continue according to the established formula, subject to payments 

authorized by Congress. 

Regulatory Compliance: All activities requiring review, permits, and clearances (e.g., Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) will undergo 

appropriate review and obtain necessary permits and/or clearances as needed. 


Figure 2-1. HFU CCP management. 








Figure 2-2. KFU CCP management. 










Table 2-1. Summary of CCP Actions. 


1.1: Restore and Protect Native 




Native Montane Mesic Koa/‘Ōhi‘a 

Forest 


1.3: Protect, Maintain, and Restore 

Native Dry Koa/‘Ōhi‘a/Māmane Forest 


1.4: Develop and Implement 


at KFU 

1.5, 5.3: Investigate and Initiate 

Landscape-level Habitat Conservation 

Measures 

2.1: Protect & Maintain 

Lava Tube and Skylight Communities 

at KFU 


Montane Wet ‘Ōhi‘a/Uluhe 

(Dicranopteris sp.) Forest (2,500-4,000 

ft elevation) at HFU 

3,000 acres. Remove ranch debris. Build and maintain 17 

mile ungulate-proof fence. Remove pest animals. 

Eradicate/control invasive plants. Conduct annual invasive 


surveys control threats). Outplant threatened and endangered 

(T&E) plants in units 2 and 3 and build site specific fencing 

for these plants. 


fence, eradicate/control invasive plants, and remove pest 

animals. Conduct annual invasive plant survey; conduct 


Outplant native plants. Address wildfire through hazardous 



500 acres. Remove ranch debris. Build and maintain fence, 

eradicate/control invasive plants, and remove pest animals. 


pest animals (based on surveys control threats). Outplant 

T&E plants and build site specific fencing for these plants 

500 T&E plants and 2,000 native plants provided annually 

for restoration. Develop native plant nursery at Mauna Loa 

field camp site, collect seeds and cuttings, develop (in 7 

years) staff, volunteer, and partnering programs. 

LPP completed within one year. Identify habitats to support 

focal species; develop protection strategies; work proactively 

with partners, neighbors, and private landowners where 

appropriate to meet conservation goals and develop specific 

project proposals for land acquisition, cooperative 

agreements, and/or conservation easements as key 

conservation opportunities arise and willing parties are 

identified. 

Remove ranch debris. Build and maintain fence and develop 

site specific access protocols to limit human disturbance to 

habitat. Eradicate/control invasive plants, and remove pest 

animals. Conduct survey for pest animals (based on surveys 

control threats). Inventory and map communities and 

support additional investigations and research. 

7,000 acres. Remove pest animals, eradicate/control invasive 

plants, build site-specific fencing to protect T&E plant 

populations and Carex sp. bogs. Conduct annual invasive 


surveys control threats). Inventory vegetation, complete 

Wilderness Study. 









Native Montane Wet Koa/‘Ōhi‘a 

Forest 



Montane Mesic Koa Forest (6,000- 

6,600 ft elevation) at HFU 

3.5: Restore/Reforest Native Montane 

Mesic Koa Forest 


3.6: Maintain and Enhance 


at HFU 

4.1: Protect and Maintain Streams and 

Stream Corridors at HFU 

4.2: Protect and Maintain 

Semipermanent Natural Ponds at HFU 

4.3: Protect and Maintain Carex Bogs 

within the Montane Wet ‘Ōhi‘a/Uluhe 

Forest at HFU 

8,200 acres. Maintain existing fence (units 1-8), build and 

maintain fence. Eradicate/control invasive plants and remove 

pest animals. Conduct annual invasive plant survey; conduct 


Outplant native overstory koa and ‘ōhi‘a, T&E plants, and 

common understory plants. Build site specific fencing for 

T&E plants. Complete Wilderness Study. 

5,000 acres. Maintain existing fence, build and maintain 

fence along Middle Maulua tract boundary (unit 9). 

Eradicate/control invasive plants and remove pest animals. 


pest animals (based on surveys control threats, particularly 

Vespula sp. ). Outplant T&E plants and build site-specific 

fencing to protect T&E plant populations. 

3,500 acres. Maintain existing fence. Eradicate/control 

invasive plants and remove pest animals. Conduct annual 

invasive plant survey; conduct survey for pest animals (based 

on surveys control threats, particularly Vespula sp. ). 

Outplant T&E plants and build site-specific fencing to 

protect T&E plant populations. Address wildfire through 

hazardous fuels treatment, maintaining fuelbreaks, 

developing fire prevention program. 

2,500 acres. Maintain fence. Eradicate/control invasive 

plants and remove pest animals. Conduct annual invasive 


surveys control threats). Outplant 300 koa per acre, use 

excluder devices to deter turkeys on koa seedlings, outplant 

native understory species and ‘ōhi‘a at 150 per acres, 

outplant 100-300 T&E plants and build site-specific fencing 

to protect these plants. Address wildfire through hazardous 



Plant 10,000 koa per year for 5 years: 5,000 per year for the 

next 10 years, 8-10,000 natives and 300-1,200 T&E 

plantings per year. Expand native plant nursery at Mauna 

Kea administration site, collect seeds and cuttings, outplant, 

and develop partnerships to assist with propagation program. 

Maintain fencing. Eradicate/control invasive plants. Conduct 

annual invasive plant survey; conduct survey for pest 

animals (based on surveys control threats). Inventory streams 

and stream corridors. 

Maintain fencing, conduct survey for pest animals (based on 

surveys control threats). 

Install fencing to protect bogs, conduct survey for pest 

animals (based on surveys control threats), survey extent and 

number of bogs. 





5.1: Maintain Managed Grassland for 

Foraging Nēnē at HFU 

5.2: Maintain Grassland Habitats for 

Nēnē Nesting at HFU 

6.1: Conduct High-Priority Inventory 

and Monitoring (Survey) Activities that 

Evaluate Resource Management and 

Public-Use Activities to Facilitate 

Adaptive Management 

6.2: Conduct High-Priority Research 

Projects that Provide the Best Science 

for Habitat and Wildlife Management 

On and Off the Refuge 

6.3: Conduct Scientific Assessments to 

Provide Baseline Information to 

Expand Knowledge Regarding the 

Status of Refuge Resources to Better 

Inform Resource Management 

Decisions 

7.1: Establish Compatible Wildlife 

Observation and Photography 

Opportunities 

7.2: Promote and Enhance Volunteer 

Program 

7.3: Support Existing Outside 

Programs for On and Off Site 

Environmental Education and Develop 

Interpretive Opportunities 

7.4: Enhance Outreach Targeting 

Local Communities to Promote 

Appreciation of and Generate Support 

for the KFU 

65 acres. Maintain fuel breaks and fence corridors, build and 

maintain fence. Eradicate/control invasive plants. Conduct 


15 acres. Maintain fence and build predator proof fence on 

15-acre grassland breeding site away from administrative site 

at Pua ‘Ākala tract. Eradicate/control invasive plants and 

remove pest animals. Conduct survey for pest animals (based 

on surveys control threats). 

An initial list of survey and monitoring activities have been 

identified and include examples such as monitoring nesting 

density and success of nēnē, inventorying all endemic 

species, instituting early detection and rapid response 

monitoring for threat management, monitoring plant and 

animal diseases, and others. 

An initial list of research projects have been identified and 

include examples such as investigating and monitoring 

endangered plant propagation and outplanting, research on 

arthropod abundance, researching demography, life-history, 

carrying capacity, and competition for native forest birds, 

and others. 

An initial list of scientific assessments have been identified 

and include examples such as determining ecological 

parameters for ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, determining the role of predators 

in native flora and fauna abundance, assessing global climate 

change impacts on the Refuge, and others. 

Develop Upper Maulua Tract interpretive trail (0.3-0.5 mile) 

and parking area. Work with Friends of Hakalau Forest to 

develop brochure. 

Maintain volunteer program and current 35-40 service 

weekends at HFU, develop seasonal volunteer program to 

supplement staffing and weekend programs, develop KFU 

volunteer program similar to HFU. 

Increase environmental education and interpretive programs 

(via coordinating more with County, State, and nongovernmental 

organizations and expanding interpretive 

programs relative to cultural resources/historic sites) to 

include 168 participants annually. Continue interpretive 

walks offered during annual Refuge open house. 

Work with existing partners to promote awareness and 

appreciation. Develop and cultivate new partners and 

outreach efforts. 





8.1: Increase Identification, 

Monitoring, Protection, and 

Restoration of all Cultural Resources 

and Historic Sites, while Increasing 

Staff and Public Support and 

Appreciation 

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Evaluate known/potential Refuge cultural resources and 

historic sites, develop guidelines for cultural activities, 

identify cultural practitioners to develop understanding of 

cultural/historic sites at the Refuge, develop interpretive 

programming and products relative to cultural and historic 

sites in partnership with Native Hawaiian groups; conduct 

comprehensive cultural resources investigation of both units. 

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and 

focus management priorities, resolve issues, and link to refuge purposes, Service policy, and the 

Refuge System mission. 

A CCP describes management actions that help bring a refuge closer to its vision. A vision broadly 

reflects the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission and goals, other statutory requirements, and 

larger-scale plans as appropriate. Goals then define general targets in support of the vision, followed 

by objectives that direct effort into incremental and measurable steps toward achieving those goals. 

Finally, strategies identify specific tools and actions to accomplish objectives. 

The goals for the Hakalau Forest NWR over the lifetime of the CCP (15 years) are presented on the 

following pages. Each goal is followed by the objective(s) that pertain to that goal. The goal order 

does not imply any priority in this CCP. Each objective will be implemented over the life of the plan 

subject to funding, unless otherwise stated. Below each objective are the management strategies that 

could be employed in order to accomplish it. Following the goals, objectives, and strategies is a brief 

rationale intended to provide further background information pertaining to the importance of an 

objective relative to legal mandates for managing units of the Refuge System including refuge 

purpose, trust resource responsibilities (federally listed threatened and endangered species and 

migratory birds), and maintaining/restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

The rationale also describes how management strategies are used to achieve objectives. 

Habitat management goals and objectives have been developed separately for the two units of 

Hakalau Forest NWR. Although the habitats at each Refuge unit are similar, they are in different 

conditions. The Kona Forest Unit (KFU) contains unique lava tube and lava tube skylight habitats; 

whereas the Hakalau Forest Unit (HFU) contains stream habitats that are not present at the KFU. 

Restoration strategies for each unit will be somewhat different based upon these contrasting features. 

Description of the implementation and monitoring of the CCP can be found in Appendix C. Note that 

implementation timetables in this chapter as well as Appendix C are dependent upon available 

funding. 


2.3.1 Kona Forest Unit (KFU) 



2.3.1.1 Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community on the 

leeward slope of Mauna Loa as habitat for all life-history needs to promote the recovery of 

endangered species (e.g., forest birds, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, plants, and invertebrates). 

Strategy definitions: Reforestation entails planting appropriate overstory species to bring habitat 

into a basic forested condition. Restoration is the planting of koa to restore forested condition, 

allowing time for development of a forest canopy, following up with later plantings of native 

understory shrub species. 

Objective 1.1: Restore and protect native montane wet ‘ōhi‘a forest. 

Restore and then protect and maintain approximately 3,000 acres of native montane wet ‘ōhi‘a 

forest habitat on the KFU for endangered plant and animal species, with special emphasis for the 

repatriation of ‘alalā, with the following attributes: 

• 2,000 and 4,500 ft elevation; 

• Tree canopy is dominated by 60-80 ft mature closed canopy ‘ōhi‘a; 

• Midcanopy is dominated by a mix of native flowering and fruiting tree species (e.g., ‘ōhi‘a, 

hame, kōlea, pilo, Clermontia sp., ‘ōlapa, kāwa‘u, kōlea, pūkiawe), tree ferns (up to 15 ft), 

‘ie‘ie, and epiphytes); 

• Ground cover is dominated by a mix of native ferns, herbs, and forbs; 

•



Outplanting of endangered plants in units 2 & 3 (supported by propagation program identified under 

Objective 1.4) as well as mix of other native plants as identified in the attributes above. 

Conduct site-specific fencing to protect endangered plant populations. 

Rationale: 

Control of ungulates is needed to restore acres identified as they are a major habitat modifying 

threat. Pigs grub up the ground and create wallows where water can collect to become mosquito 

breeding habitats. Mosquitoes are vectors for deadly avian diseases harmful to native forest birds. In 

addition, ungulates eat and trample native plants. Therefore, reforestation (which would create more 

forest in an elevation where climate change could impact native forest elevational gradients) would 

not be possible without addressing this threat first. Aerial control has been proven to be the most 

effective management tool in terms of efficacy and minimizing impacts of ground-based shooting 

and other control efforts. Shooting options would not be considered until the fencing is completed to 

maximize benefits while minimizing potential effects. 

The primary differences between the upper and lower elevation gradients in this habitat type are the 

increased plant diversity in the midcanopy of the upper gradient, and the change from an herbaceous 

ground cover in the lower gradient to a grass-dominated ground cover in the upper gradient. 

A diverse native bird community first appears in the upper gradient of this habitat type, primarily 

above the mosquito zone and in the more diverse forest. 

Species of conservation and management concern covered in existing recovery plans include forest 

birds, ‘alalā, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. The KFU was the location of the last known wild 

‘alalā in the wild and fits many of the criteria outlined in the ‘Alalā Recovery Plan as a potential 

repatriation site. 

Limiting factors include a lack of native pollinators and several pest species (e.g., ungulates, rats, 

mice, slugs, mosquitoes, invasive plants, and diseases). Native pollinators on the Refuge include 

native birds and native insects. The habitat improvements outlined in each of the objectives and 

strategies are designed to provide suitable habitat that should help increase populations of native 

pollinators. 

Past human disturbances include traditional farming and ranching practices and fire. The effects of 

this past activity include increased grasslands and a loss of native plant species. 

This lowest elevation unit contains some intact native tree canopy but mostly highly disturbed, 

nonnative pest species habitat. It provides minimal life-history functions for canopy dwelling 

species and is the most invasive species degraded unit of the three KFU units. The amount of effort 

required to restore this habitat makes it best suited to serve as a buffer between lower elevation off 

Refuge lands and less disturbed upper elevation areas. This unit will be the lowest priority for 

restoration and will not likely receive active management during the life of this plan (unit1 Figure 2- 

2). 




Objective 1.2: Restore and then protect and maintain native montane mesic koa/‘ōhi‘a forest. 

Restore and then protect and maintain 1,800 acres of native montane mesic koa/‘ōhi‘a forest for all 

life-history needs of endangered plant and animal species, with special emphasis for Hawai‘i 

‘ākepa, Hawai‘i creeper, ‘akiapōlā‘au, and the repatriation of ‘alalā; with the following attributes: 

• 4,500-5,800 ft in elevation; 

• Koa and ‘ōhi‘a dominated canopy; 

• Midcanopy is dominated by a mix of native flowering and fruiting trees (e.g., Clermontia 

sp., pilo, pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), tree ferns, mixed ferns, and epiphytes; 

• Ground cover is dominated by a mix of native ferns, herbs and forbs; 

• No ungulates (e.g., pigs, sheep); 

• No new invertebrate and plant pest species; 

•



Rationale: 


birds, ‘alalā, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. The KFU is the location of the last known wild 

‘alalā and fits many of the criteria outlined in the ‘Alalā Recovery Plan as a potential repatriation 

site. 

Open areas occur in this zone, left over from logging and timber activities. Outplanting native plants 

will occur to restore forest habitat. Closed canopy and understory will help protect ‘alalā from ‘io 

predation. 

Objective 1.3: Protect, maintain, and restore native dry koa/‘ōhi‘a /māmane forest. 

Protect, maintain, and restore approximately 500 acres of native dry koa/‘ōhi‘a /māmane forest 

habitat for all life-history needs of endangered plant and animal species, with special emphasis for 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, Hawai‘i creeper, ‘akiapōlā‘au, and the repatriation of ‘alalā; with the following 

attributes: 

• 5,800-6,100 ft elevation; 

• Koa, ‘ōhi‘a, and māmane codominate the canopy; 

• Midcanopy is dominated by a mix of flowering and fruiting trees (e.g., ‘iliahi (sandalwood), 

pilo, naio, pūkiawe, ‘a‘ali‘i), and shrubs (e.g., ‘ōhelo); 

• Ground cover is composed of lichens, bryophytes, native grasses, herbs, and mixed ferns; 

• No ungulates; 


•



Outplanting of T&E plant species as well as mix of other native plants as identified in the attributes 

above. 


Rationale: 


birds, ‘alalā, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. The KFU is the location of the last known wild 

‘alalā and fits many of the criteria outlined in the ‘Alalā Recovery Plan as a potential repatriation 

site. 

Native pollinators on the Refuge include native birds and native insects. The habitat improvements 

outlined in each of the objectives and strategies are designed to provide suitable habitat that should 

help increase populations of native pollinators. 

Objective 1.4: Develop and implement propagation and outplanting program. 

Within 7 years of CCP approval, develop and implement a propagation and outplanting program 

that provides 500 endangered plants per year (e.g., Clermontia, Cyanea, Phyllostegia) and 2,000 

native species per year (e.g., pilo, koa, ‘ōhi‘a, pūkiawe) to support restoration activities. 

Strategies to achieve objective: 

Establish and maintain native plant nursery at field camp site on Mauna Loa to provide plant stock 

for outplanting activities. 

Collect adequate seeds and cuttings to supply plant nursery. 

Develop adequate staff (e.g., horticulturist, volunteer coordinator) to assist with administration of 

propagation program within 7 years. 

Develop partnerships to assist with administration of propagation program within 7 years. 

Administer volunteer program to support nursery and outplanting program within 7 years. 

Rationale: 

Endangered plant species have become extremely limited in their population and range due to more 

than 100 years of cattle grazing, pig rooting, loss of pollinators, and limited gene pool. The Refuge 

can play a vital role in the recovery of more than 10 federally listed threatened and endangered plant 

species by providing ungulate-free fenced areas. Many of these plants are important food sources 

for rare birds (e.g., ‘alalā) and invertebrates. 

The existing facility at the HFU is at a much higher elevation than the KFU. The plant species that 

are needed for outplanting are different from those of the HFU and the intent of the program will be 

endangered plant recovery as opposed to the forest restoration program at the HFU. To meet habitat 

objectives, Refuge staff will need to find or develop a source for the native endangered plants that 

will be used in management efforts at the KFU. These efforts support Objectives 1.1-1.3. 

Plant stock may be available from the Volcano Rare Plant Facility from seeds and propagules 

collected on or near Refuge lands. In addition, the Refuge partners with the Plant Extinction Plant 

Prevention Program. Through these collaborative partnerships, the Refuge also institutes best 

management practices, which include incorporating science based genetic information into its 

outplanting and propagation programs. 




Objective 1.5: Investigate and initiate landscape-level habitat conservation measures. 

Within 1 year of CCP approval, the Refuge will complete a Land Protection Planning effort in 

cooperation with other agencies and interested parties to assess and identify land conservation 

priorities in the vicinity of Refuge units. Potential additions or expansion of Hakalau Forest NWR 

and examination of various land protection tools will be explored. Land Protection as part of the 

Refuge System may include fee title acquisition, conservation easements, and/or cooperative 

agreements. 

The plan will provide for conservation of supporting habitats, partnership opportunities, and 

opportunities to adapt Refuge management to impacts from global climate change. 


Identify parcels of land that could provide supporting habitat for focal species of the KFU. 

Develop strategies for protection and management of supporting habitat. 

Work proactively with partners, neighbors, and private landowners where appropriate to meet 

conservation goals and develop specific project proposals for land acquisition, cooperative 

agreements, and/or conservation easements as key conservation opportunities arise and willing 

parties are identified. 

Rationale: 

Through a cooperative effort culminating in the 2006 National Ecological Assessment Team 

Report, the Service and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) outlined a unifying adaptive resource 

management approach for conservation at “landscape” scales, the entire range of a priority species 

or suite of species known as “strategic habitat conservation” or SHC. In April 2009, Service 

leadership established Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). The LCCs are conservationscience 

partnerships between the Service, other Federal agencies, States, Territories, tribes, NGOs, 

universities, and other entities. They are fundamental units of planning and science capacity to help 

carry out the functional elements of SHC, biological planning, conservation design, conservation 

delivery, monitoring, and research, and strategic response to climate change. 


Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and central Pacific islands under the U.S. flag. Established in 

late 2009, it will create the technical capacity, decision support tools, and organizational structure to 

address landscape-scale conservation issues using SHC. These tools will help managers reach 

explicit conservation objectives for native species and habitats in the face of climate change and 

ongoing threats such as fire, land conversion, and invasive species. The Hawaiian and Pacific 

Islands NWRs anticipate using climate change information provided by the PICCC as foundational 

products from which to conduct more detailed site-specific and species-specific analyses critical to 

the preparation of planning documents and to prioritize on-the-ground conservation actions. 


available from willing sellers. A landscape approach on the slopes of Mauna Loa will allow staff to 

focus efforts and work with partners to ensure that habitat needs are met over a larger area. In 

addition, corridors between patches of protected habitat are critical for species migration in response 

to climate change. Species distribution and abundance is likely to change based upon precipitation 

patterns, temperature variations, and shifts in mosquito zones. The Refuge will identify landscapelevel 

opportunities to augment the protection currently provided by existing Refuge lands. 




2.3.1.2 Goal 2: Protect and maintain lava tube and lava tube skylight habitat throughout the 

Kona Forest Unit, with special emphasis on their unique and endemic flora and fauna. 

Objective 2.1: Protect and maintain lava tube and skylight communities. 

Protect and maintain lava tube and skylight communities for all life-history needs of cavedependent 

species with the following attributes: 

• Undisturbed, moist, humid environment; 

• Relatively constant moderate temperature; 

• Lack of light; 

• ‘Ōhi‘a and other native plant roots to provide food source and nutrients; 

• Limited human disturbance; 


• No new invertebrate and plant pest species; and 

• Free of abandoned fence and ranch debris. 


Establish protocols to protect lava tube and skylight communities. 

Remove existing abandoned fence and other former ranch debris. 

Build and maintain ungulate-proof fence as referenced in Obj. 1.1. 

Remove all ungulates as well as dogs and cats using IPM techniques such as trapping, snares, 

ground shooting, and aerial shooting. 

Use IPM techniques including physical/mechanical, biological, and chemical to eradicate or control 

invasive plants (see Appendix G). 

Conduct surveys for pest animals such as ungulates, invertebrates, cats, and dogs. 

Control rats, ungulates, and pest invertebrates using appropriate IPM techniques including, but not 

limited to, trapping, snare, shooting (ground and aerial), and rodenticides (aerial applications and 

bait stations). 

Inventory and map lava tube and skylight communities. 

Develop restrictive site-specific access protocols for SUPs to limit human disturbance. 

Support additional investigations and research. 

Rationale: 

Lava tubes and skylights are rare, unique habitats that contain an endemic subterranean, invertebrate 

faunal community. Moisture, moist air, relatively constant moderate temperature, and lack of light 

are required attributes of these cave systems. Subfossil bird remains found in the detrital soils inside 

the cave systems are a valuable resource that can be used to document premodern Hawaiian 

avifauna. Lava tube caves found throughout the Island of Hawai‘i supported use by Native 

Hawaiians. Insufficient study has occurred on the Refuge to document archaeological resources. 

However, there is the potential that cultural resources do exist in Refuge caves. 




Invertebrates have evolved in this unique habitat. These mostly blind invertebrates feed on ‘ōhi‘a as 

well as other native plant roots that penetrate the lava tube roof. 

Trampling, the release of pest species (such as rats), or human disturbance could destroy the entire 

invertebrate community and destroy subfossil and archaeological resources. 

Installing fence and implementing the other strategies at the KFU will prevent disturbance and 

damage from trampling of these fragile invertebrate communities and archaeological resources. 

2.3.2 Hakalau Forest Unit 

2.3.2.1 Goal 3: Protect, maintain, and restore subtropical rainforest community on the 

windward slope of Mauna Kea as habitat for all life-history needs of endangered species (e.g., 


Strategy definitions: Reforestation focuses on planting koa specifically as appropriate overstory 

species (though other overstory species can be used as well) to bring habitat into a basic forested 

condition. Restoration is the planting of koa to restore forested condition, allowing time for 

development of a forest canopy, following up with later plantings of native understory shrub species. 

Objective 3.1: Protect and maintain native montane wet ‘ōhi‘a/uluhe (Dicranopteris sp.) 

forest. 

Protect and maintain approximately 7,000 acres of native montane wet ‘ōhi‘a/uluhe forest habitat on 

the HFU for endangered plant and animal species, with special emphasis on endangered plant 

species, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and koloa maoli, with the following attributes: 

• Found from 2,500-4,000 ft; 

• Upper canopy is composed of scattered mature (100+ years), and medium-stature ‘ōhi‘a 

(30 ft); 

• Midcanopy zone (10-15 ft) is dominated by hapū‘u (tree fern); 

• Ground level, up to 6-10 ft is dominated by dense uluhe (matted ferns); 

• Many Carex sp. bogs found scattered throughout the lower elevations; 

• Plant diversity is low and dominated by open ‘ōhi‘a canopy and uluhe understory and 

ground cover; 

• No ungulates (e.g., pigs and sheep); 


•




Conduct annual invasive plant species presence/absence and percent cover monitoring using 

established survey transects. 

Based on results of annual invasive species transect monitoring, control invasive plant species with 

the goal of achieving



• Ground level contains downed timber and areas dominated by sphagnum moss; 

•




pollinators. 

Higher densities of pigs at this elevation have disturbed native Carex sp. bogs which have 

converted to nonnative Juncus sp. bogs. 

In the Wilderness Review conducted for the HFU (Appendix D), lower elevations of the Refuge 

below 5,000 ft (Inventory Unit B2) met the minimum criteria for a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

designation. Management activities in this unit will be conducted in a manner that maintains the 

wilderness character by using the minimal tools necessary to achieve Refuge purposes, as required 

under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and USFWS policy (610 FW 1-4,Wilderness Stewardship). 

Should the Wilderness Study, to be conducted subsequent to the CCP, indicate that Unit B2 can be 

managed under a Wilderness designation without affecting management for Refuge purposes, this 

unit may be recommended for wilderness designation. If the unit is recommended for wilderness 

designation through the findings of the Study, and subsequently designated as wilderness by 

Congress, the unit will continue to be managed in perpetuity using the minimal tools required for 

wilderness areas. This unit is depicted in Appendix D. 

Objective 3.3: Restore, and then protect and maintain, native montane wet koa/‘ōhi‘a forest. 

Restore and then protect and maintain approximately 5,000 acres of native montane wet koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forest for endangered plant and animal species, with the following attributes: 

• Occurs from 5,000-6,000 ft; 

• Mixed age class of koa and ‘ōhi‘a-dominated forest; 

• Midcanopy is dominated by a mix of flowering and fruiting trees (e.g., ‘ōlapa, ‘ākala, pilo, 

pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), mixed ferns, and epiphytes; 

• Ground cover is dominated by native ferns, native shrubs (e.g., ‘ōhelo, pūkiawe) and herbs; 

• No ungulates (e.g., pigs, cattle); 

•




the goal of achieving



Control pest animals using appropriate IPM techniques including, but not limited to, trapping, snares, 

shooting (ground and aerial), and rodenticide (aerial and bait stations). 

Conduct hazardous fuels treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, mechanical removals, herbicides) to reduce 

the threat from wildland fires, giving special attention to invasive species that increase fire risk (e.g., 

gorse). 

Maintain a system of fuels breaks by mowing roadways and areas around buildings. 

Establish a fire prevention program that includes signage, education, and area fire closure criteria. 

Rationale: 

This habitat type contains a mixed-age class of koa-dominated forest and occurs from 6,000-6,600 ft. 

The midcanopy is dominated by a mix of flowering and fruiting trees and shrubs (e.g., ‘ōlapa, ‘ākala, 

pilo, pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), mixed ferns, and epiphytes. Ground cover is dominated by 

mixed ferns, nonnative and native grasses, and herbs. 

A diverse native bird community occurs in this habitat type, primarily above the mosquito zone and 

in a more diverse forest plant community. Other species of conservation and management concern 

include the koloa maoli, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. 

The windward east-facing HFU receives northeasterly tradewind-dominated rainfall throughout the 

year. This habitat type receives approximately 23 ft of rainfall annually. More rainfall occurs 

between the months of October-March. 

Mountain slopes are moderate. Soils are aged, eroded, volcanic in origin, and typically poorly 

drained. The ground surface is bisected by numerous streams (surface flow). These streams create 

and maintain stream channels that are highly eroded and steep sided, providing protection to native 

and endangered plants from grazing ungulates. 

Limiting factors include a lack of native pollinators and several pest species (e.g., ungulates, rats, 

mice, slugs, mosquitoes, invasive plants, and diseases). Native pollinators on the Refuge include 

native birds and native insects. The habitat improvements outlined in each of the objectives and 


pollinators. 

A total of 3,500 acres of high-value montane mesic koa forest habitat exists at this elevation. Refuge 

lands at this elevation are former ranch lands dominated by nonnative grasses, which have been 

partially reforested over the past 25 years. Varying amounts of the approximately 2,500 acres of 

nonnative grassland-dominated habitat remaining are scheduled for reforestation and/or restoration 

in Objective 3.5. 

Objective 3.5: Restore/reforest native montane mesic koa forest. 

Restore/reforest, and then maintain and protect 2,500 acres of native montane mesic koa forest for 

endangered plant and animal species, with special emphasis on the endangered and native forest 

birds (e.g., ‘akiapōlā‘au, Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, Hawai‘i creeper), and endangered plants (e.g., Clermontia 

sp. Phyllostegia sp.), with the following attributes: 

• Occurs from 6,000-6,600 ft; 

• Mixed age koa canopy (1-30 years); 




• Closed canopy on plantings over 6 years old; 

• Emergence of fern ground cover within 15 years; 

• Midcanopy composed of mixed native tree species (e.g., ‘ōhi‘a, pilo, kōlea, ‘ōlapa); 

• Koa density of 200-300 per acre; 

• Mixed tree density of 400-500 per acre; 

• No increase of the impact from wildland fires; 

• No ungulates (e.g., pigs, cattle); 

•



Starting in 1987, the Refuge has been actively reforesting the native koa/‘ōhi‘a forest at HFU. The 

first steps were to fence and remove the ungulates that were continuing to inhibit forest 

regeneration, and controlling pest plants. Using koa seeds from the area, volunteers planted 

approximately 20,000 seedlings per year. After experimenting with a variety of site preparation 

methods, such as fire, discing, and herbicide, Refuge personnel prepared the planting sites through 

soil scarification with bulldozer scrapes. 

Once the koa provides a closed canopy, ‘ōhi‘a and understory species such as kōlea, ‘ōlapa, ‘ōhelo, 

and pūkiawe are planted under the protection of the canopy. The canopy cover provides protection 

from frost and excess sunlight. The koa serves as the “forest engineer” by ameliorating 

temperatures, adding moisture through fog condensation, and adding soil nutrients and organic 

matter. This koa forest restoration provides roosting, feeding, and nesting areas for native forest 

birds. 

The end result of the restoration efforts will be a healthy koa/‘ōhi‘a forest as described below. This 

habitat type contains a mixed-age class of koa-dominated forest and occurs from 6,000-6,600 ft. The 

midcanopy is dominated by a mix of flowering and fruiting trees (e.g. ‘ōlapa, ‘ākala, pilo, pūkiawe, 

‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), mixed ferns, and epiphytes. Ground cover is dominated by mixed ferns, 

nonnative and native grasses, and herbs. 

A diverse native bird community occurs in this habitat type, primarily above the mosquito zone and 

in a more diverse forest plant community. Other species of conservation and management concern 

include the koloa maoli, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. 

The forest restoration program has outplanted approximately 382,000 native trees, including koa, 

‘ōhi‘a, pilo, kōlea, ‘ōlapa, māmane, naio, and other natives on approximately 1,700 acres. 

Native forest birds currently occur in this habitat at greatly reduced numbers and diversity when 

compared to nearby intact forest communities, though populations are increasing as forest 

restoration occurs. Nēnē are found throughout the current habitat. Species of conservation and 

management concern include the native forest birds, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. 

Objective 3.6: Maintain and enhance propagation and outplanting program. 

Develop and implement a propagation and outplanting program that provides native common and 

endangered species to support restoration activities, with the following attributes: 

• Approximately 10,000 koa seedlings per year (or enough for approximately 70 acres per 

year) for the first 5 years, then 5,000 annually for the next 10 years; 

• 300-1,200 endangered plants per year (e.g., Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, 

Clermontia pyrularia, Cyanea shipmanii, Phyllostegia racemosa); 

• 8,000-10,000 non-koa common native plants per year. 


Expand native plant nursery at administration site on Mauna Kea to adequately provide plant stock 

for outplanting program. 

Collect adequate seeds and cuttings to supply plant nursery. 




Outplant koa seedlings, understory plants, and T&E plants. 

Develop partnerships to assist with administration of propagation program. 

Rationale: 

Endangered plants have become extremely limited in their population and range because of more 

than 100 years of cattle grazing, pig rooting, loss of pollinators, and limited gene pool. The Refuge 

can play a vital role in the recovery of more than 10 federally listed threatened and endangered plant 

species by providing ungulate-free fenced areas. Many of these plants are important food resources 

for native forest birds and invertebrates. 

Plant stock is available from the Refuge greenhouse facility at HFU from seeds and propagules 

collected on or near Refuge lands. The Refuge volunteer program helps to support plant rearing and 

planting activities. These efforts support Objectives 3.1-3.5. 

Plant stock may also be available from the Volcano Rare Plant Facility from seeds and propagules 

collected on or near Refuge lands. In addition, the Refuge partners with the Plant Extinction Plant 

Prevention Program. Through these collaborative partnerships, the Refuge also institutes best 

management practices, which include incorporating science based genetic information into its 

outplanting and propagation programs. 

Number of outplantings is used as a measure of annual capability rather than “acres planted” due to 

terrain, soil, competition with invasive grasses, and habitat quality variables, as well as elevationrelated 

factors such as extreme differences in precipitation and frost mortality. 

2.3.2.2 Goal 4: Protect and maintain wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., streams and their 

associated riparian corridors, ponds, and bogs) on the Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Objective 4.1: Protect and maintain streams and stream corridors at HFU. 

Protect and maintain existing streams and stream corridors that support native plant communities, 

and endangered plant and animal species, with special emphasis on common and endangered native 

forest bird species, koloa maoli, and ‘ōpe‘ape‘a with the following attributes: 

• Stable banks with native fern and native sedge with less than 50 percent occurrence of 

nonnative grasses; 


• Reduced invasive plant cover; 

• Water with reduced levels of disease, sediments, contaminants (e.g., fecal coliform); 

• No nonnative mammalian predators (e.g., mongooses, rats); and 

• No dogs and cats. 


Maintain ungulate-proof fence. 



Conduct annual invasive plant species presence/absence surveys and percent cover monitoring using 

established survey transects. 





the goal of achieving reduced occurrence of invasive plants over 15-year plan period. 

Conduct surveys for pest animals such as ungulates, nonnative mammalian predators, and cats and 

dogs. 

Control pest animals using appropriate IPM techniques including, but not limited to, trapping, 

snares, and shooting (ground and aerial). 

Inventory streams and stream corridors. 

Rationale: 

Streams cross through various habitat types, being intermittent at higher elevations, and perennial at 

lower elevations. Some streams with steep walls protect endangered and native plants from grazing 

by ungulates. Fauna within the streams and riparian areas at lower elevations are unstudied and 

unknown. Although unstudied at higher elevations, the fauna is thought to be exclusively 

invertebrate. Other species of conservation and management concern include native forest birds, 

koloa maoli, and endangered plants. 

Glacial meltwater created ravines during the Pleistocene era. Rainfall and runoff currently maintain 

stream habitats. 

Invasive gorse can degrade ecological integrity of stream corridors by displacing native riparian 

vegetation communities and reducing surface water availability. Gorse seeds can wash downstream 

from highly infested lands above the Refuge via stream corridors. 

Ungulates and rats degrade water quality through soil disturbance and feces deposition. Lack of 

groundwater retention due to upstream human disturbance (e.g., grazing, soil compaction) can lead 

to flash floods. Streams also transport and disperse pest plant seeds. 

Objective 4.2: Protect and maintain semipermanent natural ponds. 

Protect and maintain semipermanent natural ponds for opportunistic breeding and loafing by koloa 

maoli and migratory shorebirds, with the following attributes: 

• Shallow, less than 4 ft, open water with shoreline emergent vegetation (e.g.; Carex); 

• Presence of endemic invertebrates (e.g., damselflies and dragonflies); 




Maintain exterior management unit ungulate fencing (45 miles). 

Conduct surveys for pest animals such as nonnative mammalian predators and cats and dogs. 


snares, shooting, and rodenticide (aerial and bait stations). 

Rationale: 

All of the natural and manmade ponds are above the mosquito elevation so there is no concern 

about these features providing potential mosquito breeding areas. 

Previous ranching operations built and maintained ponds as a source of water for cattle. These 

manmade ponds are used rarely by koloa maoli as nesting areas. Migratory birds occasionally use 




the ponds for feeding and loafing. These ponds, which have already begun to be filled in by 

vegetation consisting of emergent Carex and nonnative Juncus species, will remain as is and 

allowed to progress naturally. While the nonnative Juncus has outcompeted Carex at lower 

elevations, it is used by koloa and has limited impacts in this habitat type. 

In order to support waterbirds and migratory shorebirds, the semipermanent natural ponds will be 

maintained according to the attributes identified above. No water quality testing will be done for 

these aquatic habitats. 

Objective 4.3: Protect and maintain Carex bogs within the montane wet ‘ōhi‘a/uluhe forest. 

Protect, maintain, and allow natural regeneration of existing Carex bogs within the montane wet 

‘ōhi‘a/uluhe habitat, with special emphasis on koloa maoli, with the following attributes: 

• Found from 2,500-4,000 ft; 

• Many Carex sp. bogs found scattered throughout the lower elevations; 

• Native plant diversity is low and dominated by Carex sp.; 

• Surrounded by open ‘ōhi‘a canopy, uluhe understory, and ground cover; 




Build and maintain ungulate-proof fence to protect Carex sp. bog habitats where feasible. 

Conduct surveys for pest animals such as cats and dogs and nonnative mammalian predators. 



Survey extent and number of bogs. 

Rationale: 

Bogs naturally occur in flat areas and are dominated by sedges and rushes. Limited areas of open 

water also occur. Bogs are primarily located below 4,500 ft. While sphagnum exists in these bogs, it 

is unclear whether it is native. Faunal use of bogs is primarily by invertebrates; however, koloa 

maoli are known to use bogs. Other species of conservation and management concern include native 

forest birds, nēnē, and endangered plants. 

The conversion of Carex sp. to Juncus sp. has occurred due to the rooting activities of pigs. 

Enhanced soil erosion from ungulate activities also has increased the eutrophication of bogs. 

2.3.2.3 Goal 5: Protect and maintain grassland habitat to support nēnē population recovery. 

Objective 5.1: Maintain managed grassland for foraging nēnē. 

Maintain approximately 65 acres of managed grassland for nēnē foraging with the following 

attributes: 

• Grass height < 6 inches; 

• Native (e.g., Deschampsia sp.) and nonnative grasses (e.g., Holcus sp.); 

•





Build and maintain ungulate-proof fence. 

Use mowing to maintain fuel breaks and fence corridors in short grass (< 6 inches). 

Use mowing except during peak nesting (October-April). 



Conduct surveys for pest animals such as nonnative mammalian predators and cats and dogs. 



Rationale: 

Fuel breaks have been constructed and will be maintained creating short grass habitat that is 

incidentally used by nēnē. Nēnē graze the grasses of the fuel breaks, helping to maintain them. 

In addition, the 15-acre administrative site (located near Hakalau Cabin) is kept mowed and 

provides incidental nēnē habitat for foraging. 

Annually mowing 50 acres of fuel breaks and 15 acres around the administrative site would 

maintain the Refuge’s focus on maximizing forest bird habitat by reforesting and restoring the 

maximum amount of nonnative, high-elevation grasslands. 

Objective 5.2: Maintain grassland habitats for nēnē nesting. 

Maintain approximately 15 acres of managed grassland habitat for nēnē nesting with the following 

attributes: 

• Composed of primarily native grasses with limited nonnative grasses and scattered native 

shrubs and trees; 

• Reduced nest predators to levels that do not impact breeding success during nesting season; 


• No ungulates. 


Maintain ungulate-proof fence. 

Establish a predator-proof fence on15-acre grassland breeding site away from administrative sites 

on the Pua ‘Ākala Tract. 

Remove all ungulates, nonnative mammalian predators, and dogs and cats using IPM techniques 

such as trapping, snares, shooting (ground and aerial), and rodenticide (aerial and bait stations). 



Conduct surveys for pest animals such as ungulates, nonnative mammalian predators, and cats and 

dogs. 


snares, shooting (ground and aerial), and rodenticide (aerial and bait stations). 




Rationale: 

Currently, nēnē nest throughout the existing grasslands that are being restored to forest. These 

grasslands are located in the upper elevations (approximately 6,000-6,500 ft). As the forest develops 

and matures, nēnē nesting will occur primarily on lands adjacent to the Refuge. 

In this area of Hawai‘i, nēnē typically use mid- to high-elevation native and nonnative shrubland 

and early successional grasslands, native alpine grasslands and shrublands, and open native and 

nonnative alpine shrubland-woodland community interfaces. The areas nēnē inhabit typically have 

less than 7.5 ft of annual rainfall. 

Nēnē nests, eggs, and young are vulnerable to predation. On the Refuge, they are susceptible to 

mongooses, rats, and cats. Exclosures and predator control (during nesting season) have helped to 

maintain the Refuge population. 

During the breeding season, nēnē feed mainly on berries and other plant items found on lava flows 

near their nest sites, although some birds supplement their berry diet by feeding in grasslands, 

depending on berry density. During the pre- and non-breeding season, their principal foods are 

cultivated grasses (Black et al. 1994). Nēnē select habitats with food plants high in protein. The 

presence of standing or flowing water is not necessary for successful breeding, although 

observations of nēnē in the lowland coastal regions of Hawai‘i Island and Kaua‘i indicate that when 

standing water is present, it is 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. Standing water is generally sparse in most nēnē habitats, and water is 

obtained primarily from their diet. Nēnē are more terrestrial than most other waterfowl species, 

having evolved in habitats with limited freshwater availability. 

During the nēnē nesting period (October-April), Service interns monitor nēnē nests and control 

predators (mongooses, cats, and rats) near nesting areas. Monitoring of nēnē nests and predator 

control would also be expanded to include the new 15-acre breeding site as needed. 

Objective 5.3: Investigate and initiate landscape-level habitat conservation measures. 

Within 1 year of CCP approval, the Refuge will complete a Land Protection Planning effort in 

cooperation with other agencies and interested parties to assess and identify land conservation 

priorities in the vicinity of Refuge units. Potential additions or expansion of the Hakalau Forest 

NWR and examination of various land protection tools will be explored. Land Protection as part of 

the Refuge System may include fee title acquisition, conservation easements, and/or cooperative 

agreements. 

The plan will provide for conservation of supporting habitats, partnership opportunities, and 

opportunities to adapt Refuge management to impacts from global climate change. 


Identify parcels of land that could provide supporting habitat for focal species of the HFU. 

Develop strategies for protection and management of supporting habitat. 

Work proactively with partners, neighbors, and private landowners where appropriate to meet 

conservation goals and develop specific project proposals for land acquisition, cooperative 




agreements, and/or conservation easements as key conservation opportunities arise and willing 

parties are identified. 

Rationale: 

Through a cooperative effort culminating in the 2006 National Ecological Assessment Team 

Report, the Service and USGS outlined a unifying adaptive resource management approach for 

conservation at “landscape” scales, the entire range of a priority species or suite of species known as 

“strategic habitat conservation” or SHC. In April 2009, Service leadership established Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). The LCCs are conservation-science partnerships between the 

Service, other Federal agencies, States, Territories, tribes, NGOs, universities, and other entities. 

They are fundamental units of planning and science capacity to help carry out the functional 

elements of SHC, biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, monitoring, and 

research, and strategic response to climate change. 


Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and central Pacific islands under the U.S. flag. Established in 

late 2009, it will create the technical capacity, decision support tools, and organizational structure to 

address landscape-scale conservation issues using SHC. These tools will help managers reach 

explicit conservation objectives for native species and habitats in the face of climate change and 

ongoing threats such as fire, land conversion, and invasive species. The Hawaiian and Pacific 

Islands NWRs anticipate using climate change information provided by the PICCC as foundational 

products from which to conduct more detailed site-specific and species-specific analyses critical to 

the preparation of planning documents and to prioritize on-the-ground conservation actions. 


available from willing sellers. A landscape approach on the slopes of Mauna Kea will allow staff to 

focus efforts and work with partners to ensure that habitat needs are met over a larger area. In 

addition, corridors between patches of protected habitat are critical for species migration in response 

to climate change. Species distribution and abundance is likely to change based upon precipitation 

patterns, temperature variations, and shifts in mosquito zones. The Refuge will identify landscapelevel 

opportunities to augment the protection currently provided by existing Refuge lands. 

2.3.3 Both Hakalau Forest and Kona Forest Units 

2.3.3.1 Goal 6: Collect scientific information (inventories, monitoring, research, assessments) 

necessary to support adaptive management decisions on both units of Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Objective 6.1: Conduct high-priority inventory and monitoring (survey) activities that 

evaluate resource management and public use activities to facilitate adaptive management. 

These surveys contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of 

wildlife populations and their habitats on and off Refuge lands. Specifically, they can be used to 

evaluate achievement of resource management objectives identified under all goals. These surveys 

have the following attributes: 

• Data collection techniques would have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction; 

• Minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, macroinvertebrates, 

vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements would be collected for identification 




and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or cumulative impacts; 

• Proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, 

where necessary, would minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive species; 


• Projects will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where 

available and applicable. 

The following is an initial list of survey activities to support resource management decisions 

on the Refuge. Please note this list will continue to evolve during the 15 year life span of the 

CCP: 

Continue annual Hawai‘i Forest Bird Surveys. 

Monitor nesting density and success of nēnē. 

Monitor species and habitat response to management actions (Goals 1-5) by conducting annual 

transect surveys. 

Develop an updated vegetation cover map of HFU and KFU (for use in GIS and monitoring). 

Inventory endemic species in all forest habitats (Goals 1 and 3). 

Inventory plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates occurring at HFU and KFU. 

Institute early detection and rapid response monitoring to identify new or spreading invasive plant 

problems on the Refuge. 

Monitor plant and animal diseases (e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust, koa wilt, avian malaria, avian pox). 

Inventory endemic species, subfossil remains, and cultural resources associated with lava tube and 

skylight systems (Goal 2). 

Inventory endemic species in all aquatic habitat types (Goal 4). 

Monitor global climate change parameters (e.g., temp, CO2, etc.). 

Survey water quality for reduced levels of disease, sediments, contaminants (e.g., fecal coliform). 

Monitor public uses (e.g., disturbance). 

Rationale: 

The Administration Act requires each refuge to “… monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, 

and plants in each refuge.” Surveys would be used primarily to evaluate resource response to assess 

progress toward achieving refuge management objectives derived from the Refuge System mission, 

refuge purpose(s), and maintenance of biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (601 

FW 3). Determining resource status and evaluating progress toward achieving objectives is essential 

to implementing adaptive management on Department of the Interior lands as required by policy 

522 DM 1. Specifically, results of surveys would be used to refine management strategies, where 

necessary, over time in order to achieve resource objectives. Surveys would provide the best 

available scientific information to promote transparent decisionmaking processes for resource 

management on refuge lands. 




Objective 6.2: Conduct high priority research projects that provide the best science for 

habitat and wildlife management on and off the Refuge. 

Scientific findings gained through these projects would expand knowledge regarding life-history 

needs of species and species groups, as well as identify or refine habitat and wildlife management 

actions. Research also will reduce uncertainty regarding wildlife and habitat responses to Refuge 

management actions in order to achieve desired outcomes reflected in resource management 

objectives and to facilitate adaptive management. These research projects have the following 

attributes: 

• Adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available and 

applicable, in order to develop the best science for resource management; 

• Data collection techniques would have minimal animal mortality or disturbance and 

minimal habitat destruction; 

• Collect the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) to meet statistical analysis requirements for identification 

and/or experimentation in order to minimize long-term or cumulative impacts; 

• Utilize proper cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine 

methods, where necessary, to minimize the potential spread or introduction of invasive 

species; and 

• Often result in quality, peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and publications and/or 

symposiums. 

The following is an initial list of research projects to support resource management decisions 

on the Refuge. Please note this list will continue to evolve during the 15 year life span of the 

CCP: 

Investigate and monitor endangered plant propagation and outplanting strategies. 

Identify methods for forest regeneration and reforestation techniques. 

Identify pest plant and animal species presence, distribution, abundance, and trends. 

Conduct research to determine arthropod abundance. 

Conduct research to determine species-specific thresholds for disturbances from Refuge uses such 

as outplanting and bird watching activities. 

Conduct an investigation to identify and quantify avian and plant disease issues. 

Research demography, life-history, carrying capacity, and competition for native forest birds. 

Research population dynamics and viability of ‘ākepa and other species: influences of management, 

environmental factors, and potential nonnative competitors. 

Investigate foraging ecology and competition among native and nonnative forest bird species. 

Identify avian disease distribution and climate change. 

Rationale: 

Research projects on Refuge lands would address a wide range of natural and cultural resource as 

well as public-use management issues. Examples of research projects can include habitat use and 

life-history requirements for specific species/species groups, practical methods for habitat 




management and restoration, extent and severity of environmental contaminants, techniques to 

control or eradicate pest species, effects of climate change on environmental conditions and 

associated habitat/wildlife response, identification and analyses of paleontological specimens, 

wilderness character, modeling of wildlife populations, and assessing response of habitat/wildlife to 

disturbance from public uses. Projects may be species-specific, refuge-specific, or evaluate the 

relative contribution of the refuge to larger landscape (e.g., ecoregion, region, flyway, national, 

international) issues and trends. Like monitoring, results of research projects would expand the best 

available scientific information and potentially reduce uncertainties to promote transparent decisionmaking 

processes for resource management over time on Refuge lands. In combination with results 

of surveys, research would promote adaptive management on Refuge lands. Quality, scientific 

publications resulting from research on Refuge lands will help increase the visibility of the Service 

as a leader in the development of the best science for resource conservation and management. 

A research facility of the University of Hawai‘i is located on the administrative site of the HFU. 

This site is used as a base of operations for researchers from a variety of institutions and agencies. 

Use of the site is governed by a Memorandum of Agreement between the Service and UH. A 

compatibility determination for this facility and the research associated with it is included in 

Appendix B. 

The scientific community from Hawai‘i and beyond has historically had a good deal of interest in 

conducting research on Hakalau Forest NWR. The native forest birds and the habitat restoration 

efforts that occur here lend themselves well to research questions. In addition, research can help to 

assess the effectiveness of management activities and help to adapt management over time. 

Scientific research requires staff and management time for review of proposed studies, oversight of 

access and facility issues, permitting, and use of supporting infrastructure, and thus places a strain 

on both the Refuge resources and the staff that are required to administer Refuge access and 

research activities. It is not possible to permit all of the research requests that are received by 

Refuge staff. Research will be reviewed and permitted on a case-by-case basis, according to Refuge 

purpose and goals, best available information using an objective review process, and according to 

established research priorities. 

Forest Bird Workshop: The Service sponsored a workshop in October 2008 including most of the 

prominent researchers knowledgeable about Hawaiian forest bird biology, ecology, and population 

status. During this workshop, Refuge managers met with researchers to hear about some of the latest 

research and gain insight into researchers’ perspectives about forest bird research priorities. A 

summary of the workshop is included as Appendix E. 

Forest bird researchers at the 2008 workshop identified potential research priorities for Hakalau 

Forest NWR. The list (in priority order) is (1) monitoring and background data; (2) predation, 

especially from rats; (3) invasive plants and potential biocontrols; (4) impacts from 

grazers/browsers; (5) invasive plants, more efficient control methods and registration of herbicides; 

(5) determine the effects of global climate change at the Refuge; (6) develop more effective cat 

control techniques and determine effects of ectoparasites on non-endangered bird populations; and 

(8) experimental control of Japanese white-eyes. 




We expect to refine these priorities as new information arises. The process used at the Hilo 

workshop was most inclusive and objective and may well serve us in the future as new management 

challenges develop. 

Additional research projects for consideration are also listed in Appendix C. 

Objective 6.3: Conduct scientific assessments to provide baseline information to expand 

knowledge regarding the status of Refuge resources to better inform resource management 

decisions. 

These scientific assessments will contribute to the development of Refuge resource objectives. They 

would also be used to facilitate habitat restoration through selection of appropriate habitat 

management strategies based upon site-specific conditions. The assessment attributes are: 

• Utilize accepted standards, where available, for completion of assessments; and 

• Scale and accuracy of assessments would be appropriate for development and 

implementation of Refuge habitat and wildlife management actions. 

The following is an initial list of scientific assessments to support resource management 

decisions. Please note this list will continue to evolve during the 15 year life span of the CCP: 

Conduct surveys to determine role of predators in native flora and fauna abundance. 

Support research to determine ecological parameters for ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 

Complete global climate change impacts assessment for the Refuge. 

Develop a soil survey map. 

Rationale: 

In accordance with policy for implementing adaptive management on refuge lands (522 DM 1), 

appropriate and applicable environmental assessments are necessary to determine resource status, 

promote learning, and evaluate progress toward achieving objectives whenever using adaptive 

management. These assessments would provide fundamental information about biotic (e.g., 

vegetation data layer) as well as abiotic processes and conditions (e.g., soils, topography) that are 

necessary to ensure that implementation of on-the-ground resource management achieves resource 

management objectives identified under Goals 1-5. 

2.3.3.2 Goal 7: Visitors, with a special emphasis on experience gained through volunteer work 

groups and local residents, understand and/or value the native forest environment and 

management practices at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Objective 7.1: Establish compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities. 

Maintain and enhance compatible wildlife observation and photography opportunities at Hakalau 

Forest NWR focusing on HFU, with the following attributes: 

• Highlights the Refuge’s purposes and management practices; 

• Provides opportunities to view and photograph native forests and endangered and native 

forest birds and plants; 

• Provide locations for prime viewing opportunities (e.g., wildlife observation trails); and 

• Maintain or increase visitor use levels at the Refuge as appropriate. 





Work with Friends of Hakalau Forest to develop interpretive brochures. 

Develop a 0.3- 0.5-mile wildlife trail with interpretive signs and associated parking area on the 

Upper Maulua Tract. 

Rationale: 

Compatible wildlife observation programs receive priority consideration in Refuge planning and 

management, secondary to the needs of fish and wildlife. High quality wildlife viewing will 

continue to be provided on the Refuge. Wildlife viewing opportunities will be provided for an 

estimated 1,500 visitors per year. The HFU opportunities, to accommodate high visitor demand, 

would require new trails to provide quality wildlife viewing opportunities and access to a variety of 

habitat types, while minimizing wildlife disturbance and providing sufficient wildlife sanctuary. 

Quality wildlife observation is defined by several elements including: (1) opportunities exist to view 

wildlife in their habitat and in a natural setting; (2) observation opportunities promote public 

understanding of Hakalau Forest NWR resources and its role in managing and protecting those 

resources; (3) observations occur in places with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife; (4) 

facilities are safe, fully accessible, and available to a broad spectrum of the public; (5) viewing 

opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational opportunities; and (6) observers have minimal 

conflict with other visitors or Refuge operations. Compatible wildlife photography is also one of six 

priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the Refuge System. Photographic opportunities 

promote public understanding and increase public appreciation for America’s natural resources and 

incorporate a message of stewardship and conservation. The Refuge will provide a high-quality 

photography program where compatible with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, 

other objectives, and other compatible uses. 

Objective 7.2: Promote and enhance the volunteer program at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Maintain the existing HFU volunteer program (35-40 weekends), develop seasonal volunteer 

program, and establish and promote a volunteer program at KFU within 7 years after the CCP is 

approved, with the following attributes: 

• Begins after fence construction and ungulate removal (KFU); 

• Over 7,500 hours contributed per year (HFU); 

• Appreciation and understanding of Refuge management efforts gained; 

• Increase public involvement to cultivate feelings of ownership and empowerment through 

various activities, such as tree planting, habitat restoration, weed control, surveys, historic 

building restoration, construction, bird walk guiding, plant propagation; 

• Creates ambassadors of environmental stewardship practices and ethic; 

• Ecovolunteer program supports the Refuge habitat management program; and 

• Provide a range of volunteer opportunities for individuals with a variety of skills and 

abilities, and support the Service’s “Connecting People with Nature” priority. 


Maintain volunteer program at HFU by providing 35-40 weekend-long service opportunities with 

partner organizations to visit the Refuge, assist with habitat restoration, and observe native forest 

birds. 

Develop a seasonal volunteer program to supplement staffing and weekend programs. 


Develop volunteer program at KFU. 



Rationale: 

The existing volunteer program would continue, with emphasis on service weekends by groups 

interested in Refuge enhancement activities. 

Volunteer programs are vital to Refuge management by providing additional labor for management 

programs that could not be accomplished by Refuge staff alone. While volunteer programs require 

administration and coordination, the benefits far outweigh these costs. 

Objective 7.3: Support existing outside programs for on and off site environmental education 

and develop interpretive opportunities at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Support existing outside programs for off site and compatible on site environmental education 

opportunities that are administered by NGOs and where appropriate develop interpretive 

opportunities with the following attributes: 

• Includes 168 participants annually; 

• Based on Refuge and endangered species recovery management programs; 

• Provides hands-on stewardship opportunities for teachers and students; 

• Actively promote the Service’s “Connecting People with Nature” priority; 

• Accommodates six volunteer sessions that target students; and 

• Provides information about and serves as a conduit to past uses and connections to the land. 


Interpretive wildlife walks available at the annual HFU open house. Rely on SUP process to allow 

commercial guides, teachers, and NGOs to continue compatible outreach activities. 

Coordinate with County, State, and NGO partners for off site environmental education 

opportunities, including Kīpuka 21. 

Develop and expand interpretive programming relative to cultural resources and historic sites. 

Rationale: 

Compatible environmental education and interpretation are priority wildlife-dependent public uses 

of the Refuge. In addition, they provide opportunities to reach local community members who may 

not otherwise learn about Refuge resources and management programs. 

The Refuge is in a unique position to offer local education agencies, teachers, and students 

opportunities to study endangered species and engage in natural resource management and 

conservation issues in an outdoor setting. Since its establishment, educators and youth professionals 

have been using the Refuge as an outdoor classroom to enhance course curricula. The existing 

program serves approximately 75 students per year. 

Groups using the Refuge for environmental education purposes would be required to obtain a SUP 

or work through the Refuge volunteer program. 

To meet student needs, the Refuge is committed to working with schools to teach students about 

Refuge resources, including wildlife, habitat conservation, and cultural resources. These could be 




one-time activities such as planting, or long-term involvement including planning, design, and 

actual on-the-ground implementation for a restoration site. 

Interpretation opportunities about the history of the area, ties to Native Hawaiian cultural practices, 

and historical use of Refuge resources should be offered. 

Objective 7.4: Enhance outreach targeting local communities to promote appreciation of and 

generate support for the KFU. 

Enhance outreach targeting local communities to promote appreciation of and generate support for 

the KFU and its resources. The outreach efforts will focus on accomplishing the following: 

• Build awareness and support amongst local communities, with special emphasis on Native 

Hawaiians; 

• Build positive name recognition for both units of Hakalau Forest NWR specifically and the 

Refuge System in general; and 

• Maintain and expand partnerships with conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, 

other Federal, State, and County agencies, Native Hawaiian groups, high schools (including 

Hawaiian charter schools), colleges, businesses, civic clubs, hunting organizations, and the 

interagency Navigating Change educational partnership. 


Work with existing partners (Friends of Hakalau Forest NWR, Three Mountain Alliance, Imi Pono 

no ka ‘Āina) to promote awareness and appreciation. 

Develop and cultivate new partners and outreach efforts. 

Rationale: 

Outreach to local communities would allow the Refuge to reach populations that may not otherwise 

learn about Refuge resources and management programs. 

2.3.3.3 Goal 8: Protect and manage cultural resources and historic sites for their educational 

and cultural values for the benefit of present and future generations of Refuge users and 

communities. 

Objective 8.1: Increase identification, monitoring, protection and restoration of all cultural 

resources and historic sites, while increasing staff and public support and appreciation. 

Increase identification, monitoring, protection and restoration of all cultural resources and historic 

sites, while increasing staff and public support and appreciation. These efforts will focus on 

accomplishing the following: 

• Build Refuge capacity and understanding for cultural and historic sites to assist with 

management; and 

• Expand knowledge for the public related to Refuge cultural and historic resources. 


Evaluate known/potential Refuge cultural resources and historic sites. 




Obtain Section 106, Hawaiian cultural, and diversity training for Refuge staff to enhance protection 

and appreciation of cultural resources. 

Within 1 year develop guidelines for approval of and a compatibility determination for Native 

Hawaiian cultural activities on the Refuge. 

Identify Native Hawaiian groups or cultural practitioners within the Refuge ahupua‘a lands to 

cultivate an understanding of important historic sites and cultural resources. 

Conduct a comprehensive cultural resources investigation of both units. 

Develop interpretive programming relative to cultural and historic sites; including developing 

interpretive products in partnership with Native Hawaiian groups. 

Rationale: 

The Refuge contains cultural/historic resource sites that have been inventoried in areas where 

management actions could have impacted cultural/historic sites. This inventory will continue to 

ensure protection of these important resources. The Refuge allows cultural/historic resource 

investigations of sites by universities, researchers, students, and/or cultural practitioners. This 

information adds to our understanding of sites on Refuge lands. Within 1 year, Refuge staff will 

develop guidelines for approval of and a compatibility determination for Native Hawaiian cultural 

activities on the Refuge, including collecting medicinal plants, visiting/utilizing caves with cultural 

and spiritual significance, and performing traditional ceremonies. Refuge staff will coordinate with 

Regional staff, the DOI solicitor’s office, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and interested parties in 

development of these guidelines. 

Refuge volunteers gain appreciation and respect for Native Hawaiian culture by helping to preserve 

the culture and land through restoration projects. In a traditional Native Hawaiian context, there is 

no division between nature and culture. The land, water, and sky were the foundation of life and the 

source of the spiritual relationship between people and their world. Native Hawaiian traditions 

express the attachment felt between the Native Hawaiian people and the earth around them. “Native 

traditions describe the formation (literally the birth) of the Hawaiian Islands and the presence of life 

on and around them in the context of genealogical accounts. All forms of the natural environment– 

from the skies and mountain peaks, to the watered valleys and plains, to the shoreline and ocean 

depths–are the embodiments of Hawaiian gods and deities” (Maly 2001). 

The land divisions known as ahupua‘a were claimed by the king and chiefs in the Mahele of 1848. 

Seldom visited, except by travelers between ahupua‘a, bird feather collectors, hunters, and canoe 

makers, the ahupua‘a highlands were generally undeveloped in architectural terms. The ahupua‘a 

for HFU are Maulua Nui, Honohina, Hakalau, Makahanaloa, Pāpa‘ikou, and Paukaa. For KFU, the 

ahupua‘a are Kalāhiki and Ho‘okena. 

The ‘ōhi‘a-koa zone was used by Native Hawaiians for specialized resources including bark for 

making fishing nets and māmaki to make kapa cloth. Native Hawaiians may have used the area for 

temporary camps while collecting natural resources or en route to a higher elevation adze quarry 

and associated surface work sites. Native Hawaiians had knowledge of shelter caves, overhangs, 

and water sources. In the dry māmane woodland, pili grass may have been collected as a special 

resource for thatching structures, as well as māmane wood for making adze handles, house posts, 

and hōlua sleds. Within or above the māmane zone, nēnē, ‘u‘au, and koloa maoli may have been 




used as a source of meat. Radio carbon dating of bird bones from caves located in the saddle region 

between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea indicate that Native Hawaiians were obtaining juvenile ‘ua‘u 

and collecting bird feathers between 1000-1450 A.D. (Dougherty and Moniz-Nakamura 2006). 

By interpreting Native Hawaiian practices that occurred on Refuge lands, we will provide the public 

with a better understanding of these sites and enhance the Refuge experience. 


DeWalt, S.J. 2006. Population dynamics and potential for biological control of an exotic invasive 

shrub in Hawaiian rainforests. Biological Invasions 8(5):1145-1158. 

DeWalt, S.J., J.S. Denslow, and K. Ickes. 2004. Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion 

of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology 85(2):471-482. 

Dougherty, Dennis and Jadelyn Moniz-Nakamura. July 2006. A Cultural Resource Overview 

Report for the Proposed North Kona Fencing and Habitat Restoration Project, North Kona, Hawai‘i. 

National Park Service Publication in Anthropology #8. Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park. 

Hight, S.D., I. Horiuchi, M.D. Vitorino, C. Wikler, and J.H. Pedrosa-Macedo. 2003. Biology, host 

specificity tests, and risk assessment of the sawfly Heteroperreyia hubrichi, a potential biological 

control agent of Schinus terebinthifolius in Hawaii. BioControl 48:461–476. 

Hill, R.L., G. Markin, G., A.H. Gourlay, S.V. Fowler, and E. Yoshioka. 2001. Host Range, Release, 

and Establishment of Sericothrips staphylinus Haliday (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as a Biological 

Control Agent for Gorse, Ulex europaeus L. (Fabaceae), in New Zealand and Hawaii. Biological 

Control 21:63–74. 

Johnson, M.T., P.A. Follett, A.D. Taylor, V.P. Jones. 2005. Impacts of biological control and 

invasive species on a non-target native Hawaiian insect. Oecologia (2005) 142: 529–540. 

Julien, M.H., J.K. Scott, W. Orapa, Q. Paynter. 2007. History, opportunities and challenges for 

biological control in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific islands. Crop Protection 26:255–265. 

Maly, K and Onaona Maly. 2001 A Historical Overview of the Lands, and Trails Traveled, Between 

Keauhou and Kealakekua, Kona, Hawai‘i. Prepared for the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 

Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaii. 

Trujillo, E.E. 2005. History and success of plant pathogens for biological control of introduced 

weeds in Hawaii. Biological Control 33:113-122. 

Tummons, P. 2008. Waiwai Bio control Controversy. Environment Hawaii 19(1). July 2008. 

Uowolo, A.L. and J.S. Denslow. 2008. Characteristics of the Psidium cattleianum (Myrtaceae) Seed 

Bank in Hawaiian Lowland Wet Forests. Pacific Science 62(1): 129-135. 




U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2008. Field release of Tectococcus ovatus 

(Homoptera: Eriococcidae) for biological control of strawberry guava, Psidium cattleianum Sabine 

(Myrtaceae), in Hawaii, Draft Environmental Assessment. 

Van Driesche, J. and R. Van Driesche. 2004. Nature out of place, biological invasions in the global 

age. Island Press, Washington, DC. 





Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

Above: ‘Ākepa/Jack Jeffrey Photography 

Right: The FWS Horticulturist and his volunteers raise thousands 

of rare native plants in the Hakalau Forest NWR greenhouse 

/Roy Lowe 

Kona Forest Unit/USFWS



Chapter 3. Physical Environment 

3.1 Climate 

Located approximately 2,400 miles (mi) southwest of the nearest continental landmass, the Hawaiian 

Islands are the most isolated archipelago in the world. The climate of Hawai‘i is generally constant 

throughout the year, with only minor periods of diurnal and seasonal variability. In general, 

temperatures during the summer season (May-September) are warm, conditions are dry, and trade 

winds originate from the northeast direction. The winter season (October-April) is characterized by 

cooler temperatures, higher precipitation, and less equable winds (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

The trade winds also produce differences within the two physiographic provinces, windward and 

leeward zones, as a result of orographic rainfall. Moisture is carried from the ocean to the island by 

the northeasterly trade winds. Orographic rainfall is rain generated when moist air rises against steep 

slopes, cools, and forms rain producing clouds. As the air descends on the opposite side of the slope, 

it becomes warmer and less moist, resulting in less rain. Orographic rainfall patterns strongly 

influence the climate of the two zones. On the windward side, climatic conditions are relatively wet, 

while the leeward areas experience decreased winds, less rain, and are subject to southerly Kona 

(leeward) storms (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Episodic oceanic and atmospheric events also influence climate in the islands during specific 

intervals. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (El Niño) usually results in light trade winds in the 

western Pacific and drier conditions (Duffy 1993). During El Niño years in Hawai‘i, average rainfall 

has dropped below historical records (USFWS 2002a). Hurricanes result in intense rain and wind. 

The two major hurricanes that most affected Hawai‘i Island, Hurricanes Fico (July 18-20, 1978) and 

Estelle (July 22, 1986), had peak gusts of 58 and 55 miles per hour (mph), respectively (HDBEDT 

2007). These climate differences determine vegetation patterns, which in turn can affect local 

hydrological movements of surface and especially ground water (Sack and Frole 2006). 

Climatic conditions on the Island of Hawai‘i vary dramatically due to its large size and elevation 

range. Clouds form against the windward mountain slopes creating drier conditions around the high 

mountains of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Annual rainfall fluctuates from 10 in on the leeward coast 

to 270 in in the windward forests (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Other moisture-producing mechanisms, besides the orographic effect, include convection, Kona 

storms, and fog drip. Kona storms are low pressure areas which bring southerly winds and rain. 

These storms typically occur during the winter months when trade winds are light (Juvik and Juvik 

1998). Fog drip occurs when clouds gather along mountain slopes and condensation causes the 

moisture on vegetation to drip to the ground. Fog drip usually develops in late winter and early 

spring during the afternoon (USFWS 1996a, 2008a). In addition to rainfall, the summits of Mauna 

Kea and Mauna Loa on Hawai‘i Island also receive snow in the winter months (Juvik and Juvik 

1998). 

A particularly unique aspect of the climate in Hawai‘i is the trade wind temperature inversion. This 

layer occurs from 5,000 - 10,000 ft where rising air meets sinking air and warmer air exists above 

cooler air. The temperature inversion layer prevents warm, moist surface air from rising to form rain 

clouds. Because humid moist air cannot reach high altitudes, a cloud ceiling is formed, causing the 

Chapter 3. Physical Environment 3-1



climate above the layer to be clearer, drier, and less humid than below the temperature inversion. 

Orographic rain does not occur above the layer because air flows around the high elevation 

mountains, rather than over the mountains. The temperature inversion is prevalent during the summer 

months (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Prevailing ocean currents surrounding the island also influence weather patterns by moderating the 

surrounding surface air temperatures as a result of differential heat absorption and advection of heat. 

Ocean currents in the Hawaiian Islands are moderated by the north Pacific anticyclone, a clockwise 

gyre that extends from the tropics to the North Pacific (Juvik and Juvik 1998, Lau and Mink 2006). 

The east-to-west-flowing North Equatorial Current splits at the Island of Hawai‘i, creating a northern 

branch current that is 65 mi wide called the North Hawaiian Ridge Current. 

3.1.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Climate 

Climatic conditions at the HFU are largely shaped by elevation. Microclimatic shifts have also 

occurred at and adjacent to the unit as a result of changing land use patterns. Clearing and grazing of 

native vegetation allowed for the creation of large open grasslands. These areas increase wind speed, 

reduce moisture, and result in more extreme temperature fluctuations (USFWS 1996b, USFWS 

2002a). 

Overall, the HFU is generally characterized by moderate temperatures and wet conditions. In lower 

elevation areas, daily atmospheric temperatures are higher, with a mean annual temperature of 

approximately 65°F. Higher elevation areas have lower temperatures around 53°F. At the upper 

portion of the Refuge around 6,440 ft, temperatures have reached a maximum of 75°F. Night 

temperatures during the winter can fall to 25°F, causing frost and soil ice (DHHL and USFWS 2003). 

Generally, winds at the HFU arrive from the south southeast direction. Wind speed is approximately 

5 mph (USFWS 2002a). Hawaiian Electric Company (2004) notes that mean annual wind speeds in 

the area are less than 12.3 miles per hour (mph). 

The windward HFU receives northeasterly tradewind-dominated rainfall. Rainfall varies along an 

elevation gradient, with areas above 5,000 ft receiving less rainfall than lower elevation portions of 

the Refuge. In the lower regions, annual rainfall is approximately 300 inches, compared to 

210 inches at the upper elevations. Rainfall averages also vary within the upper elevations. The area 

near the Hakalau Cabin at 6,100 ft receives about 20 percent less rain than at Pua ‘Ākala located at 

6,300 ft elevation. Between 1989-1994, the average total rainfall at Pua ‘Ākala was 124.19 inches, 

while Hakalau Cabin received 85.67 inches between 1990-2000 (USFWS 2002a). In general, 

increased precipitation occurs between October-March (USFWS, unpubl.). 

In addition to elevation and wind patterns, episodic events and vegetation differences also influence 

rainfall variations. At HFU, El Niño years caused average rainfall to drop below historical records, 

with an average of 55.57 inches each year (USFWS 2002a). Six drought periods (1992-93, 1995, 

1998, 2000, and 2008-2010) have been recorded at HFU. Rainfall during these years ranged from 

40–68 inches (DHHL and USFWS 2003). 

Fog drip is estimated to account for approximately 35 percent of moisture amounts (USFWS 2002a). 

Fog and mist are consistently present in the afternoons due to the inversion layer (Scowcroft et al. 

2000). On the Hilo side of Hawai‘i, the average relative humidity remains fairly constant, ranging 

from 77-81 percent throughout the year (Juvik and Juvik 1998). At HFU, average daily relative 

3-2 Chapter 3. Physical Environment



humidity during the winter months is about 70 percent. In the spring and summer months, daily 

humidity increases to about 85 percent. Daily differences in humidity are also present, with the 

strongest humidity in the late afternoon and early evening (USFWS 2002a). 

3.1.2 Kona Forest Unit Climate 

Compared to the HFU on windward Mauna Kea, the climate on the Kona side (leeward) of Hawai‘i 

Island is drier. In particular, South Kona is considered one of the most drought-prone regions in the 

Hawaiian archipelago (USFWS 2008a). The moisture patterns in the area are driven primarily by 

daytime surface heating and upslope winds that yield convective rainfall from roughly 2,000 - 

5,900 ft. Unlike most areas in the State, the rainy season in Kona occurs during the summer months, 

with peaks in June-September and low periods from November-February (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Rainfall clearly decreases with elevation at KFU. Areas above 5,000 ft and below 2,000 ft elevation 

are generally dry (Atkinson et al. 2005). Average annual rainfall at the lower and upper area of KFU 

can differ by 39 in (USFWS 2008a). Between April 1995-November 1998, the average annual 

rainfall varied from 5.63 inches at 2,000 ft to 2.05 inches at 6,000 ft. The climatic differences 

between the elevations affect the types of species present and species distributions. Seasonal 

fluctuations have also been observed at the Refuge. Annual and monthly rainfall averages are listed 

in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Average Monthly Rainfall (inches) at the Kona Forest Unit, April 1995- 

November 1998. 

Month Elevation 

2,000 ft 3,000 ft 4,000 ft 5,000 ft 6,000 ft 

January 3.31 2.80 3.00 2.78 2.73 

February 1.61 2.07 2.25 1.71 0.82 

March 5.28 6.12 6.09 5.42 4.08 

April 3.89 4.40 3.26 2.57 1.64 

May 4.76 5.77 4.04 2.15 1.30 

June 8.45 8.19 7.06 4.74 3.17 

July 6.94 5.45 4.10 3.17 1.95 

August 6.99 6.48 4.02 2.29 1.73 

September 12.2 9.89 6.19 3.07 2.35 

October 6.16 4.79 2.19 2.03 1.25 

November 3.11 2.85 2.10 1.79 1.42 

December 2.37 4.25 4.15 4.01 2.71 

Annual Ave. 5.63 5.39 4.05 2.93 2.05 

Source: USFWS, unpubl. 

Rain is the primary moisture source at elevations from 2,000 - 2,700 ft, while areas above this 

elevation also receive moisture from fog drip. The maximum amount of fog drip occurs from 3,000- 

6,500 ft. Fog density peaks at about 5,000 ft (USFWS 2008a). “Vog”, volcanic gases and particulates 

emitted from Kīlauea volcano, is another aspect of the climate on the Island of Hawai‘i. Vog forms a 

distinctive haze and has been implicated in causing decreased rainfall and plant damage in Kona 

forests (USFWS 2008a). 




Prevailing trade winds are weak along the Kona coast because the winds are blocked by Mauna Loa 

and Hualālai (Juvik and Juvik 1998). Mean annual wind speeds in the area are less than 12.3 mph 

(HECO 2004). 

3.2 Geology and Soils 

The Hawaiian Islands were formed by a series of volcanic eruptions that occurred at various hotspots 

beneath the Earth’s crust. As the tectonic plate slowly drifted, magma welled up from fixed spots 

creating a linear chain of islands. Hawai‘i Island is the largest and youngest island in the Hawaiian 

chain and encompasses a total land area of 4,028.2 mi 2 . The landmass was formed when five 

volcanoes of varying ages (Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualālai, Mauna Loa, and Kīlauea) joined together 

(Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

Dated at 430,000 years, the extinct Kohala volcano is the oldest on Hawai‘i Island. Found on the 

northeastern portion of the island, this volcano is deeply eroded on the windward side. Mauna Kea is 

a dormant, postshield volcano with the oldest lavas estimated to be roughly 250,000 years old and the 

most recent approximately 4,500 years old (Juvik and Juvik 1998). The elevation of Mauna Kea is 

13,796 ft; however, when measured from the submarine base to its peak, Mauna Kea is considered 

the world’s tallest mountain, with a height of 33,480 ft (HDBEDT 2007). Hualālai is an active, 

postshield volcano on the western side of Hawai‘i Island. Although Hualālai last erupted in 1801, 

alkalic basalt eruptions generally occur every few hundred years so its core is still active (Juvik and 

Juvik 1998). Mauna Loa is an active shield volcano with an elevation of 13,679 ft (HDBEDT 2007). 

Embedded in the eastern flanks of Mauna Loa is Kīlauea, the youngest and most active of the 

volcano on the Island of Hawai‘i. Since January 1983, Kīlauea has continuously erupted, discharging 

lava and occasionally ash deposits (Juvik and Juvik 1998). 

As the basaltic lavas and volcanic ash from the volcanoes weathered and decomposed, various soil 

types developed throughout the island (Juvik and Juvik 1998). Soils on the Island of Hawai‘i were 

classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (Foote et al. 

1972). Soil types are mapped in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Key characteristic of the soils found within the 

units are listed in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 

3.2.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Geology and Soils 

The majority of the unit is covered in Laupāhoehoe Volcanics from a Mauna Kea lava flow ranging 

between 11,000-64,000 years old. Laupāhoehoe Volcanics in the Maulua Tract of the Refuge are 

younger, primarily dated between 5,000-11,000 years old. Smaller areas of Hāmākua Volcanic from 

the Pleistocene epoch (dated between 64,000 and 300,000 years old) occur in the southwestern and 

northwestern corners of HFU. 

All of the soil series present in the HFU were formed from volcanic ash. In the upper elevations of 

the unit above 5,000 ft, the soil is classified as well-drained silt loams, while lower portions of the 

Refuge are composed of silty clay loams. The USDA Soil Conservation Service has identified the 

following soil types: 




Figure 3-1. Soil map of the Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Pu‘u ‘O‘o silt loam, 6-12 percent slopes (PUC): 

Located on uplands of the windward side of Mauna Kea between 5,000 - 6,500 ft, soils in the Pu‘u 

‘O‘o series are gently sloping to moderately steep. The surface layer is dark reddish-brown and very 

dark gray silt loam. This layer is approximately 6 in thick and can be strongly acid (pH 5.1 - 5.5) to 

very strongly acid (pH 4.5 - 5.0). The subsoil, which is about 21 in thick, is very dark brown to dark 

reddish-brown silty clay loam. Material underlying the subsoil is dark yellowish-brown and darkbrown 

sandy clay loam. These layers range from strongly acid to extremely acid (pH below 4.5). 

Laumai‘a silt loam, 6-20 percent slopes (LAD): 

The Laumai‘a series are undulating soils located on high elevations above 5,500 ft of the windward 

side of Mauna Kea and are gently sloping to moderately steep. The surface of the Laumai‘a silt loam 

is a 12 in thick layer of very dark brown and dark-brown silt loam that is exceptionally stony in 

certain areas. The subsoil is roughly double in thickness and is very dark grayish-brown and dark 

brown silt loam. The degree of acidity ranges from medium acid (pH 5.6 - 6.0) at the surface layer to 

strongly acid at the subsoil. 

Hanipoe very stony loam, 12-20 percent slopes (HCD): 

The Hanipoe series is found from 5,000 - 6,500 ft in elevation. Hanipoe very stony loam is composed 

of a 20-30 in layer over fragmental ‘a‘ā lava. 




Pi‘ihonua silty clay loam, 6-20 percent slopes (PND): 

The Pi‘ihonua series, located from 4,500 - 6,500 ft on the windward side of Mauna Kea, consists of 

well-drained silty clay loams that have a banded appearance. The surface layer is about 6 in thick and 

comprised of very dark brown silty clay loam that is extremely stony in certain areas. The subsoil is 

dark-brown to dark-red silty clay loam about 44 in thick, while a weakly cemented layer of volcanic 

ash occurs at a depth of 17-25 in. Acidity varies between very strongly acid to extremely acid. 

Pi‘ihonua extremely stony silty clay loam, 6-20 percent slopes (POD): 

In addition to the characteristics of Pi‘ihonua silty clay loam, 6-20 percent slopes, stones cover 

3-15 percent of the surface in this soil. 

‘Akaka soils (rAK): 

The ‘Akaka series consists of moderately well-drained silty clay loams that formed from volcanic 

ash. These are gently sloping to steep soils on upland rain forests ranging from 1,000 - 4,500 ft. On 

the HFU, these soils are found in the mid- to lower-portion of the Refuge and comprise the majority 

of the Refuge area. ‘Akaka soils typically have a slope between 3-20 percent, but are dissected by 

small steep drainages, with slopes between 40-50 percent. Small, swampy areas of shallow soils 

underlain by pāhoehoe bedrock also occur in the soil type. 

Table 3-2. Soil Types Found Within the Hakalau Forest Unit and Key Characteristics. 

Permeability Runoff Erosion 

Hazard 

PUC Moderately rapid Slow Slight 

LAD Moderately rapid Medium Moderate 

HCD -- Slow Slight 

PND Rapid Slow Slight 

POD Rapid Slow Slight 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) operates a soil moisture and temperature 

station at Pua ‘Ākala at 6,394 ft. This station, which has been operating since February 2005, records 

soil moisture and temperature to a depth of 27 inches. 

3.2.2 Kona Forest Unit Geology and Soils 

The surface of the KFU is covered in a sheath of Mauna Loa lava flows of the Ka‘ū Basalt series. 

Lava flows in the northern two-thirds of the unit are older ranging between 1,500 - 3,000 years old, 

while the younger southern portion is estimated between 750-1,500 years old. A small area in the 

central region of the Refuge is composed of Ka‘ū Basalt flows between 3,000 - 5,000 years old. 

South of the KFU, more recent twentieth century lava flows are present (USFWS 2008a). 

A thin layer of organic soil covers the highly permeable basalt that remains from the lava flows. The 

following eight soil types have been identified within the KFU: 




Figure 3-2. Soil map of the Kona Forest Unit. 

Lava flows, ‘a‘ā (rLV): 

‘A‘ā lava flows are found along the northern boundary of the KFU. This lava is rough, clinkery, and 

“piled in tumbled heaps.” Only a thin layer of soil covers the lava allowing minimal vegetation 

growth such as mosses, lichens, ferns, and scattered ‘ōhi‘a trees. 

Lava flows, pāhoehoe (rLW): 

Pāhoehoe lava generally has a smooth, glassy surface compared to ‘a‘ā lava. Pāhoehoe is hotter, 

contains more trapped gasses, and flows faster than ‘a‘ā. This lava is lacking any soil covering 

supports mainly mosses and lichens with scattered ‘ōhi‘a trees, ‘ōhelo, and ‘a‘ali‘i in cracks and 

crevices. 

Kēkake extremely rocky muck, 6-20 percent slopes (rKHD): 

The Kēkake series are well-drained, thin organic soils underlain by pāhoehoe lava bedrock on 

uplands between 3,500 - 7,000 ft. Approximately 25-50 percent of the surface area is rock outcrops. 

The soil surface layer is black muck about 4 inches thick and strongly acid. 

Māwae extremely stony muck, 6-20 percent slopes (rMWD): 

The Māwae series consists of well-drained, thin organic soils over fragmented ‘a‘ā lava. This muck is 

undulating on mountains between 3,500 - 7,000 ft. The surface layer is black extremely stony muck 

about 5 in thick with a medium acidity. 




Kīloa extremely stony muck, 6-20 percent slopes (rKXD): 

The Kīloa series is located at intermediate elevations on Mauna Loa and Hualālai between 1,000 - 

4,000 ft. Kīloa extremely stony muck consists of a 10 in thick layer of well-drained, very dark brown, 

extremely stony organic muck over fragmental ‘a‘ā lava. Slightly weathered ash and cinders occur in 

the voids of the lava. The Kīloa series is strongly acid. 

Ke‘ei extremely rocky muck, 6-20 percent slopes (rKGD): 

Located between 1,000-3,500 ft on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, the Ke‘ei series consists of welldrained, 

thin organic soils overlying pāhoehoe lava bedrock. The strongly acid surface layer is very 

dark brown muck about 10 in thick. Between 25-50 percent of the surface is occupied by rock 

outcrops. 

Puna extremely stony muck, 3-25 percent slopes (rPXE): 

The Puna series is found between 1,000-3,500 ft in elevation on Mauna Loa and Hualālai. This soil is 

well-drained, very dark brown, extremely stony organic muck. The soil is about 5 in thick and 

underlain by fragmental ‘a‘ā lava. This soil is gently sloping to moderately steep and neutral 

(pH 6.6-7.3). 

Kona extremely rocky muck, 6-20 percent slopes (rKYD): 

The Kona series also occurs between 1,000 - 3,500 ft on Mauna Loa and Hualālai. About 25- 

50 percent of the surface is covered by rock outcrop and the surface soil layer is well-drained, very 

dark brown muck. The slightly acid surface layer is approximately 5 in and underlain by pāhoehoe 

lava bedrock. 

Table 3-3. Soil Types Found Within the Kona Forest Unit and Key Characteristics. 

3.3 Hydrology 

Soil Type Permeability Runoff Erosion 

Hazard 

rLV Rapid Slow Slight 

rLW Rapid Slow Slight 

rKHD Rapid Medium Slight 

rMWD Rapid Slow Slight 

rKXD Rapid Slow Slight 

rKGD Rapid Medium Slight 

rPXE Rapid Slow Slight 

rKYD Rapid Medium Slight 

The hydrologic processes that occur in the Hawaiian Islands are unique compared to continental 

landmasses or temperate zones. Drainage basins are typically small and streams are characterized by 

steep longitudinal profiles and numerous waterfalls (Lau and Mink 2006). In addition, hydrology is 

largely influenced by geological features associated with lava flows. Many streams in Hawai‘i have 

lengthy dry reaches under natural conditions due to the nature of the underlying rock (Stearns and 

Macdonald 1947, Macdonald and Abbot 1970). 




Similar to other oceanic islands, rainfall is the greatest source of freshwater on the Island of Hawai‘i. 

Rainfall contributes roughly 8,000 million gallons per day (mgd) to the water budget of Hawai‘i 

Island (Lau and Mink 2006, TMA 2007). This rainwater recharges two vital water resources: 

groundwater and surface water. 

Groundwater, which occurs beneath the surface, is the primary water resource in Hawai‘i. 

Groundwater can occur as thin basal lens, as well as high-level aquifers that do not float on seawater 

(Juvik and Juvik 1998). Unlike older islands in the archipelago, Hawai‘i Island does not have 

sedimentary coastal plain or caprock. Lack of a caprock allows fresh water to outflow and the 

seawater to intrude the freshwater lens. As a result, basal water levels throughout the island are low 

(Bauer 2003). 

Surface water is water flowing in stream channels. This water originates from surface runoff derived 

from rainfall, groundwater seepage, and channel water that seeps into the banks during high stream 

stages (Lau and Mink 2006). Streams are classified as intermittent or perennial based on flow 

conditions. Perennial streams are streams that normally have surface flow throughout the year, at 

least in some part of the course (Hawai‘i Cooperative National Park Studies Unit 1990). Perennial 

streams, which are generally sustained by groundwater in high level aquifers, are usually restricted to 

the windward sides of islands that receive more rain (Nishimoto and Kuamo‘o 1997, Juvik and Juvik 

1998). The largest perennial stream on Hawai‘i Island (and in the State) is Wailuku River. This river 

is 22.7 mi long and discharges 180 mgd (HDBEDT 2007). 

Water on the island is primarily derived from groundwater rather than surface water (TMA 2007). In 

2000, the County of Hawai‘i used 44.55 mgd of groundwater and 8.86 mgd of surface water 

(HDBEDT 2007). Major water systems are located in the Kona, Ka‘ū, and Puna areas. Water is 

supplied to these systems from wells, springs, and roof catchments (TMA 2007). Hawai‘i Island 

consumes a relatively small percentage of the State’s water. In 2006, the County of Hawai‘i 

consumed 11.9 percent of the total freshwater consumption of the State of Hawai‘i (HDBEDT 2007). 

Wetlands are critical components of an area’s hydrology and provide a variety of ecological 

functions. The Service defines wetlands as “lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic system 

where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water” 

(Erickson and Puttock 2006). According to this definition, unvegetated areas including beaches, 

mudflats, and ponds are considered wetlands. Hydrology, vegetation, and soil type are used as 

indicators to determine the presence of a wetland (Erickson and Puttock 2006). Although small, 

isolated wetlands occur on the Refuge, they would not be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers as waters of the U.S. because they are not connected or adjacent to navigable 

waters (USFWS 2008a). 

Flooding is common in certain areas of the island due to ponding, surface runoff, high seas, storm 

surge, and tsunami inundation. Hawai‘i Island is particularly vulnerable to flooding because it is 

relatively young and water courses are generally not well-defined (County of Hawai‘i 2006). The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program has prepared Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that depict flood hazard areas through the State. The maps classify land 

into four zones depending on the expectation of flood inundation. The entire Hakalau Forest NWR is 

within Zone X, defined as areas outside of the 100 and 500 year floodplains. In addition, the County 

General Plan (2005) lists flood prone areas. Statewide flood control is managed by the Department of 

Land and Natural Resources’ Engineering Branch, Land Division. 




The use of water resources in the Hawaiian Islands is regulated by the State Water Code, Chapter 

174C and governed by the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM). This 

agency issues permits to regulate the use of surface and ground water. Between 1988-1989, water 

users in Hawai‘i were required to register their water sources and declare their water uses to CWRM 

(CWRM 1992). A water right is a legal entitlement to use a certain amount of water from a particular 

source for a beneficial use. Outside designated water management areas landowners have the right to 

“reasonable use” of underlying groundwater and riparian water, providing it does not harm the uses 

of other users (Miike 2004). Specific water rights for descendants of Native Hawaiians who inhabited 

the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778 are discussed in Section §174C-101 of the State Water Code. 

3.3.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Hydrology 

The presence of gulches and ravines allows for intermittent surface water flow following periods of 

heavy or continuous rain (USFWS 2002a). Some of the streams within the Refuge boundaries are 

considered perennial at lower elevations. Nonnative ungulates and other mammals (rats) degrade 

water quality of the intermittent streams through soil disturbance and feces deposition. In addition, 

disturbance in the upper reaches can result in lack of groundwater retention. Table 3-4 lists stream 

and tributaries identified within the boundaries of the Refuge. 

Table 3-4. Streams and Tributaries on the Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Stream Tributaries 

Hakalau 

Honoli‘i Pōhakupuka 

Kapue 

Kawainui 

Kolekole 

Maulua Makahiloa 

Nanue Painui 

Pāhoehoe Pāhoehoe 

Pōhakupuka 

Umauma Nauhi Gulch, Honohina Gulch 

Waikaumalo 

Wailuku ‘Āwehi, Nukupahu Gulch 

Source: Hawai‘i Office of Planning GIS Data. 

As required under the State Water Code, the Refuge filed Declaration of Water Use for 12 perennial 

streams in May 1989. These streams included: Kalohewahewa, ‘Āwehi, Honoli‘i, Kapue, Kawainui, 

Kolekole, Hakalau, Umauma, Painui, Waikaumalo, and Pōhakupuka (CWRM 1989, 1992). The 

Refuge continuously uses the water in these streams to maintain the riparian community and protect 

habitat for native aquatic insects and crustaceans. This type of use is considered a category two 

instream water use because the water remains in the stream channel, rather than being transported 

outside the channel (CWRM 1989). 

Natural and constructed ponds exist along the upper slopes of the HFU. The constructed water 

features were former stock ponds built for cattle, but several still hold water. Many of the naturally 

occurring pond and waterholes referenced in historical documents no longer exist. This is likely due 




to drier conditions and changes in the microclimate. One natural pond, known as Frog Pond, occurs 

between the Honohina and Hakalau Tracts at about 5,600 ft (Tomonari-Tuggle 1996). 

A baseline water resource assessment and stream fauna assessment has not been conducted at the 

HFU (USFWS 2007). However, numerous surveys have been conducted at the lower elevations of 

streams that pass through the Refuge. The lower reaches of these streams support native fishes and 

invertebrates (Tate 1996, Nishimoto and Kuamo‘o 1997). Although unstudied, stream fauna at higher 

elevations within the HFU are believed to be exclusively invertebrate. 

According to the Water Resources Protection Plan (USFWS 2005), the HFU is located in the 

Pa‘auilo, Hakalau, and Onomea hydrological units. These aquifers have a sustainable yield of 60, 

150, and 147 mgd, respectively. The size of these systems shows that a large amount of potable basal 

groundwater can be developed in the area (Yuen and Associates 1990). 

3.3.2 Kona Forest Unit Hydrology 

Due to the extremely permeable lava and well-drained soils, there are no perennial surface waters or 

drainages on the KFU. As a result, no standard water resource assessments have been performed 

(USFWS 2007). The closest permanent surface water is the Lumiawai waterhole, located about 

0.5 mi south of the southeast corner (Rayond and Valentine 2007). Ki‘ilae Stream, which is south of 

Hōnaunau, is the closest stream (Yuen and Associates 1990). 

The Water Resources Protection Plan (USFWS 2005) depicts the KFU within the Ka‘apuna 

hydrological unit. Groundwater in this region is primarily composed of a thin basal lens that is not 

protected by caprock. The aquifer in the Ka‘apuna hydrological unit has a sustainable yield of 

50 mgd (Yuen and Associates 1990). The Refuge area functions as an important groundwater 

recharge area for Kona as a result of the porous substrate and high moisture conditions (USFWS 

2008a). 

South Kona is vulnerable to flooding due to the combination of intense storms, lack of drainages, 

steep terrain, permeable soils, and urban land uses (County of Hawai‘i 2006, TMA 2007). No records 

of flooding on the unit have been found. 

3.4 Topography 

The Island of Hawai‘i is considered the highest oceanic island in the world. However, similar to 

other volcanic islands, summit heights are constantly changing due to erosion, lava deposition, and 

isostatic compensation (Jordan et al. 2003). Hawai‘i Island is characterized by high elevation areas 

and gentle slopes. The majority of Hawai‘i Island (88 percent) is above 500 ft (HDBEDT 2007). 

Furthermore, almost 70 percent is above 2,000 ft (Mitchell et al. 2005, HDBEDT 2007). The highest 

point on the island, Mauna Kea, reaches 13,796 ft. Although Hawai‘i Island has some of the highest 

peaks in the State, the inclines are relatively mild. Approximately 70 percent of Hawai‘i Island has a 

slope of less than 10 percent (HDBEDT 2007). 




3.4.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Topography 

The relatively young Mauna Kea volcano does not contain deep valleys and high cliffs that are 

distinctive on other volcanoes. As a result, the topography at the HFU is relatively gentle. The lower 

elevation areas have deeper gulches and steeper slopes than higher elevation portions. The prevailing 

aspect of the slopes is east. Cinder cones, built by lava fountains or erupting magma foam, are 

scattered throughout the area (Stearns 1966, USFWS 1996b). 

3.4.2 Kona Forest Unit Topography 

The rectangular-shaped KFU slopes toward the west-southwest. The entire area has an average slope 

of 20 percent, with slopes of less than 10 percent at the upper elevations (USFWS 2002b). The 

surface of the entire parcel is rocky, irregular, and undulating (USFWS 2008a). Lava tubes and 

shallow gulches also dissect the overlapping ‘a‘ā and pāhoehoe lava flows, creating uneven 

topography (Rayond and Valentine 2007). 

3.5 Environmental Contaminants 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a Federal bureau of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, defines a contaminant as “a substance that is either present in an 

environment where it does not belong or is present at levels that might cause harmful (adverse) 

health effects” (ATSDR 2002). Contaminants commonly include pesticides and their residues, 

industrial chemicals, fertilizers, metals, and other toxic substances. By altering biological or physical 

processes, contaminants may produce adverse and even detrimental effects to an ecosystem (USFWS 

2005a). 

No contaminated sites have been identified on the Refuge units (USFWS 2007). However, Hawai‘i 

Island is exposed to high sulfur dioxide (SO2) levels from Kīlauea volcano emissions (vog), as well 

as traces of metals such as mercury. Sulfur dioxide is an irritant gas that may cause acute and chronic 

changes in human health, such as eye and respiratory system irritation (Michaud et al. 2005). 

The National Priorities List (NPL), compiled under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 103), 

provides an inventory of the Nation’s most contaminated hazardous waste sites. No sites are 

identified on the island. 

3.5.1 Hakalau Forest Unit Contaminants 

Level I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted on the property prior to acquisition 

(Woodward, pers. comm.). Potential on- and off-site contamination sources that have been identified 

on or adjacent to the HFU include accidents and spills, agricultural livestock, forestry silviculture, 

pesticide application, and recreation (USFWS, unpubl.). 


3.5.2 Kona Forest Unit Contaminants 



An updated Level I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted on the property in March 1997. 

The assessment was based on previous contaminants surveys that were conducted in November 1995 

and July 1994, as well as supplemental interviews and surveys conducted in 1996 and 1997. 

Contaminants surveys consisted of interviews with people familiar with area, site inspections by foot 

and vehicle, and a 24-minute aerial survey. No hazardous substances or other environmental 

problems were evident on the property during any of these surveys. Small amounts of debris (a single 

55-gallon drum and 5 water storage tanks) and localized oil staining associated with the 3 water 

pumps were noted; however, these were not determined to be significant contaminant problems 

(Harper 1997). 

3.6 Land Use 

This section presents an overview of land uses within and adjacent to the units of the Hakalau Forest 

NWR that currently influence or have the potential to influence Refuge conditions. Relevant local 

and regional land use designations and policies affecting land use are also discussed. 

Both units of the Hakalau Forest NWR were acquired and are continuously managed under a variety 

of legislative acts, administrative orders, and legal authorities. The Endangered Species Act provides 

for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants. The Service 

used the legislative authority of the ESA to establish both of the Refuge units and continues to use 

the ESA to guide management of the endangered species and their habitats. The general purpose of 

both units is “… to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species…or (B) plants…” (16 U.S.C. §§ 1534 ESA). 

The primary land use at the Refuge is maintenance to restore and benefit native species. Biological 

research and monitoring is also an important aspect of the units. Roughly 34 research studies were 

conducted throughout the Refuge in 2007 (USFWS 2007) and 17 studies in 2006 (USFWS 2006). 

In addition, limited public use is permitted. The Administration Act identifies six wildlife-dependent 

visitor uses on refuges: hunting and fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. All recreational activities must be compatible with the 

primary purpose of the refuge. 

3.6.1 Local Land Use Designations: Hakalau Forest Unit 

The HFU, located on the windward side of Mauna Kea, is situated 13 mi northwest of Hilo 

(Figure 1-1). It spans portions of both the North Hilo District and the South Hilo Districts. The 

32,733 ac HFU is comprised of four tracts, including Maulua, Honohina, Hakalau, and Pua ‘Ākala. 

These tracts are further divided into subunits. The HFU is surrounded by various sections of the Hilo 

Forest Reserve to the north, east, and south. Along the northern boundary of the Refuge, north of the 

Maulua tract, the Refuge is bordered by the Laupāhoehoe Section of the Hilo Forest Reserve and the 

Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve. The Hilo Watershed Forest Reserve abuts the property to the 

south, while the Pīhā (Game Management Area) Section of the Hilo Forest Reserve splits the 




Honohina and Maulua tracts. The HFU is accessed by taking Mauna Kea Summit Road to Keanakolu 

Road, which is an unpaved road that follows the upper elevation boundary of the Refuge. 

The HFU was established on October 29, 1985. The current acreage was purchased over a series of 

years from various entities including W.H. Shipman LTD, The Nature Conservancy, Lili‘uokalani 

Trust, Robertson, and the World Union. In addition, a 1.65 ac easement was purchased from the 

Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL). 

The specific purpose of HFU is “to assure the perpetuation of native forest habitats of the Upper 

Hakalau Forest for the protection of a number of endangered animals and plants endemic to the 

area.” The environmental assessment for Refuge acquisition states that the purpose “is to sustain the 

naturally evolving mid-elevation rain forest of this area and, as necessary, allow for the management 

of this forest and its assemblage of native and non-native plants and animals” (Stine 1985). 

Furthermore, the 500 ac Pua ‘Ākala Ranch portion of the Refuge unit was added to the unit in 1995 

in order “to protect and rehabilitate significant native forest habitat, provide for recovery of 

endangered and threatened species, and to establish a Refuge boundary that would improve 

management capabilities.” 

Historically, the Refuge area above 6,000 ft was used as rangeland. This area encompasses 4,950 ac. 

Domestic grazing occurred in the Upper Honohina Tract (Lili‘uokalani Trust) until April 1996. This 

1,034-acre area was leased by Parker Ranch. A private landowner leased 500 acres known as Pua 

‘Ākala Ranch until 1997. 

Currently, DHHL and the Hawai‘i Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) are two adjacent 

land owners of the HFU. DHHL owns the land bordering the west boundary of the Refuge, including 

the 514 ac Kanakaleonui corridor. Domestic grazing no longer occurs on the land. In a partnership 

between the Refuge and DHHL in the area immediately adjacent to and above the Refuge (195 ac), 

DHHL is pursuing a koa forest restoration project that was designed to plant koa to contain the 

spread of the gorse infestations. At the northwestern corner of the Upper Maulua tract, a 40 ac parcel 

and two 40 ac parcels are owned by two private landowners. 

The DOFAW owns and manages the Forest Reserves and Natural Area Reserves adjacent to the 

Refuge. Land uses on the Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve include hiking, wildlife observation, 

and hunting (HAR § 13-209-3). The adjacent sections of the Forest Reserve System are utilized by 

the public for camping, collecting, commercial harvesting, hunting, and other special uses (HAR § 

13-209-3). The Pīhā Section of the Hilo Forest Reserve, located between the Honohina and Maulua 

tracts, is primarily used by the public for hunting. 

More distant land areas include the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve and Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area 

Reserve, located west of the property at the summit of Mauna Kea. In addition, Pu‘u O‘o Ranch is 

located south of the Pua ‘Ākala area and Parker Ranch is located west of the Refuge boundary. 

The Districts of North and South Hilo encompass 174,377 and 252,960 ac, respectively. Almost 

69 percent of the North Hilo District is defined as Conservation by the State of Hawai‘i Land Use 

District Boundaries Map, while 67 percent of the South Hilo District is considered Conservation 

(County of Hawai‘i 2007). The majority of the upper portion of the HFU is designated as Agriculture 

by the State of Hawai‘i Land Use District Boundaries Map. The lower portions of the Refuge, as well 

as the southwestern corner of the Refuge, are classified as Conservation. Areas in the immediate 




vicinity are also classified as Conservation and Agriculture along a similar elevational gradient 

(Figure 3-3). Conservation District designations are under the jurisdiction of DLNR, while all other 

land use designations (such as Agriculture, Urban, and Rural) come under the County of Hawai‘i. 

There is no Special Management Area for HFU according to State Coastal Zone Management. 

Figure 3-3. Land Use District Boundaries - Hakalau Forest Unit. 

3.6.2 Local Land Use Designations: Kona Forest Unit 

The KFU is situated in the District of South Kona on the leeward slope of Mauna Loa (Figure 1-1). It 

is located roughly 8 mi from the town of Captain Cook and 23 mi south of Kailua-Kona. Other 

communities in the vicinity of the Refuge are Kealakekua, Kainaliu, and Hōnaunau. The unit is 

accessed through a 17 ac permanent easement across private property. Keālia Ranch borders the 

property to the north and McCandless Ranch lies near the southern boundary. 

The KFU of the Hakalau Forest NWR was purchased in 1997. Approximately 5,300 ac were 

acquired from the Kai Malino Ranch section (Les Marks Trust) of the former McCandless Ranch, a 

private cattle ranch. Two easements were purchased from the Les Marks Trust in March 2005. As 

part of the Hakalau Forest NWR, the KFU is administered and managed by the Refuge according to 

the Administration Act. According to the Final EA for the Proposed KFU of the Hakalau Forest 




NWR (1997), the KFU was established “. . . to protect, conserve, and manage a portion of the native 

forest in south Kona, primarily for the benefit of the ‘alalā and other endangered and threatened 

species.” 

Until 2003, the Refuge maintained dedicated staffing and a local office across Māmalahoa Highway 

near the KFU; however, due to prolonged access disputes and pending resolution of legal issues, 

staffing was discontinued on the unit. The KFU is currently unstaffed and is managed from the 

Refuge complex office in Hilo, 2.5 hours away. Adjacent land uses in the vicinity include ranching, 

farming, residences, and ecotourism ventures. Keālia Ranch is located approximately 3 mi north of 

the KFU, and McCandless Ranch is found to the south of the Refuge. The KFU is 4 mi from the 

Waiea Transfer Station, managed by the County’s Department of Environmental Management, Soil 

Waste Division. This station was selected as one of six sites prioritized for coqui frog control on the 

island due to its potential to threaten high-value resource areas (ISCs, AIS Team & CGAPS 2005). 

Various kuleana lands are present immediately outside the Refuge. Other land uses adjacent to the 

Refuge include Kalāhiki cemetery and Ho‘okena School. The South Kona Forest Reserve and 

Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve are to the south of the Refuge. 

Figure 3-4. Land Use District Boundaries- Kona Forest Unit. 

The South Kona District encompasses 146,685 ac. This district is primarily classified as Agricultural 

by the State of Hawai‘i and zoned as Agricultural by Hawai‘i County (County of Hawai‘i 2007). The 

KFU is designated as Agricultural by the State of Hawai‘i Land Use District Boundaries Map. Areas 




in the immediate vicinity are also classified as Agricultural (Figure 3.4). According to the ordinances 

from the County of Hawai‘i, the unit is zoned as Agricultural. The General Plan Land Use Pattern 

Allocation Guide Map shows the unit as a “Conservation Area.” This land use is defined as “forest 

and water reserves, natural and scientific preserves, areas in active management for conservation 

purposes, areas to be kept in a largely natural state, with minimal facilities consistent with open space 

uses, such as picnic pavilions and comfort stations, and lands within the State Land Use Conservation 

District” (County of Hawai‘i 2006). 

3.7 Global Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes that small island groups are 

particularly vulnerable to climate change. The following characteristics contribute to this 

vulnerability: small emergent land area compared to the large expanses of surrounding ocean; 

limited natural resources; high susceptibility to natural disasters; and inadequate funds to mitigate 

impacts (IPCC 2001). Thus, Hawai‘i is considered to have a limited capacity to adapt to future 

climate changes. The Pacific Islands Regional Integrated Science and Assessment program is 

working to develop tools dealing with climate risk management in the Pacific region. Furthermore, 

the Hawai‘i Climate Change Action Plan (1998) offered initial recommendations to reduce GHGs, 

and the Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative is developing a strategy to deal with climate 

change throughout the State. 

Similar to the rest of the world, temperatures in Hawai‘i are rising. The EPA has estimated that the 

average surface temperature in Honolulu, Hawai‘i, has increased by 4.4°F over the last century (EPA 

1998). In particular, nighttime temperatures are notably warmer, increasing by about 0.5°F per 

decade over the past 30 years (Arakawa 2008). Recent studies have shown that this rising average 

night temperature is greater at high elevation sites than lower areas (Giambelluca 2008). Sea surface 

temperature near the islands has been increasing recently, showing a 0.72°F rise between 1957 - 1987 

(Giambelluca et al. 1996). Sea level around the Hawaiian Islands is rising by 6-14 in per century 

(EPA 1998). Over the last 90 years, precipitation has also decreased by approximately 20 percent 

(EPA 1998). 

As a result of these shifts, Hawai‘i is developing means to reduce its GHG emissions. In 1990, it is 

estimated that 15,985,225 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) were emitted in Hawai‘i. Other major GHGs 

released that year include 75,736 tons of methane (CH4) and 690 tons of nitrous oxide (N2O). These 

estimates do not include fuels that were exported, used on international aircraft or ship operations, or 

used by the military in the State. International, military, and overseas CO2 emissions were estimated 

to be 7,363,261 tons in 1990 (DBEDT and DOH 1998). In 2007, the State of Hawai‘i enacted 

Act 234, which set the goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 

Global and regional predictive climate simulations may not capture unique and important features of 

the Hawaiian climate. Existing large-scale models show large variability and uncertainty for the 

Hawaiian Islands; thus, applying these models to predict local conditions must be done with caution 

until more fine-scaled models are developed (Timm 2008). Models from the IPCC and the climate 

model of the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre suggest that by 2100 annual temperatures in Hawai‘i 

could increase by 3°F, with a slightly higher increase in fall. Other estimates predict a 5 - 9°F rise by 

the end of the 21 st century (TenBruggencate 2007). Future changes in precipitation are uncertain, 




dependent largely on shifts in El Niño/La Niña events. Some predictions forecast an additional rise of 

17-25 inches by 2100 (EPA 1998), while others suggest decreased precipitation. 

Climate Change Effects on Water Resources 

The impact of climate change on water resources is dependent on shifts in precipitation amounts, 

evaporation rates, storms, and events such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The ENSO is 

an ocean-atmosphere phenomenon in which the normal oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns 

of the Pacific Ocean temporarily collapse. During normal years, strong tradewinds move 

counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere and clockwise in the northern hemisphere, causing 

surface water to move westward. These winds also produce upwelling that brings high nutrient 

waters to the surface. During an ENSO event, tradewinds in the western Pacific stop and the warm 

mass of water in the west moves eastward, causing shifts in the location of evaporation. As a result, 

heavy rains occur in normally dry areas such as the central Pacific islands. In addition to more 

precipitation, these winds upwell warm water, which is devoid of nutrients. This causes productive 

communities to collapse and subsequent death of fish and birds (Duffy 1993). 

Although ENSO events have increased in intensity and frequency over the past decades, some 

longer-term records have not found a direct link to global warming (Cobb et al. 2003) and do not 

predict significant changes in ENSO; however, a majority of climate forecasts do suggest an 

evolution toward more “El Niño-like” patterns (Buddemeier et al. 2004). Most climate projections 

reveal that this trend is likely to increase rapidly in the next 50 years (Walther et al. 2002). However, 

other models predict more “La Niña-like” conditions in the Hawaiian Islands (Timm 2008). 

A trend toward ENSO patterns will impact sea levels, sea temperatures, rainfall amounts, evaporation 

rates, and the occurrence of hurricanes; however, the exact impact of climate change on water 

resources is difficult to predict due to spatial variability. On a global scale, mean precipitation is 

anticipated to increase. Current climate models project that tropical Pacific and high-latitude areas 

will experience increasing precipitation amounts, while precipitation is likely to decrease in most 

subtropical regions (Parry et al. 2007; Solomon et al. 2007). A current trend toward this increase is 

supported by lowered salinity levels in both the mid- and high-latitude oceanic waters (Solomon et 

al. 2007). If the opposite effect takes place, decreasing precipitation or increasing evaporation will 

further stress meager surface and groundwater resources. Lack of rain could lower the amount of 

freshwater lens recharge and decrease available water supplies. Reduced rainfall or increased 

evaporation will cause a corresponding increase in the demand for residential, commercial, or 

agricultural water (Giambelluca et al. 1996). 

Most climate projections suggest that more intense wind speeds and precipitation amounts will 

accompany more frequent tropical typhoons/cyclones and increased tropical sea surface temperatures 

in the next 50 years (Solomon et al. 2007; Walther et al. 2002). The Third Assessment of the IPCC 

(2001) has concluded with “moderate confidence” that the intensity of tropical cyclones is likely to 

increase by 10-20 percent in the Pacific region when atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double 

preindustrial levels (McCarthy et al. 2001). One model projects a doubling of the frequency of 4 in 

per day rainfall events and a 15-18 percent increase in rainfall intensity over large areas of the Pacific 

(IPCC 2001). Solomon et al. (2007) states that it is “more likely than not” that the rise in intense 

tropical cyclones is due to anthropogenic activity. 




An increase in heavy storms and surf will result in increased flood risks, sedimentation, and impeded 

drainage in Hawai‘i (DBEDT and DOH 1998). Change in rainfall patterns will affect the success of 

forest restoration as well as existing protected habitats and stream resources (e.g., may cause 

movement of or degradation of these resources). In particular, the low-elevation Refuge areas will be 

vulnerable to changes in storm frequency, intensity, and directionality. These events have the 

potential to denude vegetation and impact habitat for wildlife and plants. 

Ecological Responses to Climate Change 

Evidence suggests that recent climatic changes have affected a broad range of individual species and 

populations in both the marine and terrestrial environment. Organisms have responded by changes in 

(1) phenology (timing of seasonal activities) and physiology; (2) range and distribution; 

(3) community composition and interaction; and (4) ecosystem structure and dynamics (Walther et 

al. 2002). The reproductive physiology and population dynamics of amphibians and reptiles are 

highly influenced by environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity. For example, sea 

turtle sex is determined by the temperature of the nest environment; thus, higher temperatures could 

result in a higher female to male ratio (Baker et al. 2006). In addition, increases in atmospheric 

temperatures during seabird nesting seasons will also have an effect on seabirds and water birds 

(Duffy 1993). 

Warming has also caused species to shift toward the poles or higher altitudes and changes in climatic 

conditions can alter community composition. For example, increases in nitrogen availability can 

favor those plant species that respond to nitrogen rises (Vitousek 1994). Similarly, increases in CO2 

levels can impact plant photosynthetic rates, decrease nutrient levels, and lower herbivore weights 

(Ehleringer et al. 2002). Although there is uncertainty regarding these trajectories, it is probable that 

there will be ecological consequences (Walther et al. 2002). 

Climate change has the potential to influence two important ecological issues in the State of Hawai‘i: 

endangered species and invasive species. An overwhelming majority of U.S. endangered species are 

found in the State of Hawai‘i. Species declines have resulted from habitat loss, introduced diseases, 

and impacts from invasive species. Changes in climate will add an additional threat to the survival of 

these species (DBEDT and DOH 1998). For example, warmer night temperatures can increase the 

rate of respiration for native vegetation, resulting in greater competition from nonnative plants 

(Giambelluca 2008). Of particular concern are native forest birds. Climate change may raise the 

elevational gradient in which mosquitoes can live. Consequently, current elevations free of 

mosquitoes (which protect native forest birds that do not have resistance to avian diseases carried by 

mosquitoes) may disappear, leaving forest birds with no mosquito safe habitats. 

Furthermore, climate change may enhance existing invasive species issues because alterations in the 

environment may increase the dispersal ability of flora or fauna. Species response to climate change 

will depend on the life cycle, distribution, dispersal ability, and reproduction requirements of the 

species (Middleton 2006). However, for invasive weed species on Hawai‘i Island, climate change 

may increase their range and expansion into native habitats. In addition to degrading native habitat, a 

more concerning result of this effect may be increased wildfires as many of these invasive species 

have evolved with fire and require fire for their life-history. This issue is of particular concern for the 

drier Kona side where the KFU is located. Such an increase in fuel loads would be detrimental to 

forest habitats and the species dependent on them. 




The Service is supporting the development of regional Landscape Conservation Cooperatives that 

will integrate local climate models with models of climate change responses by species, habitats, and 

ecosystems. Cooperatives will collectively plan and design appropriate conservation actions at a 

landscape scale, monitor responses to climate change, and assess the effectiveness of management 

strategies. The regional version of these Landscape Conservation Cooperatives is the Pacific Islands 

Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC), headquartered in Honolulu, Hawai‘i, but working across the 

Pacific. By working with PICCC, the Refuge will identify additional mitigation measures for climate 

change. 


Ahumada, J.A., D. LaPointe, and M.D. Samuel. 2004. Modeling the population dynamics of Culex 

quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae), along an elevational gradient in Hawaii. Journal of Medical 

Entomology 41(6):1157-1170. 

Arakawa, L. 2008. Isle temperatures are rising. Honolulu Advertiser. March 28, 2008. 

Atkinson, C.T., J. K. Lease, R. J. Dusek, and M.D. Samuel. 2005. Prevalence of Pox-Like Lesions 

and Malaria in Forest Bird Communities on Leeward Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawaii. The Condor 

107:537–546. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2002. Public health 

assessment. Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Federal Facilities Assessment Branch. 

Andersen Air Force Base, Yigo, GU. Available at: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/anderson/and_toc.html. Accessed November 10, 2007. 

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston, D.W. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the 

terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. Endangered Species Research article 4:1-10. 

Bauer, G.R. 2003. A Study of the Ground-Water Conditions in North and South Kona and South 

Kohala Districts, Island of Hawaii, 1991-2002. Prepared for CWRM. 

Benning T.L., D. LaPointe, C.T. Atkinson, and P.M. Vitousek. 2002. Interactions of climate change 

with biological invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: Modeling the fate of endemic birds 

using a geographic information system. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (22):14246–14249. 

Bonaccorso, F. Wildlife Biologist, USGS BRD. Personal Communication. August 2008. 

Bonaccorso, F. 2008. Annual Summary Report: Hawaiian Hoary Bat Occupancy in Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge. Special Use Permit: 12516-07008. 

Buddemeier, R.W., J.A. Kleypas, and R.B. Aronson. 2004. Coral Reefs and Global Climate 

Change: Potential Contributions of Climate Change to Stresses on Coral Reef Ecosystems. Pew 

Centre for Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA. 42 pp. 




Caccamise, D. J., II, M. A. Merrifield, M. Bevis, J. Foster, Y. L. Firing, M. S. Schenewerk, F. W. 

Taylor, and D. A. Thomas. 2005. Sea level rise at Honolulu and Hilo, Hawaii: GPS estimates of 

differential land motion, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03607. 

Carter, L.M., E.Shea, M.Hamnett, C.Anderson, G. Dolcemascolo, C.Guard, M. Taylor,T. 

Barnston,Y. He, M. Larsen, L. Loope, L. Malone, G. Meehl. 2001. Potential Consequences of 

Climate Variability and Change for the U.S.-Affiliated Islands of the Pacific and Caribbean. Pp. 315- 

349. in Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change. National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global Change Research 

Program. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 

Cobb, K.M., C.D. Charles, H. Cheng, and L. Edwards. 2003. El Nino/Southern Oscillation and 

tropical Pacific climate during the last millennium. Nature 424(6946). 5 pp. 

Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM). 1989. Letter to Mr. Fefer. Dated 

December 29, 1989. 

CWRM. 1992. Declarations of Water Use, Volume I. 325 pp. 

County of Hawai‘i, Department of Research and Development. 2007. County of Hawaii Data Book. 

Available at: http://www.hawaii-county.com/databook_current/dbooktoc.htm. Accessed 

June 4, 2008. 

County of Hawai‘i, Department of Planning. 2006. County of Hawaii General Plan. 

DBEDT and DOH (State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism 

and Department of Health). 1998. Hawai‘i climate change action plan. Available at: 

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/ccap.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2008. 

DHHL and USFWS. 2003. Draft Environmental Assessment Department of Hawaiian Home Lands / 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Fuel Break Construction Project Island of Hawai‘i. 

Dow, K. and T.E. Downing. 2006. The Atlas of Climate Change. University of California Press: 

Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 

Duffy, D.C. 1993. Stalking the Southern Oscillation: environmental uncertainty, climate change, and 

North Pacific seabirds. The status, ecology, and conservation of marine birds of the North Pacific. 

Can. Wildl. Serv. Spec. Publ., Ottawa. 

Ehleringer, J.R., T.E. Cerling, and D. Dearing. 2002. Atmospheric CO2 as a global change driver 

influencing plant-animal interactions. Integrated and Comparative Physiology 42:424 430. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Climate Change and Hawaii. Report no. EPA 

236-F-98-007e. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 

Washington, D.C. 




Erickson, T.A and C.F. Puttock. 2006. Hawaii Wetland Field Guide: An ecological and identification 

guide to wetlands and wetland plants of the Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2003. The Road Inventory of Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge, Hilo, HI. 

Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens. 1972. Soil Survey of the Islands of Kaua‘i, 

O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i, and Lana‘i, State of Hawai‘i. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service. 

Giambelluca, Tom. 2008. Recent Historical Temperature and Trade-Wind Inversion Variations in 

Hawaii. Presented at the Forum on Climate Change in Hawaii, March 26, in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Giambelluca, T., M. Ridgley, M. Nullet. 1996. Water Balance, Climate Change and Land-use 

Planning in the Pearl Harbor Basin, Hawaii. Water Resources Development 12(4):515-530. 

Harper, B. 1997. Updated Level 1 Contaminant Survey for Kai Malino Ranch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Hawai‘i Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. 1990. Hawai‘i Stream Assessment: A Preliminary 

Appraisal of Hawai‘i Stream Resources. Report R84. Prepared for the Commission of Water 

Resource Management. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 294 pp. 

Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (HDBEDT). 2007. 2006 

State of Hawaii Data Book. Available at: 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook/db2006/. Accessed April 21, 2008. 

HDBEDT (Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism), Energy, 

Resources, & Technology Division, and Department of Health (DOH), Clean Air Branch. 1998. 

Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan. Available at 

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/ccap.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2008. 

Hawai‘i State Land Use Commission (LUC). 2005a. State of Hawai‘i Land Use District Boundaries– 

Island of Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. 

Hawai‘i State Land Use Commission (LUC). 2005b. State of Hawai‘i Conservation Subzones – 

Island of Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i Statewide GIS Program. 

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (HECO). 2004. Wind Speed of O‘ahu at 50 Meters - Final Map 

Available at: 

http://www.heco.com/portal/site/heco/menuitem.8e4610c1e23714340b4c0610c510b1ca/?vgnextoid= 

39abf2b154da9010VgnVCM10000053011bacRCRD&vgnextfmt=de. Accessed April 21, 2008. 

Hovenden, M.J., K.E. Wills, J.K. Vander Schoor, R.E. Chaplin, A.L. Williams, M.J. Nolan, and 

P.C.D. Newton. 2007. Flowering, seed production and seed mass in a species-rich temperate 

grassland exposed to FACE and warming. Australian Journal of Botany 55:780–794. 




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Working Group II to the Third 

Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge. 

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing 

Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 

Invasive Species Committees (ISAs), Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Team & Coordinating Group 

on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS). 2005. Island Based Partnerships and Statewide Coordination to 

Protect Hawai‘i from Invasive Species, Statewide Report for the 2005 Calendar Year. 44 pp. 

Jordan, S., C. Simon, and D. Polhemus. 2003. Molecular Systematics and Adaptive Radiation of 

Hawaii's Endemic Damselfly Genus Megalagrion (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Systematic Biology 

52(1):89-109. 

Juvik, S.P. and J.O. Juvik. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i, Third edition. University of Hawai‘i Press: 

Honolulu. 333 pp. 

LaPointe, D.A., M.L. Goff, and C.T. Atkinson. 2005. Comparative susceptibility of introduced 

forest-dwelling mosquitoes in Hawaii to avian malaria Plasmodium relictum. J. Parasitol. 91: 843- 

849. 

Lau, L.S. and J.F. Mink. 2006. Hydrology of the Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawai‘i Press: 

Honolulu. 

Macdonald, G.A. and A.T. Abbott. 1970. Volcanoes in the Sea. University of Hawai‘i Press: 


McCarthy, J.J, F. Osvaldo, F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White. 2001. climate 

change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press, UK. 

Menard, T. 2001. Activity patterns of the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) in 

relation to reproductive time periods. Master’s thesis, Univ. of Hawaii, Hawai‘i. 

Michaud, J.P., D. Krupitsky, J.S. Grove, B.S. Anderson. 2005. Volcano Related Atmospheric 

Toxicants in Hilo and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: Implications for Human Health. 

NeuroToxicology 26:555–563. 

Middleton, B.A. 2006. Invasive Species and Climate Change. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2006-1153. 2 pp. 

Miike, L.H. 2004. Water and the Law in Hawai‘i. University of Hawai‘i Press: Honolulu. 

264 pp. 




Miller, S.E. 2008. Presentation: HCA Climate Change Forum. Presented at the Hawaii Conservation 

Conference, July 29, in Honolulu, Hawaii. 


McClung. 2005. Hawaii’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department of Land and 

Natural Resources. Honolulu, HI. 

Nishimoto, R.T. and D.G.K. Kuamoo. 1997. Recruitment of goby larvae into Hakalau Stream, 

Hawai‘i Island. Micronesica 30(1):41-49. 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). 2000. “Climate Change: Assessing Our Actions.” 

Washington, D.C. 53 pp. 

Parmesan, C. and J. Matthews. 2006. Biological Impact of Climate Change. Pp 333-374 in 

Martha J. Groom, Gary K. Meffe, and C. Ronald Carroll (ed.) Principles of Conservation Biology, 

Third Edition. Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition. Sinauer Associates. 

Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson. 2007. Climate 

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, UK. 976 pp. 

Pounds, A.J., M.P. Fogden, and J.H. Campbell. 1999. Biological response to climate change on a 

tropical mountain. Nature 398:611–614. 

Raymond, A. and N. Valentine. 2007. Cultural Resource Investigations for Boundary and Cross 

Fences at the Kona Forest Unit of the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Hawaii Island. 

Reiter, M.E. and D.A. Lapointe. 2007. Landscape Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution and 

Abundance of Mosquito Vector Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in a Mixed Residential– 

Agricultural Community in Hawai‘i. Journal of Medical Entomology 44(5):861-868. 

Sack, L. and K. Frole. 2006. Leaf structural diversity is related to hydraulic capacity in tropical 

rainforest trees. Ecology 87:483-491. 

Scowcroft, P.G. and J. Jeffrey. 1999. Potential significance of frost, topographic relief, and Acacia 

koa stands to restoration of mesic Hawaiian forests on abandoned rangeland. Forest Ecology & 

Management 114:447-458. 

Scowcroft, P.G., F.C. Meinzer, G. Goldstein, P.J. Melcher, and J. Jeffrey 2000. Moderating night 

radiative cooling reduces frost damage to Metrosideros polymorpha seedlings used for forest 

restoration in Hawaii. Restoration Ecology. 8(2): 161-169. 

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller. 

2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 




Stearns, H.T. 1966. Geology of the State of Hawaii. Pacific Books: Palo Alto, CA. 

Stearns, H.T. and G.A. Macdonald. 1942. Geology and ground water resources of the Island of Maui, 

Hawaii. Hawaii Division of Hydrography Bulletin 7. 344 pp. 

Still, C.J., P.N. Foster, and S. Schneider, S. 1999. Simulating the effects of climate change on 

tropical montane cloud forests. Nature 398:608–610. 

Stine, P. 1985. Environmental Assessment, Proposal to Establish an Upper Hakalau National 

Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii County, Hawaii. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Honolulu HI. 

Tate, D.C. 1996. Effect of larval and postlarval fish behavior in determining the instream distribution 

of adult Awaous guamensis and Lentipes concolor in Hakalau Stream, Hawaii. In: Will stream 

restoration benefit freshwater, estuarine, and marine fisheries? (Devick, W. S., ed.). p 132-147. Proc. 

of 1994 Hawai‘i Stream Restoration Symposium. State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, Department of Land 

and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources. 

TenBruggencate, J. 2007. Floods, hotter climate in Isles likely by 2090. Honolulu Advertiser. 

February 25, 2007. 

Terry, J. 1998. Climate and Environmental Change in the Pacific. University of the South Pacific, 

School of Social and Economic Development: Suva, Fiji. 

Three Mountain Alliance (TMA). 2007. Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan. 

Timm, Oliver. 2008. Statistical Projection of Global Climate Change Scenarios onto Hawaiian 

Rainfall. Presented at the Forum on Climate Change in Hawaii, March 26, in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Tomonari-Tuggle. 1996. Bird catchers and bullock hunters in the upland Mauna Kea Forest: a 

cultural resource overview of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Island of Hawaii. 

International Archaeological Research Institute. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Climate Change and Hawaii. EPA 236-F-98- 

007e. Available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUNQM/$File/hi_ipct.pd 

f. Accessed September 12, 2007. 

USFWS. 1985. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), Proposed Acquisition to Establish the 

Upper Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii County, Hawaii. 

USFWS. 1996a. Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan. Portland, OR. 202 pp. 

USFWS. 1996b. Draft Reforestation Management Plan, Hakalau NWR. Hilo, HI. 

USFWS. 2002a. Fire Management Plan, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Kona Forest Unit. 

USFWS. 2002b. Fire Management Plan, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Kona Forest Unit. 




USFWS. 2004. Visitor Services Evaluation Report. Hakalau Forest NWR. Region 1. 

USFWS. 2005. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the 

San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). 

USFWS. 2006. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) Workbook 2006, Hakalau Forest 

NWR. 

USFWS. 2007. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) Workbook 2007, Hakalau Forest 

NWR. 

USFWS. 2008a. Final Environmental Assessment for Fencing of the Kona Forest Unit of the 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Hawai‘i County, Hawai‘i. 

USFWS. 2008b. Refuge Fact Sheet, Hakalau Forest NWR, Hakalau Forest Unit. 

USFWS. 2008c. Refuge Fact Sheet, Hakalau Forest NWR, Kona Forest Unit. 

Van Riper, C., III, S.G. Van Riper, and W.R. Hansen. 2002. Epizootiology and effect of avian pox on 

Hawaiian forest birds. Auk 119:929-942. 

Vitousek, Peter M. 1994. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology 75(7): 

1861–1876. 

Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, O. Hoegh- 

Guldberg, and F. Bairlein 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416:389-395. 

Willis, C.K.R., R.M. Brigham, and F. Geiseret. 2006. Deep, prolonged torpor by pregnant, freeranging 

bats. Naturwissenschaften 93:80–83. 

Woodward, Lee Ann. Resource Contaminants Specialist, USFWS. Personal Communication. June 

2008. 

Woodworth B. L, Atkinson C. T. , LaPointe D. A., Hart P. J., Spiegel C. S., Tweed E. J., Henneman 

C., LeBrun J., Denette T., DeMots R., Kozar K. L., Triglia D., Lease D., Gregor A., Smith T., and D. 

Duffy. 2005. Host population persistence in the face of introduced vector-borne diseases: Hawaii 

amakihi and avian malaria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102(5):1531–1536. 

Yuen and Associates. 1990. Water Resources Protection Plan, Volumes I and II. Prepared for the 

Commission on Water Resource Management. 


Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

‘Akiapōlā‘au/Jack Jeffrey Photography 

Above: ‘Alalā/USFWS 

Left: Cyanea shipmanii/Barry Stieglitz



Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

This chapter addresses the biological resources and habitats found on Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge. The chapter begins with a discussion of biological integrity and moves on to focus 

on the presentation of pertinent background information for each of the conservation targets 

designated under the CCP. Background information includes a description, location, condition, and 

trends associated with wildlife or habitats, key ecological attributes, and stresses and sources of stress 

(collectively, “threats”) to the target. The information presented was used as the CCP team developed 

goals and objectives for each of the conservation targets. 

4.1 Biological Integrity Analysis 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (amendment to the Administration 

Act) directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 

(BIDEH) of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. Elements of BIDEH are represented by native fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats as 

well as those ecological processes that support them. The Service‟s policy 601 FW 3 also provides 

guidance on consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat 

resources found on refuges, and associated ecosystems that represent BIDEH on each refuge. 

The Refuge is adjacent to the Hilo Forest Reserve and Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve (both 

State-owned and managed areas by the Division of Forestry and Wildlife), as well as State-owned 

and managed lands by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands above the upper elevation 

(Figure 1-1). The Refuge‟s lower elevation boundary lines are adjacent to private properties. The 

majority of DOFAW lands are forested and range from intact native forest to more degraded 

(nonnative) forest. Both DHHL land and some private lands are grazed completely with little to no 

forest, while other private lands (particularly the lower boundary in the southeastern corner) are 

heavily forested with native species. Of particular note is the section of the Hilo Forest Reserve that 

bisects the HFU. This State parcel is also a game management area. Differing land uses by these 

adjacent landowners can impact Refuge lands via invasive species, feral ungulates, and mammalian 

predator encroachment. 

The Refuge includes various native forest habitat types as well as subterranean habitats such as lava 

tubes and skylights. The HFU has intermittent streams as well. However, due to former land use 

practices (e.g., cattle ranching, logging, and sheep grazing), areas of the Refuge in both units have 

nonnative habitats that are composed of grasses and invasive weeds. Such areas at HFU are actively 

being restored through outplantings of native plants in order to regenerate the native forest habitats. 

The HFU in particular is a shining example of an area that gives hope to the perpetuation of native 

forest bird species. A study by the USGS-BRD (Figure 4-1) indicates many of the native forest bird 

species are stable or increasing at Hakalau Forest NWR, which is a stark contrast to the other areas 

included in the survey. This finding supports continuing the forest restoration activities undertaken 

by Refuge staff during the past 25 years. 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-1



Figure 4-1. Native forest bird trends on Hawai‘i Island. 

S=Stable; triangles indicate upward or downward trends. Source: Camp et al. 2010. 

The biological integrity of the area is high relative to much of the Island of Hawai„i. The 

conservation targets and focal habitats were chosen specifically as an attempt to return this portion of 

the landscape to its natural state. The greatest challenges are threats from nonnative species: plants, 

ungulates, and mammalian predators as well as diseases such as avian malaria. 

4.2 Conservation Target Selection and Analysis 

Early in the planning process, the CCP team cooperatively identified priority species, groups, and 

communities for this Refuge, as recommended under the Refuge System‟s Habitat Management 

Planning policy (620 FW1). These priorities, called conservation targets, frame the CCP actions for 

4-2 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats



wildlife and habitat. The conservation targets are species, species groups, or communities that the 

Refuge will actively manage to conserve and restore over the life of the CCP. Potential management 

actions will be evaluated on their effectiveness in achieving Refuge goals and objectives for the 

conservation targets. Additionally, management of these species and habitats will also benefit and 

support many other native species that are present on the Refuge. Negative features of the landscape, 

such as invasive plants, may demand a large part of the Refuge management effort, but are not 

designated as conservation targets. Through the consideration of the BIDEH, the Refuge will provide 

for or maintain all appropriate native habitats and species. These species and habitats can be found in 

Appendix F. 

Table 4-1. Refuge Conservation Targets. 

Species, Species 

Group, or Habitat 

Birds* 

Hawaiian Name, 

Common Name 

Anas wyvilliana Koloa maoli, 

Hawaiian duck 

Branta sandvicensis Nēnē, Hawaiian 

goose 

Fulica alai „Alae ke„oke„o, 

Hawaiian coot 

Buteo solitarius „Io, Hawaiian 

hawk 

Corvus hawaiiensis „Alalā, Hawaiian 

crow 

Supporting Habitat Type(s) and/or 

Specie(s) 

Life-History 

Requirement(s) 

Riparian corridors, ponds Foraging, nesting, loafing, 

feeding, roosting, all lifehistory 

requirements 

Grasslands, ponds Foraging, nesting, loafing, 

feeding, all life-history 

requirements except 

roosting 

Ponds Foraging, loafing 

Montane wet „ōhi„a, and mesic and 

dry koa/„ōhi„a forest, Montane wet 

„ōhi„a/ Dicranopteris sp. forest 

grasslands 

Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic 

koa/„ōhi„a forest, Montane mesic koa 

forest, Montane dry 

koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest 

Psittirostra psittacea „Ō„ū Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic 

koa/„ōhi„a forest 

Hemignathus munroi „Akiapōlā„au Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/ 

„ōhi„a forest, Montane dry 


Oreomystis mana Hawai„i creeper Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic 

koa/„ōhi„a forest, Montane dry 


Loxops c. coccineus Hawai„i „ākepa Montane wet „ōhi„a forest and mesic 

koa/„ōhi„a forest, Montane dry 


Mammal 

Lasiurus cinereus 

semotus 

„Ōpe„ape„a, 

Hawaiian hoary 

bat 


koa/„ōhi„a forest, grasslands, 

Montane dry koa/„ōhi„a/māmane 

forest 

Foraging, nesting, roosting, 

feeding, all life-history 

requirements 

Feeding, nesting, breeding, 

roosting. All life-history 

requirements 



requirements 



requirements 



requirements 



requirements 

Foraging, birthing, 

breeding, all life-history 

requirements 




Invertebrate 

Drosophila 

heteroneura 

Habitats** 

Montane wet „ōhi„a/ 

Dicranopteris sp. 

forest 

Montane wet „ōhi„a 

forest 

Montane wet 


Montane mesic 


Montane mesic koa 

forest 

Dry koa/„ōhi„a 

/māmane forest 

Lava tubes and 

skylights 

Aquatic habitats (e.g., 

intermittent streams 

and ponds) 


Common Name 

Picture-wing fly 

N/A 

N/A 




Specie(s) 


koa/„ōhi„a forest 4 

Life-History Requirement(s) 

All life-history requirements 

Native forest birds All life-history requirements 

Native forest birds All life-history requirements 

N/A Native forest birds All life-history requirements 




N/A Invertebrates All life-history requirements 

N/A Invertebrates and waterbirds All life-history requirements 

Carex bogs N/A Invertebrates, koloa maoli All life-history requirements 

Grasslands N/A Nēnē All life-history requirements 

Plants*** 

Asplenium 

peruvianum var. 

No common Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic n/a 

name 


insulare 

Clermontia 

Wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/„ōhi„a 

lindseyana „Oha wai forest 5 

n/a 

Clermontia peleana „Oha wai Montane wet „ōhi„a forest 5 n/a 

Clermontia pyrularia „Oha wai 



n/a 

Cyanea hamatiflora 2 Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic 

Hāhā 


n/a 

Cyanea platyphylla 2 „Aku„aku Montane wet „ōhi„a forest 5 n/a 

Cyanea shipmannii Hāhā 



n/a 

Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic n/a 

Cyanea stictophylla Hāhā 


Cyrtandra tintinabula Ha„iwale 

Wet koa/„ōhi„a forest 5 n/a 

Nothocestrum 

breviflorum 3 Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic n/a 

„Aiea 


Phyllostegia 

floribunda 1 

No common 

n/a 

name Wet koa/„ōhi„a forest 




Phyllostegia 

racemosa 


Common Name 

No common 

name 




Specie(s) 



Phyllostegia velutina No common Montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic 

name 


n/a 

Portulaca 

sclerocarpa 3 n/a 

Po„e Dry koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest 

Montane wet „ōhi„a forest, mesic n/a 

Sicyos macrophyllus „Anunu 


Silene hawaiiensis 1 

No common 

n/a 

Notes: 

name Dry koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest 

* Species appear in taxonomic order. 

** Habitat types follow Jacobi et al. (1989). 

*** Species appear in alphabetical order. 

1 

Specimen found on Refuge currently pending verification. 

2 

No individuals are known from the Refuge. 

3 

Plants known from adjacent area but not currently known from Kona Forest Unit. 

4 

Critical habitat has been designated for these species at Kona Forest Unit. 

5 

Critical habitat has been designated for these species at Hakalau Forest Unit. 

4.3 Habitats 

Life-History 

Requirement(s) 

Both the HFU and KFU are montane communities located between 1,640-8,900 ft. This community 

type is further divided based on annual rainfall; montane dry communities receive less than 48 in per 

year, montane mesic communities receive between 48-100 inches of rainfall per year, and montane 

wet communities are defined as areas receiving more than 100 inches annually (Wagner et al. 1999). 

These plant communities are then defined based on the vegetation cover. For example, a community 

that has greater than 25 percent of the upper vegetation layer covered by trees is defined as a forest 

(Wagner et al. 1999). 

On the Island of Hawai„i, montane forests have been severely altered by a variety of factors, 

including land use changes and invasive species introductions. In particular, introduced mosquitoes 

transmit avian diseases that have resulted in declines in native bird populations and ungulates have 

removed native plant species. Conservation and restoration efforts are needed to improve habitat 

conditions at both units of the Hakalau Forest NWR. 

4.3.1 Hakalau Forest Unit 

The habitats at the HFU are defined according to gradients of elevation, temperature, and rainfall. In 

addition topography, soils, and geological substrate play a role in influencing these zones. The 

montane habitats at HFU have been transformed by years of cattle ranching and logging, creating 

isolated areas of relatively undisturbed forest and highly modified open woodland (VanderWerf 

1993). The native species dominated habitats within the HFU are described below, from lowest to 

highest elevation as well as several nonnative species dominated communities, including stands of 

eucalyptus and sugi pines, as well as former pasture lands that are still dominated by nonnative grass 

species. Figure 4-2 shows the main vegetation types found on the HFU. 

Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 4-5 

n/a



Montane wet ‘ōhi‘a/uluhe forest, including Carex bogs 

This habitat type is found between 2,500-4,000 ft in elevation. The topography of the montane wet 

„ōhi„a/uluhe forest is gently sloping; however, numerous steep-sided streams bisect the surface. The 

volcanic soils are aged, eroded, and typically poorly drained (USFWS, unpubl.). 

The upper canopy of this habitat type is composed of scattered mature „ōhi„a (over 100 years old), as 

well as medium stature „ōhi„a approximately 30 ft in height. The midcanopy zone, between 10-15 ft, 

is dominated by hāpu„u. The ground cover is composed mostly of dense mats of uluhe that make 

access difficult. Numerous native Carex bogs can be found scattered throughout the lower elevations 

of this habitat. These bogs occur naturally in flat areas where a limited amount of open water is 

retained in a clay-layered depression. Sphagnum moss also exists in these bogs. The bogs at the HFU 

range from 8-12 ft deep (Tomonari-Tuggle 1996). 

The steep topography of the montane wet „ōhi„a/uluhe forest provides protection for native and 

endangered plants from grazing ungulates. For example, the bogs are used by rare invertebrates and 

possibly the koloa maoli (USFWS, unpubl.). 

Although endangered flora and fauna do occur in this habitat type, the montane wet „ōhi„a/ uluhe 

forest in the HFU is the most exposed to invasive species from lower elevations. Limiting factors in 

the montane wet „ōhi„a/uluhe forest include invasive species such as ungulates, rats, mice, slugs, 

mosquitoes, and nonnative plants. In particular, native bird densities are curbed by avian diseases, 

which are transmitted by mosquitoes that are able to breed up to 4,500 ft in elevation. Native plant 

and invertebrate diversity is also assumed to be low and native pollinators are lacking. Eutrophication 

and elimination of Carex bogs is occurring due to pig activity. As a result, the bogs are primarily 

invaded by nonnative rushes. Limited historical and current anthropogenic disturbance occurs within 

the montane wet „ōhi„a/uluhe forest (USFWS, unpubl.). 

Montane wet ‘ōhi‘a forest 

This habitat type is found upslope of the montane wet „ōhi„a/uluhe forest, between 4,000-5,000 ft. 

The montane wet „ōhi„a forest within the HFU maintains a more diverse plant and native bird 

community than the lower elevation habitat due to the location above the mosquito zone (USFWS, 

unpubl.). 

The upper canopy of the wet „ōhi„a forest is dominated by a mature closed canopy of „ōhi„a that 

reach 60-90 ft. Midcanopy species include „ōhi„a, „ōlapa, pilo, kōlea, epiphytes, and tree ferns 

reaching up to 15 ft. The ground cover is dominated by mixed ferns, Astelia lilies, „ōhelo, kanawao, 

pūkiawe, and kāwa„u. Downed timber and sphagnum moss are also dominant in this habitat at the 

ground level. Slopes are moderate (USFWS, unpubl.). 

Rare native forest birds, such as the „akiapōlā„au, Hawai„i creeper, and Hawai„i „ākepa, are found in 

montane wet „ōhi„a forest at the HFU. The area also provides potential habitat for Clermontia 

peleana subsp. peleana and other rare native plants. 

Similar to the montane wet „ōhi„a/uluhe forest, invasive species and lack of native pollinators are 

also a problem within the montane wet „ōhi„a forest (USFWS, unpubl.). 


Figure 4-2. HFU vegetation type. 








Montane wet koa/ ‘ōhi‘a forest 



Located between 5,000-6,000 ft, the montane wet koa/„ōhi„a forest habitat type is comprised of 

mixed age class koa and „ōhi„a. Various flowering and fruiting trees can be found at the midcanopy 

level including: „ākala, „ōlapa, pilo, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa„u. Mixed ferns and epiphytes can 

also occur in the midcanopy. The ground cover in the montane wet koa/„ōhi„a forest is dominated by 

fern species such as Dryopterus sp. (Tomonari-Tuggle 1996). Slopes in this habitat are moderate. 

A diverse assemblage of native and endangered plants and animals occurs in this habitat type. This 

includes the koloa maoli and the „ōpe„ape„a (USFWS, unpubl.). 

In addition to habitat threats present in other areas of the HFU, the montane wet koa/„ōhi„a forest has 

been exposed to greater human disturbance, especially cattle grazing. Areas previously forested in 

koa and „ōhi„a that have been exposed to browsing have largely been converted to grasslands, 

suggesting that the habitat type cannot tolerate this land use (Stine 1985, Tomonari-Tuggle 1996). 

Montane mesic koa forest 

The montane mesic koa forest habitat type can be found at the highest elevation of the unit between 

6,000 - 6,600 ft. Koa is the dominant vegetation cover in this area and the trees are mixed ages. 

Characteristic midcanopy species within this forest include „ōlapa, „ākala, pilo, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, 

kōlea, kāwa„u, ferns, and epiphytes. 

A low concentration of native forest birds currently occurs in this habitat. Nēnē are found throughout 

the habitat. This habitat preference is likely biased since captive-bred birds are released in this area. 

„Ōpe„ape„a and the „io have been recorded in the montane mesic koa forest. Various native and 

endangered plants and a single native grass, Deschampsia nubigena, are also present here. 

This forest shares similar threats as other habitats within the HFU. The historical area of mesic koa 

forest was reduced to nonnative grassland by grazing, timber harvest, and fires; however, the Refuge 

is working to restore this habitat by outplanting native species. Nonnative grasses include various 

species of Anthoxanthum, Holcus, Pennisetum, and Ehrharta. 

Aquatic habitats (streams, ponds, Carex bogs) 

Several streams are located within the HFU. Streams start as intermittent in higher elevations and for 

some become perennial at lower elevations of the Refuge (Figure 4-2). Some streams are found in 

gulches or with steep walls, thereby providing better protection for endangered and native plants 

from grazing by ungulates. Fauna within the streams are unknown and unstudied, but invertebrates 

are believed to be the main users of this habitat. Threats to these habitats include gorse, which can 

displace native riparian vegetation, and ungulates and rats, which can affect water quality through 

soil disturbance and feces deposition. 

The Refuge also has manmade and semipermanent natural ponds. These habitats are seasonal and the 

manmade ponds will not be maintained by Refuge staff as they have transitioned to Carex and 

Juncus vegetation, which can be used by koloa maoli. 

Carex bog habitat is discussed previously under montane wet „ōhi„a/uluhe forest. 


Grasslands 



Grasslands for nēnē foraging are created as part of the maintenance of fuel breaks (50 acres) as well 

as an existing 15-acre site (for nesting) maintained near the administrative site at Hakalau cabin. 

Currently these grasslands are a combination of native and nonnative grasses. Nēnē typically use 

mid- to high-elevation native and nonnative shrubland and early successional grasslands, native 

alpine grasslands and shrublands, and open native and nonnative alpine shrubland-woodland 

community interfaces. Threats to this habitat type are wildfire. 

4.3.2 Kona Forest Unit 

The habitat types within the KFU are influenced by rainfall, elevation, and historical volcanism. In 

addition, human activities such as logging and cattle ranching have impacted the wet, mesic, and dry 

habitat types throughout the KFU (Figure 4-3). As in the HFU, former pasture land, dominated by 

nonnative grasses, as well as a large section of lowland wet/mesic forest dominated by nonnative tree 

and shrub species (e.g., Christmas berry and strawberry guava species) are found within the KFU. 

Montane wet ‘ōhi‘a forest 

The montane wet „ōhi„a forest occurs in two elevational bands: a lower gradient between 2,000- 

3,000 ft and an upper gradient between 3,500-4,500 ft. Both the lower and upper gradients have an 

upper tree canopy that is dominated by a closed canopy of mature „ōhi„a. The canopy is between 60- 

80 ft high. 

In the lower gradient, midcanopy species include a mix of introduced species such as Christmas 

berry and strawberry guava, as well as the native hame, „ie„ie, kōlea, hāpu„u, „ōhi„a, and various 

epiphytes. The groundcover in the lower gradient is dominated by introduced Koster‟s curse and 

thimbleberry, as well as a mix of introduced and native ferns. In the upper gradient, the midcanopy 

contains „ōhi„a, pilo, Clermontia sp., „ōlapa, kāwa„u, kōlea, pūkiawe, hāpu„u, „ie„ie, and epiphytes. 

Ferns (both introduced and native species) and introduced grasses are the primary groundcover. 

There are three primary differences between the upper and lower elevation gradients in montane wet 

„ōhi„a forest habitat type at the KFU. Compared to the lower gradient, the upper gradient has higher 

plant diversity in the midcanopy. The ground cover in the upper canopy is dominated by grasses, 

while the ground cover in the lower gradient is mostly herbaceous. In addition, the lower elevation 

gradient of this habitat type receives more rainfall annually than the upper gradient. 

As a result of the lack of mosquitoes and increased plant diversity, the upper gradient of this habitat 

type supports a diverse native bird community. The „ōpe„ape„a and various endangered plants also 

occur in these areas. 

Invasive species, such as ungulates, rats, mice, slugs, mosquitoes, and plants, threaten the montane 

wet „ōhi„a forest at the KFU. In addition, plants are limited due to a lack of native pollinators. 

Farming, ranching, and fires have also affected the native landscape, transforming native forests into 

grasslands. 


Figure 4-3. KFU vegetation type. 








Montane mesic koa/‘ōhi‘a forest 



The habitat between 4,500-5,800 ft is defined as a montane mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest. It is primarily 

composed of mixed age trees of both species. The midcanopy is dominated by a mix of flowering 

and fruiting trees such as Clermontia sp., pilo, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa„u. Tree ferns, mixed 

ferns, and epiphytes also occur in the understory. 

The mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest is potential habitat for several endangered species, such as the „alalā, 

„ōpe„ape„a, picture-wing flies, and various plants. It also provides foraging and nesting areas for 

native forest birds. 

Wildfires are a serious threat to the mesic forests above 5,000 ft in elevation due to nonnative grass 

fuel. The montane mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest is threatened by ungulates. Sheep, which do not exist in 

the wet „ōhi„a forest, exist in the montane mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest above 5,000 ft. A lack of native 

pollinators also threatens this habitat. 

Native dry koa/‘ōhi‘a/māmane forest 

This native dry koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest is located at the upper elevation of the KFU between 

5,800-6,100 ft. Abandoned pastures, skid trails, and mill sites are present in this zone. 

The upper canopy of this forest is composed of koa, „ōhi„a, and māmane, while the understory 

consists of iliahi, kukainene, naio, pilo, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, and mixed ferns. 

The dry koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest is potential habitat for the „alalā, „ōpe„ape„a, endangered plants, 

and endangered invertebrates. Native forest birds (such as „akiapōlā„au, Hawai„i „ākepa, and Hawai„i 

creeper) are also found in this habitat. 

This forest shares similar threats as other habitats within the Refuge, such as invasive species and 

lack of native pollinators. 

Lava tube and lave tube skylight 

Lava tubes are subterranean channels that were created by flowing molten lava, particularly 

pahoehoe lava. This type of basaltic lava is warmer, faster moving and less viscous than „a„ā lava 

(Howarth 1973). Because pahoehoe lava does not fuse with the existing surface, extensive horizontal 

spaces and vesicle-like channels develop. When the surface crust of a lava flow cools, the underlying 

flow is insulated, allowing it to travel for many miles without losing its heat energy. As the volcanic 

eruption ceases, the molten lava drains from the channel, leaving an empty passage or lava tube. In 

Hawai„i, tubes formed in pahoehoe lava can reach up to 40.7 ft in length (Howarth 1983, Kauahikaua 

et al. 2004). 

Sections of lava tube roofs often collapse naturally creating skylights, which are vertical-walled 

openings. Typically, skylights form on sloped terrain shortly after lava tube formation (Kauahikaua 

et al. 2004). Skylights are exposed to the surface environment of rainfall, sunlight, and temperature 

fluctuations. Due to the steep walls, skylights also serve as natural refugia where endangered or rare 

plants can persist without being damaged by herbivores (USFWS, unpubl.). 




Moist air, relatively constant moderate temperature, and lack of light are attributes of these cave 

systems. In general, lave tubes can be divided into four zones – entrance, twilight, transition, and true 

dark. The entrance zone is the opening of the lava tube and is generally rich in resources. Green 

vegetation lessens in the twilight zone where light is reduced. In the transition zone, no light is 

present, but surface environmental conditions are not absent. Finally, the true dark zone is 

characterized by constant darkness and has steady environmental conditions (Howarth 1973). 

4.4 Endangered Hawaiian Forest Birds 

Over two-thirds of the remaining native forest birds in Hawai„i are federally listed under the ESA. 

The isolation of the Hawaiian Islands has contributed both to the endemism of the forest birds and to 

their potential for endangerment. Isolation has made them particularly vulnerable to diseases such as 

avian malaria and pox, one of the most critical threats to native forest birds. The endangered species 

present in Hakalau Forest NWR include three families of birds: Fringillidae (honeycreepers), 

Corvidae (crows) and Accipitridae (hawks). The majority are Hawaiian honeycreepers (Fringillidae: 

Drepanidinae) and include the „akiapōlā„au, Hawai„i „ākepa, Hawai„i creeper, and „ō„ū. The „alalā 

and „io are the two other species of concern. All species are endemic to the Island of Hawai„i, with 

the exception of the „ō„ū, which formerly occurred on all the main Hawaiian Islands but may now be 

extinct. 

Statewide surveys of the distribution, abundance, and habitat occurrences of native forest birds began 

in 1976 (Scott et al. 1986). These efforts were followed up by annual surveys that allow for 

monitoring and the examination of trends in forest bird densities over time, particularly of the 

endangered Hawaiian forest birds. Long-term data are available for two areas on the Island of 

Hawai„i in particular: the North Hāmākua study area and the central windward region of Hawai„i 

Island. These two areas are described in detail below. 

The North Hāmākua area (160,230 ac) is located on the eastern flank of Mauna Kea, from 1,000- 

8,000 ft elevation (Figure 4-4). This area includes the HFU and surrounding public and private lands. 

The study area is steeply dissected by ridges and erosion gullies, with frequent major tree falls (Camp 

et al. 2003). 

Most surveys within the North Hāmākua study area were conducted in the montane forest, which has 

a canopy dominated by old growth „ōhi„a and koa. „Ōlapa, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, „ākala, and hāpu„u are 

the most common subcanopy trees and shrubs. Vegetation at low elevations (0-1,970 ft) consists of 

nonnative trees, shrubs, and grasses in agriculture and urban/exurban settings. Vegetation at middle 

elevations (1,970–6,230 ft) is dominated by native „ōhi„a and koa/„ōhi„a forest, whereas the highest 

elevations (more than 6,230 ft) are comprised of pasture, subalpine native shrubland, and māmane 

and koa woodland. Nonnative plant species may be found throughout parts of the native forest at all 

elevations (Camp et al. 2003). 

The central windward region of Hawai„i Island includes approximately 166,300 ac of mid- to highelevation 

rainforest on the windward slopes of Mauna Loa Volcano, between 2,300-6,890 ft. It was 

divided into four study areas: Kūlani-Keauhou, „Ōla„a, Mauna Loa Strip, and East Rift (Gorresen et 

al. 2005). 


Figure 4-4. North Hāmākua study area. 



The Kūlani-Keauhou study area (elevation 3,280-4,920 ft) and surrounding region is comprised of 

wet ‘ōhi‘a and koa dominated forests. The clearing of forest and ranching largely ceased in the 

1990s, and the region is now managed mainly as native forest. Recent management has included 

removal of livestock, tree planting, and in some areas removal of ungulates and weed control. The 

‘Ōla‘a study area (elevation 3,280-4,920 ft) is comprised of wet ‘ōhi‘a and hāpu‘u forests. 




Management actions include the eradication of pigs and control of nonnative plants (Gorresen et al. 

2005). 

Management of the Mauna Loa Strip study area (elevation approximately 3,280-4,920 ft) by the 

Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park includes the exclusion of ungulates (cows, goats, pigs, and sheep) 

and the control of nonnative plants. The East Rift study area (1,640-3,280 ft) is comprised of wet 

„ōhi„a-dominated forests. The portion of the study area that lies within the Hawai„i Volcanoes 

National Park has received ungulate control. The adjacent area (i.e., Kahauale„a Natural Area 

Reserve) has received no nonnative plant or ungulate control. The forest surrounding and including 

parts of the study area have been extensively disturbed by lava flows, fire, and „ōhi„a dieback 

(Gorresen et al. 2005). 

Figure 4-5 shows the configuration of Forest Bird Survey Transect lines established at the Hakalau 

Forest Unit (HFU) for annual bird surveys. 

4.4.1 ‘Akiapōlā‘au (Hemignathus munroi) 

The „akiapōlā„au is a medium-sized, stocky, short-tailed Hawaiian honeycreeper. Its bill has a long, 

sickle-shaped upper mandible and a short, straight lower mandible that is only half as long as the 

upper. Males are larger and heavier than females and have a slightly longer bill. Adult males have a 

bright yellow head and underparts, a greenish back and wings, and black lores. Adult females differ 

in color, with a yellowish-white chin, throat, and upper breast that contrasts with a pale yellowishgray 

lower breast and belly. Fledglings have a mottled yellowish-gray or green plumage with pale 

underparts. 

The „akiapōlā„au is endemic to the Island of Hawai„i. Historically, the „akiapōlā„au was much more 

common and widespread than it is today, being found virtually islandwide in native forest. In the 

early 1900s, these forest birds were reportedly abundant, occurring in forests as low as 1,650 ft near 

Hilo. In the 1940s, they were still present above 5,500 ft in Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park, but by 

1970 they had disappeared from the Park and were less common elsewhere (Pratt et al. 2001a). 

In the 1970s, „akiapōlā„au were found in five disjunct populations with a total estimated population 

size of 1,500 ± 400 birds (confidence interval (CI) =95 percent) (Scott et al. 1986). Four of these 

populations inhabited koa-dominated montane forests in Hāmākua south to the upper Waiākea 

kīpuka, Kūlani, and Keauhou, in Ka„ū and Kapāpala, in southern Kona, and in central Kona. A fifth 

population occupied subalpine dry forest on Mauna Kea. Originally these populations were all 

connected, but they have since been isolated by clearing of forest, mainly due to grazing. 

The most recent population estimate, based on islandwide surveys from 1990-1995, is 1,163 birds, 

with a 90 percent CI of 1,109-1,217 birds (Fancy et al. 1995). However, more recent surveys indicate 

that the population size might be greater. 




Figure 4-5. Annual forest bird survey transects. 








The largest population has long been thought to occur in the Hāmākua region. As of 2000, 

approximately 1,600 ( 44 standard error (SE)) „akiapōlā„au were estimated to occur in the North 

Hāmākua area. The HFU currently protects 50 percent of the „akiapōlā„au population in the study 

area (approximately 800 „akiapōlā„au). In this Unit, a positive trend in „akiapōlā„au density was 

observed for the 24-year study period (1977-2000); no trends in „akiapōlā„au densities were detected 

for the 14-year study period (1987-2000). The density of birds for the 14-year study period in the 

HFU was estimated to be 0.44 birds per acre (standard deviation (SD) = 0.39) (Camp et al. 2003). 

In the Ka„ū/Kapāpala area, the population had reportedly decreased from an estimated 533- 

544 individuals since the 1970s (Fancy et al. 1995), but a more recent and intensive survey revealed a 

population in this region of more than 1,000 birds (USGS, unpubl.). 

In the central windward region of Hawai„i (Figure 4-6), a 1972-1975 survey of Keauhou Ranch and 

the Kīlauea Forest Reserve recorded an overall „akiapōlā„au density of 0.2 birds per acre. Subsequent 

surveys in 1977, the 1990s, and 2000s detected densities of only 0.04 birds per acre. A 2002 survey 

of the Upper Waiākea Forest Reserve directly north of the Kūlani-Keauhou study area did not record 

„akiapōlā„au in areas in which they had been detected during the 1977 survey (Gorresen et al. 2005, 

USFWS 2006b). The range of the „akiapōlā„au also no longer includes the „Ōla„a Tract and „Ōla„a 

Forest Reserve from which the species were recorded as late as the 1960s. These results may indicate 

the species‟ range has contracted upslope. Despite the apparent decline in „akiapōlā„au density, the 

assessment of trend remains inconclusive. However, regenerating koa in degraded or deforested areas 

on Kamehameha Schools‟ Keauhou Ranch and the Kapāpala Forest Reserve recently has been 

observed to support relatively high densities of „akiapōlā„au (Pratt et al. 2001a, Pejchar 2004). 

Three „akiapōlā„au remained in the māmane forest on Mauna Kea in 2000, but all three of these birds 

are now gone. In the late 1970s, a relict population of 20 birds remained in the koa/„ōhi„a forests of 

central Kona. „Akiapōlā„au were last detected in central Kona in the mid-1990s (USFWS 2006b) and 

recent field surveys did not detect „akiapōlā„au in the area (USFWS 2008). The current status of the 

birds in southern Kona is unknown (USFWS 2006b). 

At the HFU, „akiapōlā„au are found in montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest and montane 

dry koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest. „Akiapōlā„au attained highest densities in the upper elevation in areas 

with a koa component and heterogeneous habitats along the forest margins (Camp et al. 2003). 

„Akiapōlā„au are positively associated with koa and closed canopy, and „akiapōlā„au density is 

significantly and positively associated with „ōhi„a, high-stature forest and negatively associated with 

grass and presence of banana poka. Recent observations of „akiapōlā„au have been in montane mesic 

and wet forest dominated by koa and „ōhi„a or in subalpine dry forest dominated by māmane and 

naio. 

Males and females remain together in pairs most of the time. From the limited data available, 

breeding occurs year-round (Pratt et al. 2001a). The home range size of both sexes varies from 

approximately 12-100 ac. Territories are defended, and there is little evidence of daily or seasonal 

movements. Habitat types influence the size of home ranges, with larger ranges occurring in open 

forest and smaller ranges in koa plantation; home ranges vary from 56.8 ± 17.8 ac in open forest to 

30.4 ± 17.8 ac in closed forests, and 28.9 ± 10.6 ac in young koa plantations. Furthermore, home 

ranges overlapped more in koa plantations (41.2 percent), than in closed forest (22.6 percent) or open 


Figure 4-6. Central windward study area. 



forest (9.2 percent). This results in even higher population densities in koa plantations (13 pairs per 

247 acres), than in closed forest (10 pairs per 247 acres) or open forest (5 pairs per 247 acres) 

(Pejchar 2005). 

Moth larvae are the most common food item in ‘akiapōlā‘au fecal samples, followed by spiders and 

longhorned beetle larvae (Ralph and Fancy 1996). Koa, kōlea, māmane, and naio are the moths’ 




preferred forage plant species, while „ōhi„a is not favored. The foraging behavior of „akiapōlā„au is 

very specialized compared with that of other forest birds, and foraging sites and food may be 

limiting. This species rarely takes nectar from flowers, but it recently has been discovered to drink 

sap from small wells it drills in the bark of „ōhi„a trees. 

Only a few trees in a bird‟s territory are used for this purpose, and they are defended against other 

„akiapōlā‟au. On average, sap trees are larger, have thinner bark, greater sap flow, and tend to occur 

on convex slopes with more light (Pejchar and Jeffrey 2004). 

„Akiapōlā„au often join mixed-species foraging flocks, perhaps to enhance detection of predators. In 

montane mesic forests, they most frequently associate with Hawai„i creeper and „ākepa, whereas in 

subalpine dry forest they are found with Hawai„i „amakihi and palila. The importance of these flocks 

to „akiapōlā„au has not been studied but may prove relevant to the conservation of this species and 

the need to maintain intact, functioning ecosystems (USFWS 2006b). 

„Akiapōlā„au are limited by habitat loss and degradation, predation, and introduced diseases. Due to 

its low reproductive rate, this species may be particularly vulnerable to these threats and slow to 

recover. Other factors, such as competition from introduced avian and arthropod insectivores may 

also limit the range of the species (USFWS 2006b). 

The impact of habitat loss and degradation, particularly in mesic and dry forest, also threaten 

„akiapōlā„au. Dry high elevation māmane-naio forest habitat on the slopes of Mauna Kea has been 

severely degraded by decades of browsing by goats and sheep. The dispersal behavior of 

„akiapōlā„au is poorly known, but habitat fragmentation may isolate the remaining populations, 

decrease the effective population size, and hinder recolonization of areas that were formerly 

inhabited (USFWS 2006b). 

Predation of nests and adults by rats, cats, mongooses, and owls is suspected to have a significant 

impact on many native Hawaiian bird species (Atkinson 1977, Smucker et al. 2000, VanderWerf and 

Smith 2002). Recent surveys indicate rat densities are high at the HFU, which contains a significant 

portion of the largest remaining „akiapōlā„au population (USGS, unpubl.). Juvenile „akiapōlā„au may 

be especially vulnerable to predators during the post-fledging period because their loud, persistent 

begging call makes them easy to locate (USFWS 2006b). 

Most Hawaiian forest birds are susceptible to introduced mosquito-borne diseases, and the 

„akiapōlā„au may be limited to its current high-elevation distribution by these diseases (Scott et al. 

1986; van Riper et al. 1986; Atkinson et al. 1995, 2005). Despite the availability of apparently 

suitable habitat, „akiapōlā„au are absent from most areas below 4,500 ft, where mosquitoes are 

common (USFWS 2006b). 

4.4.2 Hawai‘i ‘Ākepa (Loxops coccineus coccineus) 

The Hawai„i „ākepa is a small sexually dichromatic Hawaiian honeycreeper. Males obtain their 

bright orange adult plumage 3 years after hatching (Lepson and Freed 1995). The subadult plumage 

is dull brownish-orange, although individual variation is high. Females are grayish green with a 

yellow breast band. The lower mandible of the „ākepa is slightly bent to one side which results in the 

mandible tips being offset; a characteristic shared with the „akeke„e. The bend can be to the left or 




right, and depending on the direction of the bend, individuals also possess an accompanying leg 

asymmetry; the leg opposite the curve in the mandible is slightly longer than the other leg (Mitchell 

et al. 2005). 

Hawai„i „ākepa are endemic to the Island of Hawai„i and are currently found in five disjunct 

populations in „ōhi„a/koa forests in Hāmākua, Kūlani/Keauhou, Ka„ū, southern Kona, and Hualālai, 

totaling approximately 14,000 ± 2,500 birds (95 percent CI) in 1980 (Scott et al. 1986). The highest 

densities occurred in the southwestern portion of the Ka„ū Forest Reserve and in the Pua „Ākala 

Tract of HFU (Scott et al. 1986), and these supported the largest populations, comprising 5,300 ± 

1,500 (95 percent CI) birds and 7,900 ± 1,800 (95 percent CI) birds, respectively. The populations in 

southern Kona and Hualālai were much smaller; approximately 660 ± 250 (95 percent CI) birds 

combined (Scott et al. 1986), and apparently have declined since those surveys (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

More recent surveys of the North Hāmākua area (1977-2000) estimate that approximately 8,300 ( 

144 SE) Hawai„i „ākepa occur in the study area (Camp et al. 2003). The HFU protects 72 percent of 

the Hawai„i „ākepa population in the study area (approximately 6,000 „ākepa). A positive trend in 

Hawai„i „ākepa density was observed for the 24-year study period (1977-2000); no changes in 

densities were detected for the 14-year study period (1987-2000). The densities of Hawai„i „ākepa at 

the HFU was 0.05 birds per acre (0.12 birds per ac, SD = 0.58) in the 1977 survey and 0.39 birds per 

acre (0.97 birds per ac, SD = 2.03) for the 14-year study period. However, recent analysis of surveys 

from 1987-2005 indicate that Hawai„i „ākepa densities are now stable or increasing at a mean rate of 

2.3 percent per year (Hawai„i Forest Bird Database 2005). 

In the central windward region of Hawai„i, Hawai„i „ākepa have historically demonstrated 

contractions in distribution. Populations in the region are presently limited to a narrow band of high 

elevation forest habitat in Kūlani-Keauhou and may be isolated from those in the Ka„ū and north 

windward regions (Gorresen et al. 2005). At Kūlani-Keauhou, although the trend was not significant, 

densities appear to have declined between the 1995-1998 and 2001-2003 survey periods (0.12 - 

0.09 birds per acre). Hawai„i „ākepa densities averaged 0.19 birds per acre in the 1972-1975 survey 

and 0.15 birds per acre in 1977. The declines in Hawai„i „ākepa may be related to loss of old growth 

habitat at Keauhou Ranch, particularly in the early 1980s (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

Hawai‟i „ākepa were not recorded in the Mauna Loa Strip and are no longer found in the „Ōla„a Tract 

and „Ōla„a Forest Reserve. A regional population decline is also evident in the species‟ extirpation 

from adjacent areas within the Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

At the HFU, Hawai„i „ākepa are locally common, and found in the montane wet „ōhi„a forest, mesic 

koa/„ōhi„a forest, and montane dry koa/„ōhi„a māmane forest. Densities of Hawai„i „ākepa are highest 

in upper elevation koa/„ōhi„a and „ōhi„a forests of high stature and closed canopy (Camp et al. 2003) 

and occur in a gradient of population density, with a small core area of highest density in the Pua 

„Ākala area and rapid decreases in density away from the core (Scott et al. 1986, Hart 2001). The 

species was absent or occurred at low densities in heterogeneous habitats along the grass-forest 

interface and in mid-elevation forest (Camp et al. 2003). 

Several Hawai„i „ākepa have been regularly detected during bird surveys in the KFU since 1999 

(USFWS 2008). 




Hawai„i „ākepa occur in „ōhi„a and koa/„ōhi„a forests above 4,300 ft (USFWS 2006b). The species 

feeds mainly on „ōhi„a leaf clusters, but also on koa leaves and seed pods, where it uses its bill to pry 

open leaf and flower buds in search of small arthropods. Birds also have been seen foraging 

occasionally in the leaves of naio, „a„ali„i, pūkiawe, pilo, „ōhelo, and „ākala. The Hawai„i „ākepa 

feeds primarily on small insects, spiders, and caterpillars throughout the year. It rarely feeds on 

nectar (Fretz 2000). Both adults and juveniles frequently join interspecific foraging flocks with other 

Hawaiian honeycreepers, particularly Hawai„i creepers, and also „akiapōlā„au, Hawai„i „amakihi, 

„i„iwi, and „apapane. 

Hawai„i „ākepa breed from early March-May (Lepson et al. 1997). This species is an obligate cavity 

nester, with most nests placed in natural cavities found in old-growth „ōhi„a and koa trees. 

Consequently, their density depends in part on the density of large trees, because only large trees 

provide the cavities required for nesting (Hart 2000, 2001; Freed 2001). The average size of trees 

used for nesting is 3.3 ft in diameter at breast height (Freed 2001). „Ōhi„a appear to be more 

important to „ākepa than koa. Large „ōhi„a trees provide both cavities for nest-sites and the preferred 

foraging substrate, whereas large koa trees provide mainly cavities (Freed 2001). The greater 

importance of „ōhi„a is also supported by „ākepa densities because the highest density of Hawai„i 

„ākepa on Mauna Loa, in the Ka‟ū Forest Reserve, is in an area without koa (Scott et al. 1986). 

Breeding densities at HFU appear to be limited by the availability of nest sites (Hart 2000), and the 

population may be at or near carrying capacity with respect to food availability (Fretz 2000). 

Hawai„i „ākepa are likely susceptible to the same factors that threaten other native Hawaiian forest 

birds, including: loss and degradation of habitat, predation by mammals, and disease (Mitchell et al. 

2005, USFWS 2006b). Hawai„i „ākepa are especially sensitive to the loss of old growth forest due to 

their dependence on large trees with cavities for nesting (Freed 2001). The clearing of forest by 

logging and ranching has greatly reduced the amount of suitable habitat for Hawai„i „ākepa and other 

forest birds. Logging and ranching has also resulted in the fragmentation of the remaining forest 

habitat. It was previously thought that areas of highest „ākepa density with trees large enough to 

provide nest sites were falling at a rate of 13 trees per mi 2 per year at HFU and that reduction of nest 

sites in high-density areas was a major threat. New data by Hart et al. shows that the forest is 

recovering, that large tree loss may not be a limiting factor currently, and that the forest will provide 

nest sites in the future. 

It is possible that the increased light under which „ōhi„a seedlings are germinating is producing trees 

with an almost exclusively sympodial (multi-trunked) growth form, which typically do not produce 

cavities suitable for Hawai„i „ākepa nests, although not enough data is available to say this 

definitively. The „ōhi„a trees used as nest sites by the birds are almost exclusively monopodial 

(straight and single-trunked) in form (Freed 2001). 

Hawai„i „ākepa are also threatened by avian diseases. The species is not found below 4,300 ft, 

presumably because of the distribution of the introduced mosquito that transmits avian malaria and 

avian pox (van Riper et al. 1986, 2002). Furthermore, the cavity nests of the Hawai„i „ākepa may be 

vulnerable to rat predation. However, nest success is high at Pua „Ākala in the HFU, where rat 

densities are high (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Forest bird issues including potential competition between the invasive Japanese white- eye and the 

„ākepa, as well as „ākepa status and a debate over survey methodology and data analysis in the 

scientific community have been addressed in recent years through the Service‟s peer review 




process/the Forest Bird Workshop (USFWS 2008) and continues in published literature (Camp et. al 

2010, Freed 2010, etc.). The Service expects to support appropriate studies in the future as needed to 

address these issues (see Appendix C). 

4.4.3 Hawai‘i Creeper (Oreomystis mana) 

The Hawai„i creeper is a small, inconspicuous Hawaiian honeycreeper. Adult males and females are 

predominately olive-green above, dull buff below, and have a dark gray mask extending around the 

eyes; males are brighter. Their similarity to Hawai„i „amakihi, Hawai„i „ākepa, and introduced 

Japanese white-eyes complicates field identification. 

Hawai„i creeper are endemic to the Island of Hawai„i. In the 1890s, Hawai„i creepers were found in 

„ōhi„a and „ōhi„a/koa forests throughout the Island of Hawai„i, usually above 3,600 ft elevation. 

Hawai„i creepers were recorded in the Kona and Ka„ū districts as well as the forests above Hilo. 

They were noted to be very abundant and generally distributed but had some unexplainable gaps in 

their distribution, especially at lower elevations. In general, the Hawai„i creeper‟s decline was not 

well documented, perhaps in part due to difficulties of field identification. However, a drastic decline 

in numbers in Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park during the 1930s and 1940s was noted, and the 

species had virtually disappeared from the Park by about 1960 (USFWS 2006b). 

As of 1979, the Hawai„i creeper was confined to four disjunct populations in wet and mesic forests, 

primarily above 5,000 ft. Two populations near Kona totaled only about 300 birds with the number 

of birds in central Kona estimated at 75 birds. A third subpopulation near Ka„ū consisted of about 

2,100 birds. The largest subpopulation is found on the Hāmākua coast on the windward side of 

Mauna Kea, where 10,000 ± 1,200 (95 percent CI) birds reside (Scott et al. 1986). Recent surveys 

suggest that the population estimate may be higher. A population recorded on Kohala Mountain in 

1972 could not be relocated during the Hawai„i Forest Bird Survey in the early 1980s (Scott et al. 

1986). 

It is estimated that slightly more than 17,800 ( 221 SE) Hawai„i creepers occur in the North 

Hāmākua study area (Camp et al. 2003). The HFU currently protects 49 percent of the Hawai„i 

creeper population in the study area (approximately 8,700). Positive trends in Hawai„i creeper 

density were observed for the 24-year (1977-2000) and 14-year (1987-2000) study periods. The 

mean density of creepers was 0.11 birds per acre (SD = 0.97) in 1977, and 0.51 birds per acre (SD = 

2.44) from 1987-2000. 

The Hawai„i creeper is found in the montane wet „ōhi„a, mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest and montane dry 

koa/„ōhi„a/māmane forest at the HFU. Densities of Hawai„i creeper are highest in upper elevation, 

high-stature „ōhi„a forest. The species is absent or occurred at low densities in grasslands, in 

heterogeneous habitats along the grass-forest interface, and in mid-elevation wet forest. 

Surveys as recent as 2006 detected the Hawai„i creeper in the KFU (USFWS 2008). However, 

population or density estimates have not been documented. 

Hawai„i creeper occur most commonly in mesic and wet forests dominated by „ōhi„a and koa with a 

subcanopy of „ōlapa, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, „ākala, kōlea, kāwa„u, and hāpu„u (USFWS 2006b). Outside 

the breeding season, the species frequently joins mixed-species foraging flocks (Hart and Freed 




2003) and forages over home ranges that average 17.3 ac (VanderWerf 1998, Ralph and Fancy 

1994). The Hawai„i creeper most frequently gleans insects, spiders, and other invertebrates from the 

branches, trunks, and foliage of live „ōhi„a and koa trees. Beetle larvae make up a large part of its 

diet, but no detailed information on prey taken is available (USFWS 2006b). 

During the breeding season (typically January-early May) the species‟ home range averages 10-17 ac 

and a 33-66 ft elevation. Home range around the nest is defended territory (VanderWerf 1998, Ralph 

and Fancy 1994, Lepson et al. 2002). Most nests are open cup structures, but about 15 percent are 

placed in cavities or in bark crevices. Hawai„i creepers renest after nest failures, and pairs have been 

documented raising two broods in a season. Although nest success of Hawai„i creepers is very low 

(11-50 percent), adults have high annual survival (Woodworth et al. 2001). 

Hawai„i creepers are susceptible to the same factors that threaten other native Hawaiian forest birds, 

including loss and degradation of habitat, predation by mammals, and disease. Hawai„i creeper 

population numbers are also limited by their low reproductive potential, high nesting failure, and 

possible competition with nonnative bird species. 

Logging and grazing has reduced, degraded, and fragmented suitable forest habitats for the Hawai„i 

creeper. Habitat fragmentation may be a dispersal barrier preventing or restricting natural 

recolonization of the species‟ former range. The Hawai„i creeper‟s absence from habitats below 

4,500 ft elevation also suggests that it may be particularly susceptible to mosquito-borne avian 

disease (Atkinson et al. 2005). 

The productivity of the Hawai„i creeper is also limited by its low reproductive potential and high 

rates of nesting failure. The Hawai„i creeper has small clutch sizes, relatively long developmental 

periods, and a limited breeding season. Productivity is further reduced by the high rate of nesting 

failures, possibly due to the introduction of mammalian nest predators. Hawai„i creepers place their 

nests near the main trunks of trees which may facilitate predation by rats (Woodworth et al. 2001). It 

has also been suggested that competition with Japanese white-eyes may negatively affect Hawai„i 

creepers (Mountainspring and Scott 1985). All these factors contribute to a slow recovery of 

populations. 

4.4.4 ‘Ō‘ū (Psittirostra psittacea) 

The „ō„ū is a heavy-bodied Hawaiian honeycreeper approximately 7 in in total length. The upper 

parts are dark olive-green, and the underparts are a lighter olive-green grading to whitish on the 

undertail coverts. The wings and tail are a darker brownish olive. „Ō„ū are sexually dichromatic, 

males having a bright yellow head that contrasts sharply with the back and breast, and females 

having an olive-green head similar in color to the back. Juveniles are similar to the female in color, 

but somewhat darker. In both sexes the bill is pale pink to straw-colored, with a hooked, parrot-like 

upper mandible. The males are slightly larger than females. 

„Ō„ū were found historically on the islands of Hawai„i, Maui, Moloka„i, Lāna„i, O„ahu, and Kaua„i, 

and were common throughout their range. Currently, the „ō„ū is one of the rarest birds in Hawai„i and 

may possibly be extinct, although past survey efforts have been insufficient to determine its status 

(USFWS 2006b). The most recent observations indicate any remaining populations are extremely 

localized in occurrence and are restricted to only a fraction of their former range in the mid-elevation 

„ōhi„a forest on the islands of Kaua„i and Hawai„i only. During the Hawai„i Forest Bird Surveys from 




1976-1981, „ō„ū were detected on the eastern slopes of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa on Hawai„i 

Island and in the Alaka„i Wilderness Preserve on Kaua„i. Population estimates during the Hawai„i 

Forest Bird Survey in the late 1970s indicated 400 ± 300 (95 percent CI) birds on the Island of 

Hawai„i and 3 ± 6 (95 percent CI) birds on Kaua„i (Scott et al. 1986). More recent surveys have 

failed to detect any „ō„ū on either island, although occasional unconfirmed sightings are reported. 

Reexamination of past survey data indicates the level of survey effort has to date been insufficient to 

confirm the status of the species (USFWS 2006b). 

At the HFU, a few „ō„ū were detected during the 1977 bird survey in the lower reaches of the Refuge 

in montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest habitat. Two unconfirmed detections have been 

reported since that time, along with a possible sighting in the mid-1990s at Nauhi in the lower 

Honohina Tract and a possible audio detection 4-5 years ago in the same area. However, a 

subsequent search of the area did not detect the species. „Ō„ū are not present at the KFU. 

Historically, „ō„ū were known from a wide range of forests extending from sea level to alpine areas, 

but dense „ōhi„a forest with „ie„ie was considered to be preferred habitat (USFWS 2006b, Snetsinger 

et al.1998). Although wide elevational movements from the upland māmane forests to lowland 

forests to feed on guava and kukui were observed seasonally in the past, recent sightings on Kaua„i 

and Hawai„i Island (USFWS, unpubl.) show „ō„ū to be confined to mid-elevation (3,000-5,000 ft 

mesic and wet „ōhi„a forests with 47-98 in annual rainfall. In this area, the canopy is dominated by 

„ōhi„a 33-82 ft high, with a subcanopy of „ie„ie, hāpu„u, „ōlapa, kāwa„u, kōlea, and pilo. These 

elevations are well within the mosquito zone where most native forest birds have been extirpated by 

mosquito-borne avian malaria and avian pox (Scott et al. 1986). 

Collectors in the late 1800s noted that „ō„ū fed mainly on the large inflorescences of „ie„ie, were fond 

of the yellow fruits of arboreal Clermontia species, and took fruits from many other native trees 

including „ōlapa, māmaki, kāwa„u, alani, and probably „ohe„ohe and „ōhi„a ha. „Ō„ū were also 

recorded to feed on young koa leaves, nectar, and on nonnative fruits such as guava, mountain apple, 

banana, peach, and mulberry. They have also been observed to forage extensively in kukui; however, 

it is unclear if they seek nectar, insects, or husks of the oily nuts (Scott et al. 1986, Snetsinger et al. 

1998, USFWS 2006b). „Ō„ū were also noted to feed on caterpillars (Geometridae), and feed them to 

young during the summer months in the Ka„ū/Kīlauea area. Nesting of the „ō„ū has never been 

described and little is known of its breeding habits. 

„Ō„ū are threatened by the loss and degradation of habitat, the loss of food resources, disease and 

predation by mammals as well as natural disasters. Modification and loss of habitat have played a 

significant role in the decline of the „ō„ū. Forest degradation by ungulates has reduced or eliminated 

forest habitat and food resources by converting vast areas of koa and „ōhi„a forest to pasturelands. 

Pigs have caused degradation of the understory in wet forests, destroyed food plants such as „ie„ie 

and Clermontia species, and have created mosquito breeding sites (USFWS 2006b). 

Predation by rats on eggs and cats and rats on young and adults has contributed to the decline of 

many forest birds, probably including the „ō„ū. Herbivory by introduced black rats on the fruits and 

flowers of „ie„ie and other native fruiting plants also may have reduced food resources for native 

birds in forests throughout Hawai„i (USFWS 2006b). 

In addition, recent natural disasters may have affected some of the last remaining „ō„ū populations. 

On the island of Hawai„i, a large portion of the Upper Waiākea Forest Reserve (a location of some of 




the last observations of „ō„ū and considered prime habitat for the species), was inundated by the 1984 

Mauna Loa lava flow, destroying thousands of acres of forest and creating a treeless corridor over 

0.62 mi wide. On Kaua„i, two strong hurricanes, Iwa in 1982 and Iniki in 1992, had devastating 

effects on native forest habitat and native bird species. Three native bird species, „ō„ū, „ō„ō, and 

kāma„o have not been seen since Hurricane Iniki (USFWS 2006b). 

4.4.5 ‘Alalā (Corvus hawaiiensis) 

The „alalā is a member of the family Corvidae, the family of birds that includes ravens, crows, jays, 

and magpies. Members of the crow family are recognized for having a high degree of intelligence 

and excellent memory. They are generally relatively raucous and gregarious birds, and are known for 

their complex “language-like” vocalizations. The „alalā is a typical medium-sized crow, from dark 

brown to black in color. 

The „alalā is endemic to the Island of Hawai„i. Historically, the species was restricted to a belt of 

native dry woodlands, and mesic „ōhi„a and „ōhi„a/koa forests found at mid-elevation 984-8,202 ft in 

the western and southern portions of the island, from Pu„uanahulu in the North Kona District to the 

vicinity of Kīlauea Crater in the Ka„ū District. „Alalā occupied their entire documented historical 

range during the 1890s and were observed in large numbers in both closed and disturbed forests 

(USFWS 2003). 

In the early 1900s, the population density of „alalā was noticeably reduced and their range was 

becoming fragmented. The species was extirpated from lower elevations by the 1940s, and occupied 

only small areas of its historical range by the 1950s. Further substantial declines occurred through the 

1960s and early 1970s. In 1976, an estimated population of 76 ±18 (95 percent CI) birds was 

restricted to elevations of from 2,950 -6,230 ft in three areas in the Kona District (Hualālai, 

Hōnaunau Forest Reserve/McCandless Ranch, and Honomalino), and one area in the Ka„ū District 

(Scott et al. 1986). „Alalā have not been encountered in the Ka„ū District since 1977, when a single 

bird was observed in HAVO in the eastern most part of its known historical range (USFWS 2003). 

„Alalā were extirpated from Honomalino and Hōnaunau by 1986. By 1987, the wild population had 

been reduced to a single 12-year-old female on Hualālai and an undetermined number on the 

McCandless Ranch near Hōnaunau. The Hualālai female was last observed in late 1991. A thorough 

survey of the McCandless Ranch in 1992 indicated a wild population of 12 birds, including a single 

juvenile. No additional „alalā were found during a subsequent survey of extensive forest tracts around 

the island. After 1993, the wild population of „alalā was observed intensively, as the number of birds 

gradually declined to a single pair in 2002 (USFWS 2003). This species is now believed to be extinct 

in the wild, as the last free-living pair has not been sighted since June 2002 (USFWS 2003). 

In 1976, the State of Hawai„i formally established a captive breeding program for the restoration of 

the „alalā. Through the efforts of several partners, including the State, FWS, The Peregrine Fund, 

Zoological Society of San Diego, and private landowners, the captive population was established 

over successive years by obtaining birds from the wild, raising chicks from artificially incubated wild 

eggs, and successfully breeding captive birds. In 1993, captive-reared „alalā were reintroduced into 

the wild at sites along the southern boundary of the KFU at an elevation of 4,920 ft. Of the 

27 fledglings released, 21 died or disappeared by 1999. Of the birds recovered, seven died from 

lethal interactions with „io, three died from toxoplasmosis (Work et al. 2000), two died from other 

infections (Work et al. 1999), and one died from mammal predation (USFWS 2003). All birds also 




acquired malaria soon after being released, but survived; some required active veterinary support. 

The remaining six surviving individuals were subsequently recaptured and reintegrated back into the 

captive flock (USFWS 2003). 

Currently, all „alalā are under captive propagation by the San Diego Zoological Society located at the 

Keauhou Bird Conservation Center on the Island of Hawai„i and the Maui Bird Conservation Center 

on Maui. This captive propagation and research program is a 20-year agreement to help the „alalā, as 

well as 18 other Hawaiian forest bird species (USWFS 2008). Currently about 77 „alalā are in 

captivity (ZSSD, unpubl.). Areas under consideration for repatriation of this species are listed below 

in order of preference: (1) Southwest Ka„ū, (2) Keauhou-Kūlani, (3) Central Ka„ū, (4) Kapāpala, 

(5) KFU, and (6) Kona Hema (Price and Jacobi 2007). 

Historically, the „alalā was common in lower and middle-elevation mesic forests between 3,610- 

4,920 ft on the western and southern side of the Island of Hawai„i (Giffin et al. 1987, Winter 2003). 

When the species was relatively abundant, flocks of „alalā were observed to make extensive seasonal 

movements in response to weather and the availability of the „ie„ie vine and other native fruit-bearing 

plants (USFWS 2003). 

The habitat with the highest breeding densities of „alalā during 1970-1982 was relatively undisturbed 

„ōhi„a/koa forest; „alalā avoided disturbed forest where possible (Giffin et al. 1987). In addition, a 

significant amount of protective understory cover appeared to be important to „alalā in avoiding 

predation by „io (USFWS, unpubl.). The „alalā used the upper half of the canopy of mature trees for 

their daily activities (Sakai et al. 1986) and fed on native and introduced fruits, invertebrates gleaned 

from tree bark and other sites, and eggs and nestlings of other forest birds. Nestlings preyed upon 

included the red-billed leiothrix and Japanese white-eye as well as four native species (Hawai„i 

„amakihi, „i„iwi, „elepaio, and „apapane) (Sakai et al. 1986). Mice have also been noted in crow 

droppings (Sakai et al. 1986). Nectar, flowers, and carrion are minor diet components. A strong 

association was noted with „ie„ie, which formerly blanketed extensive tracts of mid-elevation mesic 

and wet forest; however, „alalā were not observed in wet forests where „ie„ie is abundant (USFWS 

2003). 

The median home range recorded for the „alalā was 1,186 ac with a range of 146 - 3,598 ac. Nest 

construction usually began in March and first clutches were laid in April. Recorded nests have been 

predominantly in „ōhi„a, although other trees and „ie„ie vines may be used. All recorded nests have 

been at elevations 3,280-5,905 ft. Known nest sites have been in areas with 24-98 in of annual 

rainfall (USFWS 2003). 

Because the population is small and confined to captivity, the „alalā is highly susceptible to 

stochastic environmental, demographic, and genetic events. Inbreeding depression may also be 

reducing the reproductive success of the captive population. Before the remaining „alalā were taken 

into captivity, „alalā were threatened by predation from mammals, „io, avian diseases, and habitat 

loss and fragmentation. 

Rats and mongooses are known predators on „alalā eggs and nestlings. Cats are also suspected 

predators on fledglings and adults (USFWS, unpubl.). Recent observations show that juvenile and 

adult „alalā raised in captivity can be killed and eaten by „io in the wild (USFWS 2003). 




Avian pox has been implicated in the deaths of wild „alalā nestlings (Jenkins at al 1989). Avian 

malaria has also been detected in „alalā blood smears (Giffin et al 1987), but the lethality of avian 

malaria for „alalā in the wild is unknown (Jenkins et al. 1989). Juvenile captive-reared „alalā are able 

to survive malaria and pox infection with supportive care. Recent studies have shown that „alalā are 

highly susceptible to toxoplasmosis, a disease caused by a parasite that is spread by cats, which now 

exist throughout historical „alalā habitat (Work et al. 2000). Whether this pathogen played any role in 

the decline of the wild population is unknown, but it has caused mortality of young „alalā released 

into the wild (USFWS 2003). 

Habitat changes that may have impacted „alalā populations include complete and partial 

deforestation, selective species loss, and invasion or replacement of habitat by nonnative plants. 

Because of the landscape-scale movements that allowed historical populations of „alalā to exploit 

patchy food resources and escape harsh weather, alteration of small but crucial parts of their range 

and reduction in some food plants (e.g., clearing low-elevation forest for agriculture and vegetation 

changes throughout the species‟ range) may have reduced the ability of the „alalā to persist over large 

areas. In addition, opening of the forest structure through grazing and tree cutting may have made 

„alalā more vulnerable to predation by „io (USFWS 2003). 

Inbreeding may also be occurring among the captive population, due to the small number of 

individuals. Lethal abnormalities are occurring at a higher rate in the captive flock, suggesting 

inbreeding depression (Zoological Society of San Diego, unpubl.). The mean number of clutches 

produced per pair has also decreased from 2.50 ± 0.65 (SE) in 1996 to 0.87 ± 0.99 (SE) in 1999 

(Harvey et al. 2002) indicating that inbreeding may also be starting to affect fertility and reproductive 

outcomes of the „alalā. 

4.4.6 ‘Io (Buteo solitarius) 

The „io has two color morphs; dark phase birds are dark brown above and below, light phase birds 

are dark above and pale below with dark streaking. Intermediates occur between the two extremes. 

Females are larger than males, and often weigh approximately 25 percent more than males. The head 

is dark in adults and light in immatures (Mitchell et al. 2005, HAS 2005). 

The „io is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, although historically it is known only from the Island of 

Hawai„i. The first quantitative survey of „io abundance was carried out from 1980-1982 and yielded 

a population estimate of about 2,700 birds (Griffin 1989). To update and address questions about the 

validity of the population estimates, the Service initiated an islandwide survey that estimated the 

population in 1993 at approximately 1,600 hawks (95 percent CI = 1,200 to 2,400) (Hall et al. 1997). 

A subsequent study in 1998 generated a population estimate of 1,457 individuals (95 percent CI = 

1,149-1,847) and a growth rate of 1.03 ± 0.04 SE, indicating a stable population (Klavitter et al. 

2003). 

As part of a reevaluation of the species‟ endangered status, a study conducted in 2007 estimated that 

3,239 hawks (95 percent CI = 2,610 - 3,868) were present in 1998 and 3,085 hawks (95 percent CI = 

2,496 to 3,680) were present in 2007. Similar to the 1998 study, no significant difference in densities 

was found among years at either regional or islandwide scales, indicating a stable population. The 

twofold increase in population estimates was attributed to differences among studies in (1) the 

accuracy of distance estimation of „io sightings at count locations, (2) accounting for unobserved 




hawk movement, and (3) the extent of area used for the extrapolation of mean densities (Gorresen et 

al. 2008). 

Gorresen et al. (2008) reports that habitat and region were significantly associated with „io density. 

Native-nonnative forest, mature native forest, mature native forest with grass understory, and 

orchards generally support greater densities of „io than shrubland, pioneer native forest, or urban 

habitats. However, densities in certain habitats showed considerable difference among regions. For 

example, native-exotic forest in Hāmākua had more than four times the „io density than similar 

habitats in Puna, and mature native forest in Kona also harbored markedly greater densities than 

those found in Puna. Data showed that Puna generally harbored lower „io numbers compared to other 

regions on the Island of Hawai„i (Gorresen et al. 2008). 

„Io occur only on the Island of Hawai„i from sea level to 8000 ft elevation. „Io occur in lowland 

nonnative forests, urban areas, agricultural lands, pasturelands, and high-elevation native forests with 

both intact and degraded understory (Mitchell et al. 2005, Klavitter et al. 2003). During the winter, 

„io have been reported in subalpine māmane-naio forest, suggesting some seasonal movements 

(Mitchell et al. 2005). 

„Io were found at the higher elevations of the HFU between 3,300-6,600 ft in montane wet „ōhi„a 

forest, mesic and dry koa/„ōhi„a forest, and montane wet „ōhi„a/Dicranopteris sp. forest and 

grasslands. As of 2007, densities of „io were 0.34 birds/mi 2 in mature forests with grasslands and 

0.3 birds/mi 2 in mature native forest. The average density for the Island of Hawai„i is 0.21 + 0.02 

birds/mi 2 (Gorresen et al. 2008). „Io have been recorded nesting in the HFU (Klavitter et al. 2003). 

At the KFU, „io densities are 0.77 birds/mi 2 in mature forests with grasslands and at densities of 

0.42 birds/mi 2 in mature native forest (Gorresen, pers. comm.). „Io have been recorded nesting at all 

elevations of the KFU (Klavitter and Marzluff 2007). 

Of 51 observed nests, 86 percent occurred in native trees, with 80 percent of nests in „ōhi„a. 

Nonnative trees used for nesting include eucalyptus, ironwood, mango, coconut palm, and 

macadamia (Klavitter 2000). Nests can be used for several years with nesting material added each 

breeding season (Griffin et al. 1998). Adult home ranges were estimated to be 1,000 ac and may 

overlap with adjacent home ranges (Gorresen, pers. comm.). 

Nestlings were fed birds (45 percent) and mammals (55 percent), consisting mainly of introduced 

species. The most commonly caught mammals were rats and house mice, while Japanese white-eye 

and common myna were the most common species of bird prey. Native or migratory birds recorded 

as prey for nestlings were „apapane, Hawai„i „amakihi, and kōlea (or Pacific golden plover) (Griffin 

et al. 1998). 

Nesting and foraging habitat loss is a significant threat to the species. The causes of this loss include 

urbanization, degradation of habitat due to grazing by ungulates, conversion of foraging habitat (e.g., 

conversion of pasture to forestry plantations), invasive understory plants, and increasing fire 

frequency (Gorresen et al. 2008). 

Forest degradation by invasive plants, such as strawberry guava, can impact large areas of „io nesting 

and foraging habitat (Gorresen et al. 2008). In addition to concealing prey and making the understory 

unavailable to foraging hawks, dense stands of introduced plants can suppress the establishment and 




growth of native species such as „ōhi„a, a preferred nesting tree (Griffin et al. 1998). Moreover, pigs 

can facilitate the dispersal of nonnative plants and can significantly damage „ōhi„a seedlings by their 

foraging activity. Strawberry guava in particular has the potential to invade and degrade up to 

36 percent of the „io breeding range (Gorresen et al. 2008). 

Introduced grasses have also altered natural fire regimes and ecosystem properties throughout much 

of Hawai„i. Invasive fire-adapted species have increased the frequency, intensity, and extent of 

wildfire, and contributed to declines in native tree cover and the expansion of grasslands in many 

areas (Gorresen et al. 2008). Other possible limiting factors for the „io population include harassment 

of nesting birds and shooting of adults. However, the level of harassment and shooting is difficult to 

assess (USFWS 1984). 

Little supporting evidence that environmental contaminants, avian pox, avian malaria, or Toxoplasma 

gondii are limiting factors for the „io population currently exists (Griffin et al. 1998, Klavitter et al. 

2003). There is also little evidence that „io fledglings are preyed upon by introduced mammals such 

as rats, cats, and Indian mongooses (Griffin et al. 1998). 

The „io was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, and a final recovery plan was released in 1984 

(Federal Register 2008a). The plan did not include specific delisting criteria; however, the primary 

objective in the plan was to „„ensure a self-sustaining „io population in the range of 1,500-2,500 adult 

birds in the wild, as distributed in 1983, and maintained in stable, secure habitat” (Federal Register 

2008a). Because these targets were met, the Service proposed reclassification of the „io from 

endangered to threatened status in August 1993, but this rule was not finalized. In August 2008, the 

Service proposed to remove the „io from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. This 

proposal is based on evidence that the species is broadly distributed throughout the Island of Hawai„i, 

has been stable for at least 20 years, has large areas of habitat in protected status, and is able to nest 

and forage in altered habitats (Federal Register 2008a). A post-delisting monitoring plan has been 

drafted and public comments have been received. Delisting is currently under review. 

4.5 Other Native Hawaiian Forest Birds 

Native Hawaiian forest birds (nonlisted) found within the Hakalau Forest NWR are comprised of 

four families: Fringillidae (honeycreepers), Monarchidae (monarch flycatchers), Turdidae 

(thrushes), and Strigidae (true owls). The honeycreepers include the „i„iwi, common „amakihi, and 

„apapane. The monarch flycatcher family is represented by the Hawai„i „elepaio, the thrush by the 

„ōma„o, and the true owl by the pueo. Most of these bird species are most abundant in native 

montane forests; however, the common „amakihi, Hawai„i „elepaio, and pueo are also found in 

nonnative forests and can be common at lower elevations (Camp et al. 2003, Spiegel et al. 2006, 

Woodworth et al. 2005, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Native bird populations have been closely monitored and information on changes in native forest bird 

densities are available, particularly for North Hāmākua and the central windward region of Hawai„i. 


4.5.1 ‘I‘iwi (Vestiaria coccinea) 



Male and female „i„iwi are primarily vermillion red, with a black tail and wings, and a long, decurved 

pink bill. The juvenile is green with black spots and a shorter dusky bill, which becomes yellow then 

pink with age. 

The following island population estimates are based on Hawaiian Forest Bird Surveys (1976-1981): 

340,000 ± 12,000 (95 percent CI) individuals on the Island of Hawai„i (88 percent in Hāmākua), 

19,000 ± 2,000 (95 percent CI) individuals on east Maui, 180 ± 150 (95 percent CI) on west Maui, 

80 ± 65 (95 percent CI) individuals on Moloka„i, and 5,400 ± 500 (95 percent CI) in the Alaka„i 

Swamp on Kaua„i. Recent surveys (1996) suggest that O„ahu supports less than 50 birds. In 1988, 

two birds were detected on Moloka„i. On Kaua„i, populations declined after the 1992 hurricane, but 

changed little from 1994-2000. The overall population may be declining, but the species‟ wideranging 

foraging complicates population estimates and the determination of long-term trends 


From 1987-2000, a population of 285,422 + 1,267 (SE) „i„iwi was estimated to occur in the North 

Hāmākua study area. Of this total, 100,347 birds (35 percent) were predicted to occur within the 

HFU. „I„iwi mean density for the 14-year study period of surveys (1987-2000) within the HFU was 

8.5 birds per acre (SD = 9.27). „I„iwi populations did not show a positive or negative trend in density 

over the 14-year study period. However, a moderate increase in density did occur over the 24-year 

study period (1977-2000) (Camp et al. 2003). 

In the central windward region of Hawai„i, i„iwi were extirpated from the mid-elevation study areas 

and are possibly in decline in Kūlani-Keauhou. Declines of „i„iwi have been observed elsewhere 

within mid-elevation habitat suggesting that their ranges are contracting westward and upslope in the 

central windward region (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

„I„iwi density decreased at the high elevation site Kūlani-Keauhou between 1995-2003 (4.0-3.4 birds 

per acre). However, inter-annual densities were fairly variable and differences may reflect local 

movement in response to nectar availability instead (Ralph and Fancy 1995). At the Mauna Loa 

Strip, „i„iwi were present at 0.04 birds per acre and did not exhibit increasing or decreasing trends. At 

lower elevations, „i„iwi densities declined more than tenfold from 1977-1994 from 1.2-0.09 birds per 

acre in the „Ōla„a study area and were not present at the East Rift (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

At the HFU, densities of „i„iwi were highest in upper elevation (greater than 4,900 ft) in mesic and 

wet koa/„ōhi„a and „ōhi„a forests of high stature and closed canopy. „I„iwi abundances were 

positively associated with koa, presence of banana poka and elevation, and negatively associated 

with grass, nonnative vegetation, and presence of tree fern. The positive association with P. 

mollissima may be due to the use of its copious nectar by „i„iwi (Fancy and Ralph 1998). „I„iwi 

occurred at low densities in heterogeneous habitats along the grass-forest interface and in midelevation 

forest. 

At the KFU, „i„iwi are found above 4,900 ft (Atkinson et al. 2005). Density estimates and habitat 

preferences in this area have not been studied. 

The „i„iwi is a common forest bird in mesic and wet koa-„ōhi„a and „ōhi„a forest above 4,900 ft. The 

habitat on the windward slopes of Hawai„i receive 27.6-39.4 in of rainfall annually. „I„iwi are highly 




dependent on „ōhi„a for food and nesting. „I„iwi spend up to 80-90 percent of their time foraging on 

„ōhi„a for nectar and insects. As they are primarily nectarivorous; the nectar of „ōhi„a and māmane 

make up a major portion of their diet. The species also feeds on foliage insects and spiders (Ralph 

and Fancy 1995). Other plant species used for foraging on nectar and insects include koa, naio, kōlea, 

„ākala, alani, kanawao, koki„o ke„oke„o, and native lobelioids. Banana poka nectar is a major food 

source in some areas (Fancy and Ralph 1998). 

Breeding season on Hawai„i Island begins October-November, with peak breeding between 

February-June. Breeding coincides with seasonal availability of „ōhi„a nectar. Both sexes defend 

small nesting territories and may sometimes defend individual „ōhi„a trees as nectar resources. While 

„i„iwi are dependent on „ōhi„a for feeding and nesting, „i„iwi also serve as important pollinators of 

„ōhi„a and native lobeliods. 

„I‟iwi distribution range is restricted mostly to elevations greater than 4,100 ft because of loss and 

destruction of native forests and presence of cold-intolerant Culex mosquitoes that transmit avian 

diseases at lower elevations (Scott et al. 1986, van Riper et al. 1986, Atkinson et al. 1995). However, 

„i„iwi are known to migrate to lower elevations during the summer. „I„iwi are very susceptible to 

avian malaria and avian pox. Mortality of experimentally infected „i„iwi is high, with estimates at 

90 percent (Atkinson et al. 1995). Individuals infected with pox also are more likely to be infected 

with malaria. The KFU has a high prevalence of malaria and avian pox, and data shows that few 

„i„iwi survive the exposure (Atkinson et al. 2005). The presence of pigs in the KFU and limited areas 

of the HFU may also spread malaria as the compaction of soils and felling and hollowing of tree 

ferns by pigs create favored breeding sites for Culex mosquitoes.„I„iwi fledglings may also be 

susceptible to predation by rats and cats found in the units (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

4.5.2 Common ‘Amakihi (Hemignathus virens) 

Male common „amakihi are bright yellow-green with black lores. Females are generally similar, but 

duller. All „amakihi have decurved bills. The immatures are drab gray and may lack dark lores and 

some have faint wingbars. 

The Hawaiian Forest Bird Survey (1976-1983) estimated the Hawai„i „amakihi population at 

870,000 ± 5,612 (95 percent CI) individuals on the Island of Hawai„i, 44,000 ± 1,786 (95 percent CI) 

birds on east Maui, 3,000 ± 408 (95 percent CI) on west Maui, and 1,800 ± 357 (95 percent CI) 

individuals on Moloka„i. Populations on the islands of Hawai„i and Maui are probably stable; the 

Moloka„i population is probably declining (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

A population of 200,760 + 990 (SE) common „amakihi was estimated to occur within the north 

Hāmākua study area, of which 51,600 birds (26 percent) were predicted to occur within the HFU 

(Camp et al. 2003). The mean density of common „amakihi for the 14-year study period of surveys 

within the HFU (1987-2000) was 5.2 birds per acre (SD = 7.63). Common „amakihi populations 

within and near the HFU did not show a significantly positive or negative trend in density from 1987- 

2000. However, „amakihi density increased over the 24-year study period (1977-2000). From 1999- 

2007, the population of common „amakihi at the HFU was also stable or increasing. The population 

was estimated to potentially have increased at a mean rate of 2.5 percent per year (95 percent CI -7.9- 

12.9 percent) (Hawai„i Forest Database 2005). Common „amakihi demonstrated low within-year but 

moderately high between-year variability in density. 




In the central windward region of Hawai„i, common „amakihi trends are stable or increasing at the 

upper elevation study areas such as Kūlani-Keauhou and the Mauna Loa Strip; however, they are 

trending downward at lower elevation sites such as „Ōla„a and East Rift. Between 1995-2003, 

common „amakihi density increased at Kūlani-Keauhou from 1.3-1.6 birds per acre. From 1977- 

1994, common „amakihi showed a stable trend at the Mauna Loa Strip (1.8 birds per acre). Common 

„amakihi were absent at „Ōla„a throughout the survey period (1977-1994) and nearly absent at East 

Rift (0.008 birds per acre from 1979-1994) (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

Elevational changes in distribution in the common „amakihi have also been documented. While 

„amakihi are uncommon lower than 1,640 ft (Scott et al. 1986), range expansion of the „amakihi to 

lower elevations has been documented in the Puna district located on the southeastern corner of 

Hawai„i Island. Common „amakihi are the most common native birds in these areas of active malaria 

transmission (Spiegel et al. 2006, Woodworth et al. 2005). 

At the HFU, common „amakihi attained highest densities in the higher elevation portion of the unit 

above 4,900 ft. These densities occurred in a range of habitats including grassland, closed canopy 

forest with a koa component, banana poka-infested stands, and heterogeneous habitats along the 

forest margins. The species were absent or occurred at low densities in the wet forest with tree fern 

and matted fern. Common „amakihi densities were positively associated with koa and species 

richness, and negatively associated with nonnative vegetation and rainfall (Camp et al. 2003). 

Common „amakihi are found at the KFU and are present at all elevations (Atkinson et al. 2005). 

The common „amakihi is a year-round inhabitant of a wide range of native dry shrublands and dry, 

mesic, and wet forests in montane and subalpine communities (Scott et al. 1986). The species is also 

a characteristic bird of „ōhi„a forests (Lindsey et al. 1998). 

Common „amakihi are generalized foragers that most often glean arthropods from the leaves, 

blossoms, twigs, branches, and less frequently from tree trunks of a variety of trees, ferns, and 

shrubs. They feed on nectar predominately from the flowers of „ōhi„a, māmane, and native lobelias 

(Campanulaceae), but also forage on flowers of a number of other native and nonnative plants. 

Common „amakihi also eat fruit from native and nonnative plants, but predominately from pilo 


Common „amakihi breed from December-July on the Island of Hawai„i (Lindsey et al.1998, van 

Riper 1987). In dryland māmane-naio forest, māmane trees are the preferred nesting substrate; of 

174 nests, 88 percent were found in māmane trees and 12 percent were detected in naio (van Riper 

1987). In mesic and wet forests, „amakihi use „ōhi„a trees almost exclusively for nesting (Kern and 

van Riper 1984). 

Common „amakihi are range limited because of loss and destruction of native forests, the presence of 

malaria at lower elevations, and predation by mammals. Mortality of „amakihi experimentally 

infected with the malaria parasite was 65 percent. While „amakihi are uncommon under 1,640 ft, 

range expansion of the species to lower elevations has been documented at Puna, where they are the 

most common native birds in these areas of active malaria transmission (Spiegel et al. 2006, 

Woodworth et al. 2005). Common „amakihi are also found at lower elevations in the KFU (Atkinson 

et al. 2005). Common „amakihi in these low-elevation areas show malaria prevalence levels of up to 

80 percent and were also more likely to be infected with pox (Atkinson et al. 2005, Woodworth et al. 




2005). However, individuals that have chronic malaria infections have had similar or higher 

reproductive success than noninfected individuals (Kilpatrick et al. 2006). 

Common „amakihi adults and nestlings are also susceptible to predation by mammal predators 

(Lindsey et al. 1998). It has been suggested that predator control in mid-elevations may increase the 

survivorship of malaria-resistant individuals, resulting in the persistence of native bird populations in 

areas of active malaria transmission (Kilpatrick 2006, VanderWerf and Smith 2002). 

4.5.3 ‘Apapane (Himatione sanguinea) 

The „apapane is a small, crimson bird with black wings and tail. The immatures are like the adults, 

except the crimson is replaced by a dull dark brown. The black bill of the „apapane is slightly curved. 

„Apapane were formerly found on all forested islands in the Hawaiian Archipelago to sea level, but 

are now restricted to higher elevations. Island population estimates based on Hawaiian Forest Bird 

Surveys (1976-1981) are 1,080,000 ± 25,000 (95 percent CI) individuals on the Island of Hawai„i, 

110,000 ± 9,000 individuals on Maui on Haleakalā (86 percent), 39,000 ± 5,000 individuals on 

Moloka„i, 540 ± 213 individuals on Lāna„i, and 30,000 ± 1,500 individuals on Kaua„i. On Kaua„i, 

populations declined after the 1992 hurricane, but have significantly increased since. The 2000 

Kaua„i Forest Bird Survey estimated the population at 64,972 ± 2,014 (SE) individuals. „Apapane are 

now rare or absent on Moloka„i and Lāna„i (Fancy and Ralph 1997, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Recent surveys estimate that approximately 255,900 ( 1,037 SE) „apapane occur in the north 

Hāmākua study area. The HFU currently protects 29 percent of the „apapane population in the study 

area (approximately 75,200 „apapane). An increase in „apapane density was observed for the 24-year 

study period (1977-2000); no trends in „apapane densities were detected for the 14-year study period 

(1987-2000). Mean density of „apapane in 1977 was 1.6 birds per acre and increased to 4.0 birds per 

acre (SD = 5.61) for the 14-year study period within the HFU (Camp et al. 2003). 

In the central windward region of Hawai„i, „apapane were ubiquitous and showed increasing or stable 

trends at the higher elevations. At the Kūlani-Keauhou study area, „apapane were observed at an 

average density of 6.7 birds per acre in 1972-1975, and 7.8 birds per acre in 1977. Densities 

significantly increased from the 1990s to 2000s (9.9-11.5 birds per acre). At the Mauna Loa Strip, 

„apapane occurred at stable densities of 0.1 birds per acre throughout the study period (Gorresen et 

al. 2005). 

At the lower elevation sites, „apapane numbers have declined. In the „Ōla„a study area, „apapane 

densities declined from 7.8 birds per acre in 1977 and 2.8 birds per acre in 1994. The East Rift area 

also exhibited significant declines from 4.1 to 2.6 birds per acre between the 1979-1993/1994 survey 

periods (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

„Apapane are found throughout HFU. Densities of „apapane are highest in upper-elevation koa-„ōhi„a 

and „ōhi„a forests of high stature and closed canopy, and occur at low densities in grassland, 

heterogeneous habitats along the grass-forest interface, and in mid- to low-elevation forest (Camp et 

al. 2003). „Apapane are found at all elevations in the KFU (Atkinson et al. 2005), although densities 

have not been estimated. 




Occurring primarily at elevations greater than 4,100 ft, „apapane occur in mesic and wet forests 

dominated by „ōhi„a and koa. However, they are also known to migrate to lower elevations during 

the summer. Occupied habitats also support kōlea, naio, and hāpu„u. Māmane is common in highelevation 

foraging habitat (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

„Apapane are primarily nectarivorous and the species is an important „ōhi„a polinator. Their 

widespread seasonal movements, particularly from June-August, occur in response to „ōhi„a flower 

availability (Macmillen and Carpenter 1980, Ralph and Fancy 1995). „Apapane also eat insects, 

which they glean from outer foliage and twigs in the upper- and mid-canopy. Juvenile „apapane favor 

arthropod prey more than adults possibly due to their higher protein/calorie requirements (Carothers 

2001). „Apapane often forage in conspecific flocks, which can overwhelm „i„iwi and „ākohekohe, 

which often defend flower-rich trees (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Birds in breeding condition may be found in any month of the year, but peak breeding occurs 

February - June. The nest is usually a cup on a high terminal branch of „ōhi„a, but nests have also 

been found in tree cavities and lava tubes, and on upper branches of koa, ilex, and Cibotium tree 

ferns (Fancy and Ralph 1997). 

„Apapane are susceptible to the same factors that threaten other native Hawaiian forest birds 

including loss and degradation of habitat, disease, and predation by mammals. Disease is of 

particular concern as „apapane have the highest prevalence of avian malaria of all native forest birds 

(Samuel et al 2007, Atkinson et al. 2005, USFWS 2005). Because „apapane typically undergo 

altitudinal migrations to follow „ōhi„a bloom, the species might be expected to receive higher 

exposure to this disease than other more resident species such as „amakihi and Hawai„i „elepaio. Five 

of eight (63 percent) juvenile „apapane experimentally infected with malaria suffered mortality 

(Yorinks and Atkinson 2000). Individuals infected with avian pox also are more likely to be infected 

with malaria. At low elevations of the KFU, malaria infection prevalence was recorded as high as 

100 percent for „apapane. However, „apapane do breed in mid-elevation forests and have nesting 

success similar to nests at higher elevation, suggesting that some individuals may be developing 

disease resistance (Atkinson et al. 2005, Mitchell et al. 2005). The high mobility of „apapane coupled 

with their high susceptibility to the parasite also make them exceptional reservoir hosts for the 

parasite. 

4.5.4 Hawai‘i ‘Elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis) 

The Hawai„i „elepaio is a monarch flycatcher endemic to the Island of Hawai„i. The species has 

highly variable plumage. The Hawai„i Island subspecies is morphologically variable and shows the 

most dramatic differences between sexes compared to other subspecies. In general, adults are 

primarily brown, with white and chestnut streaks below. Immature Hawai„i „elepaio are dull gray 

brown, with gray below, and have buffy wingbars. Male and female „elepaio have a 2 year delay in 

plumage maturation, meaning they do not acquire their adults plumage until they are 3 years old. As 

the age of the bird increases, the amount of white increases at the throat, wing covert, rump, and tail. 

Due to variations in plumage color, authorities have described additional subspecies on Hawai„i 

Island (C. s. ridgwayi and C. s. bryani), but these are not widely accepted (VanderWerf 1999). 

Currently, two additional subspecies (C. s. sclateri and C. s. ibidis) are recognized on the islands of 

Kaua„i and O„ahu, respectively. Chasiempis sandwichensis originally colonized the State between 

1.5-1.9 million years ago. Interisland song playbacks by VanderWerf (2007) suggest that the 




passerine first arrived to Kaua„i and was subsequently blown to Hawai„i Island and then O„ahu after 

different storms. The entire species is absent from other islands in the State. It is likely that these 

subspecies may eventually be separated into three species due to genetic evidence and plumage 

differences (VanderWerf 2007). 

The „elepaio is a nonmigratory, highly curious bird. Pairs are monogamous and territorial throughout 

the year. The young remain with their parents for 9 months, during which time they are taught 

foraging behaviors. After leaving the nest, the young remain within 0.6 mi of their parents. 

The „elepaio was given its name due to the sound of its song. Males sing to defend their territory and 

attract mates. This song is generally answered by the female‟s two-note call. Although „elepaio are 

territorial during the entire year, this behavior is more prevalent immediately before and during nest 

construction. As a result, they do not generally call during the nonbreeding season. Compared to 

subspecies on the other islands, the Hawai„i „elepaio has the most phases and frequencies in their 

calls (VanderWerf 2007). 

Currently, Hawai„i „elepaio can be found in forested areas above 2,000 ft. Known populations occur 

in Kohala and on the western slope of Mauna Kea. The estimated islandwide population is about 

150,000 individuals (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Approximately 138,900 ( 605 SE) Hawai„i „elepaio occur in the North Hāmākua study area. Of this 

total, roughly 27 percent of the population (or 38,000 birds) occur in the HFU. The primary 

concentration within the study area occurs in the southerly portion of the upper elevation forest, just 

south of the Refuge. Surveys conducted during a 24-year study period (1977- 2000) between the 

months of February-July resulted in 5,537 „elepaio observations. During a 14-year study period 

(1987-2000), the mean density of „elepaio specifically within the HFU was 2.57 birds per 2.47 acre. 

No trends in density were observed during either of these study periods (Camp et al. 2003). 

Higher densities of „elepaio occur in upper-elevation, closed-canopy, high-stature forests compared 

to the lower degraded, open forests. More specifically, „elepaio densities were positively influenced 

by „ōhi„a, high-stature forests, and elevation. In contrast, variables negatively associated with density 

include grass, open or sparse canopy, midstature forest, presence of matted ferns, banana poka, 

Psidium, slope, temperature, and rainfall (Camp et al. 2003). 

Except for the O„ahu „elepaio, this species appears to be less affected by human disturbance than 

most native Hawaiian birds due to their high adaptability. „Elepaio are able to utilize a variety of 

habitats, employ various behaviors to search for and capture prey, and consume a wide range of 

invertebrates. Foraging techniques range from gleaning to hanging and aerial hawking. „Elepaio are 

also able to survive in both native and nonnative forests from dense rainforests to dry, open 

woodlands in a wide range of elevations (VanderWerf 1998, 2007). Though avian disease is a 

concern for Hawai„i „elepaio as well, they have also shown to have a greater immunity to avian 

diseases compared to other native Hawaiian forest birds. Hawai„i „elepaio showed recovery 4-years 

after an outbreak of the pox virus at the HFU in 1992 (VanderWerf 1998). However, recent evidence 

indicates that the species‟ low -elevation range may be decreasing on Hawai„i Island (Camp et al. 

2003). 




Loss and degradation of habitat is an important factor in the population status of the „elepaio 

(VanderWerf 1993). In addition, disease and predation by mammals (especially rats) also threaten 

populations. The results of ungulate and small mammal control, habitat restoration, habitat 

monitoring, and disease studies could help to sustain existing populations (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

4.5.5 ‘Ōma‘o (Myadestes obscurus) 

The „ōma„o is one of five species of Hawaiian thrushes (Turdidae). Like all adult Hawaiian thrushes, 

„ōma„o have drab olive-brown and gray plumage. Immature birds are heavily scalloped with buff on 

the wings and breast. „Ōma„o often perch silently for long periods and are more often detected by 

their song. Males perform a flight-song display known as “skylarking”. 

The „ōma„o is endemic to the Island of Hawai„i. „Ōma„o primarily occur in two populations on the 

eastern and southern slopes of the Island of Hawai„i at elevations greater than 3,300 ft. A third, 

smaller population occurs in alpine scrub habitat between 6,500-9,750 ft elevation. Currently, „ōma„o 

occupy an estimated 30 percent of their former range, which historically included habitats from 

1,000-9,750 ft elevation. Bird surveys from 1976-1983 estimated the population at 

170,000 individuals. Based on more recent surveys, the populations appear stable and may be 

increasing in habitats below 3,450 ft (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Approximately 57,500 ( 191 SE) „ōma„o occur in the North Hāmākua study area. The HFU 

currently protects 29 percent of the „ōma„o population in the study area (approximately 

16,900 „ōma„o) and no trends in „ōma„o densities were detected for either the 24-year (1977-2000) or 

14-year (1987-2000) study periods. „Ōma„o occurred at a density of 0.7 birds per acre (SD = 1.22) at 

the HFU over the 14-year study period (Camp et al. 2003). 

„Ōma„o may be declining throughout the central windward region of Hawai„i. „Ōma„o at the Kūlani- 

Keauhou study area significantly declined from the 1990s-2000s (1.1-0.8 birds per acre). Moreover, 

higher densities of 1.1-1.4 birds per acre were previously observed during the 1972-1975 and 1977 

surveys, respectively (Gorresen et al. 2005). 

„Ōma„o appear to have recolonized the Mauna Loa Strip study area in the late 1970s as the species 

was recorded as absent or rare in prior surveys conducted in the 1940s and early 1970s. However, the 

density of „ōma„o appears to have significantly decreased shortly after 1977, after which it 

maintained fairly stable, if low, densities (0.07-0.004 birds per acre). 

In the East Rift study area, „ōma„o densities decreased from 0.6 birds per acre in 1979 to 0.4 birds 

per acre during the 1993/1994 survey periods. At the „Ōla„a study area, „ōma„o densities during the 

1977 and 1994 surveys were not significantly different (1.64 birds/2.47 ac in 1977, 0.77 birds/2.47 ac 

from 1992-1994). However, the highly variable densities of „ōma„o observed over the 4 years of 

survey in the „Ōla„a study area may act to conceal trends. 

„Ōma„o are found at their highest densities in the wet forests at high elevations within the HFU. 

However, „ōma„o also occur at lower densities at mid-elevations and in open and drier habitats of the 

Refuge (Camp et at. 2003). „Ōma„o disappeared from the Kona district during the early part of the 

20 th century (Ralph and Fancy 1994b) and are not present at the KFU. „Ōma„o occur in mesic and 




wet montane „ōhi„a or mixed „ōhi„a and koa forests in the Hāmākua, Ka„ū, and Kīlauea districts 


„Ōma„o have a diet of primarily native and introduced fruits, supplemented by invertebrates. Food 

plants include „ōlapa, kōlea, kāwa„u, naio, pilo, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, and „ākala. In the small alpine scrub 

population on Mauna Loa, pūkiawe, „ōhelo, kūkaenēnē, and „a„ali„i are consumed (USFWS 2005). 

The birds also forage opportunistically for seasonally available food items. Invertebrate prey items 

include caterpillars (Lepidoptera), spiders (Araneida), beetles (Coleoptera), and land snails 

(Gastropoda) (Wakelee et al. 1999). 

Breeding activity of the „ōma„o extends from January-November, with nesting peaking from April- 

July. Nest sites are highly variable and include tree ferns; natural true cavities, cavity-like spaces 

(open cavities), ledges, niches, and natural scars in „ōhi„a and koa trees; and trunk and trunk or 

branch forks in „ōhi„a, koa, and naio trees. Live, dead, and partially dead trees are all used as nest 

sites. Birds in the high-elevation Mauna Loa population apparently nest on the ground in lava 

formations or in lava tubes (Wakelee et al. 1999). Both sexes defend small nesting territories and 

have a mean home range size of 0.9 0.1 ac (Ralph and Fancy 1994b). Fledglings remain in their 

natal territories for 4-6 months after fledging. A male-biased sex-ratio exists, but its significance to 

populations is unknown (Fancy et al. 2001). 

„Ōma„o are susceptible to the same factors that threaten other native Hawaiian forest birds, including 

loss and degradation of habitat, predation by mammals, and disease. „Ōma„o occur at lower densities 

in degraded habitat likely because pigs and other ungulates destroy important food plants and 

degrade habitat. „Ōma„o nests are very accessible and are therefore vulnerable to predation by rats 

and native raptors. The prevalence of disease (malaria and avian pox) in tested areas is low, and 

„ōma„o from low elevations exposed to malaria recovered quickly (Atkinson et al. 2001), suggesting 

a greater resistance to disease compared to other native forest birds. However, the disappearance of 

populations from lower elevations has been the pattern of decline noted in other Hawaiian birds 

susceptible to mosquito-borne diseases (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

4.5.6 Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis) 

The pueo is an endemic subspecies of the nearly pandemic short-eared owl. The adult is brown and 

buffy white and ventrally streaked with darker brown. The eyes are yellow and the bill is black. 

Unlike most owls, pueo are diurnal, though nocturnal or crepuscular activity has also been 

documented. Pueo are commonly seen hovering or soaring over open areas. 

The pueo is found on all the main Hawaiian Islands from sea level-8,000 ft. There have been no 

surveys to estimate the population of the Hawaiian short-eared owl. The species was widespread at 

the end of the 19 th century but is thought to be declining (Mostello 1996, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Pueo occupy a variety of habitats, including wet and dry forests, but are most common in open 

habitats such as grasslands, shrublands, and montane parklands, including urban areas and those 

actively managed for conservation (Mitchell et al. 2005). Their relatively recent establishment on 

Hawai„i may have been tied to the rats that Polynesians brought to the islands. In Hawai„i, pellet 

analyses indicate that rodents, birds, and insects respectively are their most common prey. Birds 

depredated by pueo have included passerines, seabirds, and shorebirds. 




Little information is available on the impact of pueo predation on populations of native birds. The 

pueo has been implicated as a predator of nestlings of various endangered bird species in Hawai„i 

such as the „ākohekohe (VanGelder et al. 2001) and Maui parrotbill on Maui (Mounce 2008), palila 

on Hawai„i (Pratt et al. 1998), and puaiohi on Kaua„i (Snetsinger 2005). Pueo are also known to prey 

upon „apapane, common „amakihi, „i„iwi, and kōlea (Snetsinger et al. 1994). 

Little is known about the breeding biology of the ground nesting pueo, but nests have been found 

throughout the year. Nests are constructed by females and are comprised of simple scrapes in the 

ground lined with grasses and feather down. Females also perform all incubating and brooding, while 

males feed females and defend nests. The young may fledge from nest on foot before they are able to 

fly and depend on their parents for approximately 2 months (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

At the HFU, pueo are found only in the open areas and pastures of the reserve (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

The pueo is rare in the KFU of the Hakalau Forest NWR (Ball, pers. comm.). 

Similar to other native Hawaiian birds, loss and degradation of habitat, predation by mammals, and 

disease threaten pueo. Pueo appear particularly sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation, as they 

require relatively large tracts of grassland and are ground nesters. Ground nesters are more 

susceptible to the increased predation pressure that is typical within fragmented habitats and near 

rural developments (Wiggins et al. 2006). These nesting habits make them increasingly vulnerable to 

predation by rats, cats, and Indian mongooses (Mostello 1996, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Mortality of the pueo on Kaua„i has been attributed to the “sick owl syndrome,” which may be 

related to pesticide poisoning or food shortages. They may be vulnerable to the ingestion of poisoned 

rodents. However, in the one study conducted, there was no evidence that organochlorine, 

organophosphorus, or carbamate pesticides caused mortality in the Hawaiian short-eared owl. Other 

causes of death on Maui, O„ahu, and Kaua„i have been attributed to trauma (apparently vehicular 

collisions), emaciation, and infectious disease (pasteurellosis) (Work and Hale 1996). However, their 

persistence in lowland, nonnative and rangeland habitats suggests that they may be less vulnerable to 

extinction than other native birds, especially because they may be resistant to avian malaria and avian 

pox (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

4.6 Endangered Hawaiian Waterbirds 

The Hawaiian Island archipelago supports six species of endangered waterbirds: the koloa maoli, 

„alae ke„oke„o, „alae „ula, ae„o, nēnē, and Laysan duck. All of these species, except for the nēnē, 

require wetlands for their survival. As a result, the loss and degradation of Hawai„i‟s coastal wetlands 

have been a significant factor in the decline of four endemic waterbirds in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

From 1780-1980, the area of coastal wetland habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands declined by 

31 percent. Coastal wetlands were filled for commercial, residential, and resort developments and 

drained for agriculture. These developments have also degraded the water quality of the wetlands 

(Evans et al. 1994, USFWS 2005a). Predation by introduced animals, disease, and environmental 

contaminants have also contributed to the population decline of Hawai„i‟s endangered waterbirds. 

Furthermore, nonnative plants, such as mangroves and grasses, have encroached on wetlands and 




altered natural processes. Key threats to the nēnē (including habitat loss, behavioral problems, and 

inbreeding depression) are discussed in detail below (USFWS 2004). 

No critical habitat has been designated for any of Hawai„i‟s endangered waterbirds (USFWS 2005a). 

The general recovery objectives for the endangered waterbirds (except the Laysan duck), as 

described in the Second Draft Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds (2005a), are the following: 

stabilize or increase species populations to greater than 2,000 individuals; establish multiple selfsustaining 

breeding populations throughout their historical ranges; protect and manage core and 

supporting wetlands Statewide; eliminate or control the threat of introduced predators, diseases, and 

contaminants; and remove the islandwide threat of the koloa maoli hybridizing with mallards. 

Specific recovery objectives for the nēnē are outlined in the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the 

Nēnē (2004) and are discussed below. 

4.6.1 Nēnē (Branta sandvicensis) 

The nēnē is a medium-sized goose endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. Adult males and females are 

mostly dark brown or sepia with a black face and crown, cream-colored cheeks, and a buff neck with 

black streaks. Females are smaller than males. Compared to other geese, nēnē are more terrestrial and 

have longer legs and less webbing between their toes; these differences likely facilitate nēnē walking 

on lava flows. The nēnē was listed as endangered in March 1967 and is the State bird of Hawai„i. 

In 1951, the wild nēnē population was estimated at 30 individuals. All populations since then have 

been or are currently being supplemented by captive-bred birds. As of 2009, the population was 

estimated at between 1,877-1,927 individuals, with 446 birds on the Island of Hawai„i, 416 birds on 

Maui, 850-900 birds on Kaua„i, and 165 birds on Moloka„i (USFWS unpubl). 

At the HFU, a total of 10 adults and 25 goslings were introduced in 1996, 1997, 2002, and 2003. The 

population of nēnē has increased from 10 in 1996-1997 to approximately 200 in 2007. The number of 

known nests has increased from 1 to 38, and 40 mated pairs of nēnē were observed in 2007. Nēnē are 

found at the higher elevations of the HFU around the cattle ponds and are frequently seen at the 

administrative site (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Adult nēnē disperse from the HFU typically by the end of 

May and have been regularly sighted at Kahuku (HAVO), Kūlani, Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA), 

and Pu„u Anahulu. Several Hakalau individuals are also known to seasonally use Kapāpala Ranch 

and the Kīlauea region of HAVO. Nēnē can commonly be found in the pastures at the junction of 

Keanakolu Road, the Mauna Kea Summit Road, and Saddle Road (USFWS, unpubl.). Nēnē do not 

occur on the KFU (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Nēnē historically occurred in lowland dry forests, shrublands, grasslands, and montane dry forests 

and shrublands. Habitat preferences of contemporary populations are likely biased as preferences 

may be influenced by the location of release sites of captive-bred birds. Birds currently use a wide 

variety of habitats including coastal dune vegetation and nonnative grasslands (e.g., golf courses, 

pastures, rural areas), sparsely vegetated low- and high-elevation lava flows, mid-elevation native 

and nonnative shrubland, early successional cinderfall, cinder deserts, native alpine grasslands and 

shrublands, and open native and nonnative alpine shrubland-woodland community interfaces. Nēnē 

can be found from sea level to 7,900 ft (Mitchell et al. 2005, USFWS 2004). Seasonally, nēnē have 

been known to use areas up to 8,900 ft at HAVO/Kapāpala. 




Nēnē graze and browse on the leaves, seeds, flowers, and fruits of at least 90 native and nonnative 

grasses, sedges, composites, and shrubs. Composition of diet varies with location and habitat, and the 

species may require a diverse suite of food plants. Nēnē disperse seeds and therefore play an 

important ecological role, especially in influencing the species composition of early successional 

plant communities. Historically, flocks moved between high-elevation feeding habitats to lowland 

nesting areas (Mitchell et al. 2005, USFWS 2004). 

Pairs mate for life, and nēnē have an extended breeding season. Eggs can be found in all months 

except May-July, although the majority of birds nest between October-March. Nēnē nests consist of a 

shallow scrape, moderately lined with plant materials and down. Pairs typically return to previous 

years‟ nests sites, which are usually in dense vegetation (though this is highly variable); when 

available, kīpuka (islands surrounded by lava flows) may be preferred. Breeding areas encompass a 

variety of habitats including beach strand, shrubland, grassland, and lava rock, and occur at a range 

of elevations. On the islands of Hawai„i and Maui, most nests are built under native vegetation such 

as pūkiawe, „a„ali„i, and „ōhi„a. On Kaua„i, however, most nesting areas are dominated by nonnative 

species, and nēnē often nest under Christmas berry, shrub verbena, and ironwood. The young remain 

with their parents for up to 1 year (Mitchell et al. 2005, USFWS 2004). 

Current threats to the nēnē include predation by mammals, exposure in high-elevation habitats, 

insufficient nutritional resources for both breeding females and goslings, a lack of lowland habitat, 

human-caused disturbance and mortality (e.g., road mortality, disturbance by human foot traffic), 

behavioral problems related to captive propagation as well as habituation to humans in general, and 

inbreeding depression (USFWS, unpubl., USFWS 2004). Predators of nēnē eggs and goslings 

include dogs, cats, rats, pigs, and mongooses. Dogs, cats, and mongooses are responsible for most of 

the known cases of adult predation (USFWS 2004). Nēnē have also been negatively impacted by 

human disturbance by hikers, hunters, and outdoor recreationists. In recent years, nēnē have been 

struck and killed by golf balls and vehicles (USFWS 2004). 

Starvation and dehydration can also be major factors in gosling mortality. Approximately 

81.5 percent of gosling mortality in Haleakalā National Park during the 1994-1995 breeding season 

was due to starvation and dehydration (USFWS 2004). In 2005-2007, between 30-50 percent of the 

goslings died due to dehydration and exposure at the HFU (USFWS, unpubl.). A lack of adequate 

food and water also seems to be a limiting factor in Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park (USFWS 

2004). A similar study (gosling telemetry) at HAVO in 1995 and 1996 identified dehydration and 

starvation as the cause of death in the majority of gosling carcasses removed. 

4.6.2 Koloa Maoli (Anas wyvilliana) 

The koloa maoli is an endangered waterfowl endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. Federally listed as 

endangered in 1967, the koloa maoli is a small, mottled brown duck with emerald green to blue 

patches on their wings (speculums). Males are typically larger, have distinctive dark brown chevrons 

on the breast and feathers, olive-colored bill, and brighter orange feet. Females are slightly smaller 

and lighter in color. Compared to mallard ducks, koloa maoli are more secretive and about 20- 

30 percent smaller. 

The former range of the koloa maoli includes all the main Hawaiian Islands, except for the islands of 

Lāna„i and Kaho„olawe. They are capable of spreading between islands and may be found up to 

10,000 ft in elevation (Uyehara et al. 2007). Currently, the only naturally occurring population of 




koloa maoli exists on Kaua„i, with repatriated populations on O„ahu, Hawai„i, and Maui (Pratt et al. 

1987, Engilis et al. 2002, Hawaii Audubon Society 2005). The current Statewide population of pure 

koloa maoli is estimated at 2,200 birds; approximately 200 individuals occur on the island of Hawai„i 

and the remainder reside on Kaua„i. The populations on O„ahu and Maui are suspected to largely 

consist of hybrids – a crossbreed between the koloa maoli and mallard ducks. Estimated koloa maoli 

counts on these islands are 300 and 50 birds, respectively (Engilis et al. 2002, USFWS 2005a). 

Genetic studies of the species have suggested that a pure, intact population of koloa maoli may not 

exist on O„ahu (Browne et al. 1993). Although hybridization has been documented to occur on 

Hawai„i‟s lowland wetlands and remains a threat on Kaua„i, the koloa maoli population on these two 

islands appear to be stable (Engilis et al. 2002). 

The Hawai„i Island population was reestablished between 1976-1982, when captive-bred birds were 

released in the Kohala Mountain (Engilis et al. 2002). Populations currently occur in the stock ponds 

in the Kohala Mountains; stream habitats of Pololū, Waimanu, and Waipio Valleys; and in the stock 

ponds and larger montane streams on Mauna Kea. On the HFU, this species inhabits and breeds in 

streams and ponds (USFWS 2002a, USFWS 2005a, Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Due to the lack of surface 

water at the KFU, this species is not expected to occur within the unit boundaries. 

The koloa maoli uses a wide array of habitat types such as natural and manmade lowland wetlands, 

flooded grasslands, river valleys, mountain streams, montane pools, forest swamplands, aquaculture 

ponds, and agricultural areas. The diet of koloa maoli consists of aquatic invertebrates, aquatic 

plants, seeds, grains, green algae, aquatic mollusks, crustaceans, and tadpoles (Engilis et al. 2002, 

Hawaii Audubon Society 2005, USFWS 2005a). The majority of nesting occurs from March-June 

with broods observed year-round. Nests are placed in dense shoreline vegetation of small ponds, 

streams, ditches, and reservoirs. Bunch-type grasses, rhizominous ferns, and shrubs are typically used 

at nesting sites (Engilis et al. 2002). On the island of Hawai„i, successful breeding in the wild has 

been documented in the Kohala Mountains and at HFU (USFWS 2005a). 

Although the USFWS Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds lists the koloa maoli as having a high 

potential for recovery, the species has a high degree of threat due to hybridization with mallard ducks 

(USFWS 2005a). Hybridization with mallards is currently the greatest threat to this species‟ 

continued existence (Engilis et al. 2002, Uyehara et al. 2007). In addition to hybridization concerns, 

other hazards exist for koloa maoli. Known predators of eggs and chicks include mongooses, cats, 

dogs, and possibly rats. „Auku„u, largemouth bass, and American bullfrogs have been observed to 

take ducklings. Avian diseases are another threat to koloa maoli with outbreaks of avian botulism 

occurring annually throughout the State (Engilis et al. 2002). 

4.6.3 ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o (Fulica alai) 

The „alae ke„oke„o, or Hawaiian coot, is a small waterbird endemic to Hawai„i that is federally listed 

as endangered. Adult males and females have a black head, a slate gray body with white undertail 

feathers, and a prominent white frontal shield and bill; feet are lobed rather than webbed and are 

greenish-gray. Life-history and breeding biology are poorly known. „Alae ke„oke„o use freshwater 

and brackish wetlands, which can include agricultural wetlands and aquaculture ponds. They are 

generalists and feed on land, from the surface of the water, or will dive. They will also graze on grass 

adjacent to wetlands. They will travel long distances if local food sources (e.g., seeds, leaves, snails, 

crustaceans, insects, small fish, etc.) are not available. Appropriate water levels are critical to nesting 




success. They create either open water nests or nests in emergent vegetation. Nesting occurs yearround, 

but most activity occurs March-September. Eighty percent of the population occurs on Kaua„i, 

but they are found on all the main Hawaiian Islands (with the exception of Kaho„olawe). The 

population is stable and estimated to be 2,000-4,000. Similar to the rest of the Hawaiian waterbirds, 

threats to „alae ke„oke„o are habitat loss, nonnative mammalian predators such as mongooses, rats, 

cats, barn owls, etc., altered hydrology (modified wetlands), nonnative invasive plants, and avian 

diseases (e.g., botulism). Though rare, „alae ke„oke„o are known to be present at the ponds at HFU 

(Mitchell et. al, 2005). 

4.7 Endangered Mammal 

4.7.1 ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) 

The endangered „ōpe„ape„a is the only extant native land mammal in the archipelago. Both males and 

females have a wingspan of approximately 1 ft, and females are typically larger bodied than males. 

Both sexes have a coat of brown and gray fur. Individual hairs are tipped or frosted with white. 

Population estimates for all islands have ranged from hundreds to a few thousand. Since no accurate 

population estimates exist for this subspecies and because historical information regarding its past 

distribution is scant, the decline of the bat has been largely inferred. „Ōpe„ape„a have been regularly 

sighted in Kaua„i, Hawai„i, and Maui (Menard 2001). 

Changes in seasonal abundance of „ōpe„ape„a at locations of different elevations indicate that 

altitudinal migrations occur on the Island of Hawai„i. During the breeding period (which begins as 

early as April), „ōpe„ape„a occurrences increase in the lowlands and decrease at high elevation 

habitats, such as the HFU. „Ōpe„ape„a occurrences are especially low from June-August in high 

elevation areas. In October, during the post-lactation period, bat occurrences increase at the HFU and 

in the central highlands. In January, bat occurrences at HFU also increase, possibly receiving 

„ōpe„ape„a from both the lowlands and central highlands (Menard 2001). 

Echolocation studies in the Pua „Ākala tract at the HFU confirm these observations. The area has 

moderate use (less than 40 bat call pulses per week sampled) by „ōpe„ape„a between May-June. 

However, bat activity at Pua „Ākala dramatically increases during fall and winter (August-March) 

such that this area may be considered an important „ōpe„ape„a wintering ground for „ōpe„ape„a from 

many parts of the island (Bonaccorso 2008). 

„Ōpe„ape„a roost in native and nonnative vegetation from 3-29 ft above ground level. They occur in 

both wet and dry areas of the island but are believed to be more abundant on the drier leeward side 

(Jacobs 1994). „Ōpe„ape„a have been found roosting in „ōhi„a, hala, coconut palms, kukui, kiawe, 

avocado, shower trees, pūkiawe, and fern clumps; they are suspected to roost in eucalyptus and Sugi 

pine stands. The species is rarely observed using lava tubes, cracks in rocks, or manmade structures 

for roosting. While roosting during the day, „ōpe„ape„a are solitary, although mothers and pups roost 

together (USFWS 1998c, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

„Ōpe„ape„a feed on a variety of native and nonnative night-flying insects, including moths, beetles, 

crickets, mosquitoes, and termites (Whitaker and Tomich 1983) but may have a preference for moths 




of size range 0.6-0.89 in (Belwood and Fullard 1984, Fullard 2001). Prey is located using 

echolocation. Water courses and edges (e.g., coastlines and forest/pasture boundaries) appear to be 

important foraging areas. In addition, the species is attracted to insects that congregate near lights. 

They begin foraging either just before or after sunset depending on the time of year; altitude also may 

affect these patterns (USFWS 1998c, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

It is suspected that breeding primarily occurs between September-December. Typically, two young 

are birthed in May or June. Breeding has only been documented on the islands of Hawai„i and Kaua„i 

(Baldwin 1950, Kepler and Scott 1990, Menard 2001). 

Within the HFU, „ōpe„ape„a are found at Pua „Ākala, Maulua, and Upper Maulua Pond. Bats have 

been observed and/or heard year-round along roads, forest clearings, and within koa/„ōhi„a mixed 

montane mesic forests. Detections have occurred at elevations between 5,250-6,230 ft. Echolocation 

data show that the HFU is an important foraging site for the „ōpe„ape„a (Menard 2001, Bonaccorso 

2008). „Ōpe„ape„a have been seen within the KFU, though little is known about their foraging or 

roosting habits there (USFWS 2008). 

The availability of roosting sites is believed to be a major limitation in many bat species, but other 

possible threats to the „ōpe„ape„a include pesticides (either directly or by impacting prey species), 

predation, alteration of prey availability due to the introduction of nonnative insects, and roost 

disturbance. Management of the „ōpe„ape„a is also limited by a lack of information on key roosting 

and foraging areas, food habits, seasonal movements and reliable population estimates (USFWS 

1998bc). 

4.8 Native Hawaiian Invertebrates 

Invertebrates are composed of a variety of groups including snails (Gastropoda) and various insects 

such as beetles (Coleoptera), true bugs (Heteroptera), and moths/butterflies (Lepidoptera). Over 

5,000 endemic insect species occur in Hawai„i (Howarth et al. 2003), of which beetles and flies are 

the most specious (Goldsmith 2007). 

Hawaiian invertebrates play an important role in native ecosystems. Invertebrate populations serve as 

critical food resources for „ōpe„ape„a and native Hawaiian birds and therefore limit the populations 

and distributions of these species (Howarth et al. 2003). Invertebrates are also essential pollinators 

and detritivores (Gambino and Loope 1992). 

Native Hawaiian invertebrates found during surveys of the Refuge units are listed in Tables 4-2, 3, 

and 4. Due to the diversity of invertebrate species, expansive area of the Refuge units, and limitations 

of baiting techniques, numerous additional invertebrates species may be present on the units. 

Several federally listed endangered invertebrate species, including three endangered picture-wing 

flies, occur on the Island of Hawai„i and within the Refuge units (Howarth et al. 2003, Haines and 

Foote 2005). The Blackburn‟s sphinx moth (Manduca blackburni), an endangered arthropod that 

occurs on Hawai„i Island, is not expected to occur at the HFU (Howarth et al. 2003) and has not been 

observed on the KFU. 




In addition, Hawai„i Island is home to candidate endangered species, as well as species of concern 

(SOC). Species of concern do not receive legal protection, but might be in need of concentrated 

conservation actions. Eight candidate endangered arthropod species occur, and more than 100 species 

of concern are listed (Howarth et al. 2003). Some of these are expected to occur in the Hakalau 

Forest NWR. The HFU shelters a number of candidate endangered damselfly species in the endemic 

genus Megalagrion (Howarth et al. 2003). 

Table 4-2. Endangered and Rare Native Invertebrate Species Occurring or 

Potentially Occurring on the Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Family Genus Hawai‘i Island 

Listed 

Species 

Candidate 

Species 

COLEOPTERA (Beetles) 

Aglycyderidae Proterhinus 23 0 0 0 

Cerambycidae Plagithmysus 39 0 0 12 

Curculionidae Rhyncogonus 2 0 0 1 

Elateridae Eopenthes 3 0 0 2 

DIPTERA (True Flies) 

Drosophilidae Drosophila 141 3 1 0 

HYMENOPTERA (Wasps, Bees & Ants) 

Colletidae Hylaeus 28 0 0 17 

LEPIDOPTERA (Moths & Butterflies) 

Crambidae Omiodes 19 0 0 10 

Geometridae Scotorythra 20 0 0 0 

ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies) 

Coenagrionidae Megalagrion 9 0 2 2 

Source: Howarth et al. (2003), Haines and Foote (2005). 

4.8.1 Picture-wing Flies (Drosophila) 

In Hawai„i, the genus Drosophila contains over 600 endemic species of picture-wing flies. The 

Hawaiian drosophilids have been thoroughly studied throughout the State, beginning with genetic 

and evolution studies in the 1963 Hawaiian Drosophila Project (Howarth and Mull 1992). Within this 

genus, 11 species are listed as federally and State endangered species, a single species is listed as 

threatened, and 2 species are listed as candidate endangered species. Of the endangered species, two 

can be found on the Island of Hawai„i: Drosophila heteroneura and Drosophila ochrobasis (Federal 

Register 2008b). A third species found on the island, Drosophila mulli, is listed as threatened and a 

candidate endangered species, Drosophila digressa, is restricted to Hawai„i Island. 

Drosophila surveys at the KFU were conducted in November 1999 and February 2000 using sponges 

baited with fermented mushrooms and bananas. Six species of endemic picture-wing flies were 

observed on the KFU including D. basisetae, D. conspicua, D. heteroneura, D. silvestris, D. sproati, 

and D. tanythrix. Nearly all of the drosophilids were found on the 4,500 ft transect (Foote 1999). 

Only one species found on the KFU is listed as endangered: Drosophila heteroneura. Of the 

314 picture-wing flies collected on the Refuge, 37 percent were identified as D. heteroneura, making 

it the most abundant picture-wing fly on the Refuge unit. In addition, D. heteroneura observed 

during the KFU survey were the first observations of this species in the wild in approximately 

4-46 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

SOC



10 years; the last specimen was seen in 1993 at Hualālai (Foote 1999). Thus, the population of D. 

heteroneura at the KFU is the only known extant population of this species (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Drosophila heteroneura is endemic to the island of Hawai„i and restricted to montane wet „ōhi„a and 

mesic koa „ōhi„a forests on the west side of the island. Historically, D. heteroneura was relatively 

widely distributed between 3,400-6,000 ft above sea level. The picture-wing fly has historically been 

observed at Hualālai, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Kīlauea in five different montane environments 

(Federal Register 2006a). 

The life-history of D. heteroneura requires breeding on the bark and stems of Clermontia (especially 

C. clermontioides) and Delissea spp. The larvae primarily inhabit the decomposing bark and stems of 

these two plants, but it is also known to feed within decomposing portions of Cheirodendron sp. in 

open mesic and wet forest habitat (Foote 1999, Federal Register 2008b). 

According to the Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 species of picture-wing flies from the 

Hawaiian Islands (Federal Register 2008b), D. heteroneura has two Primary Constituent Elements or 

habitat features that are essential to the conservation of the species. These features include: (1) mesic 

to wet, montane, „ōhi„a and koa forest; and (2) the larval host plants Cheirodendron trigynum subsp. 

trigynum, C. clermontioides, C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana, C. montis- loa, C. paviflora, 

C. peleana, C. pyrularia, and Delissea parviflora. 

Five critical habitat units are designated for D. heteroneura within the Designation of Critical Habitat 

(Federal Register 2008b). Three of the units: Ka„ū Forest Reserve, Pit Crater, and Waihaka Gulch – 

occur on State or private land, and total 291 ac. An additional 687 ac in Lower Kahuku owned and 

managed by Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park comprise another critical habitat unit. Finally, 

3,604 ac within the KFU are occupied habitat and have the necessary features that are essential for 

the conservation of D. heteroneura; thus they are designated as the fifth critical habitat unit (Federal 

Register 2008b). 

Threats to the picture-wing flies include habitat degradation by ungulates, loss of host plants, and 

impacts of nonnative insect predators and parasites such as ants and wasps. The species is also eaten 

by native species such as the caterpillar Eupithecia staurophragma (Howarth and Mull 1992). The 

construction of an ungulate exclosure and rat control will remove the primary threats to D. 

heteroneura within the KFU (USFWS 2008). 

4.8.2 Koa Bug (Coleotichus blackburniae) 

The koa bug (Heteroptera: Scutellaridae) is a rare iridescent, blue, green, maroon, and yellow stink 

bug. Measuring almost an inch in length, Coleotichus blackburniae is the largest native true bug 

(Howarth et al. 2003). Historically, this species was common on koa and a„ali„i (Dodonaea viscosa) 

on the islands of Hawai„i, Maui, O„ahu, Kaua„i, and Moloka„i. Currently, the koa bug is rarely found 

in the State. The koa bug does occur at the HFU (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Information on the koa bug is scarce. Adults and nymphs feed on the fruits of native koa and a„ali„i, 

as well as the nonnative formosa koa. Adult females lay their eggs (about 32 per egg mass) on the 

leaves and fruits of these species, where the larvae develop (Johnson et al. 2005). The red and black 

larvae develop in five stages for an estimated 38 days. Female koa bugs are estimated to live for 




80 days and begin mating 30 days after hatching. Both larvae and adult koa bugs emit odorous 

defense compounds when disturbed (Johnson et al. 2005). 

The koa bug has no known natural predators; however, nonnative spiders and ants are known to 

parasitize C. blackburniae eggs, nymphs, and adults. The big-headed ant chews koa bug eggs and 

Western yellowjacket wasps are predators of young (Johnson et al. 2005). Other species known to 

kill koa bugs include Anastatus sp., Acroclisoides sp., and birds. In addition, two biocontrol agents 

(Trissolcus basalis and Trichopoda pilipes) that were introduced to control the southern green stink 

bug are able to locate and develop on C. blackburniae. Although these species have a relatively 

minor impact on C. blackburniae overall, substantial impacts may occur at individual sites (Johnson 

et al. 2005). 

The koa bug has also been impacted by the reduced abundance and distribution of its host species as 

a result of agricultural activities and urban development. Because these plants typically fruit at the 

same time, locating host plants suitable to lay eggs may require C. blackburniae to disperse over long 

distances. Studies have shown that koa bug mortality due to dispersal accounted for about 50 percent 

mortality in all individuals studied (Johnson et al. 2005). 

4.8.3 Cave Invertebrates 

Until the 1970s, it was assumed that the young and geologically unique Hawaiian Islands did not 

support an abundance of cave-adapted fauna. However, Hawaiian caves have been found to support a 

diverse array of rare and highly specialized invertebrates (Howarth 1972, 1983, 1991). These 

cavernicoles can be classified into three categories: (1) troglobites, which are obligate cave species; 

(2) troglophyles, which can live in caves or other cave-like (moist cool dark) habitats; and (3) 

trogloxenes, which can be found in caves, but do not live their entire life in caves (Howarth 1973, 

1983). 

The Service recognizes one species of cave invertebrate on the Island of Hawai„i, the troglobitic 

cixid leafhopper Oliarus polyphemus, as a species of concern. Troglobites are only able to survive in 

cave ecosystems. These species are characterized by a number of anatomical and physiological 

adaptations to cave life (Barr 1968, Christiansen 1982, Holsinger 1994, Culver et al. 1995). 

Troglobites tend to lose their pigmentation, eyes, and hard exoskeletons. Additionally, troglobites 

have elongated appendages and sensory structures with long hairs, lengthened life span, and modified 

life-history patterns. As a result of their nutrient-poor environments, the life cycle of many 

troglobites is characterized by delayed reproduction, increased longevity, lower total egg production, 

and production of larger eggs (Culver 1982). 

Obligate cave species have narrow and specific ecological requirements. Such requirements include 

high relative humidity, stable temperatures, and a preference for high CO2 levels (Howarth and Stone 

1990). They do not acclimate well to rapid changes in their physical, biological, or chemical 

environment (Barr 1968, Culver 1982). Troglobites also rely on energy and nutrient input from the 

surface. These invertebrates primarily feed on „ōhi„a roots or other plant roots that penetrate the lava 

tube roof (Howarth 1973; 1983, Howarth et al. 2007). Additional nutrient sources into caves include 

plant detritus washed in by surface waters, organisms that enter caves under their own power, and 

guano from bats, rats, and mice. Thus, cave systems can be strongly influenced by the surface 

ecosystem (Barr 1968, Culver 1982). 




Obligate species known to occur on the Island of Hawai„i include endemic moths and spiders (Sinella 

yoshiia, Schrankia sp., Littorophiloscia sp.). None of the obligate cave fauna known from Hawai„i 

Island are currently listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered species, although two endangered 

species occur on Kaua„i. 

Cave invertebrate studies were conducted at KFU by Dr. Howarth and Stone of the B. P. Bishop 

Museum (1998). Endemic arthropods found during this survey are listed in Table 4-3. These species 

included the cave carabid ground beetle, root moths, and a fruit moth. Linyphiid spider webs were 

also seen, which are likely a native species, and trails of the native Limonia crane flies (Tipulidae) 

were common in cave slime. In addition, several dead moths, probably native agrotine noctuids, were 

found. These moths are known to roost in caves (Howarth and Stone 1998). 

4.8.4 Arthropods 

Arthropods include insects, spiders, and crustaceans. There are 5,732 endemic and 101 indigenous 

terrestrial arthropod species identified in the Hawaiian Islands. The majority of the native arthropod 

fauna are insects (Howarth et al. 2003). Population declines of native arthropods throughout the State 

have been attributed to habitat destruction and loss of host species (Howarth et al. 2003). Nonnative 

ungulates, plants, and other arthropods also compete with native species and disturb their habitat 

(Haines and Foote 2005). 

An arthropod survey was conducted at the HFU by Howarth et al. (2003). Sampling was conducted 

along a transect in the Pua „Ākala Tract, a transect in the Maulua Tract, and in the vicinity of the 

University of Hawai„i Biological Field Station in the Hakalau Tract. Of the 2,500 specimens 

Table 4-3. Endemic Arthropods in Three Cave Systems at the KFU. 

Taxon 

ARACHNID: Subclass: Acari (Mites) 

Caves Surveyed 

Cave 1 Cave 3 Cave 4 

Unidentified 

ARANEAE (Spiders) 

Linyphiidae 

Live 

Unidentified 


Carabidae 

Webs only 

Mecyclothorax sp. 


Carposinidae 

Dead 

Carposina cf. gracillima (Walsingham) 

Noctuidae 

Live 

Unidentified Dead 

Schrankia sp. A (Twilight morph) 

Live Live 

Schrankia sp. B (Cave morph) 

DIPTERA (Flies) 

Tipulidae 

Live 

Limonia sp. 

Larval trails Larval trails 

Source: Howarth and Stone (1998). 




collected during the survey, only about 50 species have been identified. Although generalizations are 

difficult based on the low number of species identified, arthropod diversity was lower than expected. 

Arthropod surveys in other areas of the island found that the optimal range of native arthropods is 

between 3,500-4,000 ft; thus, the majority of the Hakalau Unit is above the upper limit. During the 

survey, increased diversity was observed at lower elevation sites (Howarth et al. 2003). Ongoing 

arthropods surveys are being conducted by Goldsmith (2007), and by USGS-BRD (Banko and Peck) 

at the HFU. 

Arthropod surveys were conducted by Haines and Foote (2005) throughout the KFU. This study 

occurred along four transects at elevations of roughly 2,500, 3,500, 4,500, and 5,500 ft. Several 

trends were observed during the study. First of all, diversity among native target genera was highest 

in the middle elevations of the KFU. In addition, native insect diversity generally decreases as 

disturbance increased (occupied by ungulates) and as invasive insect populations increased (Haines 

and Foote 2005). 

Megalagrion (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) 

Approximately nine species of native Hawaiian damselflies of the Megalagrion genus (Odonata: 

Coenagrionidae) occur on the Island of Hawai„i. Megalagrion damselflies inhabit a wide range of 

habitats including perennial stream, intermittent stream, rheocrenes (flowing seeps and springs), and 

standing water ecosystems (Polhemus 1993, Polhemus and Asquith 1996). Immature damselflies (or 

larvae) are typically aquatic, while some live in and under native plants. The adults feed on various 

small insects captured using their spiny legs. Immature damselflies prey on small animals using their 

extendable lower mouthpart (Polhemus and Asquith 1996). 

Competition and predation from nonnative fish, frogs, and invertebrates is a primary threat to this 

genus (Polhemus 1993). Fish predators include Poeciliids (Gambusia affinis, Poecilia reticulata, P. 

latipinna, Xiphophorus helleri, and X. maculatus), as well as catfish, cichllids, and gobies. Alteration 

and degradation of freshwater habitat has also contributed to species declines. Human modifications 

that occurred during ancient Hawaiian times (taro lo„i and fishponds) and in the more modern times 

(diversion systems, urban development, ground water pumping) have impacted Megalagrion habitat 

(Polhemus and Asquith 1996). 

Four damselflies species have been reported at the HFU and several additional species may also 

occur. One of these, M. amaurodytum peles, is a species of concern that was found throughout the 

Refuge in damp litter in axils of pa„iniu lilies (Astelia menziesiana) and „ie„ie (Freycinetia arborea) 

(Howarth et al. 2003). The Pacific Hawaiian damselfly (M. pacificum), an endangered species, may 

occur at the lowest elevations in the HFU. This damselfly species breeds in pools and streams. An 

additional species of concern that breeds in streams, M. nigrohamatum, may also occur in the lower 

elevations of the Refuge unit (Howarth et al. 2003). 

Only a single Megalagrion species, the Beautiful Hawaiian damselfly (M. calliphya), is known at the 

KFU. Two males were seen in a pool at the unit (Haines and Foote 2005). On Hawai„i Island, this 

species is usually limited to areas above 985 ft. Male M. calliphya are mostly red with black strips, 

while females have a green thorax (Polhemus and Asquith 1996). Adults can breed in standing water, 

but prefer slow moving streams (Haines and Foote 2005). 


Proterhinus (Coleoptera: Aglycyderidae) 



A large diversity of beetles are found at the HFU of the Hakalau Forest NWR. Twenty-three species 

of weevils in the genus Proterhinus (Coleoptera: Aglycyderidae) are endemic to Hawai„i Island. 

These tiny, slow-moving beetles bore into leafs, twigs, stems, and wood and are known to have a 

very narrow host range (Haines and Foote 2005). This species exhibits a wide array of morphological 

diversity, making species level identification difficult. Proterhinus spp. were determined to be scarce 

throughout the HFU (Howarth et al. 2003). 

A total of 71 Proterhinus specimens within five species (P. affinis, P. ferrugineus, P. hawaiiensis, 

P. similis, and P. subangularis) were collected from the KFU. Of the five species encountered, 

P. similes was the most abundant and was collected from eight different plant species (Haines and 

Foote 2005). 

Plagithmysus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) 

There are about 140 species of endemic longhorned beetles in the genus Plagithmysus (Coleoptera: 

Cerambycidae) in the State and 12 are considered species of concern on the island (Howarth et al. 

2003). These wood-boring beetles are more showy and active than Proterhinus beetles (Haines and 

Foote 2005). Larvae pupate in the wood and adults emerge by chewing out, leaving visible exit holes. 

Typically adults lay eggs on recently fallen tree branches, but live trees are also used. Plagithmysus 

help with forest decomposition and serve as food for birds and other species. 

Three species of longhorned beetles have been recorded as widespread throughout the HFU – P. 

varians, P. clavigeris, and P. vicinus (Howarth et al. 2003, Goldsmith 2007). Both P. varians and P. 

clavigeris are host-specific to dead koa (Howarth et al. 2003). At HFU, the density of longhorned 

beetles at low-elevation sites was double the density found at high-elevation sites. There are also 

seasonal differences in population size and characteristics. Because of their importance in forest 

ecology, longhorned beetles have been used as indicator species to assess recent reforestation efforts 

at the HFU (Goldsmith 2007). 

At the KFU, three different species of longhorn beetles were collected: P. bilineatus, P.debilis, and 

P. nodifer. The host plant for P. bilineatus is „ōhi„a, while P.debilis and P. nodifer were both reared 

from koa. A new Plagithmysus species was also found on the unit. This new species was found on 

dead or dying branches of „a„awa (Pittosporum hosmeri) (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Omiodes (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) 

Several moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) have been recorded on the HFU. Ten species of endemic 

leaf roller moths in the genus Omiodes (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) are listed as species of concern. 

This group gets its name because the larvae roll or fold leaves, or bind them together with silk, to 

create a retreat (Haines and Foote 2005). Most species utilize monocots as host plants. 

Omiodes pritchardii, which is restricted to Pritchardia palms, was found at the lower elevation site 

in Pua „Ākala at the HFU (Howarth et al. 2003). Omiodes accepta, O. asaphombra, O. localis and 

O. scotaea have been collected from the KFU. Omiodes accepta, the sugarcane leafroller, was found 

to be the most abundant (27 of 49 total specimens) and is common on grasses and sedges. Omiodes 

asaphombra only breeds on rare „ohe (Joinvillea ascendens), which is not known to occur on the 




west side of Hawai„i Island. In addition, the species was previously determined to be extinct (Haines 

and Foote 2005). 

Scotorythra (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) 

The endemic inchworm genus Scotorythra (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) contains 20 species on 

Hawai„i Island. Members of this genus use a wide variety of host plants from koa to Hedyotis spp. 

The larvae are nocturnal foliage feeders that serve as important food items of nestling and fledgling 

native forest birds. During the daytime, the larvae hide in moss or under bark (Haines and Foote 

2005). 

Eight Scotorythra species were collected on the HFU during a survey by Howarth et al. (2003). Two 

of these were considered new species. During a study by Goldsmith (2007), five species of endemic 

Scotorythra were collected at the HFU. These specimens made up 83 percent of the Lepidoptera in 

winter and 87 percent in summer. The KFU provides habitat for eight species of Scotorythra moths. 

Scotorythra arboricolans and S. artemidora were the most abundant species, with 33 and 32 

individuals collected from light field traps, respectively. Scotorythr arboricolans is found on all the 

main Hawaiian Islands, while S. artemidora is restricted to Hawai„i Island (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Eopenthes (Coleoptera: Elateridae) 

Three endemic Eopenthes click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) are recorded on Hawai„i Island. This 

genus is active almost exclusively during the summer months and is only found within mountainous 

regions. Eopenthes larvae, which are typically found in decaying wood, presumably feed on other 

invertebrates. Adults, on the other hand, feed solely on nectar. 

Although this genus was not reported during surveys at the HFU, it is expected to occur within the 

unit (Howarth et al. 2003). One specimen of Eopenthes was collected from blossoms of Hawaiian 

holly (Ilex anomala) along the southern boundary of the KFU. This individual is most likely 

E. cognatus, which is a SOC and former “Category 2” species. Additional Eopenthes individuals 

were seen around Hawaiian holly blossoms (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Dyscritomyia (Diptera: Calliphoridae) 

In addition to the Drosophila genus, other Diptera species occur throughout the island. Twelve 

species of Dyscritomyia flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) occur on Hawai„i Island, generally confined to 

high-elevation wet habitats. The immature Dyscritomyia feeds on carrion (land snails), while the 

adults feed on snail slime trails and other liquid proteins. Only one Dyscritomyia species was found 

during the survey at Hakalau. Four orders of flies were found in the HFU (Howarth et al. 2003). 

Hylaeus (Hymenoptera: Colletidae) 

Of the 28 species of yellow-faced Hylaeus bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae) on Hawai„i Island, 

currently 17 are considered species of concern. Male Hylaeus bees tend to have distinct yellow 

markings on the fronts of their heads. The adults eat the nectar of native plant species and 

subsequently assist with pollination. 




No yellow-faced bees were reported during the HFU survey by Howarth et al. (2003), although this 

taxa should occur onsite. Ten yellow-faced bee species were collected on the KFU. Three of these, 

H. crabronoides, H. filicum, and H. specularis are extremely rare and local (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Certain ant species compete with this genus for nesting sites (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Table 4-4. Arthropods Occurring at the HFU and KFU. 

SPECIES 

Hakalau 

Unit- 

Abundance 

Kona Unit- 

Number 

Observed 

ARANEAE (Spiders) 

Tetragnathidae 

Tetragnatha quasimodo C 

Tetragnatha sp. 1 S 

Tetragnatha sp. 2 R 

Theridiidae 

Theridion grallator 2 

ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies) 

Aeshnidae 

Anax strenuous S 

Coenagrionidae 

Megalagrion calliphya calliphya R 2 

Megalagrion hawaiiense R 

Megalagrion amaurodytum peles S 

Megalagrion blackburni R 

ORTHOPTERA (Grasshoppers & Crickets) 

Gryllidae 

Laupala sp. 1 C 

Leptogryllus sp. 1 S 

Trigonidium spp. C 

DIPTERA (True Flies) 

Calliphoridae 

Dyscritomyia sp. 1 R 

Drosophilidae 

Drosophila basisetae 8 

Drosophila conspicua 4 

Drosophila heteroneura (CE) 116 

Drosophila silvestris 13 

Drosophila sproati 80 

Drosophila tanythrix 93 

Muscidae 

Lispocephala sp. 1 R 

Pipunculidae 

Cephalops sp. R 

Tipulidae 

Gonomyia hawaiiensis R 




SPECIES 

Hakalau 

Unit- 

Abundance 

Kona Unit- 

Number 

Observed 

HETEROPTERA (True bugs) 

Colletidae 

Hylaeus coniceps* 27 

Hylaeus connectens* 2 

Hylaeus crabronoides* 10 

Hylaeus difficilis* 69 

Hylaeus dumetorum 12 

Hylaeus filicum* 1 

Hylaeus pubescens* 1 

Hylaeus specularis 22 

Hylaeus sphecodoides* 11 

Hylaeus volcanicus 2 

Miridae (Leaf bugs) 

Kamehameha lunalilo R 

Koanoa hawaiiensis 

Orthotylus sp. 1 S 

Nabidae (damselbugs) 

Nabis lusciosus C 

Nabis oscillans S 

Reduviidae (Assassin bugs) 

Nesidiolestes selium R 

Saicella mulli R 


Crambidae 

Omiodes accepta 27 

Omiodes asaphombra 4 

Omiodes localis 11 

Omiodes (=Hedylepta) prichardii R 

Omiodes scotaea 8 

Geometridae 

Eupithecia craterias 5 

Eupithecia monticolans 3 

Eupithecia staurophragma 2 

Prognostola cremnopsis S 

Scotorythra apicalis 1 

Scotorythra arboricolens C 33 

Scotorythra artemidora C 32 

Scotorythra epixantha R 

Scotorythra euryphaea 40 

Scotorythra goniastis R 

Scotorythra paludicola R 6 

Scotorythra rara C 53 

Scotorythra new sp. 5 6 

Scotorythra new sp. 7 R 

Scotorythra new sp. 13 R 4 




SPECIES 

Hakalau 

Unit- 

Abundance 

Kona Unit- 

Number 

Observed 

Noctuidae 

Agrotis epicremna R 

Haliophyle euclidias C 

Haliophyle flavistigma R 

Haliophyle ignita R 

Pseudaletia macrosaris R 

Pseudaletia sp. A R 

Oecophoridae 

Thyrocopa sp. C 

Sphingidae 

Hyles wilsoni 11 


Aglycyderidae 

Proterhinus spp. S 

Proterhinus affinis 11 

Proterhinus ferrugineus 6 

Proterhinus hawaiiensis 5 

Proterhinus similes 43 

Proterhinus subangularis 6 

Anobiidae 

Xyletobius sp. 1 S 

Carabidae 

Bembidion spp. S 

Blackburnia sp. 1 S 



Mecyclothorax sp. 1 R 

Cerambycidae 

Plagithmysus bilineatus 3 

Plagithmysus clavigeris X 

Plagithmysus debilis X 

Plagithmysus nodifer X 

Plagithmysus vicinus vicinus C 

Plagithmysus varians 

Plagithmysus sp. 4 

Curculionidae 

Achalles sp. 1 S 

Oodemas sp. 1 

Elateridae 

Anchastus swezeyi 62 

Eopenthes cognatus? 1 

HYMENOPTERA (Wasps, Bees & Ants) 

Ichneumonidae 

Enicospilus sp. A S 

Enicospilus sp. B S 


4.8.5 Mollusks 



SPECIES 

Hakalau 

Unit- 

Abundance 

Kona Unit- 

Number 

Observed 

Enicospilus sp. C S 

Sphecidae 

Ectemnius atripennis 6 

Ectemnius sp. A R 1 

NEUROPTERA (Lacewings) 

Chrysopidae 

Anomalochrysa sp. A R 

Hemerobiidae 

Micromus spp. S 

SPIROSTREPIDA (Millipedes) 

Cambalidae 

Nannolene sp. 1 S 

R = Rare, S = Scarce, C = Common; * = Species of concern, CE = Candidate 

endangered. Source: Howarth et al. (2003), Haines and Foote (2005). 

Native land snails in Hawai„i are comprised of 767 currently identified endemic species within 

51 genera (Mitchell et al. 2005). Most of these are endangered due to habitat destruction, shell 

collecting, and predation by nonnative species (Howarth et al. 2003). Of the extant groups, 

Tornatellides (Achatinellidae) and Succinea (Succineidae) are the most abundant (Mitchell et al. 

2005). No endangered land snails occur on the Island of Hawai„i. 

Mollusk surveys were conducted by Howarth et al. (2003) along two elevational transects in the 

HFU: Pua „Ākala in the south and the Maulua tract in the north. Additional sampling was conducted 

in the Hakalau tract, along the dry gulch, and in the vicinity of the University of Hawai„i Biological 

Field Station. A total of 231 live specimens and 111 empty shells were collected during this survey; 

however, additional species are believed to occur in areas that were not sampled (Howarth et al. 

2003). 

Succinea cf. cepulla (Succineidae) and Tornatellides sp. (Achatinellidae) were the only two native 

mollusk species found. In the Pua „Ākala Tract, two specimens of Succinea cf. cepulla were found 

around 4,200 ft elevation. The two specimens of Tornatellides sp. found at the Refuge were collected 

in „ōhi„a leaf litter at the Maulua Tract and the Pua „Ākala Tract. This species has a translucent, 

conical shell measuring 0.12 inches long (Howarth et al. 2003). 

Aquatic mollusks in Hawai„i favor brackish habitats and therefore are usually restricted to lower 

elevation areas near the ocean. The endemic freshwater snail, hīhīwai, can live in higher elevation 

freshwater areas; however, it would most likely not be able to reach the lower elevations of the HFU 

(Kinzie, pers. comm.). 




4.9 Endangered and Threatened Plants 

Forty-four percent of all the endangered plants in the United States occur in the Hawaiian Islands 

(Messing et al. 2007). Currently, 343 plants are listed as Federal and State endangered species in the 

State of Hawai„i and 11 additional species are listed as threatened. Of these totals, 68 endangered 

species and 1 threatened species occur on Hawai„i Island. Additional species are deemed candidates 

for listing throughout the State. 

Both units of the Hakalau Forest NWR contain endangered and threatened plants and/or contain 

habitat that could support endangered and threatened individuals. Endangered and threatened species 

that occur (or potentially occur) at the Hakalau Forest NWR are listed in Table 4-2. 

It is estimated that roughly 97 plant species that previously existed throughout the Hawaiian Islands 

are now extinct (USFWS 2008). In an effort to avoid further extinctions, the Refuge outplants rare 

species. Since 1987, close to 4,000 endangered plants have been outplanted on the HFU (USFWS, 

unpubl.). Approximately 1,029 endangered plant species were propagated or outplanted on the HFU 

in 2007 alone (USFWS 2007a). To date, no endangered or threatened species have been outplanted at 

the KFU due to the presence of ungulates. 

Endangered and threatened plants occurring on Hawai„i Island are specifically threatened by 

nonnative species such as ungulates, invertebrates, and invasive plants. Other factors that have the 

potential to decrease plant populations include fire, recreational activities, military actions, disease, 

genetic limitations, and random events such as volcanic eruptions and hurricanes (USFWS 2008). 

The Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (USFWS1996a) covers 22 endangered and threatened 

plant species. According to this plan, the following objectives need to be obtained to delist an 

endangered plant species: 

Total of 8 - 10 populations documented on the island; 

Each population must be naturally reproducing, stable, or increasing in number; 

Each population must be secure from threats; 

For long-lived and short-lived perennials, each population must have a minimum of 100 and 

300 mature individuals, respectively; 

For annuals, each population must have a minimum of 500 mature individuals; and 

Each population should persist at this level for a minimum of 5 consecutive years. 

The Addendum to the Recovery Plan to the Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (1998a) 

addresses 13 plant species on the island, including three that occur or potentially occur on the 

Hakalau Forest NWR (Cyanea platyphylla, Phyllostegia racemosa, and P. velutina). Asplenium 

peruvianum var. insulare is covered in the Recovery Plan for Four Species of Hawaiian Ferns 

(1998b). Specific delisting and downlisting criteria for these species are discussed below. 




Table 4-5. Endangered and Threatened Plant Species that Occur (or Potentially 

Occur) at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Scientific Name 

Common & 

Hawaiian Name(s) 

Status Hakalau 

Unit 

Kona 

Unit 

Aspleniaceae Spleenwort family 

Asplenium peruvianum 

var. insulare 

-- 

E X 

Campanulaceae Bellflowers family 

Clermontia lindseyana „oha wai E X (CH) X 

Clermontia peleana „oha wai E P (CH) 

Clermontia pyrularia „oha wai E X (CH) 

Cyanea hamatiflora 

subsp. carlsonii 

hāhā 

E P (CH) 

Cyanea platyphylla „aku„aku E P 

Cyanea shipmannii hāhā E X (CH) 

Cyanea stictophylla hāhā E X 

Caryophyllaceae Pink family 

Silene hawaiiensis -- T P 

Curcurbitaceae Gourd family 

Sicyos macrophyllus „anunu C X 

Gesneriaceae African violet family 

Cyrtandra tintinnabula ha„iwale E X (CH) 

Lamiaceae Mint family 

Phyllostegia floribunda -- C P 

Phyllostegia racemosa kiponapona E X (CH) 

Phyllostegia velutina -- E X (CH) P 

Portulacaceae Purslane family 

Portulaca sclerocarpa po„e E P 

Solanaceae Nightshade family 

Nothocestrum breviflorum „aiea 

Status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate. 

E P 

Occurrence: X = Individuals known to occur on the unit; P = Potentially occurs on 

the unit; CH = Critical habitat designated on the unit. 

4.9.1 Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare 

Asplenium peruvianum is a fern native to the Andes in South America. The Hawaiian variety, var. 

insulare, is a federally listed endangered species. It was originally listed as Asplenium fragile var. 

insulare in 1994. This delicate fern has glabrous fronds measuring between 6 - 18 in long and 0.4- 

1.2 in wide. The upper surfaces of the fronds have dull gray or brown stripes with two greenish 

ridges. The long, narrow blades on the fronds are 1-pinnate and pale green to dark green. The sori, or 

spore-producing bodies, are close to the main vein, with one to two on the lower side and two to four 

on the upper side. Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare has creeping rhizomes measuring between 

0.12-0.5 in in diameter. Compared to the variety in South America, the coarser Hawaiian variety is 

larger in size and the midribs of the fern blades (rachises) are thicker. In addition, almost all of the 

pinnae (primary division of the compound blade) have a superior basal lobe (Palmer 2003). 




Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare is present on East Maui and Hawai„i Island between 5,413- 

7,218 ft (Palmer 2003). The species historically occurred on the upper slopes of Mauna Loa above 

Kipuka Ahiu, Pu„u Wa„awa„a on Hualālai, near Hilo, as well as at Kalaieha, Laumai„a, Keanakolu, 

and „Umikoa on Mauna Kea (USFWS 1998b). Currently, it is known at Pu„u Huluhulu, Pōhakuloa 

Training Area (PTA), Kūlani Correctional Facility, Keauhou, the Mauna Loa Strip Road in Hawai„i 

Volcanoes National Park, Kapāpala Forest Reserve, Ka„ū Forest Reserve, and the summit area of 

Hualālai. The largest population occurs at PTA. It is comprised of approximately 200 individuals 

within 9 subpopulations (USFWS 1998b). The population at the Kapāpala Forest Reserve was 

comprised of 300 mature individuals in 2003 (Federal Register 2003b). It is also found on the KFU. 

On Maui, A. peruvianum var. insulare was recently reported in the Hanawī Natural Area Reserve 

(NAR) and has been previously sited on the north slope of Haleakalā and Kanahau Hill (USFWS 

1998b). 

The species grows almost exclusively in dark, moist environments such as rock crevices or in lava 

tube openings (Palmer 2002) within montane wet, mesic, or dry forests, as well as subalpine dry 

forest and shrublands (USFWS 1998b). The fern prefers areas receiving between 48-100 in per year. 

It is often associated with mosses and liverworts (USFWS 1998b). 

Palmer (2002, 2003) proposes that morphological and habitat differences within the species suggest 

Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare may be divided into two taxa. One form is delicate, 

nonproliferous, longer, narrower, and light green in color. This form is often found in lava tubes 

openings. In contrast, a coarser, proliferous, shorter, wider, darker green form is usually found in 

more open areas (Palmer 2002, 2003). 

Critical habitat is designated on both islands where Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare is present. 

On Hawai„i Island, the critical habitat area encompasses 2,241 ac in the Pāhala watershed, which is 

the southernmost critical habitat within the species‟ historical range. In addition, two populations 

were given critical habitat designation on Maui (Federal Register 2003b). 

Habitat degradation and browsing by sheep and goats are identified as the main threat to this species 

existence. Cattle may also negatively impact A. peruvianum var. insulare. Nonnative fountain grass 

is known to invade A. peruvianum var. insulare habitat. Some populations are also threatened by 

military operations and fires that result from these operations, as well as construction activities 

(USFWS 1998b). 

The downlisting criteria established in the Recovery Plan for Four Species of Hawaiian Ferns 

(1998b) requires 5-7 populations on both islands that are naturally reproducing, stable or increasing 

in number, and secure. Each population must have a minimum of 300 mature individuals for 

5 consecutive years. In order to delist the species, a total of 8-10 naturally reproducing, stable 

populations must be documented on both Maui and Hawai„i Island. Each population must contain at 

least 300 mature individuals per population for 5 consecutive years. 

4.9.2 Clermontia lindseyana 

Clermontia lindseyana is an endemic, small tree that was listed as endangered in April 1994. Species 

within this genus are often referred to by the Hawaiian name „oha wai. The species grows between 

8.2-20 ft in height and can occur as an epiphyte or terrestrial dweller. The oblance shaped leaves are 

dark green on the upper surface and pale green to purple on the underside. Clermontia lindseyana can 




be distinguished from other species in the genus by its larger leaves and hairy undersurface. It has 

round, orange berries measuring between 1-1.6 in in diameter. Fruiting occurs from June-October. 

Clermontia lindseyana occurs in wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/„ōhi„a forests on the islands of Maui and 

Hawai„i. On Maui, a single population of approximately 300 individuals is known to occur on the 

eastern part of the island around 4,500 ft. Historically, it also occurred on the southern slope of 

Haleakalā. On Hawai„i Island, an estimated 11 populations occur between 4,680-6,200 ft. Currently, 

these populations are comprised of a total of 86 individuals. The populations occur on or near the 

following locations: Pīhā, Laupāhoehoe, Makahanaloa, Kukuiopa„e, Pu„u O„o, Kūlani Correctional 

Facility, Kahikinui, Kūlani Boys Home, Ka„ū Forest Reserve, and both units of the Hakalau Forest 

NWR. The largest population on the island (19 individuals) is found on the Ka„ū Forest Reserve. 

Historical records show C. lindseyana occurring on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea and throughout 

the slopes of Mauna Loa (USFWS 1996a). 

At the HFU, wild individuals occur in the Upper Maulua (2), Lower Honohina Tract (4) and the 

Hakalau Tract (4). Between 1999 and 2008, an estimated 988 C. lindseyana were outplanted in the 

Upper Honohina, Maulua, Pua „Ākala, and Hakalau Tracts. The majority of these (286 plants) were 

outplanted in 2001 (USFWS, unpubl., Jeffrey et al. 2001). 

In 2003, three critical habitat units encompassing roughly 10,459 ac were designated for 

C. lindseyana on the Island of Hawai„i. Critical habitat was also previously designated for two 

populations on Maui. Of the total critical habitat area, 2,202 ac occur within the HFU (Federal 


Invasive species, such as cattle, goats, pigs, rats, nonnative invertebrates and invasive plants, are the 

primary threats to C. lindseyana. Animal species can trample and graze plants, or facilitate the spread 

of nonnative plants. Both kikuyu grass and banana poka are known to directly compete with 

C. lindseyana (USFWS 1996a). Rats are known to have eaten all of the fruit and seeds from the wild 

individuals of C. lindseyana (USFWS 1996b). 

4.9.3 Clermontia peleana 

Listed as federally endangered in April 1994, Clermontia peleana is endemic to Hawai„i Island. It 

can grow on the ground or as an epiphyte on „ōhi„a, koa, „ōlapa, and „ama„u. The leaves are oblong 

to elliptic and alternately arranged. The petals and flower parts are fused into a tube and curved 

down. Flowers can be two colors depending on subspecies – peleana is black to purple and 

singuliflora is green to white. Flowering has been observed between June-November. The orange 

fruits are berries measuring 1.2 in wide. 

Clermontia peleana is historically known from the northeastern and southeastern slopes of Mauna 

Kea, as well as the eastern slopes of Mauna Loa. The subspecies singuliflora was previously found 

on the northern slope of Mauna Kea and at Haleakalā on the island of Maui; however, it is now 

presumed extirpated (USFWS 1996a). Approximately four populations of peleana currently occur in 

montane wet „ōhi„a forests at Keanakolu, Pāpa„aloa, and Pi„ihonua on the Island of Hawai„i. These 

populations are estimated to contain roughly eight individuals (USFWS 1996a). 




The taxon grows in wet forests dominated by koa, „ōhi„a, and tree ferns at elevations between 1,800- 

3,800 ft. The native plants kolokolo mokihana and naupaka kuahiwi are known to occur with this 

species (USFWS 1996a). 

According to the Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (1996a), ungulates, rats, and humans were 

identified as the main threats to C. peleana. Habitat has been disturbed by ungulates and humans 

planting marijuana. Reproductive ability of C. peleana may be reduced due to a lack of pollinators. 

In addition, random natural events could eliminate the small population size. 

A total of 38,664 ac of critical habitat were designated for Clermontia peleana on Hawai„i Island. 

Only four individuals existed within the three critical habitat units at the time of designation. 

Although one unit lies mostly within Hakalau Forest NWR (as well as a small section of the Hilo 

Forest Reserve), C. peleana is not currently known to occur there. No critical habitat has been 

designated on Maui (Federal Register 2003b). In December 2008, in coordination with the Plant 

Extinction Prevention Program, over 800 C. peleana were outplanted in six gulch areas at 

approximately 5,000 ft elevation at the HFU. 

4.9.4 Clermontia pyrularia 

Clermontia pyrularia is an endangered lobeliad that reaches a height of 9.8-13 ft. The toothed leaf 

blades are narrow and elliptical. The blades are attached to winged petioles, or stalks. Each flower is 

suspended by a flower stalk and attached to a cluster of 2-5 flowers. The species name is derived 

from pyrus (pear) because of its orange, pear-shaped berries. 

Currently, C. pyrularia is found between 5,900-6,240 ft on the Hawai„i Island, although it is able to 

survive at elevations as low as 3,000 ft and as high as 7,000 ft. It occurs in montane wet and mesic 

„ōhi„a and koa forests in North Hilo at Laupāhoehoe and Pīhā, the State land adjacent to the HFU. 

Subalpine dry forests dominated by „ōhi„a can also provide suitable habitat (Federal Register 2003b). 

The previously found population in the Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve no longer exists (USFWS 

1996a, 1996b). One individual from the population at Pīhā died from unknown causes in 1995; 

however, an additional 14 individuals were found in the area by 2001 (Jeffrey et al. 2001). Using 

seeds from these plants, the Refuge experimentally outplanted 30 C. pyrularia seedlings in two 

exclosures at HFU in 1990 and 1992 (USFWS 1996a, 1996b). By 2001, 12 individuals at 7 sites were 

still living. To date a total of 846 C. pyrularia have been outplanted within the Refuge (USFWS, 

unpubl.). Subalpine dry forests dominated by „ōhi„a can also provide suitable habitat (Federal 


It was found that although C. pyrularia seeds will grow slowly at 3,800 ft, this species grows best 

between 6,000-6,400 ft. Seeds of this species will not germinate below 2,000 ft (USFWS 1996b). 

Nonnative vegetation has contributed to population declines of C. pyrularia in suitable habitat. For 

example, banana poka, which forms a dense curtain that shades out seedlings, is negatively impacting 

C. pyrularia in some areas. Pigs have been observed dispersing the fruits of banana poka and can 

also trample native flora. Ongoing other threats include rats, invertebrates, humans, and small 

disjunct populations with limited opportunities for pollination (USFWS 1996a). 




In 2003, 6,823 ac of critical habitat were designated for C. pyrularia. Critical habitat has been 

designated at the HFU. The critical habitat unit located completely within the HFU provides habitat 

for three populations of 300 individuals; however, no individuals occurred on the unit at the time of 

designation. The south and north-central portion of the second critical habitat unit is also located 

within the Refuge unit (Federal Register 2003b). Ex situ, or offsite, planting is needed to increase 

population numbers at these areas (USFWS, publ.). 

4.9.5 Hāhā (Cyanea hamatiflora) 

Several species within the Cyanea genus are referred to by the Hawaiian name hāhā. The genus is 

endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, with 11 species and 5 subspecies on Hawai„i Island. Cyanea 

hamatiflora subsp. carlsonii is an endangered species typically found in montane wet „ōhi„a and 

mesic koa/„ōhi„a forests of the west side of the island. This palm-like tree can grow between 9.8-26 ft 

in height. The sessile leaves average between 20-31 in long and the flowers cluster in groups of 5-10 

(USFWS 1996a). The sepals and magenta petals of C. hamatiflora subsp. carlsonii are fused into an 

oval tube. The berries are oval and purplish red in color. The other subspecies – hamatiflora – is 

common throughout East Maui. The Hawai„i Island subspecies can be distinguished by its stalkless 

leaves, larger flower stalks, and longer calyx lobes (USFWS 1996a, Mitchell et al. 2005). 

The current distribution of the species ranges from 5,220-5,700 ft on the western slopes of Hualālai 

(Mitchell et al. 2005). In 2003, 14 individuals existed in the Honua„ula Forest Reserve within the 

Wai„aha watershed and a single individual was known from the Kīpāhoehoe NAR within the Ki„ilae 

watershed (Federal Register 2003b). Currently, populations occur at the Honua„ula Forest Reserve 

and at privately owned land at Kēōkea in South Kona. In 2005, about 16 plants were recorded at 

„Ōlelomoana. Fifty-one individuals were outplanted within the native range at the Honua„ula Forest 

Reserve and Pu„u Wa„awa„a. These outplantings have not been successful and the population has 

declined to roughly 3-4 individuals (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Although no C. hamatiflora carlsonii are currently known from the KFU, the area is considered a 

key potential habitat for the species (Federal Register 2003b). No individuals have been found in the 

areas since the 1960s (USFWS, unpubl.). Approximately 2,583 ac of land in South Kona were 

designated as critical habitat for this species in 2003. Of this total, approximately 1,475 ac lie within 

KFU (USFWS 2008). Three additional critical habitat units were designated in the Honua„ula Forest 

Reserve, South Kona Forest Reserve, and Kīpāhoehoe NAR (Federal Register 2003b). 

Potential risks to C. hamatiflora include cattle, rats, nonnative plants, and small, disjunct populations 

(USFWS 1996a). Ungulate disturbance provides an opportunity for invasive plants, such as banana 

poka, to take over an area and directly compete with C. hamatiflora carlsonii. In addition, 

reproductive success is reduced by a limited gene pool and further depleted by birds and rats that eat 

the seeds. Caterpillar seed damage has also been observed on this species (USFWS 1996a). 

4.9.6 ‘Aku‘aku (Cyanea platyphylla) 

Cyanea platyphylla, or „aku„aku, is a small unbranched shrub endemic to the island of Hawai„i. The 

palm-like shrub reaches between 3-10 ft tall and is covered by short spines on the upper portion of 

the stems. The leaves of juvenile plants have prickles on the leaves and stalks and measure between 

4.1-10 in long and 1.6 -3 in wide. Adult plants have only sparsely prickled leaves. Adult leaves are 




larger, measuring 13-34 in long and 2.8-8.7 in wide. The inflorescence is a cluster of 6-25 flowers. 

Compared to other species within the genus, the flowers of C. platyphylla are small. The bases of the 

flower parts (sepals, petals, and stamens) are fused together in a structure known as a hypanthium. 

The petals are white or yellowish with magenta strips and there are five triangular sepals. The pale 

orange berries measure 0.3-0.4 in long and 0.2-0.3 in wide (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

Historically, C. platyphylla was known to occur in the following areas: Waipio Valley, Kohala 

Mountains, Laupāhoehoe; in the mountains above Hilo, Pahoa, Glenwood, and Honaunau; and at the 

unknown location named “Kalanilehua.” According to the Addendum to the Big Island Plant Cluster 

Recovery Plan (1998a), two naturally occurring C. platyphylla populations consisting of nine 

individuals existed in the late 20 th century. These occurred in the Laupāhoehoe NAR and along 

Saddle Road. In 2003, six occurrences of C. platyphylla were known (Federal Register 2003b). More 

recent estimates suggest that there are 4-6 populations consisting of 50-100 plants. In 2004, 

2 individuals were found at a population near Kilau Stream and 11 plants were found in the 

Laupāhoehoe NAR. No individuals are known from Hakalau Forest NWR. Additional surveys in the 

historical range and likely habitat areas are needed to determine the exact distribution of the species 


Montane wet „ōhi„a forests are the preferred habitat of C. platyphylla, although it can be found in 

lowland areas. It has been reported to occur between 390-3,000 ft in association with hāpu„u, ho„i„o, 

hame, „oha wai, pilo, and ha„iwale (USFWS 1998a). 

Two critical habitat units were designated in 2003, encompassing 7,234 ac. The first unit is located 

primarily within the Laupāhoehoe NAR, with a small portion in the northwest in the Hilo Forest 

Reserve. The second unit is within the Wailuku watershed in the Hilo Forest Reserve (Federal 


Competition with introduced plants has resulted in C. platyphylla population declines. Nonnative 

mammals, such as rats and pigs, also threaten existing populations by modifying habitat and eating 

the fruit (USFWS 1998a). Hawai„i‟s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) and the 

Addendum to the Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (1998a) also identify volcanic activity, 

stochastic events, and reduced reproduction vigor as threats. 

The downlisting criterion established in the Addendum to the Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan 

(1998a) requires 5-7 populations of at least 100 mature plants each that are sustained for a 5-year 

period. The delisting criterion requires 8-10 populations of C. platyphylla with at least 200 mature 

plants each. These populations must be sustained for 5 consecutive years. 

4.9.7 Cyanea shipmanii 

Cyanea shipmanii is a small, palm-like understory species. The shrub can be unbranched or have few 

branches and reaches a maximum height of 13 ft. Cyanea shipmannii is characterized by its slender 

stems and pinnately lobed leaves. The stalked leaves are deeply cut into 20-30 lobes per leaf 

(Mitchell et al. 2005). Young plants have sharp projections on their stems and leaves, typically only 

up to about 3.5 ft. This may be an evolved defense against flightless geese or ducks that once existed 

on the island (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). The flowers of C. shipmanii have fine hairs and are grouped in 

clusters of 10-15. The flower petals are whitish green and fused into a curved, five-lobed tube. The 

orange berry is ellipsoid in shape (Mitchell et al. 2005). 




This species occurs on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea and south across the Waiākea Forest Reserve 

and into the lands of the Kūlani Correctional Facility on the southeastern slope of Mauna Loa, in 

montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/„ōhi„a forest habitat. The elevational range is 5,400-6,200 ft. 

Additional native species that have been observed with C. shipmanii are kōlea and kāwa„u. In 1840, 

approximately 50 individuals were found and only one was mature. In the late 1990s a single plant 

was found in a ravine in the Upper Waiākea Forest Reserve. A small fence was constructed to protect 

the plant from pigs (USFWS 1996a, Mitchell et al. 2005). Another single individual was known in 

the Mauna Loa Forest Reserve (Federal Register 2003b). Five C. shipmanii were found in the Pua 

„Ākala and Hakalau Tracts of the HFU in 1993 (USFWS 1996a, Van Driesche and Van Driesche 

2000, Jeffrey et al. 2001, Mitchell et al. 2005). All but one individual had died by 2000 and the 

remaining plant was too young to reproduce. Using seed from Waiākea, 109 C. shipmanii were 

outplanted at the Refuge (HFU) from 1999-2001 (Jeffrey et al. 2001). From 2002-2008, an additional 

602 C. shipmanii were outplanted (USFWS, unpubl.). 

Of the 6,088 ac of critical habitat designated for C. shipmanii, over 64 percent occurs within the 

HFU. This area encompasses Pua „Ākala and portions of „Āwehi, Honoli„i, and Kapue streams. Two 

additional units were designated on land within the „Ōla„a-Kīlauea Partnership (now the Three 

Mountain Alliance) and in the Mauna Loa Forest Reserve (Federal Register 2003b). 

Pigs are known to impact the reproduction of this species and destroy the natural seed bank (Van 

Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). Existing populations are also threatened by invasive plants and 

rats. In the early 1990s rats were known to have eaten all of the fruit and seeds from the known 

individuals of the endangered C. shipmanii at the HFU (USFWS 1996b). Although sporadic rodent 

control has been employed, these remote areas are difficult to access (Jeffrey et al. 2001). Due to the 

small population size, the species is also in danger of extinction from random events, loss of 

reproduction vigor, or reduced pollination (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

4.9.8 Cyanea stictophylla 

The endangered Cyanea stictophylla is a small tree or shrub with a height from 2-20 ft. The stems 

often possess sharp projections and have few branches. The long and narrow leaves have lobed or 

toothed blades that are 7.8-15 in long. Five or six large, deeply lobed flowers cluster at the tip of the 

main flower stalk. The hypanthium is oval and slightly hairy. The petals are yellowish white or 

purple, while the berries are orange (USFWS 1996a). 

Historical records show that C. stictophylla occurred on the western, southern, and eastern slopes of 

Mauna Loa. Three existing populations occur in montane wet „ōhi„a and mesic koa/„ōhi„a forests 

between 2,500-6,400 ft. These population contain about 15 individuals and are located at Keauhou in 

Ka„ū, Kohae in South Kona, and Pu„u Wa„awa„a in North Kona. Six plants occur at Kukui o Pa„e 

and 10 at Olelomoana (USFWS 1996a). An additional 46 have been planted in enclosures at the Ka„ū 

Forest Reserve and Pu„u Wa„awa„a (Mitchell et al. 2005). Alani and opuhe occur in association with 

this species (USFWS 1996a). 

Two C. stictophylla were known from lava tube skylights at the KFU. Both were thought to have 

died from rat damage in 2007 (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Four critical habitat units have been allocated for the C. stictophylla, of which two are occupied. 

These areas include the South Kona Forest Reserve, Kīpāhoehoe NAR, Ka„ū Forest Reserve, and 




lands within the „Ōla„a-Kīlauea Partnership. The total critical habitat area is 95,484 ac (Federal 


Cyanea stictophylla is threatened by a limited population, which makes it vulnerable to random 

events and decreased reproduction vigor. Cattle, pigs, and rats are the primary invasive mammals that 

adversely impact this species (USFWS 1996a). 

4.9.9 Ha‘iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) 

The small Cyrtandra tintinnabula shrub, or ha„iwale, grows to 3.3-6.6 ft in height. The papery leaf 

blades are oval shaped and have yellow brown hairs, especially on the lower surface. The blades are 

toothed and range from 2-4.9 in wide and 5-10 in long. Three to six flowers group together at the 

main stalk. The bracts (modified leaves) are oval or heart-shaped, while the five white petals are 

fused into a soft, hairy, tube. The bell-shaped calyx (sepals) distinguishes C. tintinnabula from other 

species in the genus. The calyx is densely hairy and pale green (USFWS 1996a). 

Ha„iwale survives in wet forest dominated by koa, „ōhi„a, and hāpu„u. It has been reported to occur 

with pili and other species in the Cyrtandra genus at elevations of 2,100-3,400 ft (USFWS 1996a). 

Since the early 1900s, ha„iwale has been reported at three locations on the northeastern slopes of 

Mauna Kea. Currently, there are approximately 25 known individuals at the HFU within the Middle 

Maulua Unit at elevations above 4,600 ft (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). A single plant was found at 

Honohina in the HFU in 1976 (USFWS 1996a). Off the Refuge, a population is found at Kilau 

Stream in the Laupāhoehoe area. Roughly 16 individuals were found at 2,400 ft on the stream and an 

additional individual was found at 2,940 ft. Attempts to germinate the seeds and propagate this 

species at the Refuge greenhouse have not been successful (Jeffrey et al. 2001). 

Two critical habitat units were created for the species in 2003. This included areas in the 

Laupāhoehoe NAR and the Hilo Forest Reserve. The total critical habitat area encompasses 6,672 ac 

(Federal Register 2003b). 

Anthropogenic activities, as well as impacts from goats and pigs are listed as the key threats to the 

taxa. Pigs and goats directly damage the plant by browsing and indirectly impact the habitat by 

facilitating the spread of invasive plant species. Random events also threaten the existence of 

ha„iwale (USFWS 1996a). 

4.9.10 ‘Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) 

Nothocestrum breviflorum, also referred by the Hawaiian name of „aiea, is a long-lived perennial 

endemic to the Island of Hawai„i. The tree was listed as endangered in March 1994. Reaching 

between 33-39 ft in height, „aiea has a soft, dark brown trunk. The thick, stalked leaves are oblong to 

elliptic in shape and are shed seasonally. The lower surface is densely pubescent, while the upper 

surface is glabrous to lightly pubescent. More than three flowers are clustered on spur-like branches. 

The greenish-yellow petals have four lobes and are hairy on the outside. The round berries, which are 

enclosed by the calyx, are orange to red and measure 0.2-0.3 in in diameter. These fruits have been 

observed December - January. 




„Aiea has been documented at the western, southern, and eastern slopes of Mauna Loa, at the 

southern Kohala mountains, and the northern slopes of Hualālai. The elevational range is between 

260-6,000 ft. Current „aiea populations are restricted to the western side of the island from South 

Kohala to Kamā„oa-Pu„u„eo. An estimated six populations currently exist, with few individuals 

(1-4 plants) in each population (USFWS 1996a). In 2003, roughly 6 individuals were known within 

the Kohala Forest Reserve and 165 individuals were identified near Po„ohoho„o summit (Federal 

Register 2003b). Although no „aiea is known to currently occur on the KFU, plants do exist in 

adjacent areas (McCandless Ranch). 

The primary habitats for „aiea are lowland dry forest, montane dry forest, and montane mesic forests 

dominated by „ōhi„a and koa, as well as uluhe. Several other endangered plants are known to occur 

with this species (USFWS 1996a). 

Three critical habitat units were established for „aiea in 2003, covering 12,708 ac. The largest unit is 

within the Kīholo watershed, which is the southwestern most portion of the historical range. 

Additional land is designated in the Kohala Forest Reserve and between the Kohala Forest Reserve 

and the Waimanu Estuarine Research Reserve (Federal Register 2003b). 

The following threats are identified in the Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (1996a): cattle, 

sheep, nonnative plants, fire, and human impact. Christmas berry, fountain grass, lantana, and koa 

haole have been noted as contributing to the decline of this species by increasing the risk of fire 

(USFWS 1996a). 

4.9.11 Phyllostegia floribunda 

The erect subshrub Phyllostegia floribunda is a candidate species for listing as threatened or 

endangered. As a candidate species, P. floribunda is not protected by the ESA or covered by the Big 

Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a) or Addendum (USFWS 1998a). However, the 

populations within the HAVO are provided some protection under the National Park Service Act 

(16 U.S.C. §§1-18f-1) and the enabling legislation for the Park (16 U.S.C. § 396) (Pub. Law 95-635, 

16 U.S.C. § 1132). 

The ovate to elliptic leaves of P. floribunda are moderately hairy and pale on the lower surface. They 

measure 4.7-9.4 in long and 1.8-3.3 in wide. The flowers are maroon to red and white at the base of 

the floral tube. The flowers are clustered in pairs to form unbranched inflorescences. Similar to other 

species in the genus Phyllostegia, the flowers are fragrant and predominantly insect pollinated. The 

dry and hard fruit is a nut measuring 0.12-0.14 in long. 

This species was previously found in a wide variety of locations, including the Kohala Mountains, 

Ka„ū, North and South Kona, the windward sides of Mauna Loa and Kīlauea, and the windward side 

of Mauna Kea (including the Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve, Waiākea Forest Reserve, and 

private land at Pa„auilo) (NatureServe 2007). It occurs between 1,410-3,700 ft in elevation in moist 

to wet forests (Wagner et al. 1999). The current total population is believed to consist of less than 

100 naturally occurring individuals and 170 outplanted individuals in 10 locations (Federal Register 

2007). Most of the populations occur within the Laupāhoehoe NAR and Hawai„i Volcanoes National 

Park, with additional populations in the „Ōla„a Forest Reserve, Waiākea Forest Reserves, Pu„u 

Maka„ala NAR, and Kīpāhoehoe NAR. Only the populations at the Laupāhoehoe and Pu„u Maka„ala 

NAR are naturally occurring. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) also outplanted 20 individuals at 




Honomalino in South Kona. Most of the populations are comprised of fewer than 10 individuals and 

7 populations are protected by fences (USFWS 2007b). Specimens found on the KFU are currently 

pending verification, based on cuttings being grown at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility (Jeffrey, pers. 

comm.). 

Pigs have been identified as the primary threat to the survival of this species. In addition, various 

nonnative plants directly compete with naturally and outplanted populations of P. floribunda. Human 

threats include ranching, logging, agriculture, urban development, and homesteading. Natural threats 

include volcanic activity and fires ignited by volcanic activity (Federal Register 2007b, USFWS 

2007). 

4.9.12 Kīponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) 

Phyllostegia racemosa, or kīponapona, is an endangered climbing vine with square stems. The 

opposite leaves are oblong shaped and covered with short, soft hairs. The leaves have rounded teeth 

and measure 1.3-2.4 in long and 0.6-1.7 in wide. The white flowers are clustered in groups of 6-12 at 

the base of the leaves and the stems and densely covered with short hairs. The hard, dry fruit is 

typically 0.06-0.08 in in length. This plant is also characterized by the spicy odor of its foliage. 

Located from 4,650-6,070 ft, kīponapona primarily occurs in montane wet or mesic forest dominated 

by „ōhi„a and koa, as well as hāpu„u. Other associated taxa include „ōhelo, „ākala, and lau kahi 

(USFWS 1998a). 

It was historically found near Mauna Kea in the Hakalau and Saddle Road areas, as well as near 

Mauna Loa in Kūlani/Keauhou and Kīpuka„āhiu areas. Four populations are known to presently 

occur in the Kūlani/Keauhou area, at the HFU, and at Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park. These 

populations are comprised of 25-45 individuals (Mitchell et al. 2005). Seven individuals were present 

on the HFU in 2001 within the Upper Maulua and Hakalau Units (Jeffrey et al. 2001). To date, 

roughly 1,043 kīponapona have been outplanted at the HFU. Of this total, nearly 775 were outplanted 

in 2007 (USFWS, unpubl.). 

Over 2,317 ac of critical habitat has been designated at the HFU, including Pua „Ākala and portions 

of „Āwehi, Honoli„i, and Kapu„e streams. Areas within the Hilo Forest Reserve and land managed by 

the „Ōla„a–Kīlauea Partnership have also been designated. Although no individuals exist within the 

„Ōla„a–Kīlauea Partnership lands, these areas were deemed critical habitat because 12 individuals 

occur on the adjacent Kamehameha Schools land (Federal Register 2003b). 

Ungulates, such as pigs and cattle, are a key threat to the species. Ungulates have destroyed at least 

four plants in the HFU since 1994 (Jeffrey et al. 2001). Nonnative plant competition, logging, and 

volcanic activity are also suspected as reasons for population decline (USFWS 1998a). 

The downlisting objectives listed in the Addendum to the Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan 

(1998a) state a total of 5-7 populations need to be documented, with a minimum of 300 mature 

individuals per population. For delisting, 8-10 populations are required, with at least 300 mature 

plants each. These populations need to persist for 5 consecutive years (USFWS 1998a). 


4.9.13 Phyllostegia velutina 



Phyllostegia velutina is an endangered climbing vine. The thick leaves are slightly egg shaped with 

serrate margins. The leaves measure 3.6-6.9 in long and 1-2 in wide. The leaves have dense, straight 

hairs, while the square stems have downward pointing hairs. The white flowers are compactly 

clustered in groups of 6-10 in the axils of the leaves. The dry fruit is divided into four nutlets. The 

fruit is larger than the previous Phyllostegia described, with a length of 0.1-0.2 in. 

Historically, P. velutina was reported on the southern slopes of Hualālai and various slopes of Mauna 

Loa. In 2003, there were 5 populations consisting of 63-116 plants. These populations were located 

at the Honua„ula Forest Reserve, near the Waiea tract in South Kona, in Pu„u Wa„awa„a, and near 

and at the Kūlani Correctional Facility (USFWS 1998a). Current estimates published in the Federal 

Register (2003b) list eight occurrences, with an unknown number of individuals in the Ka„ū Forest 

Reserve and seven individuals within the Ka„ahakini watershed near the Kūlani summit and on 

adjacent Kamehameha Schools land. Only a single P. velutina is known to occur in a gulch within 

the HFU. One hundred and twelve P. velutina have been outplanted at the HFU from 1999-2007 

(USFWS, unpubl.). P. velutina potentially occurs in the KFU (USFWS, unpubl.). 

The preferred habitat for P. velutina is montane mesic and wet forests dominated by koa and „ōhi„a. 

It occurs between 4,900-6,000 ft. The following species have been recorded with P. velutina: hāpu„u, 

„ōhelo, „akala, lau-kahi, „ōlapa, māmaki, kōlea, and kāwa„u (USFWS 1998a). 

Phyllostegis velutina is threatened by ungulates, such as cattle, pigs, and sheep. Logging, road 

clearing, prison expansion, and other human activities have also caused population declines. Growth 

of nonnative plant species (Pennisetum setaceum, Rubus ellipticus, Paspalum urvillei, and 

Pennisetum clandestinum) has impacted the species. In addition, fire and volcanic activity has 

contributed to the decline (USFWS 1998a). 

The 9,009 ac critical habitat area for P. velutina has the potential to support 10 populations, each 

with 300 mature, reproducing individuals. These units include land in the Ka„ū Forest Reserve within 

the Pahala watershed and land managed by the „Ōla„a–Kīlauea Partnership within the Ka„ahakini 

watershed (Federal Register 2003b). No critical habitat has been designated at the HFU. 

4.9.14 Po‘e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) 

Portulaca sclerocarpa, or po„e, is a perennial herb that was listed as federally endangered in 1994. 

The prostrate stems reach up to 8 in tall. The sessile leaves are gray to pale green and linear shaped. 

There is a tuft of yellowish brown hairs in the axil. The flowers are arranged in cyme inflorescences 

composed of 3-6 white or pink blossoms. The taproot is fleshy and tuberous, but becomes woody. 

Approximately 0.16-0.18 in long, the fruit is a capsule (dry and dehiscent) containing dark reddish 

brown seeds. This species closely resembles P. villosa but can be distinguished by its thicker fruit. 

Po„e occurs on Hawai„i Island and at one location on the Island of Lāna„i. On Lāna„i, it occurs in 

coastal habitat on Po„opo„o Islet. The population is located on private land and contains about 

10 plants (Federal Register 2003a). On Hawai„i Island, po„e is found between 3,087-5,360 ft where it 

grows in weathered Mauna Kea soils, cinder cones, or geologically young lavas. It is known to occur 




near stream vents and in montane dry forest and shrubland dominated by koa, „ōhi„a, and māmane. 

The species is known to occur with „a„ali„i and nehe. 

On Hawai„i Island, po„e historically occurs in the Kohala Mountains, the northern slopes of Hualālai, 

the northwestern slopes of Mauna Loa, and near Kīlauea Crater (USFWS 1996a). There are 

estimated to be 24 occurrences of po„e on Hawai„i Island currently. The population in Hawai„i 

Volcanoes National Park consisted of 900 individuals in 2003 (Federal Register 2003b). Populations 

also occur at the PTA and Parker Ranch. Although no po„e have been found the KFU, plants are 

known from the adjacent area. 

The critical habitat unit for po„e covers 10,848 ac of Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park. It contains 

the Keanakāko„i, Koko„olau, and Puhimau craters, as well as Lele o Kalihipa„a Pali and a portion of 

the 1921 lava flow. Roughly 19 ac of critical habitat were also designated for the population on 

Lāna„i (Federal Register 2003a, 2003b). 

Invasive mammals (goats, pigs, sheep) and invasive plants threaten populations of this species. 

Fountain grass and broomsedge are particular threats to po„e as a result of competition. Furthermore, 

existing populations occur in fire-prone areas that are susceptible to human impacts (USFWS 1996a). 

The coastal Lāna„i population is threatened by invasive plants, fire, and larval herbivory by a 

nonnative sphinx moth (Federal Register 2003a). 

4.9.15 ‘Ānunu (Sicyos macrophyllus) 

Sicyos macrophyllus, also known as „ānunu, is a candidate for the list of threatened and endangered 

species. It does not receive protection under the ESA or Hawai„i's endangered species law nor is it 

covered in a recovery plan. This perennial vine has long stems reaching almost 50 ft. These stems are 

sparsely hairy and have black spots. The leaves are heart-shaped with a notch at the base and 

attached to coiling tendrils. Each leaf has 3-5 lobes and the central lobe is sharply pointed. The 

flowers occur in hairy, branched inflorescences. The green fruit is rounded and ribbed. 

This species is found in montane wet „ōhi„a forests, mesic koa/„ōhi„a forests, and subalpine 

māmane/naio forests. It occurs between 4,000 -6,600 ft elevation on the Island of Hawai„i (USFWS 

2007c). 

The historical distribution of „ānunu includes Pu„u Wa„awa„a, Laupāhoehoe, Puna, and South Kona. 

The current distribution of the species encompasses six populations of several hundred individuals in 

the Kohala and Mauna Kea areas. One population occurs at Kīpuka Kī in Hawai„i Volcanoes 

National Park. The remainder are located in State-owned game management areas in Pu„u Huluhulu, 

South Kona, Pu„u Wa„awa„a, Pu„u Mali, and Waika (Federal Register 2007, USFWS 2007c). One 

„ānunu is known to occur within the KFU. 

The species is susceptible to pigs, cattle, and sheep that degrade and destroy habitat. Nonnative 

plants also compete for space, nutrients, water, air, and light. Although pigs are excluded in some 

areas by fencing, the fences are not sheep-proof and must be continually maintained (Federal 

Register 2007, USFWS 2007c). 


4.9.16 Silene hawaiiensis 



Silene hawaiiensis is a sprawling shrub federally listed as threatened. The climbing stems are 

typically 6-16 in long and slightly hairy. The leaves are slender, with hairs concentrated along the 

margins and toward the base. The flowers, which are arranged in branched inflorescences, are 

greenish white and maroon below. These clusters are extremely sticky. Pale brown seeds are 

enclosed in a capsule (dry fruit) that is 0.26-0.31 in in length. The enlarged root is spindle-shaped. 

Silene hawaiiensis is endemic to the Island of Hawai„i from 3,352-7,915 ft. It occurs within montane 

and subalpine dry shrubland on weathered lava, on various aged lava flows, and cinder substrates 

(Federal Register 2003b). Historically, S. hawaiiensis could be found on the western slope of Mauna 

Kea, the Humu„ula Saddle, near Kīlauea Crater, and along the slopes of Mauna Loa. Current 

populations exist in the Hāmākua District, on Humu„ula Saddle, at PTA, north of Pu„u Keanui, and 

in Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park (Federal Register 2003, Mitchell et al. 2005). In 2003, there are 

156 occurrences of S. hawaiiensis. From 5,651-5,751 individuals were found at Hawai„i Volcanoes 

National Park. The specimen identified on the KFU is currently pending verification. The shrub is 

found in association with the following native flora: „ōhi„a, māmane, „a„ali„i, pūkiawe, pāwale, and 

„ōhelo (Federal Register 2003b). 

Two critical habitat units covering 6,908 ac were designated for the species within Hawai„i 

Volcanoes National Park. These areas contain portions of Kīlauea Crater, Kīpukakulalio, Uwēkahuna 

Bluff, Halema„uma„u Crater, and segments of the lava flows of 1919, 1921, and 1961 (Federal 


Significant threats to S. hawaiiensis include grazing and trampling by goats, pigs, and sheep. 

Ungulates easily break the branches and stems of this species. Competition with nonnative plants, 

especially fountain grass, is another issue. The populations are also susceptible to human impacts 

such as fire and disturbance due to military exercise (USFWS 1996a, Mitchell et al. 2005). No S. 

hawaiiensis are known from Refuge lands, however it is known to be above the HFU at 

approximately 7,000 ft.-10,000 ft in elevation 

4.10 Other Native Plants 

The plants now considered native to Hawai„i arrived to the archipelago via natural means such as 

wind, water, or birds. According to Wagner et al. (1999), the native Hawaiian flora is comprised of 

roughly 956 species within 87 families. Approximately 89 percent of these species are endemic 

(found only in Hawai„i), while the remainder are indigenous (naturally found in Hawai„i and 

elsewhere). Table 4-6 lists the native plant species found on either Refuge unit. 




Table 4-6. Native Hawaiian Plants Found on the Units of the Hakalau Forest NWR. 


Common & 



Unit 

Amaranthaceae Amaranth family 

Charpentiera obovata pāpala E X 

Apiaceae Parsley family 

Sanicula sandwicensis -- E* X 

Apocynaceae Dogbane family 

Alyxia oliviformis maile E X 

Aquifoliaceae Holly family 

Ilex anomala kāwa„u, „aiea I X X 

Araliaceae Panax family 

Cheirodendron trigynum „ōlapa E X X 

Tetraplasandra oahuensis „ohe mauka E X 

Arecaceae Palm family 

Pritchardia beccariana loulu E X 

Aspleniaceae Spleenwort family 

Asplenium aethiopicum „iwa„iwa a kāne I X 

Asplenium contiguum -- E X 

Asplenium lobulatum pi„ipi„i lau manamana I X X 

Asplenium macraei „iwa„iwa lau li„i E X 

Asplenium normale -- I X 

Asplenium schizophyllum -- E* X 

Asplenium unilaterale pāmoho I X 

Athyriaceae Lady fern family 

Athyrium microphyllum „akolea E X 

Diplazium sandwichianum ho„i„o E X 

Blechnaceae Blechnum fern family 

Sadleria cyatheoides „ama„u E X X 

Sadleria pallida „ama„u E X X 

Sadleria souleyetiana „ama„u E X 

Sadleria squarrosa „ama„u E X 

Campanulaceae Lobelia family 

Clermontia spp. „oha kepau, „oha wai X 

Cyanea marksii hāhā E* X 

Cyperaceae Sedge family 

Carex alligata -- E X 

Carex macloviana -- I X 

Carex wahuensis var. rubiginosa -- E X 

Eleocharis obtusa -- I X 

Machaerina angustifolia „uki I X 

Uncinia uncinata -- I X 

Kona 

Unit 





Common & 



Unit 

Dennstaedtiaceae Hay-scented fern family 

Hypolepis hawaiiensis olua E X 

Microlepia strigosa palapalai I X 

Pteridium aquilinum 

kīlau, kīlau pueo, 

E X 

var. decompositum 

bracken fern 

Dicksoniacaeae Tree fern family 

Cibotium chamissoi hāpu„u E X 

Cibotium glaucum hāpu„u, hāpu„u pulu E X 

Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family 

Arachniodes insularis -- E X 

Cyrtomium caryotideum kā„ape„ape I X X 

Dryopteris fusco-atra „i„i E X 

Dryopteris glabra kīlau, hohiu E X 

Dryopteris hawaiiensis -- E X 

Dryopteris wallichiana laukahi, „i„o nui I X 

Dryopteris unidentata „akole E X 

Nothoperanema rubiginosa -- E X 

Polystichum hillebrandii ka„upu, papa„oi E X X 

Ebenaceae Persimmon family 

Diospyros spp. lama 

Elaphoglossaceae Stag's tongue fern family 

Elaphoglossum alatum „ēkaha E X 

Elaphoglossum crassifolium „ēkaha E 

Elaphoglossum hirtum „ēkaha E 

Elaphoglossum wawrae „ēkaha, laukahi E 

Flacourtiaceae Flacourtia family 

Xylosma hawaiiense maua E X 

Geraniaceae Geranium family 

Geranium cuneatum nohoanu E X 

Gesneriaceae African violet family 

Cyrtandra lysiosepala ha„iwale E X 

Cyrtandra menziesii ha„iwale E* X 

Gleicheniaceae False staghorn fern family 

Dicranopteris linearis uluhe I X 

Diplopterygium pinnatum uluhe lau nui E X 

Sticherus owhyensis uluhe, unuhe E X 

Grammitidaceae Finger fern family 

Adenophorus hymenophylloides pai, palai huna E X 

Adenophorus pinnatifidus kihi, kihe E X 

Adenophorus tamariscinus wahine noho mauna E X 

Adenophorus tripinnatifidus -- E X 

Grammitis hookeri māku„e lau li„i I X 

Grammitis tenella kolokolo, mahinalua E X 

Kona 

Unit 





Common & 



Unit 

Lellingeria saffordii kihe E X 

Lepisorus thunbergianus pākahakaha, „ēkaha, „ākōlea I X 

Hymenophyllaceae Filmy fern family 

Mecodium recurvum „ōhi„a kū E X 

Sphaerocionium lanceolatum palai hinahina E X 

Sphaerocionium obtusum palai lau li„i E X 

Vandenboschia davallioides palai hihi, kīlau E X 

Iridaceae Iris family 

Sisyrinchium acre 

Joinvilleaceae 

ma„u ho„ula „ili E* X 

Joinvillea ascendens 

„ohe 

E X 

subsp. ascendens 

Juncaceae Rush family 

Luzula hawaiiensis -- E X 

Lamiaceae Mint family 

Phyllostegia ambigua -- E X 

Phyllostegia brevidens -- E* X 

Phyllostegia vestita -- E* X 

Stenogyne calaminthoides -- E X 

Stenogyne macrantha -- E* X 

Stenogyne sessilis -- E X 

Liliaceae Lily family 

Astelia menziesiana pa„iniu E X 

Lindsaeaceae Lace fern family 

Sphenomeris chinensis pala„ā, palapala„ā I X 

Loganiaceae Strychnine family 

Labordia hedyosmifolia kāmakahala E X 

Lycopodiaceae Club moss family 

Huperzia erubescens -- I X 

Huperzia serrata -- I X 

Lycopodiella cernua wawae„iole I X 

Marattiaceae Marattia family 

Marattia douglasii pala, kapua„ilio E X X 

Nephrolepidaceae Sword fern family 

Nephrolepis cordifolia -- I X 

Orchidaceae Orchid family 

Liparis hawaiensis „awapuhiakanaloa E X 

Pandanaceae Screw pine family 

Freycinetia arborea „ie„ie E X X 

Phytolaccaceae Pokeweed family 

Phytolacca sandwicensis pōpolo ku mai E* X X 

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum family 

Pittosporum hosmeri hō „awa E X 

Kona 

Unit 





Common & 



Unit 

Poaceae Grass family 

Deschampsia nubigena -- E X 

Isachne distichophylla „ohe E X 

Polygonaceae Buckwheat family 

Rumex giganteus pāwale, uhauhakō E X 

Polypodiaceae Polypody fern family 

Polypodium pellucidum „ae, „ae lau nui E X 

Psilotaceae Whisk fern family 

Psilotum complanatum moa I X 

Psilotum nudum moa, pipi I X 

Pteridaceae Pteris fern family 

Adiantum capillus-veneris „iwa„iwa I X 

Coniogramme pilosa lo„ulu E X 

Pteris cretica „ōali I X 

Pteris excelsa waimakanui, „iwa I X 

Pteris irregularis mānā, ā„hewa E X 

Ranunculaceae Buttercup family 

Ranunculus hawaiensis makou E* X 

Rosaceae Rose family 

Fragaria chiloensis „ōhelo papa I* X 

Rubus hawaiiensis „ākala, kala E 

Rubus macraei „ākala, kala E* X 

Rubiaceae Coffee family 

Coprosma spp. pilo E X 

Hedyotis terminalis manono E X 

Rutaceae Rue family 

Platydesma remyi pilo kea E X 

Santalaceae 

Santalum paniculatum „iliahi, sandalwood E X 

Selaginellaceae Spikemoss family 

Selaginella arbuscula lepelepe a moa E X 

Smilacaceae Catbriar family 

Smilax melastomifolia hoi kuahiwi E X 

Solanaceae Tomato, potato family 

Nothocestrum longifolium „aiea E X 

Theaceae Camellia family 

Eurya sandwicensis ānini E* X 

Thelypteridaceae Maiden fern family 

Amauropelta globulifera palapalai a kamapua„a E X 

Christella cyatheoides kikawaiō, kikawaioa E X 

Pseudophegopteris keraudreniana waimakanui, „ākōlea E X 

Pneumatopteris sandwicensis hō„i„o kula E X 

Urticaceae Nettle family 

Kona 

Unit 





Common & 



Unit 

Pipturus albidus māmaki, waimea E X 

Urera glabra ōpuhe, hōpue E X 

Woodsiaceae 

Cystopteris douglasii -- E* X 

Status: E = Endemic; I = Indigenous; * = Species of Concern (former candidate endangered 

species, or species otherwise considered rare by refuge officials). 

Sources: Stone et al. 1991, USFWS 2002b, USFWS 2008. 

Kona 

Unit 

Since humans came to the islands, populations of Hawai„i‟s native vegetation have greatly declined. 

Native plant taxa in Hawai„i evolved on the islands without common plant defenses such as 

poisonous compounds, prickles, and spines (Lindqvist et al. 2003). The absence of these defenses 

leaves native plants especially vulnerable to ungulates and other nonnative herbivores. In addition, 

introduced species are better adapted to fire than native plants. Although some native species appear 

to be tolerant (koa, māmane, naio, „a„ali„i, „ōhelo), no native Hawaiian plants require fire in order to 

regenerate (Smith and Tunison 1992, USFWS 1996, USFWS 2002a). More recently, competition 

from nonnative vegetation has suppressed regrowth or success of native plants. Native plant species 

richness and cover decreased with elevation (Barnett and Simonson 2008). 

In the pasture areas of the HFU, native plant populations were historically altered by grazing, 

logging, and possibly fire, eliminating the native seed bank. At lower elevations the native seed bank 

was reduced because of continued cattle grazing and pig disturbance for well over 100 years (Jeffrey, 

pers. comm.). Similarly, the KFU has been exposed to grazing, browsing, and pig disturbance; 

however, because the forest canopy is intact and some rare native plants located in skylights on the 

unit have been protected from ungulates, a seed bank for most species still exists. 

Since 1987, the Refuge has been conducting extensive reforestation research, ungulate control, 

nonnative plant control, and native plant and tree planting activities to help facilitate natural 

regeneration of native plant communities and natural processes of succession at the Refuge. Over 

400,000 native trees are planted in mauka to makai corridors to provide foraging cover, and nesting 

sites for native forest birds on Mauna Kea. The planting restoration effort is largely concentrated in 

the upper portions of the Refuge 5,500 - 6,600 ft as these areas have been the most heavily disturbed 

by ranching and other human activities (USFWS 1996b). 

Between 2006-2007, roughly 122 ac of upland habitat was restored on the HFU (USFWS 2006, 

2007). Supplemental funding and supplies for restoration have come from Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), Hilo Rotary Club, American Forestry Association, Waimea State Tree 

Nursery, and DOFAW. Volunteers are an integral part of the effort, donating over 7,000 personhours 

annually. These volunteers collect seeds; plant and fertilize native species; assist with 

monitoring and surveys of flora and fauna, the annual open house, and nonnative weed control 

(USFWS unpub.). Exclosure studies have shown that rapid regeneration of native species, especially 

koa and „ōhi„a, does occur in the absence of ungulates where a seed bank exists (USFWS, unpub. 

data). 




Table 4-7. Total Native Seedlings Outplanted at the HFU 1987 - 2007. 

4.10.1 Koa (Acacia koa) 

Native Species 

Total Seedlings 

Planted (1987-2007) 

Acacia koa 328,827 

Metrosideros polymorpha 30,232 

Myrsine sp. 3,150 

Cheirodendron trigynum 2,268 

Sophora chrysophylla 1,997 

Coprosma ochracea 1,911 

Coprosma montana 1,856 

Coprosma rhynchocarpa 1,699 

Myoporum sandwicense 1,687 

Rubus sp. 1,304 

Ilex anomala 920 

Leptecophylla tameiameiae 698 

Vaccinium calycinum 665 

Chenopodium oahuensis 397 

Ranunculus hawaiiensis 395 

Phyllostegia brevidens 304 

Coprosma sp. 280 

Vaccinium reticulatum 278 

Vaccinium sp. 188 

Stenogyne calaminthoides 

Source: USFWS, unpubl. 

84 

Koa (Acacia koa) is endemic to the islands of Hawai„i, Moloka„i, Maui, Lāna„i, O„ahu, and Kaua„i. 

Although it can be found between 200-6,760 ft, its current distribution is mainly restricted to areas 

above 2,000 ft due to introduced pests and diseases (Wagner et al. 1999, Elevitch et al. 2006). It 

tolerates a wide array of rainfall regimes and can withstand drought periods up to 5 months. The 

optimal temperature range of koa is between 48-70°F (Elevitch et al. 2006). Seedlings cannot endure 

frost, although protective techniques enhance survival (Scowcroft et al. 2000). 

Koa is the largest native tree in the archipelago, reaching 50-80 ft in height (Elevitch et al. 2006). 

Mature trees, which can live for over 100 years, have a diameter at breast height (dbh) often 

measuring more than 3.27 ft (Leary et al. 2004). While koa seedlings have true leaves, mature koa 

trees have only phyllodes, or expanded petioles. The flattened seed pods contain 6-12 seeds. The 

seeds are typically gravity-dispersed and require scarification in order to germinate (USFWS 1996b). 

Koa seeds appear to remain viable for about 15 years (USFWS 1996b). At Hakalau, koa trees flower 

December - February and seeds ripen November-January (USFWS 1996b). Koa flowers are 

primarily insect-pollinated, but birds and wind are also possible pollinators. 

Acacia koa is an important species for several reasons, providing habitat as well as food for native 

birds, insects, and plants. Banko and Peck (2008) collected over 78,000 arthropods from the branch 

tips of 160 koa trees. Pysllids (Homoptera) comprised over 90 percent of all individuals collected. 




The koa specific longhorn beetle (Cerambicidae) has wood-boring larvae that require dying and dead 

koa as part of their life-history (Goldsmith 2007). These larvae are the primary food source for the 

„akiapōlā„au, an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper that has evolved into a woodpecker-like niche 

(Pejchar and Jeffrey 2006). Downed trees function as nurse logs, which are important for forest 

regrowth. As these logs decay they provide microhabitat for forest seedling establishment (Leary et 

al. 2004). Economically, koa is highly valuable and sold commercially for furniture and other crafts; 

however, revenue can only be sustained when harvested selectively (Pejchar et al. 2005, TMA 2007). 

Historically, the wood was used by ancient Hawaiians for canoes (Elevitch et al. 2006). 

Koa is also considered a pioneer species during secondary succession due to its ability to quickly 

regenerate on a disturbed site. Ecosystem disturbances, such as fire and soil removal, can stimulate 

koa seeds to germinate. Koa is also able to regenerate from buried seed, root sprouts, or root 

suckering. It can spread outward from parent trees at a rate of 1.5-8 ft per year (USFWS 1996b). 

Similar to other pioneer species, koa is unable to tolerate shady environments. As a result, it usually 

establishes in canopy gaps, replacing previously occurring koa trees (USFWS 1996b). An additional 

characteristic typical of pioneer species is fast growth. During the first 5 years, koa can grow at rates 

of 5 ft per year; however, growth is slower in less favorable environments (Elevitch et al. 2006). At 

the HFU, growth varies depending on elevation (USFWS 1996b); however, studies by Goldsmith 

(2007) suggest that koa grows equally well at the upper middle and highest elevation areas present on 

the Refuge. 

Koa has also been referred to as a “forest engineer” due to its ability to create favorable understory 

conditions. Typical in legume species, koa develops nitrogen-fixing root nodules that enhance 

nitrogen availability in the soil. The rate of nitrogen fixation declines as the trees age (Goldsmith 

2007). The Draft Reforestation Management Plan for Hakalau (1996b) suggests that the nitrogenfixing 

capacity of koa may prevent „ōhi„a dieback. Koa also adds organic matter to the soil and 

acidifies the soil. By providing canopy, the tree moderates light, temperature, and moisture for 

understory species (Scowcroft and Jeffrey 1999). Additionally, koa generates leaf litter that 

suppresses weedy grasses and also traps moisture that collects as fog drip (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Threats to koa seedlings at Hakalau Forest NWR include grass competition, frost, drought, pig 

rooting, and cattle browsing. Various seed predators (weevils and seed worms), fungi (Fusarium 

spp.), moths (Scotorythra paludicola), and twig borers (Xylosandrus compactus and Xyloborus spp.) 

also threaten koa populations. Koa wilt is a disease that causes rapid loss of canopy and death within 

a few months. This disease is more prevalent in young trees below 2,500 ft (TMA 2007). In addition, 

rats (Rattus spp.) have been implicated in stripping the bark off koa stands less than 6 years old. This 

causes deformation and greater probability of infection (Scowcroft and Sakai 1984). Wild turkeys are 

also known to forage on seedling leaves, and pull recently planted seedlings out of the ground 

(USFWS unpub data). 

Hundreds of thousands of native koa seedlings have been planted at the HFU to restore native forest 

and habitat for endangered bird species. The first planting occurred in 1988 on Magnetic Hill at 

6,500 ft and ongoing plantings are concentrated in the pasture areas of the Refuge (USFWS 1996b, 

2002a). The Refuge, with the help of volunteers, germinates seeds picked from trees growing on or 

adjacent to the Refuge, and plant koa seedlings in mauka to makai (uphill to downhill corridors). Koa 

growth at HFU is slower and varies depending on elevation. After 10 years of growth, native forest 

birds have been observed foraging within some planted stands. Pejchar et al. (2007) found that of 

three habitat types studied, the koa plantation supported the highest density of the endangered 




„akiapōlā„au. In addition, natural regeneration of koa through root sprouting and seed is also 

occurring in planting areas (USFWS 1996b). 

The survival rates of these koa reforestation efforts and studies have produced varying results, with 

differences mainly attributed to microsite conditions such as soil depth, moisture content, rockiness, 

and exposure to weather and sunlight. Survival rates are also affected by elevation, drought, spacing, 

topography, and other annual climatic differences (USFWS 1996b). In general, poorer survival rates 

occur at higher elevations than lower elevations as a result of frost. Frost protection devices have 

been designed to enhance seedling survival and growth. Set up on the east side of the seedling, these 

devices are the most cost-effective and least labor intensive technique (USFWS 1996b, Jeffrey, pers. 

comm.). Scowcroft and Jeffrey (1999) found that use of this device increased survival from 15- 

100 percent. By blocking the night sky, the frost protection devices reduce radiative cooling and 

moderate leaf temperatures (Scowcroft et al. 2000). They also increase moisture by catching fog or 

mist. Spacing may have a minor affect on survival rates, with 84 percent survival for seedlings 

spaced 6.6 ft apart and 74 percent survival for seedlings spaced 8.2 ft apart (USFWS 1996b). The 

average spacing for corridor plantings at the Refuge is a grid of 12 ft. 

Seedling survival is also dependent on site preparation methods. In an experiment where discing, 

burning, herbicide treatment, hand scarifying, and no treatment were used, discing a continuous 6.6 ft 

strip proved to be the most effective method for preparing a site for planting, but erosion proved to be 

a problem (USFWS 1996b). When an existing seed bank is present, mechanical soil scarification can 

also enhance koa regeneration (USFWS 1996b, Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Since 1996, the Refuge has 

used a modified bulldozer blade attachment to scarify the ground for koa outplanting. A 3-ft wide 

“mini blade” is attached to the bulldozer blade. As the dozer moves forward, the blade is dropped, 

scraping the grass off a 3 ft wide by 3 ft long area, exposing the top soil. Koa seedlings grown in 

dibble tubes are then planted in the sites by volunteers. The planters follow the bulldozer tracks 

through the grasslands, poking holes in the ground within the scarified sites with a dibble stick. Three 

holes, 8 in deep and a 1 ft apart are made at each site. The koa seedling is planted into the center hole 

and fertilizer is placed in the other two. 

4.10.2 ‘Ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha) 

„Ōhi„a (Metrosideros polymorpha) is the dominant species on lava flows and in mature native rain 

forests in the Hawaiian Islands. Occurring from sea level-9,515 ft, „ōhi„a has a wide ecological 

distribution colonizing habitats of various elevations, substrate ages, soil moistures, and temperatures 

(Cordell et al. 1997, Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998, Friday and Herbst 2006, Crawford et al. 

2008). „Ōhi„a is reported in dry areas with less than 16 in of annual precipitation, as well as wet 

forests with more than 400 in per year. Furthermore, „ōhi„a can thrive in various soil types, including 

nutrient-poor sites, and are shade tolerant (Friday and Herbst 2006, Crawford et al. 2008). This 

endemic tree is considered a pioneer species because it is one of the first species to establish on 

recent volcanic lava flows. As a result, „ōhi„a forests tend to be comprised of relatively even-aged 

trees (USFWS 1996b, Mueller- Dombois and Fosberg 1998). 

„Ōhi„a is a slow growing species. On average, „ōhi„a are estimated to grow 12 - 24 in in height 

annually and by 0.04 - 0.12 in in diameter each year (Hatfield et al.1996, Friday and Herbst 2006). 

Seedlings grow between 2 - 4 in each year (USFWS 1996b). In spite of the slow growth rates, „ōhi„a 

can grow up to 100 ft tall and reach a peak diameter of 85 in (Wagner et al. 1999, Friday and Herbst 

2006). Thus, the species has a relatively long lifespan. Some trees have been dated to approximately 




600 years or older and are considered the oldest angiosperm in the Northern hemisphere (P.J. Hart, 

UH Hilo in press). Growth rates and height increase in areas with organic seedbeds, such as fallen 

logs and stumps (USFWS 1996b). 

An abundant amount of seeds are produced by „ōhi„a. These seeds are small, lightweight, and easily 

dispersed by wind (Burton 1982, Stemmerman 1983, USFWS 1996b). „Ōhi„a seeds are able to 

germinate quickly in diverse environmental conditions, even under low light levels. In general, 

germination is exceptionally high when seeds were sown on the surface rather than under a layer of 

soil. The optimal germination temperature for „ōhi„a is between 61-72°F. Different varieties exhibit 

different germination characteristics. Seeds from pubescent plants are more successful at germinating 

rapidly and in high temperatures; thus, pubescent „ōhi„a are considered more successful pioneers. 

Due to the thin seed coat, seeds lose viability after several months, suggesting that there is not a 

persistent soil seed bank (Drake 1993). Due to the abundant and continuous seed supply, „ōhi„a have 

a competitive advantage over koa (USFWS 1996b). 

„Ōhi„a is a polymorphic species, meaning it has distinct morphological varieties. Flowers can range 

in color from red to yellow and leaf shape is highly inconsistent. Eight „ōhi„a varieties are 

recognized – dieteri, glaberrima, incana, macrophylla, newellii, polymorpha, pseudorugosa, and 

pumila (Wagner et al. 1999). These varieties occur in distinct or overlapping habitats, elevations, and 

soil moisture regimes (Crawford et al. 2008). Pubescent varieties (var. polymorpha) occur in drier, 

higher elevation sites with younger substrates compared to glabrous varieties (var. glaberrima) 

(Stemmerman 1983, Drake 1993, Cordell et al. 1997, Wagner et al. 1999, Hoof et al. 2008). Leaf 

pubescence may assist plants in stressful environments by reducing transpiration, freezing, and 

herbivory rates (Hoof et al. 2008). Varieties with smaller leaf size, petiole length, and internode 

length are generally observed in higher elevation areas. Thus, these measurements are inversely 

related to elevation (Cordell et al. 1998). Stomata are larger and more dense on glabrous than 

pubescent trees (Hoof et al. 2008). The fixed morphological attributes of „ōhi„a are likely the result 

of consistent and strong selective pressures. Although the morphological variation of „ōhi„a is 

partially based on environmental conditions (Burton 1982, Stemmerman 1986), these distinct 

characteristics also appear to be genetically determined (Cordell et al. 1997). 

At Hakalau Forest NWR, „ōhi„a trees play a vital role in ecosystem function. „Ōhi„a help sustain 

forest bird populations and insect populations by providing nesting sites and cavities, harboring 

insects, and producing nectar (USFWS 1996b). Flowers are present year-round at the HFU, with 

peaks during the winter and spring (USFWS 1996b). The endangered „akiapōlā„au takes sap of 

particular „ōhi„a trees by drilling holes in the trunks and branches of specific trees. These trees, 

termed “aki trees,” have higher sap flow than other „ōhi„a. Functioning as an alternative food source 

to nectar and insects, “aki trees” may play an important role in the diet of „akiapōlā„au during low 

food periods (Pejchar and Jeffrey 2004). 

During the mid 1960s, „ōhi„a forests experienced a dieback of the tree canopy, referred to as „ōhi„a 

dieback. This loss of crown foliage across the entire landscape occurred in the montane areas of 

Mauna Kea in both poorly drained and well-drained areas. Extensive research was conducted into the 

cause of dieback (Jacobi et al. 1983, Mueller-Dombois 1983, Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998) 

and was determined to be a common, natural phenomenon resulting from aging and environmental 

stress (USFWS 1996b). Regeneration of the canopy was found to occur following initial canopy loss 

(Jacobi et al. 1983, Stemmerman 1983). Dieback has occurred in the wet „ōhi„a forest at the HFU and 

a small portion of the wet koa/ „ōhi„a forest (USFWS 1996b). 




Outplanting of „ōhi„a throughout Hawai„i Island has not been as extensive as koa, due to failed 

restoration efforts (Scowcroft and Jeffrey 1999). Since 1997 over 30,000 „ōhi„a trees were planted on 

the HFU (USFWS, unpubl.). These trees were planted in the understory of the previously planted koa 

corridors, which increases survival. Experimental plantings in open pastures resulted in nearly 

100 percent mortality, possibly due to grass competition. Planting on downed logs in open areas and 

under canopy also increased survival but is not efficient because of the lack of substrate logs. 

4.10.3 Māmane (Sophora chrysophylla) 

The ecological characteristics of māmane have not been as extensively studied as koa or „ōhi„a. 

Māmane is an important component of certain native forests and a valuable food source for native 

birds, particularly the listed palila. Māmane is a polymorphic species and can be found throughout 

Hawai„i as a shrub or tree in both dry and wet conditions. On the eastern slope of Mauna Kea at the 

drier, upper portions of the Refuge (above 6,000 ft), māmane is codominant with koa. As the 

elevation continues to increase, koa drops out and māmane becomes more abundant. Koa-māmane 

forest type is transitional between the taller, mesic koa-„ōhi„a stand type and the drier, lower stature 

subalpine māmane forest. Understory species for this forest type include naio, pūkiawe, „a„ali„i, 

„ōhelo, and native ferns and grasses. Ecologically, māmane has much in common with koa. It is 

pollinated by insects and birds and is also a leguminous, nitrogen-fixing species whose seeds are 

primarily gravity dispersed. It is also able to spread through root sprouting and by seed. Growth rates 

are likely to be faster at the lower elevation koa-māmane communities at the Refuge. 

4.11 Cave Resources 

According to the Federal Cave Resources Protection and Management Act of 1988, as amended, a 

cave is a naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages that occurs 

beneath the Earth‟s surface or within a cliff or ledge. Cave resources are any material or substance 

occurring naturally in caves, including animals, plants, paleontological deposits, sediments, minerals, 

and relief features (16 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4310). In Hawai„i, caves can occur in limestone or basaltic 

lava (Howarth 1983) and are generally more extensive in pahoehoe lava flows (Howarth et al. 2007). 

These dark ecosystems are typically wet, with high levels of CO2 and low levels of O2. The 

temperature inside the cave typically reflects the annual temperature at the surface of the cave; 

however, caves that extend downslope from the entrance often have cooler temperatures (Howarth 

1983). 

Caves, including lava tubes, have historically been considered inhospitable habitats not favorable to 

fauna (Howarth 1979, 1983). In reality, these habitats provide refuge for rare and highly specialized 

invertebrates, such as insects, spiders, and other arthropods. Cave animals can be divided into four 

categories. Obligate cave species, or troglobites, are unable to survive outside of cave ecosystems 

and typically exist within deep, damp cave areas that are protected from surface air. Obligate cave 

species known to occur on the Island of Hawai„i include the endemic moths and spiders (Sinella 

yoshiia, Schrankia sp., Littorophiloscia sp.). Facultative species, or troglophiles, have the ability to 

live and reproduce in caves but are also capable of surviving in other similar environments. The third 

cave type of cave species are the trogloxenes. These species regularly inhabit caves, but return to the 

surface to feed. Finally, accidental visitors are fauna that inadvertently enter caves and are unable to 

survive in the habitat (Howarth 1973, 1983, Howarth et al. 2007). In general, cave species can occur 




in deep, extensive interconnect passages or small voids. Species diversity tends to increase with the 

age of the cave; however, individuals can disperse to younger, more recent caves (Howarth et al. 

2007). 

Obligate and facultative cave animals often have unique characteristics because they have adapted to 

subterranean habitats. Morphological adaptations include a loss or reduction of eyes, pale coloring, 

wings, and longer appendages. Behavioral traits have also evolved as efficiency tactics in these 

energy-poor environments. These include slow movements, a lower metabolism, a circadian rhythm, 

and consuming large amounts in a single feeding. It is difficult to find cave animals because of their 

cryptic behavior. Many of the cave species are rare; however, the only two endangered cave species 

occur on the island on Kaua„i (Howarth 1983, Howarth et al. 2007). 

Species within these caves receive their energy from several different sources: deep-rooted plants; 

surface animals that accidentally fall or are washed into the caves; oozes deposited by percolating 

ground water and reworked by microorganisms; and other organic material such as flood debris. 

Plant roots are the primary energy source for cave species. In particular, the pioneer „ōhi„a tree is a 

key food species, because it is the first to colonize young lava. Plant roots also provide shelter and 

building materials for cave animals (Howarth et al. 2007). 

In addition to invertebrates, rare and unusual plants can occur in lava tube skylights. These plants 

may thrive in moist microclimates and survive due to protection provided by the steep rock walls of 

the tubes making these sites unavailable to grazing ungulates. Cave ecosystems can also contain 

minerals, as well as cultural and paleontological remains (USFWS 1997). The twilight zone was 

often used by early Hawaiians for specialized uses, such as for water catchment or shelter (Howarth 

and Stone 1998). Archaeologists have found artifacts and prehistoric features within caves 

throughout the islands (Ziegler 2002). To date no cultural sites have been found in lava tube systems 

at the KFU. There are no known lava tube systems at the HFU. 

Cave habitats on the KFU are extensive. A reconnaissance survey of these caves was conducted by 

Dr. Howarth and Stone in 1998. Four distinct cave systems consisting of 22 cave entrances were 

found at the unit, although only three systems were surveyed. The caves are of intermediate age (less 

than 4,000 years old) and have a thick overburden of rock and soil. Most entrances occur as vertical 

pits. The cave passages explored by Howarth and Stone were primarily in twilight and transition 

zones, which are characteristic of caves that have multiple entrances. However, a few other areas 

likely enter deep zone habitats, where the specialized cave-adapted animals thrive (Howarth and 

Stone 1998). 

It is estimated that only about 20 percent of the caves have been mapped (Ball, pers. comm.). 

Although caves throughout the site have only been partially surveyed, they are known to support rare 

and unusual species adapted for life in subterranean ecosystems. Some resident species have 

persisted because the caves are generally inaccessible to ungulates (USFWS 2002b). Additional cave 

features likely occur that have surface openings not large enough for humans to enter. The cave 

locations at the KFU are kept confidential under U.S. cave law (Howarth, pers. comm.). 

Due to the cryptic nature of the species, relatively few arthropods were seen during the 1998 KFU 

survey. Endemic cave fauna and evidence observed by Howarth and Stone included the following: 

cave carabid ground beetle (Mecyclothorax? sp.), Schrankia root moths, a Carposina fruit moth 

(probably gracillima), Linyphiid spider webs, and trails of the native Limonia crane flies. In addition, 




several dead moths, probably native agrotine noctuids, were found. Nonnative species recorded 

during the survey included the millipede Oxidus gracilis, Rhopalosiphoninus latysiphon aphids, 

Porcellio isopods, and shells of the garlic snail Oxychilus alliarius. Furthermore, dung of the black 

rat (Rattus rattus) was found in the entrances; these animals can navigate through dark cave 

passages. 

The cave system skylights in the KFU support a variety of diverse native flora including „ākala, 

Pipturus, Phyllostegia, Cyrtandra, Ilex, Cyanea, Metrosideros roots, and a variety of ferns (Howarth 

and Stone 1998). The endangered Cyanea stictophylla previously occurred in a cave at the KFU; 

however, it was destroyed by rat predation. The native plant „ōlapa is also known to occur in and 

around the caves at the unit. Cattle often eat „ōlapa growing from the caves (Ball, pers. comm.). 

Paleo-ornithological surveys by the Smithsonian Institute have found hundreds of subfossil bird 

bones (geese and rails) in the KFU caves. Most of these species are extinct, while some are 

considered new to science (USFWS 2008). Howarth and Stone (1998) found roughly 15 flightless 

goose skeletons, as well as additional bird skeletons during their reconnaissance survey. None of the 

caves surveyed by Raymond and Valentine (2007) in the KFU contain artifacts or other cultural 

material. 

Cave resources can be drastically altered by physical and biological changes or disturbance over the 

surface. Toxins or pollutants on the surface can affect the subterranean ecosystem (Howarth and 

Stone 1998). The input of soil and debris restrict water and nutrients from reaching deeper voids. 

Herbivore grazing, mining, and chemical pollution are also threats to the subterranean ecosystems 

(Howarth et al. 2007). 

Nonnative species can alter the native ecosystem and adversely impact native species (e.g., through 

predation). Nonnative taxa especially impact host specific animals, such as cixiid planthoppers, that 

only utilize a single native species. People can directly impact cave resources by trampling 

vegetation during exploration and management activities or through deliberate vandalism. Human 

activity can also indirectly impact the ecosystem by inadvertently creating pathways for nonnative 

species to invade the habitat (Howarth and Stone 1998). 

At the KFU, staff minimize research and trespassing in the caves because heavy foot traffic increases 

routes for pigs and other ungulates (Ball, pers. comm.). Any future surveys of the caves at the KFU 

should be done with care to ensure as little damage as possible to the cave walls and floor (Howarth 

and Stone 1998). Above ground management techniques to help protect these resources include 

creating protected reserves around significant caves, controlling invasive plant species, and 

encouraging the recovery of deep-rooted native species (Howarth et al. 2007). 

4.12 Threats 

Most of the habitats of the Hawaiian Islands have been drastically altered by humans, with less than 

40 percent of native habitats remaining in the State (most of which are on the Island of Hawai„i). The 

first Polynesians to arrive are believed to have brought coconut, taro, and Polynesian pigs. Europeans 

arrived later and brought sheep, cattle, goats, and game birds. Before human arrival, the estimated 

rate of successful new colonizations was 1 species every 25,000 years. Over the last 2 centuries 

alone, the rate of plant introductions alone has been more than 40 species per year. It is estimated that 

over 6,000 introduced terrestrial and aquatic species are now established, and that of all the species 




currently in Hawai„i, approximately 26 - 30 percent are nonnative. While many introductions do not 

pose a threat to native habitats, approximately 10 percent of the established nonnative species are 

highly invasive or pose significant threats to Hawaiian ecosystems (Mitchell et al 2005). In addition 

to the already established introduced species, numerous species currently not found on the islands are 

poised to invade island ecosystems. Over a 9-month period, a Pest Risk Assessment conducted at 

Kahului Airport by the State Department of Agriculture discovered over 100 nonnative species 

entering via air cargo (Mitchell et al 2005). In addition to invasive species, wildlife and plant 

diseases and parasites are also on the rise and include mosquito borne avian diseases such as avian 

malaria and pox and „ōhi„a rust, which if the right strain reaches the islands could decimate our 

native „ōhi„a forests. Rust fungi endemic to koa has already been found at the Refuge. 

An invasive species is defined as a species whose migration and growth within a new range is 

causing detrimental effects to the native biota in that range (Pattison et al. 1998). Mammals, 

amphibians, invertebrates, and plants can all be considered invasive. These species become invasive 

because their population and growth are no longer balanced by natural predators or biological 

processes that kept them in balance in their native ecosystems. In the absence of restraints, invasive 

species have the potential to compete with native species for limited resources, alter or destroy 

habitats, shift ecological relationships, and transmit diseases (Ikuma et al. 2002). Islands tend to be 

more exposed to invasive species due to an abundance of trade, tourism, and agriculture (Van 

Driesche and Van Driesche 2004). Hawai„i, which existed in isolation for millions of years, is an 

exceptionally ideal environment for invasive species. Most native species throughout the Hawaiian 

Islands lost their natural defense mechanisms and are more vulnerable to introduced species (Ikuma 

et al. 2002). Numerous invasive animal populations and a variety of invasive plants occur at the 

Refuge. 

4.12.1 Introduced Forest Birds 

Since 1850, more than 130 species of birds have been introduced to Hawai„i. Of these, 15 game 

species and 30 nongame birds have established populations. Most of the introduced species were 

from three orders: Galliformes (game birds), Columbiformes (doves and pigeons), and 

Passeriformes (passerines or perching birds) (Moulton et al. 2001). All three orders of introduced 

avian species are present both at the HFU and the KFU. Tables 4-8 and 4-9 list introduced birds 

present in each area. Game birds are discussed in Section 4.12.2 and listed in Table 4-9. 

At the central windward region of Hawai„i, the trends of the nonnative species densities were 

generally decreasing in Kūlani-Keauhou, mixed in „Ōla„a and East Rift, and increasing in Mauna Loa 

Strip. Japanese white-eyes appeared to be undergoing a decline in occurrence and density in the 

Kūlani-Keauhou study area. This was the only area where this species demonstrated downward 

trends. Elsewhere, Japanese white-eyes have shown markedly increasing occurrence and density. 

Red-billed leiothrix numbers appeared to be declining in the Kūlani-Keauhou and „Ōla„a study areas, 

and highly variable with nonsignificant trends in Mauna Loa Strip. Northern cardinals appeared to be 

in decline in Kūlani-Keauhou and East Rift, but possibly increasing in the „Ōla„a and Mauna Loa 

Strip study areas. The house finch was uncommon to rare and highly variable in all study areas, and 

analyses of its trends were inconclusive. The Japanese bush-warbler, which became established on 

Hawai„i Island in recent years and is present at Waiākea not far to the north, has not yet been 

detected in the central windward region of Hawai„i (Gorresen et al. 2005). Several Japanese bushwarblers 

have been detected on or near the Refuge since 2002 (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 




At the HFU, hwamei are uncommon but found at highest densities in lower elevation, open-canopy, 

midstature forests. The red-billed leiothrix is common, widespread, and occurs at highest densities in 

upper-elevation, closed-canopy, high-stature forests. The widespread Japanese white-eye occurs at 

highest densities in lower-elevation, open-canopy, mid-stature forests, and heterogeneous vegetation 

types. The northern cardinal is uncommon, but fairly widespread, occurring at highest densities in the 

lower and uppermost elevation, open-canopy, high-stature forests, and heterogeneous vegetation 

types. The house finch is common and occurs at highest densities in grasslands, drier koa-dominated 

woodland and forests, and heterogeneous vegetation types. Between 1977-2000, the northern 

cardinal and Japanese white-eye were found to have increased in density, while the hwamei, redbilled 

leiothrix, and house finch showed no changes in density over the 24-year study period (Camp 

et al. 2003, Hawai„i Forest Bird Database 2005). 

Table 4-8. Introduced Forest Birds Present at HFU and KFU. 

Common name Scientific name 

Hakalau 

Forest Unit 

Kona 

Forest Unit 

Doves and pigeons Columbiformes 

Rock dove Columba livia X 

Spotted dove Geopelia striata X X 

Zebra dove Streptopelia chinensis X 

Owls Strigiformes 

Barn owl Tyto alba X X 

Passerines Passeriformes 

Sky lark Alauda arvensis X X 

Japanese bush-warbler Cettia diphone X X 

Hwamei Garrulax canorus X X 

Red-billed leiothrix Leiothrix lutea X X 

Japanese white-eye Zosterops japonicus X X 

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X 

Common myna Acridotheres tristis X X 

Saffron finch Sicalis flaveola X 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis X X 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus X X 

Yellow-fronted canary Serinus mozambicus X X 

House sparrow Passer domesticus X X 

African silverbill Lonchura cantans X X 

Nutmeg mannikin Lonchura punctulata X X 

Java sparrow Padda oryzivora X 

Of the introduced bird species, the barn owl, Japanese white-eye, red-billed leiothrix, and various 

gallinaceous birds are the species of most concern. Barn owls probably compete with the native pueo 

for introduced rats and mice. The Japanese white-eye likely competes for food with native forest 

birds such as the common „amakihi (van Riper 1984), Hawai„i „elepaio, and „i„iwi. Introduced forest 

birds, especially the Japanese white-eye and red-billed leiothrix, distribute seeds of nonnative plants 

such as blackberry, Photenia and English holly at the Refuge and fire tree and banana poka in 

Hawai„i‟s natural areas (Mountainspring and Scott 1985). Nonnative birds are also reservoirs for 

avian diseases such as malaria and avian pox, though the prevalence of disease in native birds is 




often higher since these diseases are new to Hawai„i and the native birds have not developed 

resistance (Samuel et al. 2007, Atkinson et al. 2005). 

4.12.2 Introduced Game Birds 

Approximately 15 species of nonnative game birds (Galliformes) have established populations in the 

Hawaiian Islands (Moulton et al. 2001). These birds have negative impacts on native ecosystems. 

Ring-necked pheasants, Kalij pheasants, and other gallinaceous birds are known to disperse the seeds 

of invasive plants such as fire tree and banana poka in Hawai„i's natural areas (Mountainspring and 

Scott 1985). Turkey also eat koa seedlings. They also consume native plant species used by nēnē 

(Cole et al. 1995). 

On the other hand, introduced game birds, such as chukar and pheasants, may occupy a niche 

previously filled by extinct Hawaiian birds by helping with the dispersal and germination of native 

seeds (Cole et al. 1995). 

Table 4-9. Introduced Game Birds Present at HFU and KFU. 

Common name Scientific name 

Hakalau 

Forest Unit 

Kona 

Forest Unit 

Game birds Galliformes 

California quail Callipepla californica X 

Chukar Alectoris chukar X 

Erckel‟s francolin Francolinus erckelii X X 

Japanese quail Coturnix japonica X 

Kalij pheasant Lophura leucomelanos X X 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus X X 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X 

4.12.3 Introduced Mammals 

Mammals adversely impact the Hawaiian Islands as herbivores, predators, and omnivores. As 

herbivores, mammals can consume large amounts of native vegetation (Courchamp et al. 2002) and 

serve as an agent in the spread of invasive nonnative weed species. Because native Hawaiian flora 

did not evolve with mammals, these species are not adapted to grazing by herbivores (Stone 1985, 

Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, Stone et al. 1992). Predatory mammals, such as cats, prey on a variety 

of species throughout the islands. Furthermore, omnivorous mammals (rats), can severely impact 

island ecosystems by consuming both flora and fauna (Courchamp et al. 2000). 

Both units of the Hakalau Forest NWR are threatened by introduced mammals to varying degrees. 

Currently, the HFU has 45 miles of pig- and cattle-proof fence. The HFU is divided into eight 

ungulate management units to facilitate easier control. Additional units, located in the lower 

elevations of the Refuge, are planned to be fenced in the future as funding and staffing allow. As new 

land was added to the Refuge, commercial cattle grazing was phased out (as in the Upper Honohina 

Tract, domestic grazing occurred within 1,034 ac of this Tract until April 1996). Ungulate grazing is 

no longer allowed on the Refuge. 




Within KFU, the Refuge estimates that currently there are more than 300 wild cattle and an unknown 

number of pigs, sheep, mouflon, donkeys, and horses. These ungulates are primarily concentrated in 

the mesic belt (Ball, pers. comm.), which receives between 50-75 in of annual rainfall. Physical, 

chemical, and biological population control methods are used on invasive mammals and their 

removal, while frequently justified biologically, is not without controversy. The elimination of 

grazers in altered habitats can also release other species from browsing pressure and result in an 

increase in nonnative and invasive plant species (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, Cabin et al. 2000, Van 

Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). At the KFU, the removal of ungulates may be controversial 

because eliminating grazers will increase the potential for fire. This could both eliminate native 

habitat and impact adjacent landowners. Wildfire Management Plans (2002a, 2002b) have been 

developed for both units. Additionally, a strategy in this CCP identifies developing a fire prevention 

program for both units. 

Cattle (Bos taurus) 

Cattle were released on the Island of Hawai„i in 1793 by Captain Vancouver (USFWS 1996b). 

Currently, cattle exist on the all of the main Hawaiian Islands except for Kaho„olawe. These feral 

animals have a wide distribution, ranging from lowland dry forests to montane grasslands and 

subalpine scrub (Tomich 1986, Atkinson and Atkinson 2005). 

Cattle ranching was the primary historical land use on the HFU for over 100 years, although other 

forms of ranching may have occurred. Reports of cattle at Hakalau first occurred in the early to mid- 

1800s. Intensive grazing occurred primarily above 5,400 ft (USFWS 1996b). Cattle grazing has been 

eliminated on the HFU; however, cattle remain throughout adjacent properties. 

At the KFU, cattle are the most widespread ungulates. Recent estimates suggest roughly 300 wild 

cattle inhabit the KFU boundaries at all elevations. Historically, cattle grazing was the primary land 

use of the former 60,000 acre McCandless Ranch. The Three Mountain Alliance Management Plan 

(2007), a landscape level effort that spans large areas and multiple ownerships of Hawai„i Island, 

considers the KFU as a high priority area for feral cattle control. 

Due to their large size, cattle can have a large impact on native ecosystems (USFWS 2008). Cattle 

have been regarded as the “single most destructive agent to Hawaiian ecosystems, particularly to koa 

forests” (Atkinson and Atkinson 2005). These ungulates can degrade native forest by eating or 

trampling native vegetation, accelerating erosion, and promoting the invasion of nonnative plants 

(USFWS 2008). In particular, cattle suppress regeneration of koa and the growth of māmane forests 

(Atkinson and Atkinson 2005). Soil properties are also altered due to the presence of cattle. The 

animals can change soil structure and pH, as well as its ability to retain water and nutrients (USFWS 

1996b). 

The impact of cattle is apparent on both units of Hakalau Forest NWR. Nearly all the trees have been 

eliminated on the HFU areas above 6,000 ft as a result of over 100 years of grazing. Certain areas 

covered by old a„a lava flows have more forest, suggesting that cattle were less able to transverse this 

substrate and degrade the forest (USFWS 1996b). On the other hand, removing cattle on the HFU has 

increased the nonnative grass fuel load considerably (USFWS 2002a). 


Pigs (Sus scrofa) 



Pigs that occur in Hawai„i are likely to be a blend descended from two ancestral types introduced on 

separate occasions. Polynesians first brought pigs to the islands as a food source around 1,500 years 

ago. Captain Cook subsequently brought European pigs to the islands in 1778 (Tomich 1986). Pigs 

descended from European strains were generally larger, more fecund, and more nomadic than their 

Polynesian counterparts (Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). Although pigs have been eradicated 

from numerous islands worldwide, these animals remain highly abundant in Hawaiian island 

ecosystems (Courchamp et al. 2003, Crux et al. 2005). They occupy every main island in the 

Hawaiian archipelago. The pig population is largest on Hawai„i Island (Tomich 1986, USFWS 

2007a). 

Pigs are long and narrow in shape and predominately black in color and are generally hairy. They 

measure 3.5 - 4.5 ft in length and average 2 ft in height. Pigs are elusive animals. They have been 

reported to be highly active in the early morning and late afternoon in tropical climates (Diong 1982). 

In the HFU, the maximum age of male pigs (boars) is 60 months, while females (sows) live a 

maximum of 48 months (Hess et al. 2006). 

The reproductive potential of pigs contributes to their invasive potential. These animals are 

polyestrous, meaning that adult females have more than one estrus cycle (21 days) in a breeding 

season (McGaw and Mitchell 1998). Pregnancy can occur year-round with peaks January - March 

(Hess et al. 2006). The average sow in Hawai„i has 1.1 litters per year (Caley 1997). Reproductive 

rates peak between 2- 4 years, but breeding has occurred by 10 month-old sows (Hess et al. 2006). 

Although all ungulates have a negative impact in Hawaiian forests, it is generally agreed that pigs 

pose the greatest threat to the survival of Hawai„i‟s forest birds and their habitats (Scott et al. 1986, 

Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000, USFWS 2008). Pigs are an omnivorous species that consume 

fruits, seeds, plant material, as well as some invertebrates. In Hawai„i, pigs consume and damage 

plant material in both wet and dry habitats and in agricultural and natural area settings. They root and 

trample native vegetation, digging up the soil for earthworms, as well as underground plant parts 

such as rhizomes and tubers (Stone et al. 1992). At Hakalau Forest NWR, pigs also eat native 

Hawaiian plants such as bracken fern roots and hāpu„u (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Pigs degrade habitat 

for native invertebrate species such as the endangered picture-wing fly (Mitchell et al. 2005). 

These animals facilitate the spread of seeds of nonnative species. Pigs act as vectors for invasive 

plant species dispersing nonnative plants such as strawberry guava and banana poka (LaRosa 1992, 

Stone et al. 1992, Barnett and Simonson 2008). On the Island of Hawai„i, areas without grazing 

ungulates show a more diverse plant community with greater coverage of native overstory and 

understory species (Cabin et al. 2000). However, the removal of pigs from Hawaiian forests does not 

ensure reductions of nonnative plants (Anderson et al. 1992). 

Pigs contribute to the prevalence of avian diseases by increasing breeding sites for mosquitoes. Both 

on and adjacent to the HFU and KFU, pigs create abundant habitats for mosquito larvae by knocking 

down and hollowing tree ferns to eat the starchy cores, leaving behind troughs that catch water and 

provide mosquito breeding sites. By increasing the availability of standing water, pigs increase 

mosquito populations and potentially increase infection rates of avian malaria and pox in native 

forest birds. Most native forest birds have little resistance to these diseases (Van Driesche and Van 

Driesche 2000, Atkinson et al. 2005). Some scientists believe that pig management should be 




emphasized in the lower portions of the HFU and KFU to minimize and halt the spread of 

mosquitoes into higher elevation forested areas (Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). 

Other ecosystem effects can be attributed to pig activity. Rooting and compaction can deplete the soil 

of needed oxygen (Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). The behavior of pigs causes erosion of 

cliff and stream banks. As a result, the quality of both fresh and brackish water system can be 

degraded (USFWS 2008). 

Most of the fenced portions of the HFU are pig free. Pig removal began at the HFU in 1988; 

however, the 5,001.4 ac enclosure was not completed until 1992. The estimated density of this area 

in 1992 was 4.7 pigs/mi 2 . The unmanaged area of Middle Maulua and Unit 3 had predicted densities 

2.5 times greater. The population of Unit 3 was 118 ± 36 in 2004, while Unit 6 contained 24 ± 20 

pigs (Hess et al. 2006). The lowland area of the HFU (which is not fenced) most likely supports a 

high-density pig population (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Within this area, the highest pig densities occur in 

the closed canopy forest (USFWS 1996b). In addition, the adjacent State-owned Pīhā Game 

Management Area contains a high pig population. 

The efficacy of the pig removal program at HFU from 1987-2004 is described by Hess et al. (2006). 

During this study it was determined that greater than 41-43 percent of the population at HFU must be 

removed annually in order to effect a decline in pigs. To reduce the population by 50 percent in 

following years, roughly 70 percent of the population must be removed annually; otherwise there is a 

sustained population. Eradication at the HFU with dogs was estimated to require 11.8 worker-hours 

per pig; this number is similar to estimates generated for the Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park, 

which required 20 worker-hours per pig. Hunting with dogs is expensive because of intensive labor 

costs and high maintenance and veterinarian costs. In addition, hunting dogs were killing nēnē on the 

Refuge (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). In contrast, the eradication rate at HFU using snares was estimated at 

4.9 worker-hours per pig. After the first 9 years of staff pig hunting in HFU, pig activity remained 

between 25-30 percent. Within 18 months of first setting pig snares, no pig activity was observed by 

Refuge staff through ungulate surveys. Pig snares were first tested at HFU in 1999 (Van Driesche 

and Van Driesche 2000) and are now permanently deployed throughout the units. Snares have been 

determined to be cost efficient. The snares are usually set in groups of 10, and average about 1 snare 

per acre with a unit and cost roughly $17 each. Snares are anchored to trees and placed in areas of 

high pig activity. Subsequently, the snare sets are inspected every 6 months, and replaced and reset as 

needed. Pig carcasses are not removed, but are left in the forest as the cost of removal is high and the 

carcasses often act as bait (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Pigs are abundant on the KFU, with recent estimates suggesting up to 1,000 pigs freely roaming the 

property. They are found at all elevations of the unit (USFWS 2007A, 2008). The Refuge plans to 

remove these animals once an ungulate proof fence is completed. 

Rats (Rattus) 

Three rat species are found throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans) arrived 

from the central Pacific approximately 1,500 years ago as stowaways on canoes of the Polynesians 

colonizing Hawai„i. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) reached the Hawaiian Islands after the arrival 

of Captain Cook in the 1770s; and black or roof rats (Rattus rattus) most likely arrived in the 1870s. 

It is estimated that these three species have populated nearly 82 percent of the major islands and 

island chains throughout the globe (Tomich 1986, Tobin and Sugihara 1992). Black and Polynesian 




rats have a large distributional range and can be found from sea level to nearly 10,000 ft. Norway rats 

are restricted to areas below 6,000 ft (Tomich 1986). Polynesian rats and Norway rats nest 

exclusively in terrestrial habitats, while black rats are arboreal nesters. This nesting difference may 

contribute to a larger population of black rats in Hawai„i due to the presence of nonarboreal 

mongoose predators (Hays and Conant 2007). 

Globally, introduced rats have caused the decline, extirpation, or extinction of insular bird species 

(Moors and Atkinson 1984, Atkinson 1985). In the main Hawaiian Islands, Atkinson (1977) 

suggested that black rats caused the accelerated decline or extinction of many native forest birds 

between 1870-1930. Polynesian rats are speculated to have been a contributing factor in the largescale 

extinction of Hawaiian bird species during prehistoric Polynesian occupation (Olson and James 

1982). Rats continue to be a major threat to waterbirds, seabirds, and forest birds in the Hawaiian 

Islands (Mitchell et al. 2005). All three species in Hawai„i are known predators of eggs, nestlings, 

young, and occasionally adults of endangered waterbirds (ae„o, „alae ke„oke„o, „alae ula, koloa 

maoli), seabirds („a„o or Newell‟s shearwater, „ua„u kani or wedge-tailed shearwaters, moli or 

Laysan albatross), migratory shorebirds, and forest birds (Harrison et al. 1984, Brisbin et al. 2002, 

Engilis et al. 2002, Mitchell et al. 2005, USFWS 2005a, USFWS 2005b). Ground and burrow-nesting 

seabirds are particularly vulnerable to rat predation, even by the arboreal black rat (Smith et al. 

2006). 

Rats also consume plants, insects, mollusks, herpetofauna, and other invertebrates. As herbivores, 

rats consume seeds and fruits and prevent the regeneration of rare and endangered plants. These 

mammals have also been observed causing indirect damage to young koa by stripping the bark off 

seedlings (Scowcroft and Sakai 1984). Because invertebrate and plant species are also eaten by birds, 

a reduction in these populations may indirectly affect avian populations (Nelson et al. 2002). 

In the early 1990s rats were known to consume leaves and fruit of the few known endangered 

Cyanea shipanii at HFU. Rats were thought to have killed at least two of the four remaining plants. 

At KFU, some of the last remaining Cyanea sticophylla were known to be girdled by rats (USFWS, 

unpubl.). The USGS-BRD conducted a study at Hakalau Forest NWR in the mid-1990s eradicating 

rats from a 0.02 m 2 area and compared it with an adjacent area where no rats were removed. During 

the first year of the study, a 25-75 percent increase in nesting success, depending on bird species, was 

seen in the rat-free area (Fancy, pers. comm.) 

The use of diphacinone rodenticide has been shown to have a positive effect in native bird survival in 

the main Hawaiian Islands (VanderWerf and Smith 2002, Nelson et al. 2002) but is not currently 

being used on the HFU. 

Cats (Felis catus) 

Cats are found on all the main Hawaiian Islands from sea level to nearly 10,000 ft (Tomich 1986). 

They occur in montane wet forest, subalpine dry forests, and lowland dry forests (Smucker et al. 

2000). Cats can breed year-round in Hawai„i due to the climate, producing between 2-3 litters 

annually and 4-6 kittens per litter (Winter 2003, Winter and Wallace 2006). 

Food habits of cats in Hawai„i include grasses, plant seeds, insects, centipedes, marine crustaceans, 

lizards, mice, rats, and „ōpe„ape„a. They are also known to consume young and adult birds and their 

eggs. Bird prey consists of four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds, migratory shorebirds, nesting 




seabirds, and Hawaiian forest birds (Tomich 1986, Snetsinger et al. 1994, Mostello 1996, Smucker et 

al. 2000, Brisbin et al. 2002, Engilis et al. 2002, Mitchell et al. 2005, USFWS 2005a, USFWS 

2005b). At the HFU, rats were found to be the dominant food item for cats, occurring in 75 percent 

of sampled scats (Smucker et al. 2000). Cats are one of the main predators feeding on nēnē eggs and 

goslings at the HFU. 

Cats have a universally damaging effect on insular forest birds and nesting seabirds (Moors and 

Atkinson 1984, Statterfield et al. 1998, USFWS 2005a). Species with low reproductive rates and high 

parental investment are particularly susceptible. In addition, cats are known to carry the protozoan 

that causes toxoplasmosis. This disease is caused by the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii that has been 

known to kill the endangered „alala and nēnē (TMA 2007). Several captive released „alala in the 

early 1990s that died were diagnosed with toxoplasmosis (Ball, pers. comm). It is recommended that 

all cats be removed prior to additional „alala releases at the KFU (Winter and Wallace 2006). 

At HFU, live-trapping and removal is used for control of cats during the nēnē breeding season 

October-April. Traps baited with sardines are deployed around primary nēnē nesting areas. These 

traps are equipped with “gosling guards” which are placed in front of the opening to inhibit young 

nēnē from entering the traps, and yet allow predators to enter. Traps are checked once a day and 

predators that are caught are humanely euthanized using CO2 (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Three cats were 

trapped in 2007 (USFWS 2007a). No cat control method is currently used at the KFU. 

Goats (Capra hircus) 

Goats were introduced to Hawai„i around 1778 by European explorers. Large herds were present by 

the 1850s. Tomich (1986) identifies goats in Hawai„i as the subspecies Capra hircus hircus. Wild 

goats are established on Hawai„i, Maui, Kaua„i, Moloka„i, and Kaho„olawe (Scowcroft and Hobdy 

1987). The first known major goat control began at Hawai„i Volcanoes National Park in the 1960s 

(Spatz and Mueller-Dombois 1973). Goats are not known from the HFU but a few dozen goats are 

currently present on KFU (USFWS 2008). Goats prefer open habitat, such as grasslands, and scrub 

but will take cover in open forests. They typically move in groups, with males more nomadic than 

females. The home ranges of goats vary from 328 ft to 12 mi wide (Atkinson and Atkinson 2005). 

Similar to other ungulates in the Hawaiian Islands, goats are considered to be habitat modifiers. 

Goats have been implicated in causing declines of native woody legume species, such as the 

nutritious māmane (Tomich 1986) and koa. They have been observed consuming the shoots and root 

suckers of koa and therefore inhibiting reproduction (Scowcroft and Hobdy 1987). By removing 

native species, goats also help facilitate the invasion of noxious plant species, reducing native habitat, 

cover, and food resources for native species that depend upon these plants (USFWS 2008). 

Sheep (Ovis aries) 

Sheep were brought to the Hawaiian Islands by Captain Cook in 1778. Populations became 

established on Hawai„i Island and formerly Kaho„olawe (Atkinson and Atkinson 2005). Sheep 

populations that had established in Mauna Kea‟s subalpine woodland in 1825 reached about 

40,000 animals by the early 1930s. Public hunting in the area decreased the population to about 

5,000 sheep in 1955, and by 1970 the sheep population had dropped to 1,500 (Scowcroft and Conrad 

1992). Because sheep populations were having an impact on the endangered palila, the State of 

Hawai„i was charged with violating the ESA, and all sheep were court ordered to be removed from 




the māmane forest portions of Mauna Kea. The removal was never completed and today sheep are 

still present in the area (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992). 

The Refuge estimates that more than 50 sheep are present on the KFU. These animals exist only 

above 5,000 ft (USFWS 2008). The impacts of these animals are similar to other ungulates present in 

the Hawaiian Islands. They consume the bark, leaves, and seedlings of native plant species, allow the 

invasion of noxious weeds, and increase erosion by exposing soil. In particular, sheep have a 

preference for legumes such as koa and māmane trees (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992). 

Mouflon (Ovis musimon) 

Native to the islands of Sardina and Corsica, mouflon are considered to be a wild species of sheep. 

These animals have become established on Lāna„i and Hawai„i Island, although the origin of these 

populations is unknown (Tomich 1986). In 1962, mouflon were released in the Mauna Kea Forest 

Reserve. By 1986, the entire population was estimated to be around 500, with the largest 

concentrations occurring on the southeastern and northwestern flanks (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992). 

Unlike sheep and goats, mouflon were not included in the court ruling to remove these species from 

Mauna Kea during the late 1970s and early 1980s, but were added to the ruling later. Currently, the 

highest concentrations of mouflon occur on the eastern slope of Mauna Kea (Tomich 1986) and the 

western and southern slope of Mauna Loa. These animals are also present on the KFU (USFWS 

2008). 

The food habits, grazing and browsing behavior, and ecological impacts of mouflon are similar to 

sheep (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992). They generally travel in small groups and have become adapted 

to rugged ridges and gully habitats (Tomich 1986). 

Donkeys (Equus asinus) 

Donkeys are native to northeast Africa and were first recorded in the Hawaiian Islands in 1825. In 

1965, two populations of donkeys existed on the Island of Hawai„i. Approximately 50-60 donkeys 

were recorded on McCandless Ranch, part of which is now the KFU. An additional 19 donkeys 

occurred in the Ka„ūpūlehu-Kīholo lava fields in North Kona (Tomich 1986). Roughly 7-10 donkeys 

were later recorded on the KFU (Ball, pers.comm.). 

Physically, a donkey resembles a horse with a larger head and longer ears. They thrive in warm, dry 

climates. The diet of donkeys primarily consists of grass, but other plants are also eaten. Adult 

donkeys have been documented to eat approximately 6,000 pounds of forage annually. Females 

produce only 1 young each year and they have been documented to live 25 years on average. 

Although donkeys do contribute to ecosystem change and degradation, primary literature on the 

impacts of donkeys is sparse. In the Galapagos, donkeys have been reported to cause declines in 

plant populations (Carrion et al. 2007). Donkeys have been removed from several islands worldwide, 

including San Miguel Island in California and several others in Mexico. Aerial hunting has proven to 

be effective in areas with an open canopy, but ground hunting and contraceptive vaccines have also 

been used (Carrion et al. 2007). 


Horses (Equus caballus caballus) 



Though impacts from horses to the KFU ecosystem are unknown, horses have been recorded 

wandering from neighboring ranch lands into this Unit. Horses do crop and trample vegetation as 

well as deplete soils. Horses were first brought to the islands of Hawai„i and Maui in 1803. Though 

horses were found in abundance after their introduction to the islands, the first report of feral horses 

was by C.S. Judd when he talked about feral horses being driven out of the Mauna Kea forest reserve 

in 1932. Horses were less prolific and unlike feral cattle, were unable to survive in the forest or high 

in the mountains. Consequently, there is little historical evidence of feral horses in large numbers as 

have been recorded for feral pigs, goats, sheep, and cattle. Horses are hooved mammals which 

humans began to domesticate around 4,000 BC. They are capable of reproduction at 18 months with 

gestation lasting for 11 months, with 1 foal given birth to at a time. 

Small Indian Mongooses (Herpestees auropuntatus) 

The small Indian mongoose was intentionally introduced to numerous island ecosystems during the 

1800s and 1900s and has since expanded to large portions of Asia, Africa, Europe, Oceania, and the 

Americas (Hays and Conant 2007). In 1883, the species was introduced to the main Hawaiian Islands 

as a biocontrol agent against rats in sugarcane fields. Mongooses inhabit all habitat types from sea 

level to nearly 10,000 ft on the islands of Hawai„i, Maui, O„ahu, and Moloka„i (Tomich 1986, 

Staples and Cowie 2001). In other areas of the world, mongooses appear to avoid wet areas; 

however, in Hawai„i, dense populations of mongooses are concentrated in wet habitats. 

The small Indian mongoose is an agile light brownish-gray animal. It has short legs, small rounded 

ears, and a bushy tail. The mean home range of a female mongoose in Hawai„i is approximately 

3.5 ac and the main reproductive period occurs between February-August. Males can travel long 

distances. The high density of mongooses in the Hawaiian Islands is due to the lack of natural 

predators and diseases (Hays and Conant 2007). 

The mongoose is a voracious omnivore, consuming insects, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, crabs, 

plants, and birds. In Hawai„i, mongooses are diurnal predators that primarily prey on invertebrates 

and secondly on small mammals (Hays and Conant 2007). They are a major threat to any grounddwelling 

and nesting species in Hawai„i. These mammals are known to prey on eggs, young, and 

adults of four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds, nēnē, various seabirds, and migratory shorebirds 

(Harrison et al. 1984, Moor and Atkinson 1984, Tomich 1986, Staples and Cowie 2001, Brisbin et al. 

2002, Engilis et al. 2002, Mitchell et al. 2005). Mongoose populations are managed using traps and 

diphacinone rodenticide. Hays and Conant (2007) warn that the use of traps may be ineffective 

because they can lure mongooses into unoccupied habitat areas. 

Trapping efforts on HFU during nēnē breeding season, October-April, yield primarily mongooses. 

Approximately 23 mongooses were caught by traps at the HFU in 2007 (USFWS 2007a). Mongooses 

are the main predator on nēnē eggs and goslings at the HFU. 




4.12.4 Introduced Reptiles and Amphibians 

About 27 species of reptiles and amphibians have become established on the Hawaiian Islands. In 

spite of this number, the impacts of these nonnative species in island ecosystems are generally 

understudied (Sin et al. 2008). Several species of nonnative reptiles and amphibians exist in 

substantial numbers on the Island of Hawai„i and may have the potential to threaten native 

ecosystems such as the Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Coqui Frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui) 

The coqui frog, endemic to Puerto Rico, was unintentionally introduced to Hawai„i in the late 1980s 

through the nursery industry. This frog measures about 1 inch long. The back of the coqui ranges in 

color from light to dark brown, while its belly is white to yellow. The frog can survive between sea 

level-4,000 ft and is primarily spread by humans translocating infested vegetation. The current 

distribution of the coqui frog encompasses 250 populations on all four main islands; however, the 

largest concentration occurs on the Island of Hawai„i, where the frog has infested about 10 mi 2 based 

on 2007 estimates (HISC 2007). In certain areas of Hawai„i, the coqui frog has reached densities of 

50,000 frogs per acre (Sin et al. 2008). 

In contrast to other nonnative reptiles, the coqui frog has received an ample amount of attention 

because its loud mating call has adversely impacted the economy of Hawai„i (Kraus and Campbell 

2002). This loud “Ko-KEE” call is produced only by the males and is most vocal after sunset and 

during rainfall. Research has found that they consume a large amount of small invertebrates, 

especially insects. They have been observed eating invertebrates on vegetation at night and in the 

litter during the day. This generalist predator species has been found to eat about 

350,000 invertebrates per 2.47 acres each night (Staples and Cowie 2001, Sin et al. 2008). Although 

the coqui primarily consumes nonnative insects, they could also reduce endemic invertebrate 

populations in Hawai„i. 

Indirect impacts are also observed. The presence of coqui frogs lowers herbivory rates by decreasing 

the amount of herbivorous insects. Coqui have also been shown to increase nutrient cycling rates by 

increasing concentrations of several nutrients, increased leaf litter decomposition rates, and 

increasing the number of new leaves on an invasive plant species. This acceleration of the nutrient 

cycle could negatively affect slow-growing native plant species while giving nonnative species a 

competitive advantage (Sin et al. 2008). 

Although coqui studies have not been conducted at the KFU, frogs may potentially be on the Refuge. 

Coqui frogs are known to occur at high numbers at the nearby Waiea Transfer Station (Ball, pers. 

comm.). 

The Coqui Frog Working Group is a partnership of various agencies and organizations that conduct 

ongoing coqui frog research and control. This group includes the University of Hawai„i, Big Island 

Invasive Species Committee (BIISC), Hawai„i DLNR, Hawai„i Department of Agriculture, County 

of Hawai„i, Hawai„i Island Economic Development Board, USDA, and the Service. Extensive 

research has been done on a wide variety of surfactants, registered insecticides, pharmaceutical 

products, and food additives that could be used to control frogs. Originally, coqui frog control was 




limited to hand-capture until the EPA granted certified pest-control operators an emergency 

registration to hand-spray caffeine for control in limited situations (Kraus and Campbell 2002). 

Currently, both chemical (citric acid) and nonchemical (hand-capture and hot shower) control 

methods are available to the general public. Hydrated lime was previously used against the frogs; 

however, as of April 2008, it is illegal to use hydrated lime to control coqui frogs in Hawai„i until the 

EPA permit is renewed (http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/coqui/control.asp). Community interest in 

coqui control remains high although public funding for local programs has been cut and/or 

eliminated in recent years. The current tools and resources for controlling the coqui frog are not 

sufficient to eradicate populations. New technology, such as thermal heat treatment units and new hot 

water showers for nursery plants being shipped to the mainland are being developed (HISC 2007). 

Jackson’s Chameleons (Chamaeleo jacksonii) 

Jackson‟s chameleon was introduced to Hawai„i from East Africa in 1972. The current distribution is 

from sea level- 2,000 ft on the main Hawaiian Islands. They prefer shrub or arboreal habitats with a 

daytime temperature between 70-90°F and a nighttime temperature between 50-68°F. The initial law 

that prohibited individuals from possessing Jackson‟s chameleons in Hawai„i was overturned in 

1994. Jackson‟s chameleon is characterized by its ability to rapidly change color and pattern and its 

long tongue that helps to capture prey. The sticky tip of the tongue can reach small invertebrates 

(e.g., insects, spiders, and small snails) in 0.06 seconds (Waring 1997). Prey capture is facilitated by 

independently rotating eyes. They average 10 in in total body length (Staples and Cowie 2001). The 

reproductive capabilities of Jackson‟s chameleon contribute to its invasive potential. The average 

clutch is 28.7 eggs and each female has a maximum of 5 clutches (Masurat and Masurat 1996). 

Although the elevational range of this species is generally below the Refuge units, Jackson‟s 

chameleons are known to occur at lower elevations below the KFU and could impact the forested 

areas of both units as a result of global climate change. The Jackson‟s chameleon consumes both 

native insects and bird eggs (Staples and Cowie 2002). 

4.12.5 Introduced Arthropods 

Invasive arthropods in Hawai„i include insects, spiders, mites, centipedes, and millipedes. An 

estimated 20 arthropod species invade and establish themselves in the Hawaiian Islands each year 

(Messing et al. 2007). Haines and Foote (2005) found that the abundance of invasive insects 

decreased with increasing native insect diversity at the KFU. 

Southern House Mosquitoes (Culex quinquefasciatus) 

The southern house mosquito was introduced to the Hawaiian Islands around the 1820s and occurs 

from sea level-4,921 ft on the Island of Hawai„i (Ahumada et al. 2004). Elevation plays a large role 

in the population dynamics of mosquitos. At lower elevations, the southern house mosquito has been 

found to occur in high numbers and populations consistent throughout the year. In contrast, mosquito 

populations in middle and high elevation areas are relatively low and show biannual extremes; high 

numbers occur from August-September and lower numbers occur between February-May (LaPointe 

2000). 




Mosquito distributions are also affected by ambient temperature, with population growth rates 

increasing with temperature. Ahumada et al. (2004) estimated that mosquito populations on Hawai„i 

Island can survive in areas with an annual temperature of 58.3°F and a summer temperature of 

55.8°F. LaPointe (2000) found that the southern house mosquito can complete larval development at 

53.6°F. As a result of these temperature restrictions, mosquitoes on the Island of Hawai„i can survive 

up to approximately 4,839 ft. This range could extend to 5,625 ft during the summer. Rainfall also 

influences mosquito prevalence and survival because adults require water filled cavities to breed and 

larval stages are highly susceptible to drought (Ahumada et al. 2004). Additional factors, such as 

size, can contribute to survival rate. Larger individuals have a higher feeding success, survivorship, 

and infection potential (LaPointe 2000). 

The southern house mosquito is a primary vector for several diseases that impact native Hawaiian 

birds. Mosquito-borne avian diseases, principally avian malaria and the avian pox, have been 

implicated as the main reason for mortality of the native Hawaiian forest birds (Van Riper et al. 

2002, LaPointe et al. 2005, Reiter and LaPoint 2007). As a result, some bird species are only able to 

survive at higher elevations, above the mosquito zone. Other mosquito species have been shown to 

carry both diseases to a lesser degree (LaPointe et al. 2005). 

Although mosquitoes are able to persist and complete their life cycle at higher elevations, avian 

malaria oocysts may not be able to develop in cooler temperatures. Benning et al. (2002) estimated 

that the threshold temperature for transmission of avian malaria is 55.4°F. Avian malaria prevalence 

is highest in mid-elevation forests with annual temperatures of 63°F. Thus, mosquitoes living at 

higher elevations may not be able to transmit avian malaria (Ahumada et al. 2004). 

Western Yellowjacket Wasps (Vespula pensylvanica) 

Western yellowjacket wasps were first recorded in the Hawaiian Islands in 1919, although they did 

not become established on Hawai„i Island until the 1970s. The annual cycle of the western 

yellowjacket wasps is regulated by climate (Gambino and Loope 1992). The queen, which hibernates 

during the winter months, establishes a colony in spring, and populations subsequently peak in the 

summer. However, because of Hawai„i‟s warmer climate, overwintering colonies occur irregularly in 

the Hawaiian Islands (Gambino and Loope 1992, Nishida and Evenhuis 2000, Haines and Foote 

2005). 

This wasp species threatens native insect communities by preying on native species, especially larvae 

and pupae. This includes rare and endangered species such as Drosophila flies (Mitchell et al. 2005) 

and the koa bug (Johnson et al. 2005). In addition, the wasps compete with native predators and 

pollinators for various food resources. This may in turn have a larger ecosystem impact by removing 

prey for native species (Haines and Foote 2005). It has been suggested, but there is no evidence, that 

the wasps may feed on native birds or their eggs and nestlings (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Preliminary work on the distribution of western yellowjacket wasps at the HFU has been conducted 

(Foote 2002, Howarth et al. 2003). The prevalence of these wasps on the HFU is cyclic (USFWS 

unpubl.). Trapping during the early 1990s shows that during wet years, few western yellowjacket 

wasps are observed, and populations increase during dry years (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

At the KFU, populations of western yellowjacket wasps have been monitored using plastic 

yellowjacket traps hung from branches and baited with heptyl butyrate (Haines and Foote 2005). The 




wasps are widely established throughout the unit, except between 3,500-5,453 ft. The relative 

abundances of western yellowjacket wasps varied over time, with peaks during autumn (September- 

December) at the lower elevations and peaks during winter (August- February) at the upper reaches. 

These seasonal fluctuations are typical of western yellowjacket wasp populations observed in other 

mesic forests (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Western yellowjacket wasp populations can be reduced by directly applying a pesticide to an active 

nest or by using a combination of bait (e.g., canned tuna cat food) and chemical toxicant (0.5 percent 

microencapsulated diazinon). This was found to be particularly effective in controlling populations 

(Nishida and Evenhuis 2000). 

Two-spotted Leafhoppers (Sophonia rufofascia) 

The two-spotted leafhopper has been implicated in the dieback of uluhe and „ōhi„a (Haines and Foote 

2005). The leafhopper is present on the KFU, especially between elevations of 1,900-4,500 ft. Within 

the lower reaches, additional concentrations occur specifically at about 2,297-3,117 ft. 

Rainfall, temperature, and vegetation differences may play a role in these distributional trends 

(Haines and Foote 2005). Currently, a management strategy has not been developed to control the 

two-spotted leafhopper. 

Ants 

More than 40 nonnative ant species have colonized Hawai„i (Hawaii Ant Group 2007). Ants have 

been labeled as the “the greatest arthropod threat to conservation in the Pacific” (Nishida and 

Evenhuis 2000) due to their impact to native flora and fauna. Ants are plant predators that harvest 

seeds, prune foliage, and directly compete with native invertebrates and vertebrate species, creating 

favorable conditions for other invasive biota (Nishida and Evenhuis 2000). 

Four ant species were collected from the KFU: Cardiocondyla wroughtoni, Paratrechina 

bourbonica, Solenopsis papuana, and Tetramorium bicarinatum. Ant abundances were measured at 

the KFU using protein bait (canned cat food) and carbohydrate bait (guava jam). Two of these 

species (P. bourbonica and S. papuana) were found in high numbers at KFU (Haines and Foote 

2005). Occurring between 1,900-3,050 ft, these species were observed only in the lower reaches of 

KFU. Only a few specimens of the two additional ant species (C. wroughtoni and T. bicarinatum) 

were noted (Haines and Foote 2005). 

Ant control is difficult in dense forests, and current control methods have proved ineffective. The use 

of baits with pesticides helps to control population, but entail aerial application of a bait product. 

This technique is not permitted in Hawai„i (Haines and Foote 2005). 

4.12.6 Introduced Plants 

Invasive species are recognized as a major threat to native ecosystems and to the survival of 

threatened and endangered species (Pimental 2005). At the ecosystem level, invasive plants have 

been shown to be capable of changing fire regimes (D‟Antonio and Vitosek 1992), altering nutrient 

cycling patterns (Vitousek 1990), and modifying the surface runoff of water (Vitousek 1992). 




Invasive plants can physically displace native species, and/or supersede them by competition for 

water, nutrients, or other limited resources. Nonnative plants can also be vectors and hosts for 

introduced pests and diseases to which the native species lack natural defenses (Jui et al. 2007). 

Some invasive plants have allelopathic properties. Furthermore, compared to native plants, 

introduced plants lack their natural enemies in the introduced range, which again gives them a 

competitive edge over native species. Some invasive plants are faster growing and can therefore 

easily and quickly colonize, establish, and displace native species (Blossey and Notzold 1995). 

Island ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to biological invasions (Loope and Muller-Dombois 

1989, Denslow 2003). In spite of a multitude of plant species that have been introduced to Hawai„i, 

only about 1 percent (130 of 13,000 species) of them are considered invasive and have a negative 

impact on the native habitats; however, the Hawai„i DLNR anticipates that an additional 200 - 

300 species already present in the State may become problems in the future 

(http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/hortweeds/). In general, detrimental invasive plant species exhibit 

a lag phase in which the species will exist at low concentrations for a period of time before spreading 

across the landscape (Hobbs and Humphries 1995). 

Invasive plants are successful in island ecosystems due to a multitude of traits. According to Staples 

et al. (2000), invasive plants in Hawai„i share the following biological and reproductive 

characteristics: 

Adaptable to and capable of thriving in different habitats; 

Tolerant of variable conditions (such as light, temperature, moisture); 

Fast growing; 

Tolerant of disturbance; 

Easily dispersible to new localities by seeds, fruits, spores, or vegetative parts; 

Produce small seeds/spores early in life; 

Long reproductive periods; 

Dispersed by animals; and 

Need no special germination requirements. 

As a result of these traits, control and eradication of introduced weeds has been a top priority of 

natural resource managers in Hawai„i (Jacobi and Price 2007). For this reason, several databases 

have been developed to assist in invasive plant species control. The Hawai„i-Pacific Weed Risk 

Assessment (HPWRA) is a research project conducted by the University of Hawai„i and the USDA 

Forest Service to identify plants that pose a high risk in Hawai„i and other Pacific Islands. This 

database provides detailed species information and scores species based on the risk of invasion. 

HPWRA score for species on the Hakalau Forest NWR are provided in Table 4-10. 




Table 4-10. List of Invasive Plant Species Known to Currently Occur at Hakalau 

Forest NWR. 

Species Common Name(s) 

Hakalau 

Forest 

Kona 

Forest 

HPWRA 

Score 

Anacardiaceae Mango family 

Schinus terebinthefolius Christmas berry X 19 

Aquifoliaceae Holly family 

Ilex aquafolia English holly X 

Asteraceae Sunflower family 

Hypochaeris radicata hairy cat‟s ear X X 

Senecio madagascariensis fireweed X 23 

Senecio mikanioides German ivy X X 

Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle family 

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle X 12 

Cucurbitaceae Gourd family 

Coccinia grandis ivy gourd X 

Cupressaceae Cypress family 

Cryptomeria japonica Sugi pine X -3 

Euphorbiaceae Spurge family 

Ricinus communis castor bean X 

Fabaceae Bean, pea family 

Ulex europaeus gorse X 20 

Juncaceae Rush family 

Juncus effuses Japanese mat rush, 

common rush 

Melastomataceae Melastoma family 

Clidemia hirta Koster‟s curse X 

Tibouchina herbacea glorybush, cane tibouchina X 24 

Tibouchina urvilleana -- X 10 

Myricaceae Bayberry family 

Morella faya firetree 

Myrtaceae Myrtle family 

Eucalyptus spp. eucalyptus X 

Psidium cattleianum strawberry guava X X 18 

Onagraceae Evening primrose family 

Fuchsia spp. fuchsia X 

Passifloraceae Passion flower family 

Passiflora mollissima banana poka X X 

Pinaceae Pine family 

Pinus spp. pine X 

Poaceae Grass family 

Andropogon virginicus broomsedge X 

Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass X 

Agrostis alba redtop X 

Axonopus fissifolius narrow-leaved carpetgrass X 16 

Ehrharta stipoides weeping grass, 

meadow ricegrass 

X X 

4-98 Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habitats 

X



Species Common Name(s) 

Hakalau 

Forest 

Kona 

Forest 

HPWRA 

Score 

Holcus lanatus velvetgrass X 

Paspalum dilatatum dallis grass X 12 

Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass X 18 

Polygonaceae Buckwheat family 

Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel X 

Proteaceae Protea family 

Grevillea robusta silky oak X 5 

Ranunculaceae Buttercup family 

Anemone hupehensis 

Roseaceae 

Japanese anemone X 

Photinia davidiana photinia X -2 

Rubus argutus Florida blackberry X X 21.5 

Rubus rosifolius Thimbleberry X X 

Zingiberaceae Ginger family 

Hedychium gardnerianum Kahili ginger X X 16 

Source: Jacobi and Price (2007), Barnett and Simonson (2008). 

Hakalau Forest Unit 

Numerous invasive plant surveys have been conducted at HFU (Stone et al. 1991, Jacobi and Price 

2007, Barnett and Simonson 2008), where approximately 45 nonnative plant species have been 

recorded. Although similar nonnative species occur at all elevations, the highest concentration of 

nonnatives are found at the higher elevations from 5,000-5,500 ft compared to the lower elevation 

forest (Barnett and Simonson 2008). This trend has also been observed in other Hawaiian forests 

(D‟Antonio et al. 2000); in comparison to high-elevation sites, middle elevations have steeper 

topography and greater precipitation, resulting in denser forests that are less accessible to humans, 

ungulates, and nonnative plant species (Pejchar and Press 2006). 

At the HFU, historical anthropogenic impacts that occurred at higher elevations, such as cattle 

ranching, logging, and fire, removed the native forest and allowed for the invasion of nonnative plant 

species (Scowcroft and Jeffrey 1999, Barnett and Simonson 2008). Adjacent land uses also increase 

the continued problem of invasive species. Invasive plants are abundant at the adjacent Pīhā Game 

Management Area due to the presence of pigs that act as vectors (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Jacobi and Price (2007) focused on 25 invasive plant species that pose a serious threat by displacing 

native plants and disrupting native ecosystems. Three species (Ehrharta stipoides, Juncus effuses, 

and Rubus argutus) showed an increase in frequency from 1987-2007. Barnett and Simonson (2008) 

found a negative relationship between nonnative species cover and native canopy cover suggesting 

that disturbances that reduce canopy cover increase the ability of invasion. Pattison et al. (1998) 

found a similar trend and suggested that invasive species have a higher ability to capture and utilize 

light resources, particularly in high-light, disturbed areas. 

Invasive plants such as gorse, Florida blackberry, English holly, Photinea, and banana poka are being 

controlled at the HFU using a combination of mechanical and chemical removal. Additional invasive 

plant control techniques include removal of ungulates and reforestation with native species. 




Figure 4-7 demonstrates an example of the survey and monitoring scheme for invasive weeds at the 

HFU utilizing existing transect lines also utilized for forest bird and ungulate surveys. 

Kona Forest Unit 

The results of the invasive plant surveys conducted on the KFU have not been compiled. The Final 

Environmental Assessment for Fencing of the Kona Forest Unit of the Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge (2008) identifies the following nonnative plants as management concerns: 

strawberry guava, Christmas berry, banana poka, Koster‟s curse, Florida blackberry, German ivy, 

and nonnative pasture grasses. 

Invasive plant control has not been conducted at the KFU, but will commence following the 

construction of an ungulate-proof fence and with staffing/funding. After fencing, the Refuge will 

work with available staffing and partners (e.g., Three Mountain Alliance) to survey and conduct 

control efforts as needed. Weed management will be mostly above 3,600 ft because understory below 

this elevation is mostly invasive plants and is too degraded. This work will be conducted from higher 

elevation to lower elevations to reduce further spread of invasives. 

Banana Poka (Passiflora mollissima) 

Banana poka, a vine native to South America, was introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the early 

20 th century. The plant tolerates a wide range of environmental conditions and has a rapid growth rate 

(LaRosa 1992). In Hawai„i, banana poka invades disturbed forest gaps and forms curtains that 

exclude available light for native forest trees (USFWS 1996b). Banana poka is dispersed by pigs, 

cattle, and game birds, which eat the fleshy fruit and disperse seeds (NRCS 2005). 

A combination of herbicide, manual removal, and biocontrol has been used to control this species. 

Applying herbicide to cut stems has shown to control some infestations (LaRosa 1992). Banana poka 

infestations on Hawai„i Island have also been controlled by the introduced fungus Septoria 

passiflorae; however, this biocontrol agent is not effective on the Kona side of the island where acid 

rain inhibits the germination of S. passiflorae spores (Trujillo 2005). The passion vine butterfly was 

also introduced, but control was not successful (LaRosa 1992). 

The species is largely concentrated in the Upper Maulua Tract of the HFU, initially infesting about 

3,000 ac, but the area has been reduced by manual removal. A total of 210 ac were controlled from 

2006-2007. The eradication of pigs has also contributed to its control (NRCS 2005). Grazing by 

cattle presently helps to control the spread of this species on the KFU; thus, banana poka control 

measures will be needed following the removal of cattle. 

Investigations at the HFU found that banana poka nectar is three times more concentrated than „ōhi„a 

nectar. It provides the three main sugars (glucose, fructose, and sucrose). However, passerines do not 

express the digestive enzyme for the disaccharide sucrose and therefore can only obtain 5 percent 

“digestible” sugars from the banana poka nectar (Kapono, pers. comm). 

Christmas Berry (Schinus terebinthefolius) 

Christmas berry is an aggressive, rapidly spreading plant native to Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. It 

can grow as a tree or shrub up to 23 ft in height. Christmas berry has become naturalized in mesic, 




Figure 4-7. Hakalau Forest Unit 2007 weed survey. 




To preserve the quality of this figure, this side was left blank intentionally 




disturbed areas throughout the Hawaiian Islands. It can form dense thickets on steep slopes (Wagner 

et al. 1999). 

Christmas berry is considered a pioneer species because it quickly colonizes disturbed areas. The 

invasive attributes of Christmas berry include a large number of fruits, bird dispersal, and a tolerance 

to shade, fire, and drought. Furthermore, Christmas berry is believed to have allelopathic properties, 

which increases its competitive ability with neighboring plants (Hight et al. 2003). Due to these 

characteristics, this species is recognized as a noxious weed by the Hawai„i Department of 

Agriculture. 

Three biocontrol insects have been released in the Hawaiian Islands to control this species. This 

includes a seed-feeding beetle in 1960, a leaf-rolling moth in 1954-1956, and a stem-galling moth in 

1961-1962 (Hight et al. 2003). An accidentally introduced seed-feeding wasp has also been found 

attacking seeds of Christmas berry. A foliage feeding sawfly was tested as a potential biological 

control agent for Christmas berry; however, this species was not introduced due to its risk to the 

native „ohe kukuluae„o (Hight et al. 2003). 

English Holly (Ilex aquafolia) 

English holly grows as a tree or shrub reaching over 16 ft in height. Growing in mesic to wet forests 

and open bogs, English holly shades out native groundcover species (Jacobi and Price 2007). 

Although this species is relatively slow growing, it is easily dispersed by birds due to the presence of 

red fleshy fruits (USFWS 1996b). 

English holly was planted at the HFU by the previous landowners. Control activities began at the 

HFU when the holly infestation was estimated at 500 ac. Between 2006-2007, 102 ac were treated. 

This species can be controlled using EZJect®, which injects glyphosate-filled capsules into the tree 

cambium layer (Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000, NRCS 2005). Treatment of germinating seeds 

must be continued to maintain control. Even if English holly is eliminated from HFU, birds will 

continue to bring seeds into the forest from nearby infected areas. 

Florida Blackberry (Rubus argutus) 

The Service considers Florida blackberry to be a primary invasive plant species of concern. Native to 

the central and eastern United States, Florida blackberry has been naturalized in the mesic and wet 

forests and subalpine grasslands in Hawai„i. It primarily occurs from 656-7,546 ft (Wagner et al. 

1999). This shade-intolerant species grows into dense thickets in forested and disturbed areas lacking 

extensive understory. The stems of Florida blackberry are covered with straight or hooked thorns, 

and the fruit is bird-dispersed (USFWS 1996b). Once established, it spreads by underground 

rhizomes (Loope et al. 1992). 

Blackberry is mainly treated at the HFU June-October using 0.5 percent Garlon 3A®, a foliar-applied 

spray that does not kill native plants (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Estimates by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (2005) suggest that this species infests approximately 10,300 ac of open and 

closed canopy forest. In 2006, 774 ac were treated and an additional 350 ac were treated in 2007. 

Although intense control efforts have been in place for this species, a slight increase in the blackberry 

population (8.6 percent) occurred between 1987-2007 (Jacobi and Price 2007). This increase may be 




due to the removal of browsers (Van Driesche and Van Driesche 2000). Continued control efforts 

and monitoring are ongoing at the HFU. 

German Ivy (Senecio mikanioides) 

This fleshy perennial vine occurs in dry forests, moist forests, and coastal areas in the Hawaiian 

Islands. In particular, it climbs tall trees in the forest on Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualālai 

(Motooka et al. 2003). German ivy prefers high light areas, where it can smother native vegetation 

(Wagner et al. 1999). 

Various herbicides, such as triclopyr and foliar glyphosate, can be used to control German ivy. 

Effectiveness may be enhanced by cutting and drying the stems, while spraying the remaining parts 

with glyphosate (Motooka et al. 2003). No control work has been conducted for this species at either 

the HFU or KFU. 

Gorse (Ulex europaeus) 

Native to Western Europe and coastal areas of the Mediterranean, gorse was first recorded in Hawai„i 

in 1920. It has also spread to several other regions such as New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and 

California. This woody legume is spiny and can grow up to 10 ft in height (Davies et al. 2008). It is 

highly adapted to disturbed landscapes with low fertility and nutrient depleted soils, such as 

pastureland. It prefers more acidic soils, with a pH 4.5-5.0, and can acidify surrounding soils (Leary 

et al. 2006). In Hawai„i, flowering can occur for a 9-month period (Tarayre et al. 2007). 

Subsequently, a large number of seeds are produced in small pods (Davies et al. 2008). 

Dense, impenetrable thickets of even-aged, mature plants grow on Maui and Hawai„i Island (Leary et 

al. 2006). However, unlike other invasives present on the Refuge, gorse infests high-elevation pasture 

areas rather than forest. The original gorse infestation on the HFU was estimated at 3,200 ac but was 

reduced to 75 ac by 1999. The infestation is largely concentrated in the southern portion of the 

Refuge near Pua „Ākala Ranch (Tomonari-Tuggle 1996). The current frequency of gorse on the 

Refuge is approximately 0.1 percent (Jacobi and Price 2007). Although the infestation of gorse on the 

HFU is minor, the adjacent Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) ranch lands are heavily 

infested. The gorse infestation in this area increased from 4,942 ac in 1992 to over 9,884 ac in 2006 

(Leary et al. 2006). 

Thick gorse growth completely inhibits regeneration of native species. Perennial growth of this 

species can occur up to 30 years. Other characteristics that contribute to the invasive ability of gorse 

are its nitrogen fixing ability and large persistent soil seed bank. The seeds can remain in the seed 

bank for 30-60 years (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). Similar to the nonnative grass species, gorse serves as a 

fuel for fires by posing a risk of ignition and sustaining the spread of fires; a 12 in patch can produce 

60 ft flame length (USFWS 2002a). As a result of these characteristics, it has been designated as a 

noxious weed species in the State of Hawai„i (Leary et al. 2006). 

Spraying with an herbicide and then burning once the gorse is dead was originally used to control 

this invasive; however, the gorse sprouted vigorously from the trunk and seedlings were found to be 

stimulated using this technique. Currently, the Refuge controls gorse year-round (primarily 

September-May) by using a bulldozer with a rake to pull out large rooted plants and then spraying 

small plants with Garlon 3A at 3 percent foliar spray with Silwet (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). During 




2006-2007, the Service controlled approximately 2,400 ac of gorse. Ongoing monitoring and 

treatment for seedlings and regrowth occurs in all treated areas. Gorse is not shade tolerant; 

reforestation efforts are expected to increase the dense canopy of native forest and prevent gorse 

from reestablishing. A partnership between the Refuge and DHHL has resulted in an attempt to 

contain the spread of gorse by planting native koa trees and thereby shading out the species in a 

195-acre area immediately above and adjacent to the HFU. 

The State Department of Agriculture has, over the past 20 years, released a host of biocontrol insects 

to control gorse. On Maui, an introduced caterpillar (that eats the flowers) reduced the reproductive 

potential of the species by 73 percent. In 1989, the moth Agonopterix ulicitella was introduced to 

control gorse by feeding on new shoots (Loope et al. 1992). The thrip Sericothrips staphylinus 

browses on gorse plants, but it is not yet clear how much this species will contribute to control in 

Hawai„i (Hill et al. 2001). The gorse seed weevil Exapion ulicis, which feeds on gorse foliage and 

flowers for most of the year, has also been introduced to Hawai„i (Davies et al. 2008). 

Japanese Mat Rush (Juncus effuses) 

Japanese mat rush is known to occur in shallow marshes and disturbed, moist areas around the globe. 

It is able to establish monospecific stands in former agricultural areas and in disturbed forest areas 

due to vigorous clonal growth and high seed production (Smolders et al. 2008). The light seeds allow 

for easy dispersal and the dense tussocks and culms of the rush expand underground by lateral 

rhizomes. In nutrient-poor areas, mowing has proven to be an effective removal technique (Smolders 

et al. 2008). 

This species is common on the HFU. This perennial herb is naturalized along streams, ponds, and 

bogs in Hawai„i. It is known to occur between 3,280-6,562 ft (Wagner et al. 1999). From 1987-2007, 

the frequency of this species on the HFU rose by 13.7 percent (Jacobi and Price 2007). Japanese mat 

rush has also invaded native Carex bogs. Pigs eat the native sedge, removing the native plants and 

facilitating the increase and spread of Japanese mat rush (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Kikuyu Grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) 

Kikuyu grass is a fast growing grass species that forms mats and spreads by rhizomes and stolons. 

Kikuyu grass is native to eastern Africa, but has spread throughout the tropics and subtropics (Holm 

et al. 1977). It occurs primarily in cool fertile areas (Scowcroft and Jeffrey 1999) between sea level- 

6,600 ft (2,000 m) elevation. It propagates vegetatively because the small, inflorescences rarely 

produce seeds (Holm et al. 1977). It is shade-tolerant, and the root morphology may also be altered in 

shaded areas (USFWS 1996b). 

Kikuyu grass is a particular management concern because the species forms dense mats, preventing 

the establishment of native seedlings. It competes with native seedlings for nutrients, light, and water 

(Scowcroft 1992), and increases the frequency and intensity of fire (Smith and Tunison 1992). 

Kikuyu grass, in combination with gorse, was determined to be the primary fuel for wildland fires at 

the HFU in 2000. In addition, the plant can withstand defoliation by natural processes, such as frost, 

drought, hurricanes and treefalls, as well as grazing (Holm et al. 1977, USFWS 1996b). Furthermore, 

Kikuyu grass has been reported to possess allelopathic substances (Smith 1985). For these reasons, it 

is a federally listed noxious weed and according to the USFS and DOFAW it is considered a highrisk 

weed species for creating ecological and economic harm in Hawai„i. 




Kikuyu grass occupies much of the upper portion of the HFU and is particularly dense in the Upper 

Maulua Unit. Kikuyu grass occurred with the highest frequency in sampled plots during a study by 

Barnett and Simonson (2008). Between 1987-2007, the frequency of Kikuyu grass at HFU decreased 

by 27.8 percent (Jacobi and Price 2007). Applications of the herbicide glyphosate have been tested to 

control Kikuyu grass in endangered plant outplanting sites and koa outplanting sites. In addition, the 

grass-selective herbicide Fluazifop-p-butyl (Fusilade) was tested as a post-plant application (Leary, 

pers. comm.). 

Koster’s Curse (Clidemia hirta) 

Koster‟s curse is native to Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands. It has become 

naturalized in several Pacific Islands, Malaysia, India, and eastern Africa. It was first found on O„ahu 

in 1941 and subsequently spread to the other main Hawaiian Islands (DeWalt et al. 2004). On 

Hawai„i Island, infestations occur at the Waiākea Forest Reserve, Puna, Kohala Mountains, and 

above Laupāhoehoe (Smith 1992). The Koster‟s curse population at the KFU has increased rapidly 

over the last 10 years along the lower road (Ball, pers. comm.). 

This woody shrub grows to an average height of 6.6 ft. The stems are covered with red bristles and 

the leaf surfaces are pleated (Whistler 1995). Koster‟s curse can be found in open pastures, riparian 

areas, and roadsides, as well as in forest gaps and understory up to 4,921 ft elevation (DeWalt et al. 

2004). 

Several characteristics of Koster‟s curse contribute to its invasive potential in Hawaiian forests. It is 

relatively shade tolerant and has no natural enemies in Hawai‟i. It is dispersed by a variety of 

organisms including humans, birds, pigs, and mongooses (Smith 1992). Each plant produces over 

500 small berry fruits, each containing over 100 very tiny seeds. These seeds can remain dormant for 

up to 4 years. Furthermore, Koster‟s curse grows well in disturbed areas and can easily displace 

native understory species (Smith 1992). This species is considered a noxious weed by the Hawai„i 

Department of Agriculture. 

Several biological control agents have been introduced against Koster‟s curse in the Pacific. On 

Hawai„i Island, this includes Liothrips urichi, a thrip that attacks the terminal leaves and internodes 

of Koster‟s curse (Hill et al. 2001, DeWalt et al. 2004). Because L. urichi prefers to lay eggs in open 

areas, the thrip has reduced populations in open areas, but not forested habitats. A leaf-mining beetle 

(Lius poseidon) and a fungus (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) were also released throughout the 

island to control Koster‟s curse (DeWalt et al. 2004). Collectotrichum gloeosporioides has caused 

declines in Koster‟s curse on O„ahu; however, it requires repeated applications (Trujillo 2005). In 

addition, Carposina bullata (Carposinidae) feeds on flower buds and Mompha trithalama 

(Momphidae) feeds on flowers and berries (DeWalt 2006). None of these biocontrol agents have 

caused declines in Koster‟s curse abundance in Hawaiian forest understory (DeWalt 2006). Koster‟s 

curse is also susceptible to a number of herbicides (e.g., 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, Trichlopyr) (Smith 1992). 

Photinia (Photinia davidiana) 

Photinia is listed as one of Hawai„i‟s worst invasive horticultural plants by DOFAW. The shrub 

threatens mesic forests on Hawai„i and O„ahu from 4,500-6,000 ft 

(http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/hortweeds/species/phodav.htm). 




At the HFU, photinia has been shown to be spreading from its past distribution in 1987, in the upper 

elevation forests in the Nauhi Cabin area (Jacobi and Price 2007). Currently, it occurs in the forests 

both above and below Nauhi cabin, on both sides of Nauhi Stream, and at elevations 5,200-5,500 ft. 

Photinia produces a large number of red fleshy fruits that are dispersed by birds (Jacobi and Price 

2007). 

Strawberry Guava (Psidium cattleianum) 

Strawberry guava is considered one of Hawai„i‟s worst invasive plant species (Wagner et al. 1999, 

Motooka et al. 2003, Uowolo and Denslow 2008). Introduced to Hawai„i in 1825, strawberry guava 

is widely distributed in the mesic and wet areas throughout the Hawaiian Islands. It tolerates a variety 

of habitats up to 4,265 ft elevation. Strawberry guava can form dense, monotypic stands consisting of 

trees 20 ft high. These stands suppress and exclude native species (Wagner et al. 1999, Motooka et 

al. 2003). Furthermore, strawberry guava has a rapid growth rate and is shade-tolerant. The red fruits 

of strawberry guava are eaten by rodents, pigs, and birds. These animals help to disperse and 

germinate the prolific seeds. In addition, strawberry guava fruits host crop-damaging fruit flies that 

economically impact the State‟s agriculture industry (Motooka et al. 2003, Tummons 2008, Uowolo 

and Denslow 2008, USFS 2008). 

It has been estimated that strawberry guava has the potential to invade 47 percent of the land area of 

Hawai„i Island. At least 10 endangered species are restricted to habitats within this range (USFS 

2008). As a result of these factors, strawberry guava is considered an important management concern 

at the KFU and the lower elevations of HFU. In 2003, one strawberry guava plant was found along 

the Alleyway fence line, in the Middle Honohina Unit, possibly introduced by the fence construction 

crew in 1986. 

Current control methods are expensive, only temporarily effective, and cause harm to surrounding 

nontarget plants. Manually, strawberry guava can be removed by grubbing or using a weed wrench 

(USFS 2008). Strawberry guava can also be controlled using herbicides applied to foliage (triclopyr, 

dicamba, and 2,4-D), basal bark (triclopyr, 2,4-D, picloram), or cut stumps (triclopyr amine) 

(Motooka et al. 2003). Chemical and mechanical control efforts are likely most effective 3 months 

after the fruiting season because strawberry guava seeds will not survive beyond this time period 

(Uowolo and Denslow 2008). Controlling strawberry guava in natural areas on Hawai„i Island using 

only these techniques would cost roughly $18 million (Tummons 2008). 

Tectococcus ovatus, a scale insect which reduces fruit and seed production in Brazil, is currently 

being studied as a biological control agent for strawberry guava (Uowolo and Denslow 2008). This 

insect produces leaf galls, limiting growth, fruiting, and seed production. The initial release site 

proposed is the „Ōla„a Forest Reserve on the Island of Hawai‟i (USFS 2008); however, the State draft 

environmental assessment is currently pending. 

Sugi Pine (Cryptomeria japonica) 

Sugi pine is an aromatic evergreen tree found at 2,500-6,000 ft on Kaua„i, Maui, and the Island of 

Hawai„i. Large stands exist along the old Volcano Road and in South Kona. This species is grown as 

an ornamental and windbreak and the wood is used for fence posts (Elbert and Skolmen 1989). 




There are nine Sugi groves throughout the HFU (Jeffrey, pers. comm.), mostly in pasture areas, but a 

few occur in forest. The species has been shown to grow well in the upper reaches of HFU, 

especially under koa. This species was previously planted on the adjacent DHHL as buffer. Sugi pine 

is not currently recognized as invasive in Hawai„i; however, Jacobi and Price (2007) note that the 

ring of smaller individuals around the original planted sites suggests this species is spreading. Jacobi 

and Price have recommended the development of control methods for these groves. In addition, the 

Refuge Draft Restoration Management Plan (1996) aims to “to prevent the spread of exotic tree 

plantations,” such as Sugi pine, in order to restore native forests. Roughly 42.8 ac, mostly in the 

Hakalau Tract, are planned to be removed and replaced with native trees over the next 5-10 years 

(NRCS 2005). Sugi pine groves are also potential roosting sites for the endangered „ōpe„ape„a 

(Menard, pers. comm.). Because of this unusual circumstance, care needs to be taken with whatever 

methods are used to remove the groves. Because Sugi pines are not highly invasive, they are a lower 

priority. 

Sweet Vernalgrass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) 

Sweet vernalgrass was ubiquitous during surveys by Stone et al. (1991) and Barnett and Simonson 

(2008). It was less often found in closed-canopy areas. Jacobi and Price (2007) stated that this 

species is “relatively ubiquitous and probably not a major concern for Refuge management.” It is 

easily shaded out by native vegetation (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

Weeping Grass or Meadow Ricegrass (Ehrharta stipoides) 

Weeping grass or meadow ricegrass is found below 4,650 ft in the openings of wet forests and other 

moist areas (Wagner et al. 1999). At the HFU, this perennial grass is widespread below 5,000 ft in 

the shaded understory (Jacobi and Price 2007, Barnett and Simonson 2008). Weeping grass has 

increased in frequency at the Refuge rising from 69.9 percent in 1987 and to 80.3 percent in 2007 

(Jacobi and Price 2007). This species spreads by seed and likely arrived at HFU by a shoelace 

(Barnett and Simonson 2008). 

Australian Tree Fern (Cyathea cooperi) 

The Australian tree fern was introduced to Hawai„i as an ornamental. It is a large tree fern up to 40 ft 

tall with large triangular leaves, and scaly brown stems that fall off when dead, leaving oval scars. 

The leaf stalks have white hairs unlike native hāpu„u, which have red hairs. The trunk does not have 

the thick, soft fiber wrapping like the native hāpu„u. The fronds form a thick overstory preventing 

germination and growth of native plants. The spores are wind-dispersed and can travel over 7 miles 

from the parent plant. It is fast growing and aggressively outcompetes native plants in the forest 

understory. It displaces native ferns, including the slower growing hāpu„u. The Pacific Islands 

Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) Assessment rates this plant as (8) “high risk.” It is known on almost all of 

the main Hawaiian Islands, and on Hawai„i Island it is spreading from urban areas in Volcano, 

Laupāhoehoe, and other areas into native forests. Although this species is not currently found in 

either unit of the Hakalau Forest NWR, it is a species to watch for and remove immediately if 

detected. 


4.12.7 Mollusks 



Over 70 nonnative snail species (Staples and Cowie 2001) and 12 nonnative slug species (Joe and 

Daehler 2008) have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. Herbivorous mollusks can impact 

native plants and agricultural crops. These mollusks can have a large impact on plant communities by 

affecting seedling survival, shifting species abundances, and influencing succession. Invasive slug 

herbivory can harm native plant outplantings and restoration efforts, thus requiring local control at 

these sites (Joe and Daehler 2008). In addition, some nonnative mollusks prey on native land snails, 

as well as compete with native species for limited resources (Staples and Cowie 2001). Slugs have 

been seen girdling endangered plant seedlings and saplings and feeding on endangered plant flowers 

and fruit (Jeffrey, pers. comm.). 

One nonnative land snail and three nonnative slugs were found at the HFU during invertebrate 

surveys. The garlic snail was abundant, especially in the Hakalau Tract, and may be a competitor for 

native birds and a predator to other native snails. Arion intermedius (glade slug) was also very 

common. These species were more abundant in areas disturbed by pigs (Howarth et al. 2003). 

4.13 Special Designation Areas 

The staff conducted a wilderness review (Appendix D), the results of which indicate that the HFU 

contains resources and lands that meet the basic criteria for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. The lower elevations of Hakalau Forest NWR will be designated as a 

Wilderness Study Area and additional information will be gathered and evaluated before a final 

determination is made (see Appendix D). The Service will make final wilderness recommendations 

for all Hawaiian and Pacific Island NWRs after the CCPs for all refuges have been completed. 


Ahumada, J.A., D. LaPointe, and M.D. Samuel. 2004. Modeling the population dynamics of Culex 

quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae), along an elevational gradient in Hawaii. Journal of Medical 

Entomology 41(6):1157-1170. 

American Bird Conservancy. 2004. "Managed" cat colonies: the wrong solution to a tragic problem. 

Available at: http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/colonies.pdf. Accessed 

April 21, 2008. 

Anderson, S., J., C. P. Stone, and P. Higashino, K. 1992. Distribution and spread of nonnative plants 

in Kipahulu Valley, Haleakala National Park, above 2,300 feet elevation. In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, 

and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and 

Research. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 887 

pages. 

Atkinson, I.A.E. 1977. A reassessment of factors, particularly Rattus rattus L., that influenced the 

decline of endemic forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 31:109-133. 




Atkinson, I.A.E. 1985. The spread of commensal species of Rattus to Oceanic islands and their 

effects on island avifaunas. Pp. 3581-526 in Moors, P. J. (editor). Conservation of island birds. 

International Council for Bird Preservation Technical Publication No. 3. Cambridge, UK. 

Atkinson, I.A.E. and T.J. Atkinson. 2000. Land vertebrates as invasive species on islands served by 

the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. In: Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical 

Review and Draft Regional Strategy. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Samoa. 

19-84. 

Atkinson, C.T., K.L., Woods, R.J. Dusek, L.S. Sileo, and W. M. Iko. 1995. Wildlife disease and 

conservation in Hawaii: Pathogenicity of avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) in experimentally 

infected Iiwi (Vestiaria coccinea). Parasitology 111:S59-S69. 

Atkinson, C.T., J.K. Lease, R.J Dusek, B.M. Drake, and N.P. Shema. 2001. Pathogenicity, 

serological responses, and diagnosis of experimental and natural malarial infections in native 

Hawaiian thrushes. The Condor 103:209–218. 

Atkinson, C.T., J.K. Lease, R.J. Dusek, and M.D. Samuel. 2005. Prevalence of Pox-Like Lesions and 

Malaria in Forest Bird Communities on Leeward Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawaii. The Condor 

107:537–546. 

Atkinson, C.T., N.J. Thomas, D. B. Hunter. Parasitic Diseases Of Wild Birds. 2008. Wiley- 

Blackwell Publishing. 

Baldwin, P.H. 1950. Occurrence and behavior of the Hawaiian bat. Journal of Mammalogy, 

31: 455–456. 

Ball, Donna L. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, Pacific Islands. Personal 

Communication. May 2008. 

Banko, P.C. and R.W. Peck. 2008. Annual Summary Report of Research (in fulfillment of Special 

Condition 28 of Special Use Permit No. 12516-06024). Biological Resources Division, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

Barnett, D.T. and S. Simonson. 2008. An assessment of non-native plant species distribution 

at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Barr, T.C. 1968. Cave ecology and the evolution of troglobites. Evolutionary Biology 2:35-102. 

Belwood, J.J. and J.H. Fullard 1984. Ecolocation and foraging behaviour in the Hawaiian hoary bat, 

Lasiurus cinereus semotus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:2113-2120. 

Benning T.L., D. LaPointe, C.T. Atkinson, and P.M. Vitousek. 2002. Interactions of climate change 

with biological invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: Modeling the fate of endemic birds 

using a geographic information system. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (22):14246–14249. 




Blossey, B. and R. Notzold. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive 

nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83(5):887-889. 

Boake, C.R.B., D.K. Andreadis, and A. Witzel. 2000. Behavioural isolation between two closely 

related Hawaiian Drosophila species: the role of courtship. Animal Behaviour 60(4): 495–501. 

Bonaccorso, F. 2008. Annual Summary Report: Hawaiian Hoary Bat Occupancy in Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge. Special Use Permit: 12516-07008. 

Brisbin, I.L., Jr., H.D. Pratt, and T.B. Mowbray. 2002. American Coot (Fulica Americana) and 

Hawaiian Coot (Fulica alai). In The Birds of North America, No. 697. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Browne, R., C.R. Griffin, P.R. Chang, M. Hubley, and A.E. Martin. 1993. Genetic divergence among 

populations of the Hawaiian duck, Laysan duck, and mallard. Auk 110:49-56. 

Burgess, S. 2005. Phylogeography and Conservation Genetics of the Elepaio. A Dissertation 

Submitted to the Graduate Division of the University of Hawaii. 

Burton, P.J. 1982. The effect of temperature and light on Metrosideros polymorpha seed 

germination. Pacific Science 36:229-240. 

Cabin, R.J., S.G. Weller, D.H. Lorence, T.W. Flynn, A.K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, L.J. Hadway. 2000. 

Effects of Long-Term Ungulate Exclusion and Recent Alien Species Control on the Preservation and 

Restoration of a Hawaiian Tropical Dry Forest. Conservation Biology 14(2):439–453. 

Caley, P. 1997. Movements, activity patterns and habitat use of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a tropical 

habitat. Wildlife Research 24:77-87. 

Camp, R.J., T. Pratt, M. Gorreson, J.J. Jeffrey, B.L. Woodworth. 2010. Population trends of Forest 

Birds At Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hawai'i. Hawai„i Cooperative Studies Unit, 

University of Hawai„i at Hilo, Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Resources Center, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge. The Condor. 112(2): 196–212. 

Camp, R.J., M. Gorresen, B.L. Woodworth, and T.K. Pratt. 2003. Forest bird distribution, density 

and trends at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii. Report to Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Hawaii Forest Bird Interagency Database Project, 

Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, USGS. 

Carothers, J.H. 2001. Age-related diet differences in two nectar-feeding drepanidines: The 

„Akohekohe and the „Apapane. Studies in Avian Biology 22:213-217. 

Carrion, V., C.J. Donlan, K. Campbell, C. Lavoie, and F. Cruz. 2007. Feral donkey (Equus asinus) 

eradications in the Galapagos. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(2):437-445. 




Carter, A.T, R.J. Dusek, K.L. Woods, and W.M. Iko. 2000. PATHOGENICITY OF AVIAN 

MALARIA IN EXPERIMENTALLY INFECTED HAWAII AMAKIHI. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 36(2):197–204. 

Carter, A.T., J.K. Lease, R.J. Dusek, and M.D. Samuel. 2005. Prevalence of pox-like lesions and 

malaria in forest bird communities on leeward Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii. The Condor 

107:537–546. 

Christiansen, K.A. 1982. The zoogeography of cave Collembola east of the Great Plains. NSS 

Bulletin 44:32-41. 

Clements, D.R. and C.C. Daehler. 2007. Introducing a New Series: Biology and Impacts of Pacific 

Island Invasive Species. Pacific Science 61(1):1. 

Cole, F.R., L.L. Loope, A.C. Medeiros, J.A. Raikes and C.S. Wood. 1995. Conservation Implications 

of Introduced Game Birds in High-Elevation Hawaiian Shrubland. Conservation Biology 9(2):306- 

313. 

Coqui Frog Working Group. 2006. Coqui Frog Control for Homeowners, methods to Stop the Spread 

of Coqui Frog in Hawaii. Available at: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/MP-5.pdf. 

Accessed June 16, 2008. 

Cordell, S., G. Goldstein , D. Mueller-Dombois, D. Webb, and P.M. Vitousek. 1998. Physiological 

and morphological variation in Metrosideros polymorpha, a dominant Hawaiian tree species, along 

an altitudinal gradient: the role of phenotypic plasticity. Oecologia 113:188–196. 

Courchamp, F., J. Chapuis, and M. Pascal. 2003. Mammal invaders on islands: impact, control and 

control impact. Biol. Rev. 78:347–383. 

Cruz, F., Donlan, C.J., Campbell, K., Carrion, V., 2005. Conservation action in the Galapagos: feral 

pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biological Conservation 121, 473–478. 

Culver, D.C., T.C. Kane and D.W. Fong. 1995. Adaptation and natural selection in caves: the 

evolution of Gammarus minus. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 223 pp. 

D‟Antonio, C. M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire 

cycle, and the global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. 

D‟Antonio, C.M., J.T. Tunison, and R.K. Loh. 2000. Variation in the impact of exotic grasses on 

native plant composition in relation to fire across an elevation gradient in Hawaii. Austral Ecology 

25:507-522. 

Davies, J.T., J.E. Ireson, and G.R. Allen. 2008. The phenology and impact of the gorse seed weevil, 

Exapion ulicis, on gorse, Ulex europaeus, in Tasmania. Biological Control 45:85–92. 

DeWalt, S.J. 2006. Population dynamics and potential for biological control of an exotic invasive 

shrub in Hawaiian rainforests. Biological Invasions 8(5):1145-1158. 




DeWalt, S.J., J.S. Denslow, and K. Ickes. 2004. Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion 

of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecology 85(2):471-482. 

Denslow, J., S. 2003. Weeds in paradise: Thoughts on the invasibility of tropical islands. 

Annual of the Missouri Botanic Gardens 90:119-127. 

Diong, C.H. 1982. Population Biology and Management of the Feral Pig (Sus scrofa L.) in Kipahulu 

Valley, Maui. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Division of the University of Hawaii. 

Drake, D. 1993. Germination requirements of Metrosideros polymorpha, the dominant tree of 

Hawaiian lava flows and rain forest. Biotropica 25(4):461-467. 

Elbert, L.L. Jr. and R.G. Skolmen. 1989. Common Forest Trees of Hawaii (Native and Introduced). 

USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 679. 377 pp. 

Ellis, S., K. Hughes, C. Kuehler, R. Lacy, and U.S. Seal. 1992. 'Alala, Akohekohe, and 

Palila Population and Habitat Viability Assessment Reports. Captive Breeding Specialist Group, 

IUCN/Species Survival Commission. Hilo, Hawai„i. 

Engilis, A., Jr., K.J. Uyehara, and J. G. Giffin. 2002. Hawaiian Duck (Anas wyvilliana). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 694. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Engilis, A., Jr., and M. Naughton. 2004. U.S. Pacific Islands Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Portland, OR. 

Engilis, A., Jr., and T.K. Pratt. 1993. Status and population trends of Hawaii‟s native waterbirds, 

1977-1987. Wilson Bulletin 105:142-158. 

Evans, K., D. Woodside and M. Bruegmann. 1994. A Survey of Endangered Waterbirds on Maui and 

O'ahu and Assessment of Potential Impacts to Waterbirds from the Proposed Hawaii Geothermal 

Project Transmission Corridor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Ecological Services. Honolulu, HI. 

Fancy, S.G., J.T. Nelson, P. Harrity, J. Kuhn, M. Kuhn, C. Kuehler, J.G. Giffin. 2001. Reintroduction 

and translocation of 'Oma'o: A comparison of methods. Studies in Avian Biology 22:347-353. 

Fancy, S.G., S.A. Sandin, M.H. Reynolds, and J.D. Jacobi. 1995. Distribution and population status 

of the endangered „Akiapōlāa„u. Pacific Science 50:355-362. 

Fancy, S.G. and C.J. Ralph. 1997. Apapane (Himatione sanguinea), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds 

of North America Online. 

Fancy, S.G. and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Iiwi (Vestiaria coccinea), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. 




Federal Register. 2003a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species from the Island of Lanai, HI; Final Rule Department of the 

Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 68(6):1219-1274. 

Federal Register. 2003b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 

Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the Island of Hawaii, HI; Final Rule Department of the 

Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 68(127):39624-39761. 

Federal Register. 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for 11 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian Islands; Proposed Rule 

Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dated August 15, 2006. Volume 71, 

Number 157:46994- 47054. 

Federal Register. 2006b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Critical Habitat 

Designations; Proposed Rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dated September 12, 2006. Volume 

71, Number 176:53817-53832. 

Federal Register. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species 

That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on 

Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 72(234):69033-69106. 

Federal Register. 2008a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed 

Reclassification of the Hawaiian Hawk or Io (Buteo solitarius) From Endangered to Threatened; 

Proposed Rule To Remove the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. 73(152):45680-45689. 

Federal Register. 2008b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian Islands. 73(234):73794-73895. 

Fennah, R.G. 1973. The Cavernicolous Fauna of Hawaiian Lava Tubes, 4. Two New Blind Oliarus 

(Fulgoroidea: Cixiidae) Pacific Insects 15(1):181-184. 

Foote, D. 1999. Rediscovery of Drosophila heteroneura on the Island of Hawai„i. Bishop Museum 

Occasional Papers 64:27-28. 

Freed, L. A., R. L. Cann. 2010. Misleading Trend Analysis and Decline Of Hawaiian Forest Birds. 

Department of Zoology, University of Hawai„i at Manoa, Department of Cell and Molecular 

Biology, University of Hawai‟i at Manoa. The Condor. 112(2): 213–221. 

Freed, L.A., R.L. Cann, G. R. Bodner. 2008. Incipient Extinction of a Major Population of the 

Hawaii Akepa Owing to Introduced Species. Department of Zoology, University of Hawai„i at 

Manoa, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Hawai‟i at Manoa. Evolutionary 

Ecology Research. 10: 931–965. 

Freed, L.A. 2001. Significance of old-growth forest to the Hawai„i „Ākepa. Studies in Avian Biology 

22:173-184. 




Fretz, J.S. 2002. Scales of food availability for an endangered insectivore, the Hawaii Akepa. Auk 

119:166-174. 

Friday, J.B. and D.A. Herbert. 2006. Metrosideros polymorpha („ōhi„a lehua). Species Profiles for 

Pacific Island Agroforestry. 

Fullard, J.H. 2001. Auditory sensitivity of Hawaiian moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and selective 

predation by the Hawaiian hoary bat (Chiroptera: Lasiurus cinereus semotus) Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London B. 268:1375-1380. 

Gambino, P. and L.L. Loope. 1992. Yellowjacket Vespula pensylvanica biology and abatement in the 

National Parks of Hawaii. Cooperative National Park Research Study Unit Technical Report 

86: 1–41. 

Goldsmith, S. 2007. Density of Longhorned Beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) Differs at Different 

Elevations in Hawaiian Montane Forest. The Southwestern Naturalist 52(3):364–370. 

Gorresen, P.M., R.J. Camp, T.K. Pratt, and B.L. Woodworth. 2005. Status of forest birds in the 

Central Windward Region of Hawaii Island: population trends and power analyses. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Open-File Report 2005-1441, 81 p. 

Gorresen, P.M., R.J. Camp, J.L. Klavitter, and T.K. Pratt. 2008. Abundance, distribution and 

population trend of the Hawaiian hawk: 1998-2007. Hawai„i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical 

Report. University of Hawai„i at Hilo. 

Griffin C.R., W.C. Peter, P.W. Paton, and T.S. Baskett. 1998. Breeding Ecology and Behavior of the 

Hawaiian Hawk: The Condor 100(4):654-662. 

Haines, W. and D. Foote. 2005. Rapid assessment of invertebrate fauna of the KFU of Hakalau 

National Wildlife Refuge. Hawai„i Cooperative Studies Unit, Technical Report HCSU- 001. 

University of Hawai„i at Hilo. 93 pp. 

Harrison, C.S., M.B. Naughton, and S.I. Fefer. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. Pp. 513-526 in Croxall, J. P., P. G. H. Evans and R. W. 

Schreiber (eds.). Status and conservation of the World‟s seabirds. International Council for Bird 

Preservation Technical Publication No. 2. Cambridge, UK. 

Hart, P.J. 2000. Causes and correlates of rarity in the endangered Hawai„i Akepa. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Hart, P.J. 2001. Demographic comparisons between high and low density populations of Hawai„i 

„Ākepa. Studies in Avian Biology 22:185-193. 

Hart P.J. and L.A. Freed. 2003. Structure and dynamics of mixed-species in a Hawaiian rain forest. 

The Auk 120(1):82–95. 

Harvey, N.C., S.M. Farabaugh, and B.B. Druker. 2002. Effects of Early Rearing Experience on Adult 

Behavior and Nesting in Captive Hawaiian Crows (Corvus hawaiiensis). Zoo Biology 21:59-75. 




Hawaii Ant Group. 2007. Hawaii Ant Plan. Available at: 

http://www.hawaiiantgroup.org/hawaiiantplan/. Accessed August 4, 2008. 

Hawaii Audubon Society (HAS). 2005. Hawaii‟s Birds: 6th Edition. Island Heritage: Waipahu, 

Hawaii. 

Hawaii Invasive Species Council. 2007. Draft minutes for the July 19, 2007 Meeting. Available at 

http://www.hawaiiinvasivespecies.org/hisc/. Accessed June 6, 2008. 

Hays, W.S.T. and S. Conant. 2007. Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive species. 1. A 

worldwide review of effects of the small Indian mongoose, Herpestes javanicus (Carnivora: 

Herpestidae). Pacific Science 61(1):3-16. 

Hess, S.C., J.J. Jeffrey, D.L. Ball, and L. Babich. 2006. Efficacy of Feral Pig Removals at Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Hawai„i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-004. 

University of Hawaii at Hilo. 64 pp. 

Hight, S.D., I. Horiuchi, M.D. Vitorino, C. Wikler, and J.H. Pedrosa-Macedo. 2003. Biology, host 

specificity tests, and risk assessment of the sawfly Heteroperreyia hubrichi, a potential biological 

control agent of Schinus terebinthifolius in Hawaii. BioControl 48:461–476. 

Hill, R.L., G. Markin, G., A.H. Gourlay, S.V. Fowler, and E. Yoshioka. 2001. Host Range, Release, 

and Establishment of Sericothrips staphylinus Haliday (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) as a Biological 

Control Agent for Gorse, Ulex europaeus L. (Fabaceae), in New Zealand and Hawaii. Biological 

Control 21:63–74. 

Hobbs, R. J., and S. E. Humphries. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and 

management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9(4):761-770. 

Holm, L.G. D.L. Plucknett, J.V. Pancho, J.P. Herberger. 1972. The World's Worst Weeds: 

Distribution and Biology. University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, HI. 

Hoof, J., L. Sack, D.T.Webb, and E.T. Nilsen. 2007. Contrasting Structure and Function of 

Pubescent and Glabrous Varieties of Hawaiian Metrosideros polymorpha (Myrtaceae) at High 

Elevation. Biotropica 40(1):113–118. 

Howarth, F.G. 1973. The Cavernicolous Fauna of Hawaiian Lava Tubes, 1. Introduction. Pacific 

Insects 15(1):139-151. 

Howarth, F.G. 1979. Neogeoaceolian Habitats on New Lava Flow on Hawaii Island: An Ecosystem 

Supported by Windborne Debris. Pacific Insects 20(2-3):133-144. 

Howarth, F.G. 1983. Ecology of Cave Arthropods. Ann. Rev. Entomology 28:365-389. 

Howarth, F.G. 1991. Hawaiian Cave Faunas: Macroevolution on Young Islands. Pp. 285 295 In: E.C. 

Dudley (Ed.). The Unity of Evolutionary Biology. Dioscorides Press, Portland Or. Vol. 1, 588 pp. 




Howarth, F.G and F.D. Stone. 1990. Elevated carbon dioxide levels in Bayliss Cave, Australia: 

Implications for the evolution of obligate cave species. Pacific Science. 44:207-218. 

Howarth, F.G and F.D. Stone. 1998. Field Trip Report Preliminary Assessment of the Cave 

Resources within the Kona National Wildlife Refuge, 28-29 November 1998. Hawaii Biological 

Survey, Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum. 

Howarth, F.G. and W.P. Mull. 1992. Hawaiian Insects and Their Kin. University of Hawaii Press, 

Honolulu. 

Howarth, F.G., D. Preston, F. Moretzsohn, and M. McShane. 2003. Invertebrate Survey of the 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii. Hawaii Biological Survey, Bishop Museum, 

Hawaii. 

Howarth, F.G., S. James, W. McDowell, D. Preston, C. Imada. 2007. Identification of roots in lava 

tube caves using molecular techniques: implications for conservation of cave arthropod faunas. 

Journal of Insect Conservation 11(3):251-261. 

Ikuma, E.K., D. Sugano, and J.K. Mardfin. 2002. Filling the gaps in the fight against invasive 

species. Honolulu, HI: Legislative Reference Bureau. 

Jacobi J.D., G. Gerrish, D. Mueller-Dombois. 1983. „Ohi„a Dieback in Hawai„i: Vegetation Changes 

in Permanent Plots. Pacific Science 37(4):327-337. 

Jacobi, J.D. and J. Price. 2007. Changes in Distribution and Abundance of Weed Populations at the 

HFU of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge between 1987 and 2007. U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Jacobs, D.S. 1994. Distribution and abundance of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, 

Lasiurus cinereus semotus, on the island of Hawaii. Pacific Science 48(2): 193–200. 

James, H.F. and S.L. Olson. 2003. A giant new species of nukupuu (Fringillidae: Drepanidini: 

Hemignathus) from the island of Hawaii. Auk 120(4): 970-981. 

James, H.F. T.W. Stafford, D.W. Steadman, S.L. Olson, P.S. Martin, A.J.T. Jull, P.C. McCoy. 1987. 

Radiocarbon Dates on Bones of Extinct Birds from Hawaii. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America 84(8): 2350-2354. 

Jeffrey, John J. Wildlife Biologist, Hakalau Forest NWR. Personal Communication. May 2008. 

Jeffrey, J., B. Horiuchi, and R. Wass. 2001. Annual Report, Endangered Plant Propagation and 

Outplanting at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to USFWS and DLNR. 

Jenkins, C.D., S.A. Temple, C. van Riper, and W.R. Hansen. 1989. Disease-related aspects of 

conserving the endangered Hawaiian Crow. International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) 

Technical Publications 10:77-87. 




Jiu, M., X. Zhou, L. Tong. 2007. Vector-virus mutualism accelerates population increase of an 

invasive whitefly. PLoS ONE 2(1):182. 

Joe, S.M. and C.C. Daehler. 2008. Invasive slugs as under-appreciated obstacles to rare plant 

restoration: evidence from the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Invasions 10:245–255. 

Johnson, M.T., P.A. Follett, A.D. Taylor, V.P. Jones. 2005. Impacts of biological control and 

invasive species on a non-target native Hawaiian insect. Oecologia (2005) 142: 529–540. 

Julien, M.H., J.K. Scott, W. Orapa, Q. Paynter. 2007. History, opportunities and challenges for 

biological control in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific islands. Crop Protection 26:255–265. 

Kapono, M.K. 2008. Comparative nutritive values of two nectar-producing forages on Mauna Kea, 

Hawai‟i, 2007 Annual Report. Submitted to Richard Wass, Refuge Manager, Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Kauahikaua, J., D.R. Sherrod, K.V. Cashman, C. Heliker, K. Hon, T.N. Mattox, and J.A. Johnson. 

2004. Hawaiian Lava-Flow Dynamics During the Pu„u „Ō„ō-Kūpaianaha Eruption: A Tale of Two 

Decades. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1676. pp.63-88. 

Kepler, C.B. and J.M. Scott. 1990. Notes on the distribution and behavior of the 

endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), 1964–1983. Elepaio 50: 59-64. 

Kern, M.D. and C. van Riper, III. 1984. Altitudinal variations in nests of the Hawaiian honeycreeper 

Hemignathus virens virens. Condor 86:443–454. 

Kilpatrick, A. M. 2006. Facilitating the evolution of resistance to avian malaria in Hawaiian birds 

Biological Conservation 128:475–485. 

Kilpatrick, A.M., D.A. LaPointe, D.A., C.T. Atkinson, B.L. Woodworth, J.K. Lease, M.E. Reiter, K. 

Gross. 2006. Effects of chronic avian malaria (Plasmodium relictum) infection on the reproductive 

success of the Hawaii amakihi (Hemignathus virens). The Auk 123(3):764–774. 

Kinzie III, R. Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Personal communication. August 2008. 

Kingsford, R.T. 2010. Crisis For Hawaiian Forest Birds Or Time FOr Optimism? Australian 

Wetlands and Rivers Centre, School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of 

New South Wales. The Condor. 112(2):193–195. 

Klavitter J.L. and J.M Marzluff. 2007. Methods to correct for density inflation biases in Hawaiian 

Hawk surveys using attractant calls. Journal of Raptor Research 41(2):81–89. 

Klavitter J. L., J.M. Marzluff, and M.S. Vekasy. 2003. Abundance and Demography of the Hawaiian 

Hawk: Is Delisting Warranted? The Journal of Wildlife Management 67(1):165-176. 

Krajick, K. 2005. ECOLOGY: Winning the War Against Island Invaders. Science Magazine. 2 

December 2005. 




Kraus F. and E.W. Campbell. 2002. Human-mediated escalation of a formerly eradicable problem: 

the invasion of Caribbean frogs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Invest 4:327–332. 

Kraus, F., E.W. Campbell, A. Allison, and T. Pratt. 1999. Eleutherodactylus frog introductions to 

Hawaii. Herpetological Review 30(1): 21-25. 

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. 

LaPointe, D. 2000. Avian malaria in Hawaii: the distribution, ecology and vector potential of forestdwelling 

mosquitoes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

LaPointe, D.A., M.L. Goff, and C.T. Atkinson. 2005. Comparative susceptibility of introduced 

forest-dwelling mosquitoes in Hawaii to avian malaria Plasmodium relictum. J. Parasitol. 

91: 843-849. 

LaPointe, D. A., M.L. Goff, C. T. Atkinson. Thermal Constratins to the Sporogonic Development 

and Altitudinal Distribution of Avian Malaria Plasmodium Relictum in Hawai„i. USGS Pacific 

Island Ecosystems Research Center, Kilauea Field Station. J. Parasitology. 96(2), 2010, pp. 318– 

324. 

LaRosa, A.M. 1992. The status of banana poka in Hawaii. Pages 271–299 In: C.P. Stone, C.W. 

Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management 

and Research. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

887 pages. 

Leary, J.K., P. W. Singleton, D.Borthakur. 2004. Canopy Nodulation of the Endemic Tree Legume 

Acacia koa in the Mesic Forests of Hawaii. Ecology 85(11): 3151-3157. 

Leary, J.K., N.V. Hue. P.W. Singleton, D. Borthakur. 2006. The major features of an infestation by 

the invasive weed legume gorse (Ulex europaeus) on volcanic soils in Hawaii. Biol Fertil Soils 

42:215–223. 

Lepson, J.K. and L.A. Freed. 1995. Variation in male plumage and behavior of the Hawaii Akepa. 

Auk 112: 402-414. 

Lepson, J.K. and L.A. Freed. 1997. Akepa (Loxops coccineus), The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online. 

Lepson, J.K. and B.L. Woodworth. 2002. Hawaii Creeper (Oreomystis mana), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online. 




Lindqvist, C., T.J. Motley, J.J. Jeffrey, and V.A. Albert. 2003. Cladogenesis and reticulation in the 

Hawaiian endemic mints (Lamiaceae). Cladistics 19:480–495. 

Lindsey, G.D., E.A. Vanderwerf, H. Baker and P.E. Baker. 1998. Hawaii Amakihi (Hemignathus 

virens), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online. 

Loope, L. and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1989. Characteristics of invaded islands, with special reference 

to Hawaii. In Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. J. Drake et al. eds. John Wiley & Sons. 

SCOPE 37: 257-280. 

Loope, L.L. R.J. Nagata, and A.C. Medeiros. 1992. Alien Plant in Haleakala National Park. pp. 551 

In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of 

Hawaii: Management and Research. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University 

of Hawaii, Honolulu. 887 pages. 

Macmillen, R.E. and F.L. Carpenter. 1980. Evening roosting flights of the honeycreepers Himatione 

sanguinea and Vestiaria coccinea on Hawai„i. Auk 97: 28-37. 

Masurat, I. and G. Masurat. 1996. Fifteen Years of Captive Breeding Chamaeleo jacksonii 

Boulenger, 1896 (Sauria: Chamaeleonidae). Salamandra 32(1):1-12. 

Menard T. 2001. Activity patterns of the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) in relation 

to reproductive time periods. Master‟s thesis, University of Hawaii, Hawaii. 

Messing, R.H., M.N. Tremblay, E.B. Mondor, R.G. Foottit, K.S. Pike. 2007. Invasive aphids attack 

native Hawaiian plants. Biol Invasions 9:601–607. 

Middleton, B.A. 2006. Invasive Species and Climate Change. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2006-1153. 2 pp. 


McClung. 2005. Hawaii‟s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department of Land and 

Natural Resources. Honolulu, HI. 

Moors, P.J. and I.A.E. Atkinson. 1984. Predation on seabirds by introduced animals, and factors 

affecting its severity. Pp. 667-690 in Croxall, J. P., P. G. H. Evans and R. W. Schreiber (eds.). Status 

and conservation of the World‟s seabirds. International Council for Bird Preservation Technical 

Publication No. 2. Cambridge, UK. 

Mostello, C.S. 1996. Diets of the Pueo, the Barn owl, the cat, and the mongoose in Hawai„i: evidence 

for competition. Master‟s Thesis. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. 

Motooka, P., L. Castro, D. Nelson, G. Nagai, and L. Ching. 2003. Weeds of Hawaii‟s Pastures and 

Natural Areas; An Identification and Management Guide. College of Tropical Agriculture and 

Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 




Moulton, M. P., K.E. Miller, and E.A. Tillman. 2001. Patterns of success among introduced birds in 

the Hawaiian Islands. Studies in Avian Biology 22:31-46. 

Mounce, H.L. 2008. What Threat Do Native Avian Predators Pose To Hawaiian Honeycreepers? 

Two Cases Of Predation By Pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis). „Elepaio 68(3):19-21. 

Mountainspring S. and J.M. Scott. 1985. Interspecific Competition Among Hawaiian Forest Birds 

Ecological Monographs 55(2):219-239. 

Mueller- Dombois, D. 1983. Canopy Dieback and Sucessional Processes in Pacific Forests. Pacific 

Science 37(4):317-323. 

Mueller- Dombois, D. and F.R. Fosberg. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific Islands. 

Springer- Verlag: New York. 

National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) & IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist 

Group (ISSG). 2006. Equus asinus (mammal). Global Invasive Species Database. Available at 

http://www.invasivespecies.net/database/species/ecology.asp?si=639&fr=1&sts=sss. Accessed 

June 11, 2008. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. Hakalau Forest Conservation Plan. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 

7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 

June 19, 2008. 

Nelson, J.T., B.L. Woodworth, S.G. Fancy, G.D. Lindsey, and E.J. Tweed. 2002. Effectiveness of 

rodent control and monitoring techniques for a montane rainforest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:82- 

92. 

Nishida, G.M. and N.L. Evenhuis. 2000. Arthropod pests of conservation significance in the Pacific: 

A preliminary assessment of selected groups. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical Review 

and Draft Regional Strategy. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Samoa: 115-142. 

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 365:1-59. 

Olson, S.L. and H.F. James. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new species of flightless birds 

from the Hawaiian Islands: Part I. Non-Passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 45:1-88. 

Olson, S.L. and A.C. Ziegler. 1995. Remains of land birds from Lisianski Island, with observations 

on the terrestrial avifauna of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 49:111-125. 

Palmer, D.D. 2002. Taxonomic Notes on Hawaiian Pteridophytes. American Fern Journal 

92(2):97-104. 

Palmer, D.D. 2003. Hawaii‟s Ferns and Fern Allies. University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, HI. 




Pattison, R.R., G. Goldstein, and A. Ares. 1998. Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthesis of 

invasive and native Hawaiian rainforest species. Oecologia 117(4):449-459. 

Pejchar, L. 2004. Ecology of an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper and implications for 

conservation on private land. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Pejchar, L. 2005. Home range size varies with habitat type in a Hawaiian honeycreeper: implications 

for native Acacia koa forestry. Ecological Applications 15:1053-1061. 

Pejchar, L. and D. Press. 2006. Achieving conservation objectives through production forestry: The 

case of Acacia koa on Hawaii island. Environmental Science & Policy 9:439-447. 

Pejchar, L. and J. Jeffrey. 2005. Sap-Feeding Behavior and Tree Selection in the Endangered 

Akiapolaau (Hemignathus munroi) in Hawaii. The Auk 121(2):448-456. 

Pimental, D. R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs 

associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 273-288. 

Polhemus, D.A. 1993. Damsels in distress: a review of conservation status of Hawaiian Megelagrion 

damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 

3:343-349. 

Polhemus, D.A and A. Asquith. 1996. Hawaiian Damselflies: A Field Identification Guide. 

Bishop Museum Press: Honolulu, HI. 

Pratt, H.D., P.L. Bruner, and D.G. Berrett. 1987. The birds of Hawaii and the tropical Pacific. 

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Pratt, T.K., S.G. Fancy, C.K. Harada, G.D. Lindsey, and J.D. Jacobi. 1994. Identifying sex and age of 

Akiapolaau. Wilson Bulletin 106:421-430. 

Pratt, T.K., P.C. Banko, S.G. Fancy, G.D. Lindsey, J.D. Jacobi. 1998. Status and management of the 

Palila, an endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper, 1987-1996. Pacific Conservation Biology 

3(4):330-340. 

Pratt, T.K., S.G. Fancy, C.K. Harada, G.D. Lindsey, and J.D. Jacobi. 1994. Identifying sex and age of 

Akiapolaau. Wilson Bulletin 106:421-430. 

Pratt, T.K., S.G. Fancy, and C.J. Ralph. 2001a. „Akiapōlā„au (Hemignathus munroi) and Nukupu„u 

(Hemignathus lucidus). In The Birds of North America, No. 600 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Pratt, T.K., J.C. Simon, B.P. Farm, K.E. Berlin, and J.R. Kowalski. 2001b. Home range and 

territoriality of two Hawaiian honeycreepers, the „Ākohekohe and Maui Parrotbill. Condor 

103:745-755. 

Pratt, T.K., C. T. Atkinson, P.C. Banko, J.D. Jacobi, B. L. Woodworth. Conservation Biology Of 

Hawaiian Forest Birds: Implications For Island Avifauna. 2009. Yale University Press. 




Price, J. and J.D. Jacobi 2007. Rapid assessment of vegetation at six potential „Alalā release sites on 

the island of Hawai„i. Hawai„i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-006. University of 

Hawaii at Hilo. 37 pp. 

Ralph C.J. and S.G. Fancy. 1994a. Demography and movements of the endangered akepa and Hawaii 

creeper. Wilson Bulletin 106(4):615-628. 

Ralph C. J. and S.G. Fancy. 1994b. Demography and Movements of the Omao (Myadestes obscurus) 

The Condor 96(2):503-511. 

Ralph, C. J. and S.G. Fancy. 1995. Demography and movements of „Apapane and „I„iwi in Hawai„i. 

Condor 97: 729–742. 

Ralph, C. J. and S.G. Fancy. 1996. Aspects of the life history and foraging ecology of the endangered 

Akiapolaau. Condor 98:312-321. 

Raymond, A. and N. Valentine. 2007. Cultural Resource Investigations for Boundary and Cross 

Fences at the KFU of the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Hawaii Island. 

Reiter, M.E. and D.A. Lapointe. 2007. Landscape Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution and 

Abundance of Mosquito Vector Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in a Mixed Residential– 

Agricultural Community in Hawai„i. Journal of Medical Entomology 44(5):861-868. 

Sakai, H.F., C.J. Ralph, and C.D. Jenkins. 1986. Foraging ecology of the Hawaiian Crow Corvus 

hawaiiensis, an endangered generalist. Condor 88:211-219. 

Samuel, A., C.T. Atkinson, A.F. Savage , and D.A. LaPointe. 2007. Prevalence and distribution of 

pox-like lesions, avian malaria, and mosquito vectors in Kipahulu Valley, Haleakala National Park, 

Hawai„i, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 43(4):567-575. 

Schwartz, C.W. and E.R. Schwartz. 1949. A reconnaissance of the game birds in Hawaii. Board of 

Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry, Division of Fish and Game, Territory of Hawaii, Hilo. 

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 No. 9. 

Cooper Ornithological Society. Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press. 

Scowcroft, P.G. and R. Hobdy. 1987. Recovery of Goat Damaged Vegetation in an Insular Tropical 

Montane Forest. Biotropica 19(3):208-215. 

Scowcroft, P.G. and H.F. Sakai. 1984. Stripping of Acacia koa bark by rats on Hawaii and Maui. 

Pacific Science 38(1):80-86. 

Scowcroft, P.G. and C.E. Conrad. 1992. Alien and native plant response to release from feral sheep 

browsing on Mauna Kea. Pages 625-665 In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien 

Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research. Cooperative National 

Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 887 pages. 




Scowcroft, P.G. and J. Jeffrey. 1999. Potential significance of frost, topographic relief, and Acacia 

koa stands to restoration of mesic Hawaiian forests on abandoned rangeland. Forest Ecology & 

Management 114:447-458. 

Scowcroft, P.G., F.C. Meinzer, G. Goldstein, P.J. Melcher, and J. Jeffrey. 2000. Moderating Night 

Radiative Cooling Reduces Frost Damage to Metrosideros polymorpha Seedlings Used for Forest 

Restoration in Hawaii. Restoration Ecology 8(2):161-169. 

Sin, H., K.H. Beard, W.C. Pitt. 2008. An invasive frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui, increases new leaf 

production and leaf litter decomposition rates through nutrient cycling in Hawaii. Biological 

Invasions 10(3):335-345. 

Smith, C.W. 1985. Impact of alien plants on Hawaii‟s native biota. Pages 180-250 In: C.P. Stone and 

J.M. Scott (eds.), Hawaii‟s Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management. University of 

Hawaii Cooperative Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 

Smith, C.W. 1992. Distribution, status, phenology, rate of spread, and management of Clidemia in 

Hawaii. Pp 241-253. In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien Plant Invasions in 

Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research. Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 887 pages. 

Smith, C.W., and J.T. Tunison. 1992. Fire and Alien Plants in Hawaii: Research and Management 

Implications. Pp 394-408. In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien Plant Invasions 

in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research. Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 887 pages. 

Smolders, A.J.P., E.C.H.E.T. Lucassen, M. van der Aalst, L.P.M. Lamers, J.G.M. Roelofs. 2008. 

Decreasing the Abundance of Juncus effusus on Former Agricultural Lands with Noncalcareous 

Sandy Soils: Possible Effects of Liming and Soil Removal. Restoration Ecology 16(2):240-248. 

Smucker, T.D., G.D. Lindsey, S.M. Mosher. 2000. Home range and diet of feral cats in Hawaii 

forests. Pacific Conservation Biology 6: 229-237. 

Snetsinger, T.J., S.G. Fancy, J.C. Simon, and J.D. Jacobi. 1994. Diets of owls and feral cats in 

Hawai„i. „Elepaio 54:47-50. 

Snetsinger, T.J., Reynolds M.H., and C.M. Herrmann. 1998. Ou (Psittirostra psittacea), The Birds of 


of North America. 

Spatz, G. and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1973. The Influence of Feral Goats on Koa Tree Reproduction in 

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Ecology 54(4):870-876. 

Staples, G.W., and R.H. Cowie (eds.). 2001. Hawai„i‟s invasive species. Bishop Museum Press: 

Honolulu, HI. 

Staples, G.W, D. Herbst, and C.T. Imada. 2000. Survey of Invasive or Potentially Invasive Cultivated 

Plants in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. No. 65. 35 pp. 




Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: 

priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife International. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7. 

Cambridge, UK. 

Stemmerman, L. 1983. Ecological studies of Hawaiian Metrosideros in a successional context. 

Pacific Science 37:361-373. 

Stemmerman, R.L. 1986. Ecological studies of „ohi„a varieties (Metrosideros polymorpha, 

Myrtaceae), the dominants in successional communities of Hawaiian rain forest. PhD dissertation, 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 234 pages. 



Honolulu HI. 

Stone, C.P. 1985. Alien animals in Hawaii‟s native ecosystems: toward controlling the adverse 

effects of introduced vertebrates. Pages 251-297 in C.P. Stone and J.M. Scott (eds), Hawaii‟s 

terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. University of Hawaii Cooperative Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 

Stone, C.P., P.K. Higashino, L.W. Cuddihy, and S.J. Anderson. 1987. Preliminary Survey of Feral 

Ungulate and Alien and Rare Plant Occurrence on Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit Technical Report 81. University of Hawaii, 


Stone, C.P., L.W. Cuddihy, and J.T. Tunison. 1992. Responses of Hawaiian ecosystems to the 

removal of feral pigs and goats. Pages 666-704 In: C.P. Stone, C.W. Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), 

Alien Plant Invasions in Native Ecosystems of Hawaii: Management and Research. Cooperative 

National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 887 pages. 

Tarayre, M. G. Bowman, A. Schermann-Legionnet, M. Barat, and A. Atlan. 2007. Flowering 

phenology of Ulex europaeus: ecological consequences of variation within and among populations. 


Thomas, N.J., B. Hunter, C. T. Atkinson. Infectious Diseases Of Wild Birds. 2007. Blackwell 

Publishing Ltd. 

Tobin, M.E. and R.T. Sugihara. 1992. Abundance and habitat relationships of rats in Hawaiian sugar 

cane fields. Journal of Wildlife Management 56(4):816-822. 

Tomich, P.Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawaii, 2 nd Edition. Bishop Museum Press: Honolulu, HI. 

Tomonari-Tuggle, M.A. 1996. Bird catchers and bullock hunters in the upland Mauna Kea Forest: a 

cultural resource overview of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Island of Hawaii. 

International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. 




Trujillo, E.E. 2005. History and success of plant pathogens for biological control of introduced 

weeds in Hawaii. Biological Control 33:113-122. 

Tummons, P. 2008. Waiwai Bio control Controversy. Environment Hawaii 19(1). July 2008. 

Uowolo, A.L. and J.S. Denslow. 2008. Characteristics of the Psidium cattleianum (Myrtaceae) Seed 

Bank in Hawaiian Lowland Wet Forests. Pacific Science 62(1): 129-135. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2008. Field release of Tectococcus ovatus 

(Homoptera: Eriococcidae) for biological control of strawberry guava, Psidium cattleianum Sabine 

(Myrtaceae), in Hawaii, Draft Environmental Assessment. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Hawaiian Hawk Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI. 

USFWS. 1996a. Big Island Plant Cluster Recovery Plan. Portland, OR. 202 pp. 

USFWS. 1996b. Draft Reforestation Management Plan, Hakalau NWR. Hilo, HI. 

USFWS. 1997. Conceptual Management Plan for the KFU of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge, South Kona, Hawaii. 

USFWS. 1998a. Big Island II: Addendum to the Recovery Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster. 


USFWS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for Four Species of Hawaiian Ferns. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 


USFWS. 1998c. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2002a. Fire Management Plan, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, HFU. 

USFWS. 2002b. Fire Management Plan, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, KFU. 

USFWS. 2003. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the „Alala (Corvus hawaiiensis). Portland, OR. 

78 pp. 

USFWS. 2004. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the nēnē or Hawaiian Goose (Branta sandvicensis). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 148 + xi pp. 

USFWS. 2005a. Draft revised recovery plan for Hawaiian waterbirds, second draft of second 

revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

USFWS. 2005b. Regional Seabird Conservation Plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 




USFWS. 2006a. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) Workbook 2006, Hakalau Forest 

NWR. 

USFWS. 2006b. Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds. Region 1, Portland, OR. 622 pp. 

USFWS. 2007a. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) Workbook 2007, Hakalau 

Forest NWR. 

USFWS. 2007b. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Phyllostegia floribunda. 

March 2007. 

USFWS. 2007c. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Sicyos macrophyllus. 

April 2007. 

USFWS. 2008. Draft Environmental Assessment for Fencing of the KFU of the Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge Hawai„i County, Hawai„i. South Kona District Hawai„i County, Hawai„i. 

Uyehara, K.J., A. Engilis, Jr., and M. Reynolds. 2007. Hawaiian duck‟s future threatened by feral 

Mallards. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3047. Available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3047/. Accessed June 20, 2008. 

Van Driesche, J. and R. Van Driesche. 2004. Nature out of place, biological invasions in the global 

age. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

VanGelder, E.M. and T. B Smith. 2001 Breeding characteristics of the „Akohekohe on east Maui. 

Studies in Avian Biology 22: 194-201. 

Van Riper, C., III. 1987. Breeding ecology of the Hawai„i Common „Amakihi. Condor 89: 85–102. 

Van Riper, C., III, S.G Van Riper, M. L. Goff, and M. Laird. 1986. The epizootiology and ecological 

significance of malaria in Hawaiian land birds. Ecological Monographs 56: 327–344. 

Van Riper, C., III, S.G. Van Riper, and W.R. Hansen. 2002. Epizootiology and effect of avian pox on 

Hawaiian forest birds. Auk 119:929-942. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 1998. Scales of Habitat Selection by Foraging „Elepaio in Undisturbed and 

Human-Altered Forests in Hawaii. The Condor 95:980-989. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 1998. Elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

Birds of North America, No. 344. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 1999. Delayed Plumage Maturation and Demography in Hawaii Elepaio. 

University of Hawaii Dissertation. 

VanderWerf, E.A. 2007. Biogeography of Elepaio: Evidence From Inter-Island Song Playbacks. The 

Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119(3):325-333. 




VanderWerf, E.A., and D.G. Smith. 2002. Effects of alien rodent control on demography of the 

O„ahu „Elepaio, an endangered Hawaiian forest bird. Pacific Conservation Biology 8:73-81. 

Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of 

population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7-13. 

Vitousek, P.M. 1992. Effects of alien plants on native ecosystems. Pages 29-41 in C.P. Stone, C.W. 

Smith, and J.T. Tunison (eds.), Alien plant invasions in native ecosystems of Hawaii: management 

and research. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

887 pages. 

Wakelee, Katherine M. and Steven G. Fancy. 1999. Omao (Myadestes obscurus), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America. Available at: 

http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2705/bna/species/460adoi:10.2173/bna.460. Accessed on June 15, 

2008. 

Waring, G.H. 1997. Preliminary Study of the Behavior and Ecology of Jackson‟s Chameleons of 

Maui, Hawaii. Available at: 

http://www.hear.org/alienspeciesinhawaii/waringreports/chameleon.htm. Accessed June 16, 2008. 

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i, 

Revised edition. 2 vols, Bishop Museum Special Publication 97. University of Hawaii Press and 

Bishop Museum Press: Honolulu, HI. 

Whistler, A.W. 1995. Wayside Plants of the Islands: A Guide to the Lowland Flora of the Pacific 

Islands. Isle Botanica: Honolulu, HI. 

Whitaker J. O. and P. Q. Tomich. 1983. Food habits of the hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus, from Hawaii. 

Journal of Mammalogy 64:151-52. 

Wiggins, D. A., Holt D. W. and S. M. Leasure. 2006. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), The Birds of 


of North America Online. 

Winter, L. 2003. Popoki and Hawai„i‟s native birds. „Elepaio 63:43-46. 

Winter, L. and G.E. Wallace. 2006. Impacts of Feral and Free Ranging Cats on Bird Species of 

Conservation Concern: A Five State Review of New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and 

Hawaii. American Bird Conservancy. 

Woodworth B. L., Nelson J. T., Tweed E. J. Fancy S. G., Moore M. P., Cohen E. G. and M. S. 

Collins. 2001. Breeding productivity and survival of the endangered Hawai‟i Creeper in a wet forest 

refuge on Mauna Kea, Hawai‟i. Studies in Avian Biology 22:164-172. 

Woodworth B. L, Atkinson C. T. , LaPointe D. A., Hart P. J., Spiegel C. S., Tweed E. J., Henneman 

C., LeBrun J., Denette T., DeMots R., Kozar K. L., Triglia D., Lease D., Gregor A., Smith T., and D. 




Duffy. 2005. Host population persistence in the face of introduced vector-borne diseases: Hawaii 

amakihi and avian malaria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102(5):1531–1536. 

Work, T.M., D. Ball, and M. Wolcott. 1999. Erysipelas in a free-ranging Hawaiian Crow (Corvus 

hawaiiensis). Avian Diseases 43:338-341. 

Work , T. M. and H.J. Causes of owl mortality in Hawaii, 1992 to 1994. 1996. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 32(2): 266-273. 

Work, T.M., J.G. Massey, B.A. Rideout, C.H. Gardiner, D.B. Ledig, O.C.H. Kwok, and J.P. Dubey. 

2000. Fatal toxoplasmosis in free-ranging endangered „Alala from Hawaii. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 36(2):205-212. 

Yamamoto, M.N. and A.W. Tagawa. 2000. Hawaii‟s Native & Exotic Freshwater Animals. Mutual 

Publishing: Honolulu, HI. 

Yorinks, N. and C. T. Atkinson. 2000. Effects of malaria on activity budgets of experimentally 

infected juvenile apapane (Himatione sanguines). The Auk 117(3):731–738. 

Ziegler, A.C. 2002. Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution. University of Hawaii 

Press, Honolulu. 477 pp. 





Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

Above: Volunteers pick koa seeds/USFWS 

Right: Visitors enjoy the 100-year-old koa cabin at Pua ‘Ākala/ 

Ann Bell 

Birders at Hakalau Forest NWR/Barry Stieglitz

Chapter 

5. Social S an nd Economic 

Ennvironmment 

5.1 Refuge R In nfrastruc cture and d Adminiistrative 

FFacilitiess 

5.1.1 Hakalau H Forest 

Unit t 

Facilities consolidated d at the HFU U administrati ive site includde 

a bunkhouuse 

for overnnight 

staff woork, 

volunteer r (Figure 5-1) ) and research 

guest cabin ns, a power ssupply 

buildinng, 

a garage, , greenhouse, 

various st torage sheds, , a weather st tation, and an n equipment storage buildding. 

Power is generated from 

a combined 

photovolt taic battery an nd generator r system and distributed bby 

undergrouund 

power linnes 

to 

the variou us cabins and d structures. Water W is prov vided by catcchment 

systeems 

that feed rainwater froom 

building roofs r into holding 

tanks. It I is pumped to various sttructures 

afteer 

being treatted 

by ultraviiolet 

and sedim ment filters. The T catchmen nt system hol lds up to 80,0000 

gallons oof 

water for ddrinking, 

othher 

residentia al and greenh house use, as well as fire suppression. s The Universsity 

of Hawaii‘i 

(UH) 

maintains s and operate es a field stati ion on Refug ge land at thee 

administratiion 

site to suupport 

researcch 

on 

the Refug ge under a Memorandum 

M 

of Agreemen nt. The UH ffacility 

consissts 

of a largee 

building witth 

quarters, laboratory, and a classroom m space. 

At the Pu ua ‘Ākala area 

of HFU, fa acilities inclu ude the Pua ‘ĀĀkala 

Cabin, , which has bbeen 

nominatted 

for inclus sion on the National N Register 

of Histor ric Places, a tack shed neear 

the cabin, and Pua ‘Ākkala 

Barn. U.S S. Geological l Survey operates 

a weath her station unnder 

as SUP. In addition, UH maintainns 

a 

rain shelt ter at 6,200 ft t elevation fo or field worke ers. Facilitiess 

located in oother 

areas off 

the HFU innclude 

the Nauhi i Cabin and storage s build ding and the Maulua M Cabinn. 

The U.S. Forest Serviice 

(USFS) hhas 

a 

weather station s in Mid ddle Honohin na under an SUP. S 

There are e 40 miles (m mi) of dirt and d gravel road ds and 0.67 mmi 

of access eeasements 

wiithin 

the HFUU. 

Several access a gates are a located on n the perimet ter fence as wwell 

as internnal 

fences forr 

managemennt 

purposes. . The HFU ha as 45 mi of ungulate-proo 

u of fence and 14 mi of firee 

(fuel) breakk 

on the west and 

part of the 

north/south h boundary (F Figure 5-2). 

Figure 5-1. 5 Hakalau 

Forest volunteer 

cabin. 

Chapter 5. Social and Ec conomic Enviro onment 


Refuge 



5-1

5.1.2 Kona Forest Unit 



The KFU facilities consist of a field camp (Kona field camp) with two all-weather tents on platforms 

and a kitchen tent with limited space for equipment and material storage (Figure 5-3). Also included 

are 20 mi of dirt and gravel roads and 5 mi of access easements (gravel roads). Seventeen miles of 

fence are planned for construction as described in the Kona Forest Unit Fence Plan. As a part of the 

fence project, 14 miles of fence corridor will also serve as a firebreak. 

5.1.3 Hilo Administrative Office 

The Hakalau Forest NWR leases administrative office space in Hilo (Figure 1-1). The office is colocated 

with the USFS’s Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. The office functions first and foremost 

as an administrative site. Ten individual offices, a small conference room for staff meetings, and a 

small lobby area are leased annually. A large meeting room in the complex may be reserved for 

larger meetings (up to 50 people). Walk-in visitors are very few as the function of the office is not 

designed or set up to orient and welcome guests or provide interpretive displays. An occasional 

visitor from the mainland is guided to the office by calling ahead of time for directions or to verify 

the location of the Maulua tract and to get more information. No signs or other infrastructure are in 

place to attract visitors to the Refuge office or management areas. 

5.2 Public Use Overview 

The climate and geography of Hawai‘i makes the islands a perfect location for various outdoor 

recreation activities. In addition, recreation is an important component of the lifestyle and economy 

of Hawai‘i County (DLNR 2003). The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (2009) was 

developed to guide planning, development, and management of these outdoor recreation resources. 

The recreation section of the County of Hawai‘i General Plan (2006) provides further recreational 

goals for the island and each district. 

This section describes public use opportunities in the areas surrounding the HFU and KFU, as well as 

recreational activities currently occurring at the Refuge units. Islandwide recreational demands and 

potential recreational opportunities are also discussed. 

5.2.1 Federal, State, and County Recreational Parks 

Federal parks are administered by the National Park Service (NPS). The Island of Hawai‘i features 

three national parks, including Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park (HAVO), Kaloko-Honokōhau 

National Historical Park, and Pu‘uhonua O Hōnaunau National Historical Park. The HAVO is 

approximately 3 hours away from the HFU and 3 hours from the KFU. This park encompasses 

207,634 ac and is the largest national park in the State. In addition, it is the single most popular 

visitor attraction on the island. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (2009) identifies 

HAVO as a “significant recreation resource.” Pu‘u Honua O Hōnaunau National Historical Park, 

comprising 182 ac, is located south of KFU. 

State parks are administered by the DLNR’s Division of State Parks. The State park system on 

Hawai‘i encompasses 15 parks covering approximately 2,687.3 ac (DLNR 2003). Use permits are 

5-2 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment

Figure 5-2. 5 HFU ad dministrativ ve facilities and infrastrructure. 



Refuge 



5-3





Figure 5-3. 5 KFU ad dministrativ ve facilities and infrastrructure. 



Refuge 



5-5







Figure 5-4. Recreation opportunities on Hawai‘i Island. 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-7







Table 5-1. Legend ID and Facility Name for the Vicinity Recreation Map. 

Map 

ID 

Name Manager Definition 

1 Mokupuku Island Sea Bird Sanctuary DOFAW Bird Sanctuary 

2 Paoakalani Island Sea Bird Sanctuary DOFAW Bird Sanctuary 

3 Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

4 Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park USNPS National Historical Park 

5 Kohala Historic Sites State Monument DOSP State Monument 

6 Kohala Forest Reserve (Pololū Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

7 Lapakahi State Historic Park DOSP State Historic Park 

8 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Keaa Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

9 Malama Kī Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

10 Kahauale‘a Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

11 Mackenzie State Recreation Area DOSP State Recreation Area 

12 Keauohana Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

13 

Pu‘u Honau O Hōnaunau National 

Historical Park 

USNPS National Historical Park 

14 

South Kona Forest Reserve (Olelomoana 

‘Opihihali Sec.) 

DOFAW Forest Reserve 

15 

South Kona Forest Reserve (Kapua-Manukā 

Sec.) 


16 Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park USNPS National Park 

17 Kapāpala Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

18 Ka‘ū Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

19 South Kona Forest Reserve (Ka‘ohe Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

20 

South Kona Forest Reserve (Kukuiopa‘e 

Sec.) 


21 Kīpāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

22 Kona Hema Preserve TNC TNC Preserve 

23 Manukā Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

24 Kohala Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

25 Pu‘u O ‘Umi Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

26 Kohala Forest Reserve (Waimanu Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

27 Kohala Watershed Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

28 Ka‘ū Preserve TNC TNC Preserve 





33 Kamehame Preserve TNC TNC Preserve 

34 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Hanapai Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

35 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Kapulena Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

36 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Honokaia Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

37 Hauola Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

38 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Āhualoa Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

39 Kalōpā State Recreation Area DOSP State Recreation Area 

40 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Nienie Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 




Map 

ID 


41 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Kalōpā Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

42 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Pa‘auilo Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

43 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Kainehe Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

44 Hāmākua Forest Reserve (Hō‘ea Kaao Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

45 Hāpuna Beach State Recreation Area DOSP State Recreation Area 

46/47 Manowaialee Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

48 Hilo Forest Reserve (Humu‘ula Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

49 Hilo Forest Reserve (Laupāhoehoe Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

50 Laupāhoehoe Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

51 Hilo Forest Reserve (Pīhā Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

52 Mauna Kea Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

53 Hilo Forest Reserve (Opea Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

54 Hilo Forest Reserve (Kamaee Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

55 Hilo Forest Reserve (Kaiwiki Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

56 ‘Akaka Falls State Park DOSP State Park 

57 Hilo Forest Reserve (Ka‘uku Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

58/59 Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

60/61 Kekaha Kai State Park DOSP State Park 

62 Hilo Watershed Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

63 Mauna Kea State Recreation Area DOSP State Recreation Area 

64 Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a Forest Bird Sanctuary DOFAW Bird Sanctuary 

65 Wailoa River State Recreation Area DOSP State Recreation Area 

66 Wailuku River State Park DOSP State Park 

67 Honua‘ula Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

68 Mauna Loa Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

69 Waiakea Forest Reserve (Kukua Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

70 Kipuka Ainahou Nēnē Sanctuary DOFAW Bird Sanctuary 

71 Upper Waiākea Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

72 Honua‘ula Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

73 Waiākea Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

74 Panaewa Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

75 

Waiākea 1942 Lava Flow Natural Area 

Reserve 

DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

76 Wai‘aha Springs Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

77 Old Kona Airport State Recreation Area DOSP State Recreation Area 

78 ‘Ōla‘a Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

79 Keolonoahiki State Historic Park DOSP State Historic Park 

80 Pu‘u Maka‘ala Natural Area Reserve DOFAW Natural Area Reserve 

81 Nānāwale Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

82 Nānāwale Forest Reserve (Halepuaa Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

83 Nānāwale Forest Reserve DOFAW Forest Reserve 

84 Lava Tree State Monument DOSP State Monument 

85 ‘Ōla‘a Forest Reserve (Mt. View Sec.) DOFAW Forest Reserve 

86 Kealakekua Bay State Historic Park DOSP State Historic Park 

87 Keaoi Island Sea Bird Sanctuary DOFAW Bird Sanctuary 




Map 

ID 


88 Wao Kele ‘O Puna Forest Reserve 

DOFAW/ 

OHA 

Forest Reserve 

89 Manukā State Wayside DOSP State Wayside 

90 Pa‘alaea Island Sea Bird Sanctuary DOFAW Bird Sanctuary 

required for certain activities including group activities, pavilion usage, meetings, weddings, shows, 

community events, scientific research, and gathering of forest products (Division of State Parks 

2008). 

Several State parks are located near the HFU. The Mauna Kea State Recreation Area, consisting of 

20.5 ac, offers wildlife observation and lodging opportunities at 6,500 ft on Mauna Kea. ‘Akaka Falls 

State Park has views of a 442 ft waterfall. This park also offers the ‘Akaka Falls Loop Trail, a path 

that goes through tropical areas. The 100 ac Kalōpā State Recreation Area provides hiking through 

the Kalōpā Nature Trail, as well as camping and lodging. 

On the Kona side, two State parks are located near the KFU. Kealakekua Bay State Historical Park 

offers views of archaeological sites and the Captain Cook monument. The Manukā State Wayside is 

located south of the KFU in the Ka‘ū District. This State wayside provides access to the 2 mi 

Manukā Nature Trail, which is located in the Manukā Natural Area Reserve. Camping is also 

permitted at this reserve through the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). 

County parks are managed by the County of Hawai‘i, Department of Parks and Recreation. On 

Hawai‘i Island, 137 county parks cover 1,471 ac. The following county parks are located in South 

Hilo: Bakers Beach, Carlsmith Beach Park, Coconut Island (Moku Ola), Hilo Bayfront Beach, Hilo 

Bayfront Park, Honoli‘i Beach Park, Ho‘okena Beach Park, James Kealoha Beach Park, Kalākaua 

Park, Kanakea Pond (Ice Pond), Kaūmana Caves, Kolekole Beach Park, Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole Park, 

Lehia Beach Park, Leleiwi Beach Park, Lili‘uokalani Gardens, Mo‘oheau Park, Onekahakaha Beach 

Park, Reeds Bay Beach Park, and Richardson Ocean Park. Only two county parks – Laupāhoehoe 

Point Beach Park and Waikaumalo Park – are located in the North Hilo District. County parks in the 

District of South Kona include: Hōnaunau Boat Ramp, Ho‘okena Beach Park, Manini Point 

(Napo‘opo‘o), Miloli‘i Beach Park, and Napo‘opo‘o Beach Park (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

5.2.2 Wildlife Observation and Environmental Education 

Opportunities for wildlife observation and environmental education are plentiful on the Island of 

Hawai‘i. During 2006, it is estimated that 262,000 individuals (both residents and visitors) 

participated in wildlife watching in the State. Approximately 16 percent of the resident population in 

Hawai‘i participated in wildlife watching activities during the time period (HDBEDT 2007). Tourists 

also enjoy natural resources on the island. Each year, roughly 50,000 visitors to Hawai‘i Island 

purchase tours where they are exposed to native species (TMA 2007). 

The State of Hawai‘i Forest Reserve System, managed by DOFAW, consists of 22 Forest Reserves 

encompassing 448,000 ac. This system is guided by the Hawai‘i State Constitution, Hawai‘i Revised 

Statutes Chapter 183, and Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, Chapter 104. Forest Reserves on the island 

are depicted in Figure 5.2. Camping, gathering activities, commercial harvest, hunting, and other uses 

are permitted on the forest reserves by permit (HAR § 13-104). 




The Hilo Forest Reserve includes seven sections: Pīhā, Laupāhoehoe, Opea, Humu‘ula, Kamae‘e, 

Ka‘uku, and Kaiwiki. The Laupāhoehoe Section borders the upper tract of the Hakalau Forest Unit, 

while the Pīhā Section splits the Honohina and Maulua tracts. The Pīhā Section is primarily used by 

the public for hunting. The South Kona Forest Reserve is located south of the Kona Forest Unit. This 

reserve consists of four sections: ‘Ōlelomoana ‘Opihihali, Ka‘ohe, Kukuiopa‘e, and Kapua-Manukā. 

The DOFAW is also responsible for the Natural Area Reserve System (NARS). Hiking and nature 

study (in groups of 10 or less) are permitted within these areas. All reserves are open to the public for 

recreational hunting, based on DLNR rules (HAR § 13-209-3). Environmental education programs 

occur on several of these reserves (DLNR 2003). The Laupāhoehoe NAR is located above the 

Maulua tract of the HFU adjacent to the Laupāhoehoe Section of the Hilo Forest Reserve. The 

Mauna Kea Ice Age NAR is located near the summit, west of the HFU. The Kīpāhoehoe NAR is 

directly south of the KFU and the Manukā NAR is further south on the southwest slope of 

Mauna Loa. 

Several wildlife sanctuaries were established throughout the island to protect indigenous wildlife 

(HRS, Sections 13-125). These sanctuaries are managed by DOFAW. Within these sanctuaries, it is 

prohibited to remove, disturb, kill, or possess any form of plant or wildlife and to introduce any form 

of plant or animal life. Also, human activity is strictly limited. The Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a Forest Bird 

Sanctuary is found within the Pu‘u Wa‘awa‘a Forest Reserve. The Kīpuka ‘Āinahou Nēnē Sanctuary 

is open to the public, except November-February. Birds and game mammals may be hunted within 

the Kīpuka ‘Āinahou Nēnē Sanctuary (HAR § 13-125). 

Three islets off the coast of Hawai‘i Island are designated as State Seabird Sanctuaries. The offshore 

islands include Mokupuku Island Sea Bird Sanctuary, Paoakalani Island Sea Bird Sanctuary, and 

Keaoi Island Sea Bird Sanctuary. Pa‘alaea Island Sea Bird Sanctuary, formerly found off the Kohala 

coast, largely disappeared after an earthquake in 1975. The public can engage in wildlife observation 

and education at the islets (http://www.hawaiioirc.org/OIRC-ISLETS.htm). 

Public wildlife observation and environmental interpretation opportunities are limited in the units of 

the Hakalau Forest NWR. Due to the presence of endangered species and suitable habitat, public 

access is regulated. In FY 2010, the Refuge had 1,692 visitors, of which most were nonresidents. At 

HFU, the Upper Maulua Tract was opened to public wildlife observation, birding, and photography 

in 1992. Use of this area is restricted to weekends and holidays, and reservations are required. 

Between 450-500 visitors use the Refuge for wildlife observation annually. Wildlife photography 

participants range between 10-22 each year. No visitor facilities or restrooms are available at these 

locations. 

Additional visitor opportunities at the HFU are available during the annual open house. This event 

receives between 330-490 participants. In addition, volunteers at the HFU participate in natural 

history hikes. Table 5-2 provides additional information on FY 2010 Refuge wildlife observation and 

environmental education figures. 

Currently the entire KFU, which remains unfenced and unmanaged in terms of ungulate control, 

remains closed to the public due to difficult access and the presence of highly sensitive species. The 

Three Mountain Alliance hopes to provide opportunities for the public to enjoy nature observation 

and education at the Unit after management efforts have begun (TMA 2007). 


5.2.3 Camping 



Camping is permitted within three State parks: Hāpuna State Recreation Area, Kalōpā State 

Recreation Area, and Manukā State Wayside. Permits may be obtained from the State Parks office 

and the maximum length of stay is limited to 5 consecutive nights. Hāpuna State Recreation Area has 

four-person A-frame shelters available for $20 per night. At the Kalōpā State Recreation Area, the 

State rents eight-person cabins for $55 per night. Facilities include beds, bedding, linen, restrooms, 

hot showers, and a fully equipped recreational dining hall. The Manukā State Wayside offers 

six-person cabins for $5 per night (Division of State Parks 2008). 

Ten County of Hawai‘i facilities permit overnight camping. County of Hawai‘i camping permits are 

required in order to camp at all County parks. These permits can be obtained from the Department of 

Parks and Recreation main office or online. The maximum camping period is 1 week during the 

summer (June-August) and 2 weeks during the remainder of the year (County of Hawai‘i 2008). 

County camping sites in the vicinity of HFU are the Laupāhoehoe Beach Park in North Hilo and 

Kolekole Beach Park in South Hilo. Amenities at these sites include pavilions, electrical outlets, 

restrooms, outdoor showers, and picnic areas. Fishing is also permitted at both of the campsites 

(County of Hawai‘i 2008). 

Ho‘okena Beach Park, near the KFU, offers pavilions, restrooms, outdoor showers, picnic areas, and 

drinking water. Swimming and snorkeling, as well as fishing, are allowed under favorable conditions. 

Miloli‘i County Beach Park is located in South Kona at an ancient Hawaiian fishing village. This 

park allows fishing and has restrooms and picnic areas for visitors (County of Hawai‘i 2008). 

5.2.4 Hiking 

DOFAW’s Na Ala Hele Program maintains and provides access to hiking trails. Established in 1988, 

Na Ala Hele offers approximately 97 trails throughout the State (DLNR 2003). The purpose of the 

program is to “preserve and perpetuate the integrity, condition, naturalness and beauty of State trails 

and surrounding areas and to protect … environmental resources” (HRS Chapter 198D; HAR, Title 

13, Chapter 130). 

On the island, the system maintains 16 trails. Trails in the immediate vicinity of the HFU include 

Kaluakauka Trail (0.4 mi); Humu‘ula Trail (10.5 mi); Mauna Kea Access Road/Hunters Road 

(32 mi); Kaūmana Trail (3 mi); and Onomea Trail (0.5 mi). The only Na Ala Hele trail in South 

Kona, Keauhou Napo‘opo‘o Trail, is currently closed 

(http://www.hawaiitrails.org/island.php?island=Hawaii). 

5.2.5 Hunting 

Hunting is regulated by Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, Title 13, Chapter 122 and 123. Individuals 

engaging in hunting must possess a valid State of Hawai‘i hunting license. This license allows 

individuals to legally hunt only in designated public hunting areas. Private landowners also have their 

own hunting programs directed at the tourism market or at local hunters. Approximately 

18,000 individuals hunted in the State of Hawai‘i in 2006, for a total of 420,000 days. Roughly 

98 percent of the individuals were residents of the State. A total of 8,345 hunting licenses were 




issued throughout the State in 2006 (HDBEDT 2007). Four large game mammals and 14 species of 

game birds can be legally hunted on the island (http://www.State.hi.us/dlnr/dcre/know.htm). 

5.2.6 Refuge Public Use Opportunities 


In FY 2010, the total number of visitors to the Refuge was 1,692. Visitors to HFU are allowed access 

to the Maulua Tract through a call-in permit system. The Maulua Tract is approximately 2 hours 

from Hilo and requires a four-wheel drive vehicle. Visitors have access to a single track road that 

extends downslope from the gate for 2 mi with limited opportunities to turn vehicles around. Maulua 

Tract is accessible by reservation only on weekends and State holidays through an otherwise locked 

entrance called Maulua Gate. The area is available for wildlife-dependent activities such as birdwatching, 

nature photography, environmental education, and hiking. Reservations are made by 

calling the Hakalau Forest NWR office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at least 1 week before the 

scheduled visit. Periodic closures do occur on the basis of fire danger from extreme dry conditions on 

the Refuge and surrounding lands. The Friends of Hakalau Forest are developing interpretive signs to 

complement certain site areas in Maulua Tract. Most visitors registering for permission to enter 

Maulua Tract are from the mainland U.S. Visitation over the years has gradually increased from a 

weekend average of four to currently an average of 10 people. No sanitation facilities are provided. 

The remainder of the Refuge is not open to the public except through organized Refuge sponsored or 

permitted activities. The volunteer program provides wildlife photography and observation and 

environmental interpretation and education opportunities through a unique hands-on stewardship 

program. The volunteer program offers overnight experiences involving a full day of hands-on 

stewardship activity assisting with a combination of some of the following activities: koa 

outplanting, seed collection, plant nursery work, reseeding, and facility support maintenance. After 

spending the night in a Refuge cabin, the staff on the second day host groups on a forest bird 

interpretive walk, which requires someone skilled in how to locate, interpret, and observe the birds, 

and highlighting native forest ecosystem management and wildlife observation. 

During 2007, 30 of the 52 possible weekends were scheduled and there is a 1-2 year waiting list for 

additional groups to participate. Currently these weekends are attended by groups such as the Sierra 

Club, Audubon Society, Boy and Girl Scouts, high school hiking clubs, teacher workshops, middle 

and high school-age participants in Youth Conservation Corps, and the Imi Pono no ka ‘Aina 

partnership environmental education program. The program has reached capacity, as the staff cannot 

fulfill the needed tasks for additional groups (e.g., scheduling, maintaining the overnight cabin, 

providing transportation, and other administrative and safety related responsibilities and logistics). 

The Refuge is opened to the general public annually for the Refuge Week Open House, providing a 

1-day opportunity for visitor programs tailored to the general public. The annual event, offered 

during National Wildlife Refuge Week in early October, has been growing in popularity over the 

years from 50 participants at the first open house day in 1992 to over 500 in 2007. The Open House 

is primarily attended by Hawai‘i Island residents. Reservations are required. Publicity is generally 

accomplished via articles in the Hawai‘i Tribune Herald, West Hawai‘i Today, the Big Island 

Weekly, and local radio stations. 




The Open House is a labor-intensive event that requires participation by all of the staff for planning, 

preparation, and execution. Throughout the morning of the event attendees arrive at the Refuge and 

are guided to several open grass parking areas near the barn area in the Pua ‘Ākala Tract. Visitors are 

then provided the opportunity to visit the Pua ‘Ākala Cabin, the greenhouse, and/or participate in a 

guided hike. The Service, partner organizations, and agencies provide tour guides for the visiting 

public. Refuge, Friends of Hakalau Forest, and partners’ exhibits are traditionally displayed at the 

Pua ‘Ākala barn site. 

Due to its remote location (1.5 hours from Hilo) and 1-hour drive time on a bumpy road in a fourwheel 

drive vehicle, the number of visitors is limited. Public interest in the Refuge is substantial and 

a family-friendly approach with greater support from a growing Friends Group and other partners has 

improved attendance. This is consistent with the Refuge Connecting People with Nature priorities 

and the need to expand access to all visitors. 

The Youth Conservation Corps and AmeriCorps are youth employment programs offering a strong 

environmental stewardship component that have been supported at Hakalau Forest NWR in the past 

and remain valuable program options for the Refuge pending available staff and funding. 

Hakalau Forest NWR is associated with a comprehensive environmental education program called 

Imi Pono no ka ‘Aina (seeking good for the land) currently administered by NPS, Hawai‘i State 

Department of Education, and the U.S. Army Garrison of Hawai‘i. The Service, along with these 

partners, developed and established this program in 1999. The program has been very successful and 

helps to instill a conservation ethic in local intermediate and high school students, who participate in 

educational service trips to the Refuge and other areas. The Service hopes to continue to host and 

provide support for Imi Pono no ka ‘Aina as a model for other islands to conduct hands-on 

environmental education camps. 

The Refuge issues a limited number of SUPs for tour groups to access the Refuge. The following 

stipulations apply to all of the permits: each permittee is limited to 100 visitor days, eight SUPs are 

issued per year, and all permittees are required to attend an all day orientation hosted by the Refuge 

staff. During 2007, 309 individuals visited the Refuge through these SUPs. 

Commercial photography occurs through an SUP process allowing access into Hakalau Forest NWR 

under stringent conditions with a staff biologist escort for access to any closed areas. Only two 

permits were issued in 2007; on average no more than five permits are issued per year. Refuge staff 

generally conduct a 1-day orientation for new special use permit holders. 

Off-Refuge outreach, environmental education, and interpretive activities are occasionally offered to 

community groups. The staff also participates as an exhibitor in the annual Earth Day festival in Hilo 

that attracts hundreds of students. 

Kīpuka 21, an interpretive wayside exhibit and trail site on Saddle Road a few miles east of the 

access road to the Refuge, is managed by DOFAW. The State is still working on developing the site 

to provide easy access to Hawai‘i’s native forest birds. Once trail repairs are complete, individuals 

will be able to commonly see midstory and forest canopy viewing of ‘apapane, ‘i‘iwi, and ‘amakihi. 

The Refuge hopes to contribute to future interpretive efforts at the Kīpuka 21 site to provide basic 

information about resources common to both sites (the Saddle road area and HFU). 




Table 5-2. FY 2010 Visitation at the Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Activity Number of individuals 

Visitors On-Refuge 

Wildlife Observation 591 

Environmental Education 153 

Interpretation 578 

Wildlife Photography 10 

Volunteer Program 488 

Maulua Tract Visitation 208 

Commercial Ecotourism 309 

Independent Visitors 22 

Visitors Off-Refuge 

Refuge Office for Orientation 60 

Interpretative Talks and Other Programs 578 

Viewing Exhibits at Local Festivals, Fairs, and Events 2,000 

In 2007, the Friends of Hakalau Forest NWR was formed from a small cadre of vested and interested 

volunteers. The group is now 140 members strong and is implementing small interpretive projects on 

and off the Refuge. The group also provides staff for a booth at the annual Open House where they 

encourage members to join. Throughout the year they help organize volunteers to assist in the 

greenhouse. 

In 1992, HFU’s Upper Maulua Tract was opened to the public for public hunting (no dogs) to assist 

with management of ungulates. Reservations were required and a maximum number of reservations 

established. Middle and Lower Maulua Tract became open for public hunting (dogs allowed) in 

1993. No reservations were required and a bag limit for each hunter set at two pigs. With the 

successful fencing of the Upper Maulua Tract as well as the start of endangered species work, this 

area was closed to public hunting in 2000 due to the reduction of the number of pigs. For this tract, 

the levels of hunting use, based on 6 consecutive years of public hunting averaged 80 hunter days per 

year. No requests for public hunting at HFU have occurred since 2000. Through the CCP it was 

determined that public hunting was not a compatible use. 


The KFU has never been opened to the public. The KFU is very difficult to access because of 

extreme road conditions into a 5,300 ac parcel of native forest in South Kona and until very recently, 

legal issues with access easements. Refuge staff may now access the area only after ascending an 

easement road running parallel to the Refuge boundary from the Māmalahoa Highway at roughly 

900 ft in elevation to the 5,300 ft level. 

From 1997-2005 and despite the difficult road conditions, organized community groups received 

occasional escorted access to the KFU. Of particular interest on the KFU are the lava tube skylights. 

Unstable ground and holes adjacent to the skylights make viewing them hazardous and would require 

viewing platforms to provide safe access. 

Outreach/environmental education/interpretation activities offsite are performed on behalf of the 

Refuge as described under HFU and cover both units of Hakalau Forest NWR. 




5.2.7 Recreational Trends and Demands 

The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Update (SCORP 2009) built upon the SCORP 

(2003), which concluded that a general decrease in leisure time has influenced the demand for more 

recreational opportunities close to home. This decrease is due to a rise in single adults and working 

women, as well as an increase in the national median work week (DLNR 2003). 

The top five priority issues for the 2009 update as determined from the agency and public meeting 

discussions and survey results are: 

� Protection of natural and cultural resources; 

� Management of recreation resources and facilities; 

� Meeting the needs of recreation users; 

� Access to recreation resources; and 

� Funding. 

In comparison to many other public land areas on Hawai‘i Island, Hakalau Forest NWR is not likely 

to provide significant recreational opportunities for the life of the CCP. Given the remote nature of 

the site and presence of endangered species, the Refuge will have a small role to play. However, the 

protection of the natural resources present here will help to address the number one priority issue 

from the SCORP Update. The Refuge will continue to offer limited recreational opportunities for 

very specialized recreation participants such as birdwatchers. 

As a component of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Hakalau Forest NWR has a mandate to 

consider public uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Those activities may be approved on a case-by-case 

basis and found compatible with the purposes and goals of the Refuge. Other public uses may be 

considered but must first be determined both appropriate and compatible (Appendix B identifies 

appropriate uses and compatible use determinations). 

5.2.8 Impact of Illegal Uses 

Incidence of theft, vandalism, and trespass on Refuge lands are factors that, owing to the remoteness 

of the Refuge, remain a concern in terms of staff and visitor safety, security, property damage or loss 

of government or partner assets, potential for impacts to threatened and endangered species, and 

potential contribution to accidental or deliberate wildfire. Service law enforcement coordinates with 

Refuge staff and other law enforcement agencies to monitor and investigate illegal activity. However, 

currently, there is only one law enforcement zone position for all 22 refuges in the Pacific and 

Hawaiian islands. Only Midway Atoll NWR, Guam NWR, and the Kaua‘i NWR Complex have their 

own law enforcement officer. It is anticipated that an increase in law enforcement presence would 

reduce the incidence of illegal activity. 

5.2.9 Historic/Cultural Sites 


National and State historic sites have the potential to be recreational areas for both local residents and 

tourists. There are 128 National and State historic sites within the County. Within the Hilo region, the 




County General Plan (2006) identifies 19 sites that are listed on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic 

Places and 10 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These include burial areas, 

Kamehameha Hall, a courthouse, churches, theaters, residences, and other historic buildings (County 

of Hawai‘i 2007). Keolonahihi State Historic Park and portions of the Kohala Historic Sites State 

Monument are not open to the public (DNLR 2003). 

Compared to coastal, lower elevation regions, there is a low density and number of historic and 

cultural sites in upland areas (such as the Hakalau Forest NWR). As a result, most formal cultural or 

historic studies are restricted to these areas. In addition, a large number of historic sites have been 

either destroyed by agriculture, urban growth, and natural changes in landforms. (DNLR 2003). 

In a traditional Native Hawaiian context, there is no division between nature and culture. The land, 

water, and sky were the foundation of life and the source of the spiritual relationship between people 

and their world. Native Hawaiian traditions express the attachment felt between the Native Hawaiian 

people and the Earth around them. “Native traditions describe the formation (literally the birth) of the 

Hawaiian Islands and the presence of life on and around them in the context of genealogical 

accounts. All forms of the natural environment – from the skies and mountain peaks, to the watered 

valleys and plains, to the shoreline and ocean depths – are the embodiments of Hawaiian gods and 

deities” (Maly 2001). 

The ‘ōhi‘a-koa zone was used by Native Hawaiians for specialized resources including bark for 

making fishing nets and māmaki to make kapa cloth. Native Hawaiians may have used the area for 

temporary camps while collecting natural resources or en route to a higher elevation adze quarry and 

associated surface work sites. Native Hawaiians had knowledge of shelter caves, overhangs, and 

water sources. In the dry māmane woodland, pili grass may have been collected as a special resource 

for thatching structures, as well as māmane wood for making adze handles, house posts, and hōlua 

sleds. Within or above the māmane zone, nēnē, ‘u‘au, and koloa maoli may have been used as a 

source of meat. Radiocarbon dating of bird bones from caves located in the saddle region between 

Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea indicate that Native Hawaiians were obtaining juvenile ‘ua‘u and 

collecting bird feathers between 1000-1450 A.D. (Dougherty and Moniz-Nakamura 2006). 

The Refuge contains cultural/historic resource sites that have been inventoried in areas where 

management actions could have impacted these sites. This inventory will continue to ensure 

protection of these important resources. The Refuge allows cultural/historic resource investigations 

of sites by universities, researchers, students, and/or cultural practitioners. 

Several cultural and archaeological sites do exist on the HFU. The Douglas Historic Monument, 

located north of the Refuge administrative site, is a monument to the famous naturalist David 

Douglas who traveled through the Hilo forest in 1834 (Stine 1985, Tomonari-Tuggle 1996) and died 

on the slopes of Mauna Kea. Two historical buildings also occur on the HFU. The Pua ‘Ākala Ranch 

is a complex of ranch structures built in the late 1800s; the Pua ‘Ākala cabin (or koa cabin) on the 

ranch has been nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Nauhi Cabin was built at 

roughly 5,100 ft in the 1920s by the Hawai‘i Sugar Planters Association. This cabin was part of the 

Nauhi Gulch Experiment Station (Tomonari-Tuggle 1996, Schuster et al. 2002). 





Based on the historical documentation and archaeological investigations at similar elevations nearby, 

it can be expected that the most likely cultural resources within the KFU would be associated with 

the upper zone, ‘ama‘u, of the Kona Field System, a unique system of patterned networks of 

elongated rectangles bounded by earth and rock ridges used by Native Hawaiians for farming that 

extended from Kailua to the south of Honaunau. According to the idealized model of the Kona Field 

System, approximately the lower third of the KFU is within the ‘ama‘u. Today, this region is covered 

with forest, suggesting that it was not used for agriculture as intensively as were lower elevation 

areas. However, the presence of invasive species might be an indication that portions of the zone 

were cleared in earlier times. 

It is worth noting that the idealized gradations for the zone of the Kona Field System are based on the 

full 32 mi expression of the system along the Kona region. In the southern portion of that region, 

where the KFU is located, the slopes of Mauna Loa are steeper, and consequently, the zones can be 

expected to be compressed into narrower bands. Indeed, detailed studies involving the field system in 

Ka‘ohe ahupua‘a demonstrate that the zones change more rapidly in this southern area, and that the 

upper reaches of the field system are at lower elevations than the normalized model suggests. 

Nevertheless, numerous agricultural features with associated temporary and even permanent 

habitation sites are present at elevations as high as 1,850 ft above sea level in nearby ahupua‘a. Those 

studies did not investigate elevations higher than that, so it is not known whether evidence of 

traditional Hawaiian agriculture extends to higher elevations. Based on the density and distribution of 

the agricultural features, it seems likely that the upper boundary of the system was not found and that 

the features do continue to some unknown higher elevation. 

Caves have been identified in the KFU and more can be expected to be present. The inspection of 

four caves was focused on biological resources, so although no traditional cultural resources were 

reported other than observations of charcoal, it cannot be assumed that cultural resources do not 

exist. On the contrary, Boundary Commission testimony and archaeological investigations at similar 

elevations in the region indicate that caves were used for traditional activities. 

People moved through the higher elevations to procure bird feathers and canoe wood. Camps for 

these kinds of activities may be present within the KFU. The known and named water holes in these 

higher elevations were likely valuable resources exploited for many centuries. 

Although habitation was traditionally concentrated along the shoreline, historical references and 

archaeological work indicates that temporary shelters associated with agricultural pursuits were 

present throughout the Kona Field System. Temporary habitations of this kind may be present in the 

lower elevations of the KFU. Although rare, and not fully understood archaeologically or 

historically, a kind of habitation used by ali‘i to sequester royal youth could also be present in the 

lower portions of the KFU. 

The village along the shoreline of Kalāhiki was an important place during traditional times and into 

the 1800s. Legends pertaining to this area emphasize the royal associations, and heiau in the uplands 

reflect the vitality of the sociopolitical activity throughout the lands here. 

Based on the few cultural studies of the KFU, the most likely traditional Hawaiian cultural activities 

near the Unit were hunting birds for feathers, tree felling for canoes, and gathering of edible and 




medicinal plants. The most likely cultural resources on the Unit include roads, watering facilities, 

fences, paddocks, and logging sites (Raymond and Valentine 2007, USFWS 2008). 

5.2.10 Special Designation Areas 

The Pua ‘Ākala Cabin has been nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

If the nomination is accepted, the cabin will continue to be maintained and managed by Refuge staff 

in accordance with guidelines provided by the National Register of Historic Places and the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation. 

5.3 Social and Economic Conditions 

The purpose of this section is to address the local economy and social environment surrounding the 

two units of the Hakalau Forest NWR, including population estimates and economic indicators. Both 

of the Refuge units are located on the Island of Hawai‘i within the County of Hawai‘i. The Island of 

Hawai‘i is divided into nine districts. The HFU is located in both the North Hilo District and the 

South Hilo District. The KFU is located in the South Kona District of Hawai‘i County. 

5.3.1 Population 

The total resident population of the Hawaiian Islands in 2008 was 1,288,198. The Island of Hawai‘i 

is home to 13.6 percent of this total, or 175,784 individuals (HDBEDT 2009). Within its 

4,028.02 mi 2 , the Island of Hawai‘i has an average resident population density of 36.9 persons per 

mi 2 . If tourists and visitors are included in the total island population, the average density increases to 

41.5 persons per mi 2 (County of Hawai‘i 2007). In comparison, the average density of the State 

during the same year was 189 persons per mi 2 . The median age of the Hawai‘i Island population in 

2006 was 37.7 years (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

The majority of the resident population on Hawai‘i Island lives in the District of South Hilo. In 2000, 

approximately 47,386 residents lived in the 394.38 mi 2 district. The density of South Hilo is 

estimated to be 120.2 persons per mi 2 . The North Hilo District had a much smaller population with 

1,720 residents in 2000. The density of this area is about 4.6 persons per mi 2 . The Hilo Community 

Development Plan (CDP) area is the most populated area on the island, with an estimated population 

of 40,759 individuals in 2000 (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

Approximately 8,589 individuals resided in South Kona in 2000, a 12.2 percent increase from 1990. 

This district houses 25.6 persons per mi 2 . Adjacent districts have also witnessed a dramatic increase 

in population. The resident population of Puna has increased noticeably, jumping from 

11,751 individuals in 1980 to 31,335 in 2000. Kailua-Kona, located approximately 23 mi north of the 

Kona Forest Unit, is the largest town on the west side of the island. The CDPs located nearest the 

KFU are Captain Cook, Hōnaunau-Napo‘opo‘o, and Kealakekua. The average densities (persons per 

mi 2 ) of these areas in 2000 were 263.7, 63.5, and 218.2, respectively (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

Population figures for selected districts and CDPs are listed in Table 5-3. 

The ethnic composition of the County of Hawai‘i is diverse. In 2006, the County was comprised of 

37 percent Caucasian, 24.3 percent Asian, 10.8 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 




0.7 percent Black or African American, and 0.7 percent American Indian and Alaska Native. 

Approximately 26.5 percent of the population identified themselves as having a mixed ethnic 

background of two or more races. Both the North and South Hilo Districts are largely comprised of 

people identifying themselves as Asian. The majority of the population within the South Kona 

District is Caucasian (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

The State of Hawai‘i also has a notable military population due to the presence of various military 

facilities. However, the military population has been decreasing throughout the islands since 1989 

(DPP 2003). Less than 3.8 percent of the State population in 2008 was military personnel (HDBEDT 

2009). Only 54 military personnel and their dependents lived on the Island of Hawai‘i in 2008 

(HDBEDT 2009). The majority of the military personnel and dependents within the State reside on 

O‘ahu. 

5.3.2 Housing 

There were a total of 77,577 housing units on the Island of Hawai‘i in 2006. This number increased 

from 63,023 housing units in 2000 (HDBEDT 2007). On average, 2.75 persons inhabit each 

household on the island. The majority of the housing is in the South Hilo District, with 

14,577 households in the Hilo CDP alone. The North Hilo District contains 597 households, with an 

average of 2.88 persons per household. In the South Kona District, there are 3,113 households. The 

majority of the houses in this district are located in the Captain Cook CDP (1,152 households), with 

an average of 2.76 persons per household in this area (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

5.3.3 Education 

Forty-two public schools, 21 private schools, and 12 charter schools are within the County of 

Hawai‘i. Approximately 30,539 students were enrolled in these schools and the majority (almost 

79.4 percent) were registered within the public school system. During the 2005-2006 school year, the 

average cost per student was $10,185 (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

Educational attainment on the Island of Hawai‘i is comparable to the State average. In 2000, 

approximately 84.6 percent of the Hawai‘i County population 25 years and over had received a high 

school diploma. Furthermore, approximately 22.1 percent have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The 

State averages during the same year were 84.6 and 26.2 percent, respectively (HDBEDT 2007). 

Table 5-3. Population Figures for Selected Areas. 

Area 1980 

% 

change 

1990 

% 

change 

Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 5-21 

2000 

% 

change 

2008 

State of Hawai‘i 964,691 14.9 1,108,229 9.3 1,211,537 6.3 1,288,198 

Island of Hawai‘i 92,053 30.7 120,317 23.6 148,677 18.2 175,784 

North Hilo District 1,679 -8.2 1,541 11.6 1,720 -- -- 

South Hilo District 42,278 5.6 44,639 6.2 47,386 -- -- 

South Kona District 5,914 29.5 7,658 12.2 8,589 -- --

Area 1980 



% 

change 

1990 

% 

change 

5-22 Chapter 5. Social and Economic Environment 

2000 

% 

change 

Laupāhoehoe CDP -- -- 508 -6.9 473 -- -- 

Honomū CDP -- -- 532 1.7 541 -- -- 

Pāpa‘ikou CDP -- -- 1,634 -13.5 1,414 -- -- 

Paukaa CDP -- -- 495 0 495 -- -- 

Pepe‘ekeo CDP -- -- 1,813 -6.4 1,697 -- -- 

Wainaku CDP -- -- 1,243 -1.3 1,227 -- -- 

Hilo CDP -- -- 37,808 7.8 40,759 -- -- 

Captain Cook CDP -- -- 2,595 23.5 3,206 -- -- 

Hōnaunau-Napo‘opo‘o 

CDP 

2008 

-- -- 2,373 1.7 2,414 -- -- 

Kealakekua CDP -- -- 1,453 13.2 1,645 -- -- 

Source: County of Hawai‘i 2007, HDBEDT 2009. 

The University of Hawai‘i system includes one community college and one university on the Island 

of Hawai‘i. During the 2008 school year, enrollment at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo was 3,773; 

522 students received Bachelor degrees and 28 received Master degrees during that year. During the 

2008 school year, 2,884 students were enrolled at the Hawai‘i Community College (County of 

Hawai‘i 2007, HDBEDT 2009). 

5.3.4 Employment and Income 

In 2007, an estimated 68,944 people were employed in the County of Hawai‘i (HDBEDT 2009). The 

county unemployment rate is slightly higher than the State average. The leisure and hospitality 

industry employed the largest number of residents in 2006. The top five employers in the County of 

Hawai‘i in 2007 were (1) the State of Hawai‘i (7,696 employees); (2) the County of Hawai‘i 

(2,335 employees); (3) the U.S. Government (1,231 employees); (4) Hilton Waikoloa Village Resort 

(1,128 employees); and (5) KTA Superstores (885 employees) (County of Hawai‘i 2007). 

The average per capita income for the State of Hawai‘i in 2009 was $42,009. This income is slightly 

higher than the U.S. average of $39,138. During the late 20th century, the per capita income of the 

State of Hawai‘i was higher than the national average, reaching a peak of 115.5 percent of the U.S. 

average in 1992. The median four person family income for the State in 2008 was $91,483, which is 

sixth highest in the Nation (HDBEDT 2009). 

On the Island of Hawai‘i, the per capita income was lower at $26,591 (County of Hawai‘i 2007, 

HDBEDT 2007). The median household and family incomes for the County in 2000 were $39,805 

and $46,480, respectively. The highest household incomes are in the South Kohala area, especially 

Kamuela (County of Hawai‘i 2007).



Table 5-4. Hawai‘i County Industry Job Counts and Average Annual Wages. 

5.3.5 Economy 

Industry 

Hawai‘i County 

Job Counts 

(2009) 

Average Annual 

Wage (2008) 

Nat. resources, mining, construction 3,850 

Mining $82,014 

Construction $62,056 

Manufacturing 1,350 $38,800 

Trade, transportation & utilities 13,100 

Wholesale trade 1,600 $48,001 

Retail trade 8,850 $27,038 

Information 650 $54,979 

Financial activities 2,750 

Finance & insurance 1,150 $56,485 

Real estate, rental, leasing n/a $40,562 

Professional & business services 4,450 $61,909 

Education & health services 7,600 

Education services 1,250 $34,047 

Health care & social assistance 6,400 $43,753 

Leisure & hospitality 12,550 

Government 12,850 $49,682 

Agriculture 2,300 $30,538 

Source: State of Hawai‘i Data Book 2009, HDBEDT. 

The economy of the Island of Hawai‘i, and the State as a whole, is primarily driven by the 

visitor/tourist industry. The Hawai‘i DBEDT (2009) estimates 6,713,436 visitors traveled to the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2008. Of this total, 73 percent came from the continental United States and 

27 percent from other countries. The largest percentage of domestic visitors (50.6 percent) came 

from the Pacific United States including Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington. Of the 

passengers arriving from outside the United States, the largest number of visitors came from Japan 

(1,175,199), Canada (359,580), and Australia (137,812). Visitor related expenditures contributed 

$10.7 billion to the State in 2008 and 141,500 jobs (HDBEDT 2009). 

The tourism industry became the primary economic generator for Hawai‘i County during the 1980s 

(County of Hawai‘i 2006). Although visitor arrivals have fluctuated over the years, it remains the key 

industry for the island. During 2008, 1,321,277 individuals visited the Island of Hawai‘i, of which 

1,026,048 were domestic and 295,229 were international. In 2006, the average length of stay was 

6.68 days (County of Hawai‘i 2007). The largest proportion of the Hawai‘i Island visitors were from 

the continental western U.S. (513,078), eastern U.S. (406,490), and Japan (214,066). 

In the first half of 2007, total visitor spending was highest on the Island of Hawai‘i compared to other 

islands in the State. Estimated expenditures of total visitors in 2004 was $5,478.2 million (County of 

Hawai‘i 2007). Hotels on the island generate employment for 6,000 residents and have an annual 

payroll of over $163 million (Research Solutions, LLC and Gopalakrishnan 2002). 




The success of the tourism industry on Hawai‘i Island has been attributed to the diversity the island 

offers (First Hawaiian Bank 2007). Recreational opportunities include the following: SCUBA 

diving, fishing, snorkeling, swimming, sunbathing, shopping, wildlife observation, and viewing 

historical/cultural sites. More modern tourism opportunities such as ecotourism, health and wellness 

tourism, and educational tourism are also growing. The most popular tourist attraction is Hawai‘i 

Volcanoes National Park; however, the principal visitor destination area on the Island of Hawai‘i is 

the South Kohala-North Kona region in West Hawai‘i (County of Hawai‘i 2006). 

Secondary components of the Hawai‘i County economy are agriculture and research. Historically, 

agriculture has played a large role in the economy of the island, and the State as a whole. During the 

19 th and 20 th centuries, the main industries were sugar cultivation and cattle ranching. The sugar 

industry gradually declined and finally ceased with the closure of the last sugar operation in Ka‘ū in 

1997 (County of Hawai‘i 2007). Although this industry has declined in importance in other parts of 

the State, it remains a strong part of the Hawai‘i County economy (First Hawaiian Bank 2007). 

Current diversified agricultural activities include flowers and nursery products, coffee, macadamia 

nuts, tropical fruits, vegetable crops, orchards, aquaculture, and forestry (Research Solutions, LLC 

and Gopalakrishnan 2002, County of Hawai‘i 2007). In 2008, the Island of Hawai‘i had 4,650 farms 

employing approximately 2,350 people. Agricultural sales during 2007 totaled approximately 

$202 million. The State’s livestock and aquaculture operations are centered on Hawai‘i Island. 

Seventy percent of Hawai‘i’s livestock are raised on the island and nearly half of the aquaculture 

facilities are on Hawai‘i Island. Sales of these two industries in 2000 were $14 million and 

$16 million, respectively (Research Solutions, LLC and Gopalakrishnan 2002). 

The University of Hawai‘i at Hilo is also a major component of the island’s economy. It is estimated 

that the direct contribution of the University is $136 million per year. This is generated from 

research, construction, and foreign students. In addition, the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo is the 

primary employer for the east side of the island (Research Solutions, LLC and Gopalakrishnan 2002, 

First Hawaiian Bank 2007). 

The construction industry peaked in early 2006 on the Island of Hawai‘i due to building within Puna 

and luxury condos on the west side; however, the construction and real estate sectors have recently 

slowed. This trend is evident in the decline in private construction permits (First Hawaiian Bank 

2007). 

The largest employers, after the government, were private entities (1) Hilton Waikoloa Village 

(employing 984 people), (2) Wal-Mart (employing 852 people), and (3) KTA Superstores 

(employing 800 people). (County of Hawai‘i 2008). 

Statewide, the U.S. Department of Defense plays an important part in the economy as the second 

major source of revenue behind tourism. Statewide defense expenditures were $5.6 billion in 2005. 

An estimated $742 million is being appropriated for military construction and defense related 

projects in Fiscal Year 2008. Annual per capita federal defense expenditures are $3,939. These 

expenditures are the highest on O‘ahu (Chamber of Commerce of Hawai‘i 2008). 


5.3.6 Refuge Contribution 



Recreational spending near national wildlife refuges generates economic activity for local 

economies. These expenditures can include food, lodging, transportation, and other purchases from 

local businesses while engaging in refuge uses. Books, magazines, membership dues and 

contributions, land leasing or ownership, hunting and fishing licenses, and plantings, all for the 

purpose of wildlife-related recreation are also considered expenditures. In 2006, approximately 

34.8 million people visited refuges around the contiguous United States, generating an estimated 

$1.7 billion in regional economies. Refuge employment contributed $542.8 million in income and 

recreational spending generated about $185.3 million in tax revenue at the local, State, and Federal 

level. Additional revenue is also derived from local taxes and employment income from the refuges. 

Wildlife-related recreation in Hawai‘i generated approximately $373,778,000 in 2006, with roughly 

$210,414,000 attributed to wildlife watching (USFWS 2007a). Although the units of the Hakalau 

Forest NWR are generally not available to the public, the Refuge does contribute to the local 

economy through recreational expenditures. Carver and Caudill (2007) found that the Hakalau 

Forest NWR had total annual recreational expenditure of $56,400 from 1,323 visitors. Roughly 

90 percent of these total expenditures were from nonresidents. Birding and other wildlife observation 

were the main activities occurring at the HFU. In comparison, recreational expenditures at Kīlauea 

Point on Kaua‘i generated $10.7 million from 986,088 visitors. 

In addition to recreational expenditures, the Refuge contributes money to the local economy through 

the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s). This Act authorizes Federal payments to 

be transferred to the County of Hawai‘i annually in lieu of discontinued taxation of private property. 

The amount compensated is approximately 0.75 percent of the fair market value of fee lands. In 

2009, $66,557 was paid to Hawai‘i County for Hakalau Forest NWR. 


Carver, E. and J. Caudill. 2007. Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington, DC. 382 pp. 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2005. Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

Washington, DC. 435 pp. 

Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, Military Affairs Council. 2008. Hawaii-Based Armed Forces 

Benefit All of US. Available at http://cochawaii.com/_library/documents/newpdfs/imp%20mil%202008.pdf. 

Accessed February 1, 2008. 

Clark, Hannah. Forbes Magazine "The Best Cities to Get a Job" (February16, 2007). Available at: 

http://www.forbes.com/careers/2007/02/15/best-cities-jobs-leadershipcareers_cx_hc_0216cityjobs.html. 

Accessed January 7, 2008. 




County of Hawaii. 2007. 2006 County of Hawaii Data Book. Available at: 

http://co.hawaii.hi.us/databook_current/dbooktoc.htm. Accessed on June 3, 2008. 

County of Hawaii, Department of Parks and Recreation. 2008. A Guide to Public Parks. Available at: 

http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/parks/pdf/CampingInformation.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2008. 

County of Hawaii, Department of Planning. 2006. County of Hawaii General Plan. 

Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP), City and County of Honolulu. 2003. Community 

Profiles 2000 by Development Plan Area. Available at 

http://www.honoluludpp.org/planning/ResearchStats.asp. Accessed January 25, 2008. 

DHHL and USFWS. 2003. Draft Environmental Assessment Department of Hawaiian Home Lands / 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Fuel Break Construction Project Island of Hawai‘i. 

Division of State Parks, DLNR. Hawaii State Parks website. Available at: 

http://www.hawaiiStateparks.org/parks/hawaii/. Accessed June 4, 2008. 

Dougherty, Dennis and Jadelyn Moniz-Nakamura. July 2006. A Cultural Resource Overview 

Report for the Proposed North Kona Fencing and Habitat Restoration Project, North Kona, Hawai‘i. 

National Park Service Publication in Anthropology #8. Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park. 

First Hawaiian Bank. 2007. Economic Forecast 2007-2008 Edition. 

Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (HDBEDT). State of Hawaii 

Data Book 2007. 2008. Available at: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook/db2008/. 

Accessed August 5, 2010. 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Boating and Ocean 

Recreation (DBOR). DOBOR Facilities. Available at: 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dbor/borfacilities.htm. Accessed January 9, 2008. 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). Hunting In Hawaii: What You Should 

Know. Available at: http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/dcre/know.htm#Game_Animals_in_Hawaii. 

Accessed January 9, 2008. 

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). 2003. State Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan. 

Juvik, S.P. and J.O. Juvik. 1998. Atlas of Hawai‘i, Third edition. University of Hawai‘i Press: 


Maly, K and Onaona Maly. 2001 A Historical Overview of the Lands, and Trails Traveled, Between 

Keauhou and Kealakekua, Kona, Hawai‘i. Prepared for the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 

Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaii. 

Raymond, A. and N. Valentine. Cultural Resource Investigations for Boundary and Cross Fences at 

the KFU of the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Hawaii Island. 2007. 




Research Solutions, LLC and S. Gopalakrishnan. 2002. Draft Economic Impact Analysis for 

Proposed Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Plants on the Island of Hawaii. Prepared 

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Schuster,L.C., M. Durst, P.W. Chattey, and L. Tamimi. 2002. Cultural Resources Report for the 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Urban Interface Project. 42 pp. 



Honolulu HI. 


Tomonari-Tuggle. 1996. Bird catchers and bullock hunters in the upland Mauna Kea Forest: a 

cultural resource overview of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, island of Hawaii. 

International Archaeological Research Institute. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census). 2001. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, 

2000. Census of Population and Housing, Hawai‘i. 

USFWS. 2002a. Wildland Fire Management Plan, Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge, Hakalau Unit. 

USFWS. 2002b. Fire Management Plan, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Kona Forest Unit. 

USFWS. 2004. Visitor Services Evaluation Report, Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. 

Region 1. 

USFWS. 2006. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) Workbook 2006, Hakalau 

Forest NWR. 

USFWS. 2007a. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. 

Available at: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2006_Survey.htm. Accessed 

December 12, 2007. 

USFWS. 2007b. Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP) Workbook 2007, Hakalau 

Forest NWR. 

USFWS. 2008. Final Environmental Assessment for Fencing of the KFU of the Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge Hawai‘i County, Hawai‘i. 





Appendices 

Above: Nēnē/John De Mello 

Right: ‘I‘iwi/Jack Jeffrey Photography 

Hakalau Forest Unit understory/Jack Jeffrey Photography

Appendix A. Species Lists for Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

Table A-1. Plant List (Both Native and Nonnative) for Hakalau Forest Unit. 

Critical 

Habitat 



Life Year First 

Family Species (Scientific Name) Common Name Status 

Form Observed 

Adiantaceae Adiantum capillus-veneris ‘iwa‘iwa I f 

Adiantum cuneatum maidenhair fern A f 

Amarantaceae Charpentiera obovata pāpala E s,t 

Apocynaceae Alyxia olivaeformis maile E l 1987 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex anomala kāwa‘u E t 1987 

Ilex aquifolium English holly A s,t 1987 

Araceae Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily A h 1987 

Araliaceae Cheirodendron trigynum ‘ōlapa E t 1987 

Tetraplasandra melandra ‘ohe E t 

Aspidiaceae Arachniodes carvifolia I f 1987 

Ctenitis rubiginosa E f 1987 

Dryopteris fusco-atra E f 1987 

Dryopteris glabra kīlau E f 1987 

Dryopteris hawaiiensis E f 1987 

Dryopteris wallichiana lau-kahi I f 1987 

Dryopteris unidentata ‘akole E f 1987 

Polystichum hillebrandii papa‘oi E f 

Aspleniaceae Asplenium contiguum E f 1987 

Asplenium lobulatum pi‘ipi‘i-lau I f 1987 

Asplenium macraei E f 1987 

Asplenium normale I f 1987 

Asplenium polyodon ? f 1987 

Asplenium rhipidoneuron iwa‘iwa-a-Kāne I f 

Asplenium schizophyllum SOC f 1987 

Appendix A: Species Lists A-1

Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Asplenium unilaterale pāmoho I f 

Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare bull thistle A s,t 1987 

Athyriaceae Athyrium microphyllum ‘ākōlea E f 1987 

Diplazium sandwichianum hō‘i‘o E f 1987 

Blechnaceae Sadleria cyatheoides ‘ama‘u, ‘ama‘uma‘u E f 1987 

Sadleria pallida ‘ama‘u, ‘ama'uma‘u E f 1987 

Sadleria souleyetiana ‘ama‘u, ama‘uma‘u E f 1987 

Sadleria squarrosa ‘ama‘u E f 

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica honeysuckle A l 1987 

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium vulgatum larger mouse ear, 

A h 1987 

chickweed 

Drymaria cordata drymaria A h 1987 

Polycarpon tetraphyllum allseed A h 1987 

Stellaria media common chickweed A h 1987 

Casuarinaceae Casuarina common ironwood A t 1987 

Celastraceae Perrottetia sandwicensis olomea E t 1987 

Commelinaceae Commelina diffusa day flower A h 

Compositae Ageratum conyzoides ageratum A h 1987 

Ageratina riparia spreading mist flower A h 1987 

Bidens pilosa Spanish needle A h 1987 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum white daisy A h 1987 

Crassocephalum crepidioides A h 1987 

Dubautia scabra na‘ena‘e E s,t 1987 

Erechtites valerianaefolia valerian-leaved fireweed A h 1987 

Erigeron bonariensis hairy horseweed A h 1987 

Erigeron canadensis Canada fleabane A h 1987 

Gnaphalium japonicum cudweed A h 1987 

A-2 Appendix A: Species Lists

Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Hypochoeris radicata hairy cat’s-ear, gosmore A h 1987 

Senecio sylvaticus wood groundsel A h 1987 

Senecio madagascariensis fire weed A h 2004 

Senecio mikanioides German ivy A l Pua 

‘Ākala1990 

Solanum tuberosum A h 1987 

sonchus oleraceus sow thistle A h 1987 

Taraxacum officinale dandelion A h 1987 

Youngia japonica oriental hawksbeard A h 1987 

Corynocarpaceae Corynocarpus laevigata karaka tree A t 1987 

Cruciferae Cardamine flexuosa A h 1987 

Nasturtium microphyllum watercress A h 1987 

Cucurbitaceae Sicyos sp. kūpala E l 

Cupressaceae Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Port Orford cedar A t 1987 

Cyperaceae Carex alligata E g 1987 

Carex macloviana St. Malo’s sedge I g 1987 

Carex wahuensis var. rubiginosa E g 1987 

Cyperus brevifolius kyllinga A g 

Cyperus haspan A g 1987 

Eleocharis obtusa pīpī wai, kohekohe I g 1987 

Eleocharis radicans A g 1987 

Machaerina angustifolia ‘uki I g 1987 

Uncinia uncinata I g 1987 

Dennstaedtiaceae Microlepia strigosa palapalai, palai I f 1987 

Dicksoniaceae Cibotium chamissoi hāpu‘u ‘i‘i, ‘i‘i E f 1987 

Cibotium glaucum hāpu‘u pulu E f 1987 

Cibotium hawaiense meu E f 


Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Elaphoglossaceae Elaphoglossum alatum ‘ēkaha E f 1987 

Elaphoglossum crassifolium ‘ēkaha E f 1987 

Elaphoglossum hirtum var. micans ‘ēkaha E f 1987 

Elaphoglossum wawrae ‘ēkaha E f 1987 

Epacridaceae Styphelia tameiameiae pūkiawe I s 1987 

Ericaceae Rhododendrum x hybridium rhododendron A s 1987 

Vaccinium calycinum ‘ōhelo-kau-lā‘au E s,t 1987 

Vaccinium pahalae ‘ōhelo E s 1987 

Vaccinium reticulatum ‘ōhelo E s 1987 

Fagaceae Castanea dentata American chestnut A t 1987 

Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium Filaree A h 1987 

Geranium carolinianum Carolina crane’s A h 1987 

Gesneriaceae Cyrtandra lysiosepala kanawao-ke‘oke‘o E s 1987 

Cyrtandra paludosa kanawao-ke‘oke‘o E s 1987 

Cyrtandra platyphylla kanawao-ke‘oke‘o E s 1987 

Cyrtandra tintinnabula* ha‘iwale Endang Maulua 1994 

Hypericum mutilum St. Johnswort A h 1987 

Gleicheniaceae Dicranopteris linearis uluhe I f 1987 

Diplopterygium pinnata uluhe-lau-nui I f 1987 

Sticherus owhyhensis uluhe E f 1987 

Gramineae Agrostis alba red top grass A g 1987 

Agrostis avenacea A g 1987 

Andropogon virginicus broomsedge A g 

Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernal grass A g 1987 

Avena fatua wild oat A g 1987 

Axonopus affinis narrow-leaved carpet A g 1987 

grass 


Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Dactylis glomerata orchard grass A g 1987 

Deschampsia australis E g 1987 

Eragrostis brownei Brown’s lovegrass A g 1987 

Festuca arundinacea A g Hakalau 

Cabin 2005 

Holcus lanatus velvet grass A g 1987 

Isachne distichophylla ‘ohe E g ‘Āwehi 

stream 4100ft 

2002 

Microlaena stipoides meadow ricegrass A g 1987 

Paspalum dilatatum dallis grass A g 1987 

Paspalum urvillei vasey grass A g 1987 

Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyu grass A g 1987 

Poa annua annual bluegrass A g 1987 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass A g 1987 

Sacciolepis indica Glenwood grass A g 1987 

Setaria geniculata perennial foxtail A g 1987 

Sporobolus africanus African dropseed A g 1987 

Grammitidaceae Adenophorus hymenophylloides pai, palai-lā‘au E f 1987 

Adenophorus pinnatifidus kihi, kihe E f 1987 

Adenophorus tamariscinus wahine-noho-mauna E f 1987 

Adenophorus tripinnatifidus wahine-noho-mauna E f 1987 

Grammitis hookeri māku‘e-lau-li‘i E f 1987 

Grammitis tenella kolokolo E f 1987 

Xiphopteris saffordii mahine-lua E f 1987 

Guttiferae Hypericum degeneri A h 1987 

Hemionitidaceae Coniogramme pilosa lo‘ulu E f 1987 




Life Year First Critical 


Form Observed Habitat 

Hymenophyllaceae Mecodium recurvum ‘ōhi‘a kū E f 1987 

Sphaerocionium lanceolatum palaihinahina E f 1987 

Sphaerocionium obtusum palai-lau-li‘i E f 

Vandenboschia davallioides kīlau, kālau, palahihi E f 1987 

Hypolepidaceae Hypolepis punctata ‘olua I f 1987 

Pteridium aquilinum var. 

kīlau-a-pueo, 

E f 1987 

decompositum 

brackenfern 

Joinvilleaceae Joinvillea ascendens ‘ohe C g 

Juncaceae Juncus effusus bog rush A g 1987 

Juncus planifolius A g 1987 

Juncus tenuis slender rush A g 1987 

Luzula hawaiiensis E g 1987 

Labiatae Mentha spicata spearmint A h Nauhi cabin 

1990 

Phyllostegia floribunda E s 

Phyllostegia brevidens* SOC 1991 

Phyllostegia racemosa* kīponapona Endang h 1987 Portions of 

unit 1-2 

Phyllostegia velutina* Endang 1991 

Phyllostegia vestita SOC l 

Phyllostegia warshaueri Endang 

Prunella vulgaris self-heal A h 1987 

Stenogyne calaminthoides E l 1987 

Stenogyne macrantha E l 1987 

Stenogyne scrophularioides Benth. mōhihi E l Maulua 1998 

var. biflora 

Stenogyne scrophularioides var. mōhihi E l 

remvi 

Leguminosae Acacia koa koa E t 1987 

Lotus angustissimus A h 1987 




Life Year First Critical 


Form Observed Habitat 

Lotus corniculatus bird’s foot trefoil A h 1987 

Lotus uliginosus A h 1987 

Medicago polymorpha burr clover A h 1987 

Sophora chrysophylla māmane E t 1987 

Trifolium repens white clover A h 1987 

Ulex europaeus gorse A s 1987 

Liliaceae Astelia menziesiana pa‘iniu E h 1987 

Smilax sandwicensis hoi-kuahiwi E l 1987 

Lindsaeceae Sphenomeris chinensis pala‘ā I f 1987 

Lobeliaceae Clermontia lindseyana* Endang s 1987 Portions of 

unit 1-2 

Clermontia parviflor ‘ōhāwai E s,t Maulua 1992 

Clermontia peleana peleana ‘ōhāwai Endang s,t Portions of 

unit 1, 3 

Clermontia pyrularia* ‘ōhāwai Endang s Outplanted Portions of 

1992 unit 1-2 

Clermontia sp. E s 1987 

Cyanea fernaldii E s 

Cyanea longipedunculata E s 

Cyanea pilosa E s 1987 

Cyanea platypylla ‘aku‘aku Endang s 

Cyanea shipmannii* hāhā Endang s 1992 Portions of 

unit 1 

Cyanea tritomantha ‘akū E s 

Trematolobelia grandifolia koli‘i E s Honohina 

1992 

Loganiaceae Labordia hedyosmifolia var. gravana kamakahala E s 1987 

Loranthaceae Korthalsella complanata hulumoa E h 1987 

Korthalsella cylindrica E h 

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodium cernum wāwae‘iole I f 1987 

Lycopodium erubescens E f 


Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Lycopodium serratum E f 

Lythraceae Cuphea carthagenensis tarweed A h 1987 

Lythrum maritimum A h,s 1987 

Magnoliaceae Magnolia grandiflora southern magnolia A t 1987 

Malvaceae Modiola caroliniana modiola A h 1987 

Marattiaceae Marattia douglasii pala I f 1987 

Myoporaceae Myoporum sandwicense naio E t 1987 

Myrsinaceae Embelia pacifica kilioe E l 

Myrsine lessertiana kōlea-lau-nui E t 1987 

Myrsine sandwicensis. kōlea-lau-li‘i E s,t 1987 

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. A t 1987 

Eucalyptus robusta swamp mahogany A t 1987 

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘ōhi‘a lehua E s,t 1987 

Psidium cattleianum strawberry guava A t 2004 

Nephrolepidaceae Nephrolepis cordifolia ni‘ani‘au I f 1987 

Orchidaceae Arundina bambusaefolia bamboo orchid A h 1987 

Liparis hawaiensis ‘awapuhi-a-kanaloa E h 

Oleaceae Fraxinus uhdei tropical ash A t 1987 

Onagraceae Epilobium cinereum willow herb A h 1987 

Fuchsia magellanica fucshia A s 1987 

Ludwigia palustris water purslane A h 1987 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata var. corniculata lady’s sorrel A h 1987 

Palmae Pritchardia lanigera lo‘ulu E t 

Pandanaceae Freycinetia arborea ‘ie‘ie E l 1987 

Passifloraceae Passiflora mollissima banana poka A l 1987 

Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca sandwicensis pōpolo-kū-mai SOC s 1987 

Piperaceae Peperomia cookiana ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 1987 

Peperomia expallescens ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 1987 


Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Peperomia hawaiensis ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 1987 

Peperomia hypoleuca ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 1987 

Peperomia leptostachya ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui I h 1987 

Peperomia ligustrina ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 

Peperomia lilifolia ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 1987 

Peperomia macreana ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui E h 

Peperomia tetraphylla ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui I h 1987 

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum victorian laurel A Ander- 1999 

son & 

Crosby 

Plantaginaceae Plantago australis plantain A h 1987 

Plantago lanceolata narrow-leaved plantain A h 1987 

Plantago major common plantain A h 1987 

Platanaceae Platanus sp. plane tree A t 1987 

Polygonaceae Polygonum punctatum water smartweed A h 1987 

Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel A h 1987 

Rumex crispus yellow dock A h 1987 

Rumex giganteus pāwale E s,l 1987 

Primulaceae Anagallis arvensis var. arvensis scarlet pimpernel A h 1987 

Polypodiaceae Pleopeltis thunbergiana ‘ekaha-‘ākōle, 

I f 1987 

pākahakaha 

Polypodium pellucidum var. 

‘ae E f 1987 

pellucidum 

Psilotaceae Psilotum complanatum moa I f 1987 

Psilotum nudum moa I f 1987 

Pteridaceae Pteris cretica ‘owāli‘i I f 1987 

Pteris excelsa waimaka-nui, iwa E f 1987 

Pteris irregularis mana E f 

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus hawaiensis makou SOC 


Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Ranunculus plebeius common Australian A h 1987 

buttercup 

Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup A h 1987 

Ranunculus mauiensis Aug 1991 

Rosaceae Fragaria vesca f. alba European strawberry A h 1987 

Prunus cerasus sour cherry A t 1987 

Prunus persica peach A s,t 1987 

Pyrus malus apple A t 

Rosa sp. rose A s 1987 

Photenia Davidiana photenia - Nauhi area A s 

Rubus hawaiiensis ‘ākala E s 1987 

Rubus argutus prickly Florida 

A s 1987 

blackberry 

Rubus rosaefolius thimbleberry A s 1987 

Unknown Rubus A s 1987 

Rubiaceae Coprosma ochracea pilo E t 1987 

Coprosma rhynchocarpa pilo E s,t 

Gouldia hillebrandii manono E t 1987 

Gouldia terminalis manono E t 1987 

Gouldia terminalis var. 

manono E t 

quadrangularis 

Nertera granadensis var. insularis mākole I h 1987 

Skottsb. 

Psychotria hawaiiensis var. 

kōpiko E s,t 1987 

hawaiienis 

Photenia Davidiana A s,t 1987 

Rutaceae Pelea clusiaefolia ‘alani E s,t 1987 

Pelea grandifolia ‘alani E t 1987 

Pelea pseudoanisata ‘alani E s,t 1987 


Critical 

Habitat 





Form Observed 

Platydesma remyi Remy’s pilo-kea C1R t 

Platydesma spathulata pilo-kea E s,t 

Salaginellaceae Selaginella arbuscula lepelepe-a-moa E f 1987 

Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa ‘a‘ali‘i E s 1987 

Saxifragaceae Broussaisia arguta Gaud.var. arguta pū‘aha-nui, kanawao E s 1987 

forma ternata Forbes 

Hydrangea macrophylla hydrangea A s 1987 

Scrophulariaceae Castilleja arvensis Indian paintbrush A h 1987 

Veronica arvensis corn speedwell A h 1987 

Veronica plebeia common speedwell A h 1987 

Veronica serpyllifolia thyme-leaved speedwell A h 1987 

Solanaceae Physalis peruviana cape gooseberry A h 1987 

Solanum nigrum pōpolo, black nightshade I ? s 1987 

Solanum tuberosum potato A h 1987 

Nothocestrum longifolium Aira E t Maulua 

12/90 

Taxodiaceae Cryptomeria japonica Tsugi or sugi pine A t 1987 

Cunninghamia lanceolata China fir A t 1987 

Sequoia sempervirens coast redwood A t 1987 

Theaceae Eurya sandwicensis* ānini SOC t Tr 2 Bottom 

3/2007 

Thelypteridaceae Amauropelta globulifera palapalai-a-kama-pua‘a E f 1987 

Christella cyatheoides kikawaiō, pakikawaiō E f 

kupukupu-makali‘i 

Pseudophegopteris keraudreniana waimaka-nui E f 1987 

Pneumatopteris sandwicensis hō‘i‘o-kula E f 1987 

Macrothelypteris torresiana A f 2001 

Thymelaeaceae Wikstroemia sp. ‘ākia E s 

Umbelliferae Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides marsh pennywort A h 1987 


Critical 

Habitat 



Form Observed 

Hydrocotyle verticillata whorled marsh 

A h 1987 

pennywort 

Urticaceae Pilea peploides I h 1987 

Pipturus albidus māmaki E s,t 1987 

Touchardia latifolia olonā E s 

Urera sandvicensis ōpūhe E t 

Verbenaceae Verbena litoralis weed verbena A h 1987 



Status Life Form 

E = Endemic f = fern 

I = Indigenous h = herb 

P = Polynesian introduction g = grass or grass like (sedges, rushes 

and grasses) 

A = alien (nonnative) s = shrub 

SOC = species of concern, old C2 t = tree 

C1R = recommended for candidate1 l = liana, vine 

C1P = candidate1 proposed for listing 

Endang = endangered 

? = Recorded during the Hawai‘i Forest Bird Survey, not seen since 

* = Species in propagation at Hakalau Forest greenhouse 


Table A-2. Plant List (Both Native and Nonnative) for Kona Forest Unit. 



Genus Species Hawaiian/Common Name 3X3 CODE 

Endemic 

Acacia koa koa AcaKoa 

Agrostis avenacea he‘u-pueo AgrAve 

Agrostis sandwicensis pili hale AgrSan 

Alyxia oliviformis maile AlyOli 

Antidesma platyphyllum hame AntPlaPla 

Astelia menziesiana pa‘iniu, kaluaha AstMen 

Broussaisia arguta pū‘aha-nui, kanawao BroArg 

Canavalia hawaiiensis ‘āwikiwiki CanHaw 

Carex alligata no common name CarAll 

Carex macloviana no common name CarMacSub 

Carex wahuensis no common name CarWah 

Charpentiera obovata pāpala ChaObo 

Cheirodendron trigynum ‘ōlapa CheTri 

Clermontia clermontioides ssp. clermontioides ‘ōhāwai CleCleCle 

Clermontia clermontioides ssp. rockiana ‘ōhāwai CleCleRoc 

E - Clermontia lindseyana ‘ōhāwai CleLin 

Cocculus orbiculatus huehue CocOrb 

Coprosma ernodeoides kūkae-nēnē CopErn 

Coprosma montana pilo CopMon 

Coprosma rhynchocarpa pilo CopRhy 

C - Cyanea floribunda hāhā CyaFlo 

E (CH) - Cyanea hamatiflora hāhā CyaHamCar 

SOC - Cyanea marksii hāhā CyaMar 

Cyanea pilosa hāhā CyaPilPil 

E - Cyanea stictophylla hāhā CyaSti 

Cyperus polystachyos no common name CypPol 

Cyrtandra hawaiensis ha‘iwale CyrHaw 

Rare - Cyrtandra lysiosepala ha‘iwale CyrLys 

SOC - Cyrtandra menziesii ha‘iwale CyrMen 

Cyrtandra platyphylla ‘ilihia CyrPla 





Deschampsia nubigena hairgrass DesNub 

Dianella sandwicensis ‘uki ‘uki DiaSan 

Dodonaea viscosa ‘a‘ali‘i DodVis 

Dubautia scabra na‘en‘ae DubSca 

Embelia pacifica kilioe EmbPac 

Exocarpos menziesii heau ExoMen 

Fimbristylis dichotoma tall fringe rush FimDic 

SOC - Fragaria Chiloensis ssp. sandwicensis ‘ōhelo papa FraChiSan 

Freycinetia arborea ‘ie‘ie FreArb 

Geranium cuneatum nohoanu GerCun 

Hedyotis centranthoides no common name HedCen 

Hedyotis hillebrandii manono HedHil 

Hedyotis terminalis manono HedTer 

Ilex anomala kāwa‘u IleAno 

Ipomoea indica morning glory, koali‘awa IpoInd 

Korthalsella latissima Hawaiian mistletoe, hulumoa, kaumahana KorLat 

Labordia hedyosmifolia kāmakahala LabHed 

Luzula hawaiiensis wood rush LuzHaw 

Machaerina angustifolia ‘uki MacAng 

Melicope clusiifolia kolokolo mokihana, kūkaemoa MelClu 

Melicope radiata alani MelRad 

Melicope volcanica alani MelVol 

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōhi‘a lehua, lehua MetPol 

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōhi‘a lehua, lehua MetPolGla 

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōhi‘a lehua, lehua MetPolInc 

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōhi‘a lehua, lehua MetPolMac 

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōhi‘a lehua, lehua MetPolPol 

Morelotia gahniiformis no common name MorGah 

Myoporum sandwicense naio, bastard sandalwood MyoSan 

Myrsine lanaiensis kōlea MyrLan 

Myrsine lessertiana kōlea lau nui MyrLes 

Myrsine sandwicensis kōlea lau li‘i MyrSan 

E - Nothocestrum breviflorum ‘aiea NotBre 





Nothocestrum longifolium ‘aiea NotLon 

Panicum tenuifolium mountain pili, konakona PanTen 

Paspalum scrobiculatum ricegrass PasScr 

Peperomia cookiana ‘ala‘ala wai nui PepCoo 

Peperomia hypoleuca ‘ala‘ala wai nui PepHyp 

Peperomia macraeana ‘ala‘ala-wai-nui PepMac 

Perrottetia sandwicensis olomea PerSan 

Phyllostegia ambigua no common name PhyAmb 

C - Phyllostegia floribunda no common name PhyFlo 

SOC - Phyllostegia stachyoides no common name PhySta 

E - Phyllostegia velutina no common name PhyVel 

SOC - Phyllostegia vestita no common name PhyVes 

Rare - Phytolacca sandwicensis pōpolo kū mai PhySan 

Pilea peploides no common name PilPep 

Pipturus albidus māmaki PipAlb 

Pisonia sandwicensis āulu, kaulu PisSan 

Pittosporum hosmeri hō‘awa PitHos 

Pittosporum terminalioides hō‘awa PitTer 

Platydesma spathulata pilo kea PlaSpa 

E - Portulaca sclerocarpa po‘e PorScl 

Pseudognaphalium sandwicensium ‘ena‘ena PseSanSan 

Psychotria hawaiiensis kōpiko ‘ula, ‘ōpiko PsyHaw 

Rubus hawaiensis ‘ākala RubHaw 

SOC - Rubus macraei ‘ākala RubMac 

Rumex giganteus pāwale, uhauhakō RumGig 

Rumex skottsbergii pāwale RumSko 

SOC - Sanicula sandwicensis no common name SanSan 

Santalum paniculatum ‘iliahi, sandalwood SanPanPan 

Schoenoplectus juncoides kaluhā SchJun 

Sicyos lasiocephalus ‘ānunu SicLas 

C - Sicyos macrophyllus ‘ānunu SicMac 

T - Silene hawaiiensis no common name SilHaw 

SOC - Sisyrinchium acre mau‘u hō‘ula ‘ili SisAcr 





Smilax melastomifolia hoi-kuahiwi, ‘aka‘awa SmiMel 

Sophora chrysophylla māmane SopChr 

Stenogyne calycosa no common name SteCal 

SOC - Stenogyne macrantha no common name SteMac 

Stenogyne rugosa ma‘ohi‘ohi SteRug 

SOC - Stenogyne scrophularioides mōhihi SteScr 

Stenogyne sessilis no common name SteSes 

Styphelia tameiameiae pūkiawe StyTam 

Tetramolopium humile no common name TetHum 

Tetraplasandra hawaiensis ‘ohe TetHaw 

Tetraplasandra oahuensis ‘ohe mauka TetOah 

Touchardia latifolia olonā TouLat 

Trisetum glomeratum He‘u-pueo, mountain pili TriGlo 

Uncinia uncinata no common name UncUnc 

Urera glabra ōpūhe UreGla 

Vaccinium calycinum ‘ōhelo kau lā‘au VacCal 

Vaccinium reticulatum ‘ōhelo VacRet 

Wikstroemia phillyreifolia ‘ākia WikPhi 

Wollastonia subcordata nehe WolSub 

Xylosma hawaiiense maua XylHaw 

Ferns 

Adenophorus hymenophylloides pai AdeHym 

Adenophorus tamariscinus wahine noho mauna AdeTam 

Adenophorus tripinnatifidus wahine noho mauna AdeTri 

Adiantum hispidulum no Hawaiian name AdiHis 

Adiantum raddianum no Hawaiian name AdiRad 

Amauropelta globulifera palapalai a Kamapua‘a AmaGlo 

Asplenium acuminatum lola AspAcu 

Asplenium adiantum-nigrum ‘iwa‘iwa, manawahua AspAdi 

Asplenium contiguum no Hawaiian name AspCon 

Asplenium insiticium ‘āpali‘i AspIns 

Asplenium lobulatum pi‘i pi‘i lau manamana, ‘anali‘i AspLob 

Asplenium macraei ‘iwa‘iwa lau li‘i, ‘iwa lau li‘i AspMac 





Asplenium monanthes no Hawaiian name AspMon 

Asplenium nidus ‘ēkaha,‘ekaha kuahiwi, ‘ākaha, ‘ekahakaha AspNid 

E - Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare no Hawaiian name AspPerIns 

Asplenium polyodon ‘iwa, ‘alae AspPol 

Asplenium sphenotomum no Hawaiian name AspSph 

Asplenium trichomanes ‘owāli‘i AspTriDen 

Asplenium unilaterale pāmoho AspUni 

Athyrium microphyllum ‘ākōlea AthMic 

Blechnum appendiculatum no Hawaiian name BleApp 

Callistopteris baueriana no Hawaiian name CalBau 

Christella parasitica no Hawaiian name ChrPar 

Cibotium chamissoi hāpu‘u, hāpu‘u ‘i‘i CibCha 

Cibotium glaucum hāpu‘u CibGla 

Cibotium menziesii hāpu‘u CibMen 

Coniogramme pilosa lo‘ulu ConPil 

Cyrtomium falcatum no Hawaiian name CyrFal 

SOC - Cystopteris douglasii no Hawaiian name CysDou 

Deparia petersenii no Hawaiian name DepPet 

Dicranopteris linearis uluhe DicLin 

Diplazium arnottii hō‘i‘o, pohole DipArn 

Diplazium sandwichianum hō‘i‘o DipSan 

Dryopteris fusco-atra ‘olua, ‘opeha DryFus 

Dryopteris glabra hohiu, kīlau DryGla 

Dryopteris hawaiiensis no Hawaiian name DryHaw 

Dryopteris unidentata ‘akole DryUni 

Dryopteris wallichiana lau kahi, ‘i‘o nui DryWal 

Elaphoglossum alatum ‘‘opeha ElaAla 

Elaphoglossum crassifolium laukahi ElaCra 

Elaphoglossum paleaceum ‘ēkaha ElaPal 

Elaphoglossum parvisquameum ‘ēkaha ElaPar 

Elaphoglossum wawrae māku‘e ElaWaw 

Grammitis hookeri māku‘e lau li‘i GraHoo 

Grammitis tenella kolokolo GraTen 





Huperzia erosa wawae‘iole HupEro 

Huperzia serrata wawae‘iole HupSer 

Hypolepis hawaiiensis ‘olua HypHaw 

Lellingeria saffordii kihi LelSaf 

Lepisorus thunbergianus ‘ēkaha ‘ākōlea LepThu 

Lycopodium venustulum wawae‘iole LycVen 

Macrothelypteris torresiana no Hawaiian name MacTor 

Rare - Marattia douglasii pala, kapua‘i lio MarDou 

Mecodium recurvum ‘ōhi‘a kū MecRec 

Microlepia strigosa palapalai MicStr 

Nephrolepis cordifolia ‘akupukupu NepCor 

Nephrolepis exaltata ‘ōkupukupu NepExaHaw 

Nephrolepis multiflora no Hawaiian name NepMul 

Nothoperanema rubiginosa māku‘e, pauoa NotRub 

Odontosoria chinensis pala‘ā OdoChi 

Oligadenus pinnatifidus kihi OliPin 

Oligadenus pinnatifidus kihi OliPin 

Ophioderma pendula lau kahi OphPen 

Palhinhaea cernua wawae‘iole PalCer 

Pellaea ternifolia kalamoho, kalamoho lau li‘i PelTer 

Phlebodium aureum laua‘e haole PhlAur 

Phlegmariurus filiformis wawae‘iole PhlFil 

Phlegmariurus phyllanthus wawae‘iole PhlPhy 

Pityrogramma austroamericana no Hawaiian name PitAus 

Pneumatopteris sandwicensis hō‘i‘o kula PneSan 

Polypodium pellucidum ‘ae PolPel 

Polystichum haleakalense kā‘ape‘ape PolHal 

Polystichum hillebrandii papa‘oi, ka‘upu PolHil 

Pseudophegopteris keraudreniana ‘iikolea, waimakanui, ala‘alai PseKer 

Psilotum complanatum moa, moa nahele, pipi PsiCom 

Psilotum nudum moa PsiNud 

Pteridium aquilinum kīlau, pai‘ā PteAquDec 

Pteris cretica ‘owali PteCre 





Pteris excelsa waimaka nui PteExc 

Pteris hillebrandii no Hawaiian name PteHil 

Pteris irregularis ‘iwa puakea (Maui), mana, ‘āhewa (O‘ahu) PteIrr 

Sadleria cyatheoides ‘ama‘u, ama‘uma‘u SadCya 

Sadleria pallida ‘ama‘u ‘i‘i SadPal 

Sadleria souleyetiana ‘ama‘uma‘u SadSou 

Selaginella arbuscula lepelepe a moa SelArb 

Sphaerocionium lanceolatum palai hinahina SphLan 

Sphenonmeris chinensis pala‘ā SphChi 

Vandenboschia davallioides kīlau VanDav 

Nonnative (weeds) 

Adiantum hispidulum Australian maidenhair AdiHis 

Adiantum raddianum maiden hair fern AdiRad 

Ageratina riparia spreading mist flower; hamakua pāmakani AgeRip 

Ageratum conyzoides maile-hohono AgeCon 

Agrostis stolonifera redtop, creeping bentgrass AgrSto 

Aleurites moluccana kukui, candlenut AleMol 

Andropogon virginicus broomsedge AndVir 

Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernalgrass AntOdo 

Asplenium nidus ‘ēkaha, bird’s-nest fern AspNid 

Arthrostema ciliatum no common name ArtCil 

Axonopus fissifolius narrow-leaved carpetgrass AxoFis 

Begonia hirtella begonia BegHir 

Begonia reniformis grape-leaf begonia BegRen 

Blechnum occidentale occidental blechnum BleOcc 

Briza minor little quaking grass BriMin 

Buddleia asiatica butterfly bush, dog tail BudAsi 

Cardamine flexuosa bittercress CarFle 

Carex longii no common name CarLon 

Carica papaya papaya CarPap 

Castilleja arvensis field Indian paintbrush CasArv 

Centaurium erythraea bitter herb, European centaury CenEryEry 





Centella asiatica Asiatic pennywort, pohe kula CenAsi 

Cerastium fontanum chickweed, hehine-hauli CerFonTri 

Cirsium vulgare bull-thistle CirVul 

Genus Species Common Name 3X3 CODE 

Clidemia hirta Koster’s curse CliHirHir 

Conyza bonariensis hairy horseweed ConBon 

Conyza canadensis Canada fleabane, lani wela ConCanPus 

Crassocephalum crepidioides no common name CraCre 

Cunninghamia lanceolata China fir, Chinese fir CunLan 

Cuphea carthagenensis tarweed CupCar 

Cupressus lanceolata cypress CupLan 

Cyclosorus parasiticus no common name CycPar 

Cyperus difformis sedge CypDif 

Cyperus haspan sedge CypHas 

Cyperus sanguinolentus no common name CypSan 

Cyrtomium falcatum holly fern CyrFal 

Delairea odorata German ivy DelOdo 

Desmodium incanum Spanish clover DesInc 

Desmodium sandwicense Spanish or chili clover DesSan 

Digitaria ciliaris Henry’s crabgrass DigCil 

Digitaria eriantha pangola grass DigEri 

Dissotis rotundifolia no common name DisRot 

Drymaria cordata pipili DryCorPac 

Ehrharta stipoides meadow ricegrass EhrSti 

Epidendrum x obrienianum butterfly orchid EpiXob 

Epilobium billardierianum no common name EpiBilCin 

Eragrostis brownii sheepgrass EraBro 

Erechtites valerianifolia fireweed EreVal 

Euchiton sphaericus Japanese cudweed EucSph 

Euphorbia peplus petty spurge EupPep 

Falcataria moluccana no common name FalMol 

Flindersia brayleyana Queensland maple, silkwood FliBra 





Fragaria vesca European, woodland, or sowteat strawberry FraVes 

Gamochaeta purpurea purple cudweed GamPur 

Geranium homeanum crane’s bill GerHom 

Grevillea robusta silky oak GreRob 

Hedychium coronarium white ginger HedCor 

Hippobroma longiflora Star-of-Bethlehem HipLon 

Holcus lanatus velvetgrass, yorkshire fog HolLan 

Hydrocotyle bowlesioides marsh pennywort HydBow 

Hypericum mutilum St. John’s wort HypMutMut 

Hypericum parvulum St. John’s wort HypPar 

Hypnum plumiformis moss HypPlu 

Hypochoeris radicata gosmore, hairy cat’s ear HypRad 

Hyptis pectinata comb hyptis HypPec 

Juncus effusus Japanese mat rush JunEff 

Juncus ensifolius rush JunEns 

Juncus planifolius rush JunPla 

Juncus tenuis path rush JunTen 

Kalanchoe pinnata air plant KalPin 

Kyllinga brevifolia kili‘o‘opu KylBre 

Kyllinga nemoralis kyllinga, kili‘o‘opu KylNem 

Lantana camara lantana, lākana LanCam 

Lepidium virginicum wild peppergrass LepVir 

Lotus subbiflorus no common name LotSub 

Lotus uliginosus no common name LotUli 

Ludwigia octovalvis primrose willow LudOct 

Ludwigia palustris marsh purslane LudPal 

Macroptilium atropurpureum no common name MacAtr 

Macrothelypteris torresiana no common name MacTor 

Malvastrum coromandelianum false mallow MalCorCor 

Mentha spicata spearmint MenSpi 

Mimosa pudica sensitive plant, sleeping grass MimPudUni 

Momordica charantia balsam pear MomCha 



Nephrolepis multiflora scaly swordfern NepMul 

Oplismenus hirtellus basketgrass, honohono OplHir 

Oxalis corniculata yellow wood sorrel OxaCor 

Oxalis debilis pink wood sorrel OxaDeb 

Panicum maximum Guinea grass PanMax 

Paspalum conjugatum Hilo grass, mau‘u-hilo PasCon 



Paspalum dilatatum dallis grass PasDil 

Paspalum fimbriatum Panama or fimbriate paspalum, Columbia PasFim 

grass 

Paspalum urvillei Vasey grass PasUrv 

Passiflora edulis liliko‘i, passion fruit PasEdu 

Passiflora foetida love-in-a-mist, pohāpohā PasFoe 

Passiflora ligularis sweet granadilla PasLig 

Passiflora mollissima banana poka PasMol 

Pennisetum clandestinum kikuyu grass PenCla 

Persicaria capitata knotweed, smartweed PerCap 

Persicaria punctata water smartweed PerPun 

Phaius tankarvilleae Chinese ground orchid PhaTan 

Phlebodium aureum laua‘e haole PhlAur 

Physalis peruviana pohā, cape gooseberry PhyPer 

Pinus radiata monterey pine PinRad 

Pinus taeda loblolly pine PinTae 

Pityrogramma austroamericana gold fern PitAus 

Plantago australis dwarf plantain PlaAusHir 

Plantago major broad-leaved plantain PlaMaj 

Pluchea carolinensis sour bush PluCar 

Poa annua annual bluegrass PoaAnn 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass PoaPra 

Polygala paniculata milkwort PolPan 

Prunella vulgaris selfheal, heal-all PruVul 

Psidium cattleianum strawberry guava, waiwai PsiCat 

Psidium guajava guava, common guava, kuawa PsiGua 





Ranunculus parviflorus buttercup RanPar 

Ranunculus plebeius common Australian buttercup RanPle 

Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup, butter daisy RanRep 

Ricinus communis castor bean RicCom 

Rubus argutus blackberry RubArg 

Rubus rosifolius thimbleberry RubRos 

Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel RumAce 

Rumex brownei slender dock RumBro 

Sacciolepis indica Glenwood grass SacInd 

Schinus terebinthifolius Christmas berry SchTer 

Schizachyrium condensatum beardgrass SchCon 

Senecio sylvaticus wood groundsel SenSyl 

Senna occidentalis coffee senna SenOcc 

Senna pendula kolomona, kalamona SenPenAdv 

Senna surattensis kolomona, kalamona SenSur 

Setaria palmifolia palmgrass SetPal 

Setaria parviflora perennial foxtail SetPar 

Sherardia arvensis spurwort SheArv 

Sida rhombifolia cuba jute SidRho 

Sisymbrium irio London rocket SisIri 

Sisyrinchium exile blue-eyed grass SisExi 

Solanum americanum glossy nightshade SolAme 

Sonchus oleraceus sow thistle SonOle 

Spathodea campanulata African tulip tree SpaCam 

Spermacoce assurgens buttonweed SpeAss 

Sporobolus africanus African dropseed SpoAfr 

Sporobolus indicus West Indian dropseed SpoInd 

Stachytarpheta australis oī, ōwī StaAus 

Stenotaphrum secundatum St. Augustine grass, buffalo grass SteSec 

Syzygium jambos rose apple SyzJam 

Tibouchina herbacea glorybush TibHer 

Toona ciliata Australian red cedar TooCil 



Trifolium repens white clover TriRepRep 

Verbascum thapsus common mullein VerTha 

Veronica arvensis corn speedwell VerArv 

Veronica plebeia trailing or common speedwell VerPle 

Veronica serpyllifolia thyme-leaved speedwell VerSer 

Vulpia bromoides brome fescue VulBro 

Wahlenbergia gracilis no common name WahGra 

Youngia japonica oriental hawksbeard YouJap 

Zingiber zerumbet shampoo ginger, ‘awapuhi-kua hiwi ZinZer 



C = Candidate 

E = Endangered 

CH = Critical Habitat (at KFU) 

SOC = Species of Concern 

T = Threatened 


Table A-3. Native Species for Repatriation at Kona Forest Unit. 



3x3 Code Genus Species Syn Status Intro Repatriation Augment Not 

Recorded 

AspFraIns Asplenium fragile E x 

BidCam Bidens campylotheca MIXD 

CarWah Carex wahuensis MIXD 

ChaOlo Chamaesyce olowaluana SOC x 

CleLin Clermontia lindseyana E 

ClePyr Clermontia pyrularia E 

CyaHamCar Cyanea hamatiflora E 

CyaMar Cyanea marksii SOC x? 

CyaPla Cyanea platyphylla E 

CyaSti Cyanea stictophylla E x? 

CyrMen Cyrtandra menziesii SOC x 

CysDou Cystopteris douglasii SOC x 

DieEre Diellia erecta E o? 

FluNeo Flueggea neowawraea E x, o? 

FraChiSan Fragaria chiloensis SOC x? 

HupMan Huperzia mannii Phlegmarius mannii E o 

MelHaw Melicope hawaiensis NS x, o 

NerOva Neraudia ovata E x, o 

NotBre Nothocestrum breviflorum E x, o 

PhyFlo Phyllostegia floribunda C o? 

PhySta Phyllostegia stachyoides SOC o 

PhyVel Phyllostegia velutina E o, x 

PhyVes Phyllostegia vestita R o 

PhySan Phytolacca sandwicensis R o x 

PleHaw Pleomele hawaiiensis NS x o 

PorScl Portulaca sclerocarpa E x 

PriAff Pritchardia affinis E o 

PriSch Pritchardia schattaueri E x, o 

RanHaw Ranunculus hawaiensis C o 


3x3 Code Genus Species Syn Status Intro Repatriation Augment Not 

Recorded 

RanMau Ranunculus mauiensis C o 

RubMac Rubus macraei SOC x, o 

SanSan Sanicula sandwicensis SOC x o? 

SicCuc Sicyos cucumerinus NS o?, x 

SicMac Sicyos macrophyllus C x, o 

SilHaw Silene hawaiiensis T x 

SisAcr Sisyrinchium acre SOC x 

SteMac Stenogyne macrantha SOC x, o? 

SteScr Stenogyne scrophularioides SOC o? 

StrPen Streblus pendulinus R o 

TreGra Trematolobelia grandifolia SOC o 

ZanDipDip Zanthoxylum dipetalum SOC x 



Legend 

X = Keali‘i Bio, PEP Hawai‘i Island C= Candidate E = Endangered T = Threatened 

O=Linda Pratt, USGS SOC = Species of Concern R = Rare NS = No Status 

Y = Jim Jacobi, USGS 




Table A-4. Hakalau and Kona Forest Unit NWR Priority Alien (Nonnative) Plants/Weeds. 

The priority target species were selected on the basis of invasiveness at Hakalau Forest NWR and/or 

similar habitats in other parts of the State. Additional species are likely to be added to this list in the 

future. 

Highest Priority 

Rubus argutus (prickly Florida blackberry)* 

Tibouchina herbacea (cane tibouchina)* + 

Passiflora mollissima (banana poka)* + 

Ulex europaeus (gorse)* 

Ilex aquifolium (English holly)* 

Photenia davidiana* 

Pennisetum clandestinum (kikuyu grass)* + 

Miconia calvescens (velvet tree, bush currant) 

Rubus ellipticus (Himalayan raspberry) 

Myrica faya (firetree) 

Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass) 

Intermediate Priority 

Ehrharta stipoides (meadow ricegrass)* + 

Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava)* + 

Psidium guajava (guava)+ 

Delairea odorata (German ivy)+ * 

Clidemia hirta (Koster’s curse)+ 

Juncus effuses (soft rush)* 

Tibouchina urvilleana (glory-bush) 

Schinus terebinthifolius (Christmas berry)+ 

Setaria palmifolia (palm grass) 

Heychium gardenerianum (kahili ginger) 

Spathodea campanulata (African tulip) 

Cryptomeria japonica (sugi pine)* 

Lower Priority 

Verbascum thapsus (mullein)* + 

Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle)* 

Passiflora ligularis (sweet granadilla, grenadia)+ 

Andropogon virginicus (broom sedge)* 

Appendix A. Species Lists A-27



Below 2,000 ft abutting Kona Forest Unit - Invasive Species of concern 

Albizia spp. 

Syzygium jambos (rose apple) 

Grevilla robusta (silky oak) 

Legend 

+ species known to occur on Kona Forest Unit 

* species known to occur on Hakalau Forest Unit or within Piha State GMA 

A-28 Appendix A. Species Lists



Table A-5. Animals (Both Native and Nonnative) Found at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Species Common Name Category Found at 

Hakalau 

Forest 

Unit 

BIRDS 

Hemignathus munroi ‘akiapōlā‘au E Y Y 

Loxops c. coccineus Hawai‘i ‘ākepa E Y Y 

Oreomystis mana Hawai‘i creeper E Y Y 

Psittirostra psittacea ‘ō‘ū E ? N 

Hemignathus v. virens Hawai‘i ‘amakihi En Y Y 

Himatione sanguinea ‘apapane En Y Y 

Vestiaria coccinea ‘i‘iwi En Y Y 

Chasiempis sandwichensis Hawai‘i ‘elepaio En Y Y 

Myadestes obscurus ‘ōma‘o En Y N 

Corvus hawaiiensis ‘alalā E N Y 

Asio flammeus sandwichensis pueo En Y Y 

Buteo solitarius Hawaiian hawk, ‘io E Y Y 

Anas wyvilliana Hawaiian duck, koloa maoli E Y N 

Branta sandvicensis Hawaiian goose, nēnē 

Hawaiian coot, ‘alae 

E Y N 

Fulica alai 

ke‘oke‘o E Y N 

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch X Y Y 

Lonchura punctulata nutmeg mannikin X Y Y 

Passer domesticus house sparrow X Y Y 

Padda oryzivora Java sparrow 

Y 

Leiothrix lutea red-billed leiothrix X Y Y 

Garrulax canorus melodius laughing thrush X Y Y 

Acridotheres tristis common myna X Y Y 

Zosterops japonicus Japanese white-eye X Y Y 

Cettia diphone Japanese bush-warbler X Y Y 

Cardinalis cardinalis northern cardinal X Y Y 

Mimus polyglottos northern mocking bird X 

Y 

Lonchura malabarica African silverbill X Y ? 

Sicalis flabeola saffron finch X 

Y 

Alauda arvensis skylark X Y ? 

Meleagris gallopavo turkey X Y Y 

Francolinus erckelii Erckel’s francolin X Y Y 

Callipepla californica California quail X Y ? 

Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant X Y ? 

Found 

at Kona 

Forest 

Unit 





Hakalau 

Forest 

Unit 

Found 

at Kona 

Forest 

Unit 

Lophura leucomelana kalij pheasant X Y Y 

Alectoris chukar Chukar X Y 

Columba livia rock dove X Y 

Geopelia striata spotted dove X Y Y 

Strepteopelia chinensis zebra dove X 

Y 

Pluvialis squatarola black-bellied plover I 

Coturnix japonica Japanese quail X Y ? 

Serinus mozambicus yellow fronted canary X Y ? 

Pluvialis fulva Pacific golden plover, kōlea I Y ? 

Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone, ‘akekeke I Y N 

Calidris alba sanderling, huna kai I 

Gallinago stenura pin-tailed snipe I 

Tyto alba 

MAMMALS 

barn owl 

Hawaiian hoary bat, 

X Y Y 

Lasiurus cinereus semotus ‘ōpe‘ape‘a E Y Y 

Herpestes auropuntatus Indian mongoose X Y Y 

Sus scrofa pig X Y Y 

Bos taurus cattle X Y Y 

Canis familiaris dog X Y Y 

Felis catus cat X Y Y 

Mus domesticus house mouse X Y Y 

Rattus rattus black rat X Y Y 

Rattus norvegicus Norwegian rat X Y Y 

Rattus exulans Polynesian rat X Y Y 

Ovis aries sheep X N Y 

Ovis musimon mouflon X N Y 

Capra hircus goat X N ? 

Equus caballus horse X N Y 

Equus asinus 

INVERTEBRATES 

donkey X N Y 

Table 4-5 in Chapter 4 also has a table listing additional arthropods occurring at both units 

Drosophila picture-wing flies E 

Y (CH) 

Coleotichus blackburniae koa bug En Y 

Succinea cf. cepulla mollusk En Y 

Tornatellides sp. mollusk En Y 

Culex quinquefasciatus southern house mosquito X Y Y 





Hakalau 

Forest 

Unit 

Vespula pensylvanica western yellowjacket wasp X Y Y 

Sophonia rufofascia two-spotted leafhopper X 

Y 

Cardiocondyla wroughtoni ant X 

Y 

Paratrechina bourbonica ant X 

Y 

Solenopsis papuana ant X 

Y 

Tetramorium bicarinathum ant X 

Y 

Legend 

En = Endemic CH = Critical Habitat 

E = Endangered 

X = Exotic (nonnative) 

I = Indigenous 

Found 

at Kona 

Forest 

Unit 







Appendix B. Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations 

Appropriate Use Findings 

Under the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy, 603 FW 1 (2006), refuge managers are directed to 

determine if a new or existing public use is an appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not 

appropriate, the refuge manager is directed to modify the use to make it appropriate or terminate it, as 

expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will deny the use 

without determining compatibility. If a use is determined to be appropriate, then a compatibility 

determination should be developed to determine whether the use can be allowed. For purposes of this 

CCP an “appropriate use” must meet at least one of the following three conditions: 

� The use is one of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses identified in the Improvement Act; 

� The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State/Territorial regulations; and 

� The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11 of the policy and 

documented on Service Form 3-2319. 

During the CCP process the Refuge manager evaluated all existing and proposed nonpriority 

wildlife-dependent refuge uses at Hakalau Forest NWR using the following guidelines and criteria as 

outlined in the policy: 

� Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

� Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, and local)? 

� Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

� Is the use consistent with public safety? 

� Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

� Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? 

� Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

� Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

� Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

� Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the 

future? 

Using this process and these criteria, and as documented on the following pages, the Refuge manager 

determined the following refuge uses were appropriate, and directed that compatibility 

determinations be completed for each use. 

Refuge Use – Hakalau Forest NWR Appropriate 

Commercial Photography, Video, Filming or Audio Recording yes 

Commercial Tour Operation/Conservation and Education Group 

Visits 

yes 

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys yes 

University of Hawai‘i Field Station yes 

Appendix B: Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations B-1



B-2 Appendix B: Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations



Appropriate Uses Justification, Attachment 1 

Date: September 21, 2010 

Refuge: Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Project: Commercial Photography, Videography, Filming, or Audio Recording 

Summary: The Refuge allows a small number of commercial photographers and videographers, on 

a case-by-case basis, access to Hakalau Forest NWR to obtain still images and video or film to 

support environmental education for the general public. Commercial photographers and 

videographers are regulated through Special Use Permitting and permit conditions that are strict and 

protective of resident wildlife and habitats. The benefit to the Refuge comes with the increased 

exposure to the public of images and film that may result in an increased appreciation for the rare 

species found on the Refuge. Credit must be given to the Service as the source for access to Hakalau 

Forest NWR as a permit condition, and further requirements for sharing images and digital film 

media obtained for Service educational purposes are included as permit conditions. 

The State of Hawai‘i DLNR was invited on two occasions to participate on core planning teams, but 

declined due to insufficient staffing. However, as this Appropriate Use Justification does not propose 

a significant deviation from the status quo, and no comments on this topic were received from the 

State during the comment period, we believe additional coordination was not necessary. 

For each of the findings listed on FWS Form 3-2319, a justification has been provided below: 

a. Do we have jurisdiction over the use? 

The permitted activities take place within Refuge boundaries in clearly specified limited areas. The 

Refuge has jurisdiction over those visits that are sited within Refuge boundaries. 

b. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? 

All permitted activities comply with applicable laws and regulations and any restrictions or 

qualifications that are required to comply with law and regulations are specified in the SUP. 

c. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? 

Through Refuge staff review and monitoring of the proposed activity, review of permittee proposals 

and letters of request on corporate letterheads, and a case-by-case review process, a limited capacity 

for commercial usage is maintained. The Refuge ensures that all visits are consistent with applicable 

policies through SUP conditions. No fees beyond permit application fees are presently charged. 

d. Is the use consistent with public safety? 

Through individual permit review, the Refuge will ensure that each permittee’s activities are 

consistent with public safety. If necessary, additional stipulations to ensure public safety will be 

included in the permittee’s SUP. Permittees will be provided clear information on Refuge 

boundaries to further ensure their safety and protect the property rights of neighboring landowners. 




e. Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

Requests to film or photograph in the Refuge are approved in instances where the expected products 

may contribute to public appreciation and support for Refuge resources and appreciation of natural 

resources in support of the Refuge System mission. Special Use Permit special conditions have been 

crafted to assure minimal to no impacts to Refuge resources. 

f. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

This use has been requested and approved in the past and a documented analysis was conducted 

during the Compatibility Determination process. 

g. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 

The Refuge permits only a few visits per year for this activity and it is currently manageable with 

available budget and staff. 

h. Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? 

The proposed activity at current threshold levels for use would be manageable in the future with 

existing staff resources (see above). 

i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use is beneficial to the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources because exposure of the 

general public to professionally produced images and film footage depicting resident wildlife and 

plant life in their natural protected environment should result in greater appreciation for Refuge 

purposes and our agency mission. Because most of the Refuge has not been opened to the public, 

dissemination of information by professional photographers and videographers is a positive outcome 

for the Refuge, and an acceptable trade off for limited access to a small number of commercial 

entities. 

j. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into 

the future? 

The Refuge will ensure that the commercial filming and photography activities will not impair 

existing or future wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge through proper monitoring and 

oversight of permittees and review of their products. 










Project: Commercial Tour Operation/Conservation and Education Group Visits 

Summary: The Refuge operates in partnership with a small number of commercial tour operators to 

provide limited access and environmental education to the general public through guided tours on 

Refuge lands. Tour operators are regulated through Special Use Permitting and permit conditions 

protective of resident wildlife and habitats. The benefit to the Refuge comes with the access and 

educational experience made possible through collaboration with these operators. Refuge staffing 

levels are not sufficient to provide ongoing public education experiences with rare exceptions. 

Currently no fees are charged for this access. 







The proposed activities would take place within Refuge boundaries in clearly specified limited areas. 

The Refuge has jurisdiction over those visits that are sited within Refuge boundaries. 





Through staff monitoring of the proposed program, review of permittee reports, and a predetermined 

annual carrying capacity for visitors, the Refuge would ensure that they are consistent with 

applicable policies. 


Through individual permit review, the Refuge will ensure that each guide’s activities are consistent 

with public safety. If necessary, additional stipulations to ensure public safety will be included in the 

permitte’s SUP. Permittees will be provided clear information on Refuge boundaries to further 

ensure their safety and protect the property rights of neighboring landowners. 





document? 

Public use activities are approved in instances where they can provide meaningful experiences that 

contribute to public support for Refuge management and public appreciation of natural resources. 

This activity will help the Refuge meet its objectives in goal seven. Special Use Permit special 

conditions have been crafted to assure minimal to no impacts to Refuge resources. 






The Refuge permits a maximum of 12 SUPs at 100 visitors per year for this activity and it is 

currently manageable with available budget and staff. 




i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The proposed use is beneficial to the Refuge’s natural and cultural resources because enhanced 

exposure with trained, experienced guides results in greater appreciation for Refuge purposes and our 

agency mission by contributing to public understanding and appreciation of natural and/or cultural 

resources. 


uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

The Refuge will ensure that the guided commercial activities will not impair existing or future 

wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge during ongoing annual permit reviews, prior to 

issuing a SUP for subsequent years. 










Project: Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys 1 

Summary: The Service defines these uses as: 

� Research: Planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature; 

� Scientific collecting: Gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific 

purposes; and 

� Surveys: Scientific inventory or monitoring. 

The types of research vary greatly but could revolve around birds, bats, plants, insects/pollinators, 

invasive species, habitat classification, restoration techniques, and cultural and historic resources. 













Through staff monitoring of the proposed program and review of permittee reports, the Refuge would 

ensure that they are consistent with applicable policies. 


Through individual permit review, the Refuge will ensure that each researcher’s activities are 

consistent with public safety. If necessary, additional stipulations to ensure public safety will be 

included in the permitte’s SUP. Permittees will be provided clear information on Refuge boundaries 

to further ensure their safety and protect the property rights of neighboring landowners. 

1 

This does not apply to Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System, including the surveys 

identified in this CCP’s strategies. 





document? 

The primary goals of the Refuge are to (a) support recovery and perpetuation of federally listed 

endangered and threatened plants and animals and prevent the listing of additional species, (b) restore 

and protect high-quality habitat for native plants and animals occurring on the slopes of Mauna Kea 

and Mauna Loa, (c) control nonnative pests and predators including ungulates and noxious weeds, 

(d) provide wildlife-dependent cultural, educational and recreational opportunities for the public, and 

(e) in partnership with public and private organizations, increase awareness of and appreciation for 

the Refuge and the Hawaiian ecosystem. The Refuge believes that appropriate, compatible research 

activities will contribute to, and are essential to accomplishing, the enhancement, protection, 

conservation, and management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. 






The Refuge permits an average of 10 SUPs for this activity (research) each year and this level is 

currently manageable with available budget and staff. 




i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The Service believes that wildlife and habitat conservation and management on the Refuge should be 

based upon statistically viable scientific research combined with long-term monitoring. The 

information gained through appropriate, compatible research on Refuge lands will be beneficial to 

the Refuge’s natural resources through application of this information into adaptive management 

strategies. The Refuge will also distribute any information gained to the public, which will allow 

them to better understand and appreciate the Refuge resources and the need for protecting them. 




The Refuge will ensure that the research activities will not impair existing or future wildlifedependent 

recreational use of the Refuge during ongoing annual permit reviews, prior to issuing a 

SUP for subsequent years. 










Project: University of Hawai‘i Field Station 

Summary: The UH operates a biological field station located on the Hakalau Forest NWR 

Administrative Site. Operation of the field station is described in a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA), dated October 29, 1985 (Contract No. 14-48-0001-95500) between the Service and UH. The 

field station is used to house and support UH faculty, students, and visiting scientists conducting 

research supporting the conservation and restoration of native species and habitats at Hakalau Forest 

NWR. 













Through staff monitoring of the proposed program and review of permittee reports, the Refuge would 

ensure that they are consistent with applicable policies. 


Through individual permit review, the Refuge will ensure that activities are consistent with public 

safety. If necessary, additional stipulations to ensure public safety will be included in the permittee’s 

SUP. Permittees will be provided clear information on Refuge boundaries to further ensure their 

safety and protect the property rights of neighboring landowners. 





document? 

The primary goals of the Refuge are to (a) support recovery and perpetuation of federally listed 

endangered and threatened plants and animals; and prevent the listing of additional species, 

(b) restore and protect high quality habitat for native plants and animals occurring on the slopes of 

Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, (c) control nonnative pests and predators including ungulates and 

noxious weeds, (d) provide wildlife-dependent cultural, educational, and recreational opportunities 

for the public, and (e) in partnership with public and private organizations, increase awareness of and 

appreciation for the Refuge and the Hawaiian ecosystem. The Refuge believes that the University of 

Hawai‘i Field Station is appropriate and compatible with the Refuge goals. The research activities 

will contribute to and are essential to accomplishing the enhancement, protection, conservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. 






The use is currently manageable with available budget and staff. 



existing staff resources. 

i. Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

The Service believes that wildlife and habitat conservation and management on the Refuge should be 

based upon statistically viable scientific research combined with long-term monitoring. The 

information gained through appropriate, compatible research on Refuge lands will be beneficial to 

the Refuge’s natural resources through application of this information into adaptive management 

strategies. The University of Hawai‘i Field Station provides a suitable base to conduct research that 

will contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources. The Refuge will also distribute any information gained to the public, which will allow 

them to better understand and appreciate the Refuge resources and the need for protecting them. 







The Refuge will ensure that the research activities conducted from the Research Station will not 

impair existing or future wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge during ongoing annual 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) reviews, prior to issuing a SUP for research activities. 


Compatibility Determinations 



The Compatibility Determinations (CDs) developed during the CCP planning process evaluate uses 

as projected to occur under the CCP for Hakalau Forest NWR. The evaluation of funds needed for 

management and implementation of each use also assumes implementation as described in the CCP. 

A. Uses Evaluated at this Time 

The following section includes full CDs for all Refuge uses that are required to be evaluated at this 

time. According to Service policy, CDs will be completed for all uses proposed under a CCP. 

Existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses must also be re-evaluated and new CDs prepared 

during development of a CCP. According to the Service’s compatibility policy, uses other than 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are not explicitly required to be re-evaluated in concert with 

preparation of a CCP, unless conditions of the use have changed or unless significant new 

information relative to the use and its effects have become available or the existing CDs are more 

than 10 years old. However, the Service planning policy recommends preparing CDs for all 

individual uses, specific use programs, or groups of related uses associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the following CDs are included in this document: 

Refuge Use Compatible Year Due for 

Re-evaluation 

Public Recreational Hunting no N/A 

Wildlife Observation and Photography yes 2025 

Commercial Photography, Videography, Filming 

or Audio Recording 

yes 2020 

Commercial Tour Operation/Conservation and 

Education Group Visits 

yes 2020 

Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys yes 2020 

University of Hawai‘i Field Station yes 2020 

B. Compatibility - Legal and Historical Context 

Compatibility is a tool refuge managers use to ensure that recreational and other uses do not interfere 

with wildlife conservation, the primary focus of refuges. Compatibility is not new to the Refuge 

System and dates back to 1918 as a concept. As policy, it has been used since 1962. The Refuge 

Recreation Act of 1962 directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow only those public uses of refuge 

lands that were “compatible with the primary purposes for which the area was established.” 

Legally, refuges are closed to all public uses until officially opened through a CD. Regulations 

require that adequate funds be available for administration and protection of refuges before opening 

them to any public uses. However, wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are to receive 

enhanced consideration and cannot be rejected simply for lack of funding resources unless the refuge 

has made a concerted effort to seek out funds from all potential partners. Once found compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses are deemed the priority public uses at the refuge. If a proposed 

Appendix B. Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations B-19



use is found not compatible, the refuge manager is legally precluded from approving it. Economic 

uses that are conducted by or authorized by the refuge also require CDs. 

Under compatibility policy, uses are defined as recreational, economic/commercial, or management 

use of a refuge by the public or a non-Refuge System entity. Uses generally providing an economic 

return (even if conducted for the purposes of habitat management) are also subject to CDs. The 

Service does not prepare CDs for uses when the Service does not have jurisdiction. For example, the 

Service may have limited jurisdiction over refuge areas where property rights are vested by others, 

where legally binding agreements exist, or where there are treaty rights held by tribes. In addition, 

aircraft overflights, emergency actions, some activities on navigable waters, and activities by other 

Federal agencies on “overlay refuges” are exempt from the compatibility review process. 

New compatibility regulations, required by the Improvement Act, were adopted by the Service in 

October 2000 (http://Refuges.fws.gov/policymakers/nwrpolicies.html). The regulations require that a 

use must be compatible with both the Refuge System mission and the purpose(s) of the individual 

refuge. This standard helps to ensure consistency in application across the Refuge System. The Act 

also requires that CDs be in writing and that the public have an opportunity to comment on most use 

evaluations. 

The Refuge System mission emphasizes that the needs of fish, wildlife, and plants must be of 

primary consideration. The Improvement Act defined a compatible use as one that “. . .in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the Refuge.” Sound professional judgment 

is defined under the Improvement Act as “. . .a finding, determination, or decision, that is consistent 

with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and 

resources. . .” Compatibility for priority wildlife-dependent uses may depend on the level or extent of 

a use. 

Court interpretations of the compatibility standard have found that compatibility is a biological 

standard and cannot be used to balance or weigh economic, political, or recreational interests against 

the primary purpose(s) of the refuge. 

The Service recognizes that CDs are complex. For this reason, refuge managers are required to 

consider “principles of sound fish and wildlife management” and “best available science” in making 

these determinations. Evaluations of the existing uses at Hakalau Forest NWR are based on the 

professional judgment of refuge and planning personnel including observations of refuge uses and 

reviews of appropriate scientific literature. 

B-20 Appendix B. Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations

Use: Public Recreational Hunting 



Refuge Name: Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

City/County and State: Hawai‘i County, State of Hawai‘i 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: 

Hakalau Forest NWR was established on October 29, 1985, under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1534. 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

The Administration Act directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to manage each 

refuge to fulfill the Refuge System mission, to maintain and, where appropriate, restore the refuge’s 

ecological integrity, and achieve the specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. 


The purpose of Hakalau Forest NWR is “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534 (ESA). 


The purpose of Kona Forest Unit is “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species ....or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534 (ESA). More 

specifically, the unit was established to provide habitat for the ‘alalā and to assist the ‘Alalā 

Recovery Program’s repatriation efforts. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (the Administration Act of 

1966). 

Description of Use(s): 

Hakalau Forest NWR reviewed and evaluated the compatibility of the public recreational hunting 

program. The Maulua tract of Hakalau Forest NWR was opened to the public for pig hunting under a 

Sport Hunting Plan approved February 14, 1991. The 2,000 acre Maulua Tract of Hakalau Forest 

NWR was opened to the public on February 1, 1992. Hunters were allowed to take pigs on State 

holidays and during the first three weekends of each month. For safety reasons, the maximum 

number of reservations accepted for any hunt day was 12. State game mammal hunting regulations 

applied, with the exception that there was no limit on the number of pigs that could be taken. Dogs 




were not permitted in Maulua Tract. Access for hunting was provided by reservation only through 

gates along Keanokolu Road. 

On July 1, 1993, the Sport Hunting Plan, was modified to allow pig hunters to access the lower 

portion of the Lower Maulua Tract. Hunters could access the lower Maulua Tract through either the 

Pīhā State Game Management Area (Hilo Forest Reserve) or the Laupāhoehoe State Natural Area 

Reserve. Dogs could be used and the bag limit for each hunter was two pigs. No reservations were 

required. 

On November 18, 1995, with the completion of a fence around the 2,000 acre Upper Maulua Tract of 

Hakalau Forest NWR, the Service allowed pig hunters to use dogs. 

The Upper Maulua Tract was closed to public hunting in 2000 as the pig population was reduced to 

low numbers that did not provide an acceptable public hunting experience. 

Hunting was previously considered useful as an initial means to begin reduction of ungulate 

numbers. This was seen as a step toward the ultimate goal of ungulate eradication and habitat 

restoration. The levels of hunting use, based on 6 consecutive years of public hunting in the upper 

Maulua Unit, averaged 80 hunter days per year. Access to Middle and Lower Maulua units for public 

hunting was permitted through State lands (east boundary) on June 17, 1993, with no administrative 

controls (reservations, law enforcement patrols, etc.) required; therefore, no data is available. 

Over time, the desired management effect was achieved on eight ungulate management units. 

Portions of the Refuge, including areas where populations of rare birds and plants are highest, are 

closed to the public. No requests for approval to hunt on Hakalau Forest NWR have occurred since 

2000. 

Public recreational hunting for games birds was never allowed at the Refuge since the flight path of 

the endangered nēnē and wild turkey (game bird) overlap. 

The Kona Forest Unit has never been opened to the public. 

Availability of Resources: 

Current staffing levels do not allow for administration and oversight of a public hunting program at 

the Refuge. Management of a quality public recreation hunt program at Hakalau Forest NWR would 

require full-time law enforcement staff oversight, with regular law enforcement presence on the 

Refuge to ensure a safe, quality program that does not adversely impact sensitive plant and animal 

species and to prevent user conflicts. In addition, the purpose of the Refuge is in direct conflict with 

keeping ungulate numbers at a level that would provide a quality public recreation hunt program. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s): 

Recreational public pig hunting would likely have significant adverse effects on endangered, 

threatened, and rare species and their habitats. Hakalau Forest NWR contains habitat for 25 plant 

species that are either federally endangered, species of concern, or rare. Endangered plants were first 

outplanted in the Upper Maulua Tract of Hakalau Forest NWR in 2005, and the effort continues. To 

date, totals of each species planted are: 


• Endangered lobeliads: 

o Cyanea shipmanii – 543; 

o Clermontia pyrularia – 1,931; 

o Clermontia lindseyana – 350; 

• Endangered mints: 

o Phyllostegia racemosa – 878; 

o Phyllostegia velutina – 60; and 

o Phyllostegia brevidens – 74. 



The grand total of all endangered plants outplanted in the Upper Maulua Tract is 3,836. 

Subsequent use of the Upper Maulua Tract for outplanting of endangered plants and nonconsumptive 

public uses such as wildlife photography and observation have increased over time. The Refuge is 

home to eight federally endangered bird species, one endangered mammal species, and 16 threatened 

and endangered plant species. Due to the removal of cattle and pigs from the Upper Maulua Tract, 

the forest bird habitat has recovered with the reestablishment of the forest understory. Recent forest 

bird surveys have indicated a population increase of common and endangered forest birds. The 

Refuge and the State also reintroduced nēnē to Hakalau Forest NWR in January 1995 with the 

construction of a predator-proof enclosure fence and the release of five breeding pairs. The nēnē have 

expanded to approximately 60 adults and juvenile birds that utilize the upper areas of the Refuge 

including the Upper Maulua Tract. 

Unlike other public use opportunities, such as wildlife photography and bird watching which occur 

on identified roads and on a path to keep people from negatively impacting Refuge resources, 

hunting is not an activity that has similar infrastructure in place to protect resources and guide the 

user. Hunting is a pursuit of a wild animal that can go anywhere and the hunter follows. This 

unguided pathway through Refuge habitats could inadvertently impact native vegetation and 

restoration efforts as well as disturb habitat for native species. 

Additional concerns about impact to Refuge resources are the inadvertent spread of nonnative weed 

species through Refuge habitats. Given the many other hunting opportunities on the rest of the 

island, it is unknown what invasive plant species seeds or other reproductive plant mediums may be 

attached to clothing or equipment. Since the Refuge is adjacent to a state game management area, 

hunters and their dogs pass through low elevation forest areas that contain high density nonnative 

plant populations. The potential for dispersal of invasive weeds and their subsequent spread and 

establishment within remote sites is a concern. The cost of controlling invasive weeds in remote 

areas is high. It is easier to prevent the establishment of nonnative plants than control them after the 

fact. Enforcement of endangered plant protection, hunting regulations, and Refuge integrated pest 

management (IPM) weed prevention programs is not possible without Refuge law enforcement 

personnel. 

In addition to the impacts identified, recreational public hunting will not meet the needs of the 

Refuge’s ungulate control program in reducing and eradicating ungulates as ungulate numbers 

decrease. Pigs are one of the major threats to listed species as well as native habitats. The Refuge 

goal is total eradication of pigs in fenced units where pigs are controlled. This goal does not support 

pig populations at levels that would provide recreational public hunting. 




The Refuge determined that criteria used in previous compatibility statements and in the 1991 Sport 

Hunting Decision Document were not enforceable, and circumstances on the ground have changed. 

Public Review and Comment: 

This determination was issued for public review and comment as part of the Hakalau Forest NWR 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment between August 16, 2010- 

September 15, 2010. An open house was held and written comments were solicited from the public 

during this period for the CCP via news release, website posting, extensive mailing as well as e-mail 

list, and circulation of Planning Update 3. Comments were received related to public hunting and 

were addressed in Appendix K. 

Determination: 

__X_ Use is Not Compatible 

_____ Use is Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Not applicable. 

Justification: 

The Service proposes to re-close the Refuge to public recreational hunting because it is not 

compatible with the purposes and goals of the Refuge. Public recreational hunting will not meet the 

goals of the Refuge’s ungulate control program. Reduction and ultimately eradication of ungulates is 

necessary to achieve the required level of protection and eliminate disturbance to native species. The 

highest priority Refuge goal of protecting endangered species and their habitats is being realized as 

habitat improvements are made and native species diversity is gradually restored. Recreational 

hunting is unlikely to achieve the desired goal of reducing pig populations in managed units by >70% 

annually, in order to assure control objectives are achieved where more efficient methods are 

available (Hess et al.2006). Failure to maintain the highest level of pressure on pig populations and 

selective removal of larger pigs could result in population increases through ingress by additional 

pigs that use smaller territories and reproductive response in the pig population. 

The Middle and Lower Maulua Tracts are remote and have no established routes of access from offrefuge 

areas. The boundaries remain unmarked and unfenced. Levels of use by hunters, proper 

access, invasive plant introduction and dispersal, and the impacts of recreational public hunting 

within the remote areas of the Refuge would be difficult to monitor or regulate. Enforcement of 

endangered plant protection, hunting regulations, and Refuge IPM weed prevention programs would 

not occur within remote areas of the Refuge. 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Reevaluation Date: 

___________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

___________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for non wildlife-dependent public uses) 




NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below) 

___Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

___Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

X _Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

___Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited: 

Hakalau Forest NWR, Sport Hunting Plan approved February 14, 1991. 

Hess, Steven C, John J. Jeffrey, Donna L. Ball, and Lev Babich. Hawaii Cooperative Studies Unit, 

University of Hawaii at Hilo. 2006. Efficacy of Feral Pig Removals at Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 2007. 

Technical Report Number 07-01: Review of Methods and Approaches for Control of Non-native 

Ungulates in Hawaii. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Refuge Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996, Hakalau Forest NWR, Feral Ungulate Management Plan. 


Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 









The Administration Act directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to manage each refuge to 

fulfill the Refuge System mission, to maintain and, where appropriate, restore the refuge’s ecological 

integrity, and achieve the specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. 













1966). 


The Improvement Act defined wildlife observation and photography as wildlife-dependent public 

uses. In that Act, Congress directed that such uses shall be given special consideration in planning for 

and management of the Refuge System when compatible. When determined compatible on a refugespecific 

basis, these uses are priority general public uses of that national wildlife refuge. 

Self-guided wildlife observation and photography activities by the general public take place only in 

the Upper Maulua Unit of the Refuge. The forested habitat in this area consists of an open and closed 

koa/‘ōhi‘a tree canopy with native subcanopy and a ground cover of scattered native shrubs, ferns, 




and nonnative grasses. Limited numbers of endangered birds and plants inhabit this tract compared to 

other Refuge tracts, although outplantings of several hundred endangered plants in the past several 

years provide unique opportunities to view these plants. Impacts to rare plants will be minimal in 

comparison to the disturbance caused to the understory and ground cover by more than 150 years of 

cattle grazing and pig rooting. The relatively small number of endangered birds found in this area 

have likely become somewhat acclimated to the presence of humans since the Upper Maulua Unit 

has been open to public use for 23 years. 

Reservations are required for public wildlife observation/photography on the Upper Maulua Unit in 

order to coordinate such visits with Refuge management activities. A brochure describing the Refuge 

and listing permitted and prohibited activities, along with a map of the Upper Maulua Unit, is 

distributed via e-mail or mail to reservation holders prior to their visit. This brochure is also available 

at the Refuge Office in Hilo. Access to the Upper Maulua Unit is permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, 

and holidays between sunrise and sunset. The main gate must be closed and locked after entry and 

exit. Visitors are required to provide their telephone number, the number of people in their group, 

license plate number, and vehicle description. 

Visitation to the Upper Maulua Unit varies from year to year with total visitors ranging from 

200-500 people. Drought conditions periodically require closure of the area, and depending on the 

severity and duration of dry weather, may greatly influence cumulative visitation numbers. 

Visitors to other Refuge tracts such as Pua ‘Ākala will continue to be guided and managed through 

the SUP process in order to minimize disturbance to sensitive wildlife and their habitats. A limit of 

1,200 visitors per year, visiting for a few hours of bird watching under SUPs for guided tours, has 

long been established for this area and has not been reached to date. 

Wildlife viewing and observation is the primary visitor activity at Hakalau Forest NWR. This use, if 

compatible, becomes a priority general public use, and, therefore, receives consideration in Refuge 

planning and management. 

Quality wildlife observation is defined by the following elements: (1) opportunities exist to view 

wildlife in their habitat and in a natural setting; (2) observation opportunities promote public 

understanding of Hakalau Forest NWR resources and its role in managing and protecting those 

resources; (3) observations occur in places with the least amount of disturbance to wildlife; 

(4) facilities are safe, fully accessible, and available to a broad spectrum of the public; (5) viewing 

opportunities are tied to interpretive and educational opportunities; and (6) observers have minimal 

conflict with other visitors or Refuge operations (http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw4.html). 

Information about conservation of natural resources and habitat restoration will be shared with the 

visitors to educate and reduce the impact visitors have on the Refuge. The assistance of the Friends 

of Hakalau Forest NWR, a nonprofit support organization for the Refuge, is expected to increase 

over time with special emphasis on public use and environmental education and interpretation issues. 

Opportunities for enhanced wildlife observation and photography are limited at the Upper Maulua 

Unit, but will increase through the development and maintenance of trails and parking area. Wildlife 

viewing opportunities may be provided for more members of the general public in the future. The 1.2 

million tourists who visit Hawai‘i Island annually generally visit far more easily accessible places. 






The Refuge has sufficient staff time and other resources to allow this use at the current levels. 

Currently the Refuge has a Deputy Refuge Manager to administer and monitor the activities, and a 

Maintenance Supervisor and crew of two maintenance workers to maintain public facilities and 

access points. 

Category and Itemization One-time ($) Annual ($/yr) 

Administration and Management No fees charged $7,600 

The above annual cost reflects the cost to manage the program and prevent impacts to natural 

resources. Estimated costs were calculated using 2 percent of the base cost of a GS-12 Deputy 

Refuge Manager, 1 percent of the GS-13 Refuge Manager, 2 percent of the GS-12 Wildlife Biologist, 

2 percent of the GS-9 Administrative, and 2 percent of the WS-4 Maintenance Supervisor’s staff 

time, the “portion of the year” each position would use to administer and coordinate wildlife 

observation and photography activities on the Refuge. 


The Refuge wildlife-dependent uses being evaluated (wildlife observation and photography) will 

impose minimal negative impacts on specific physical resources such as trails and on natural 

resources such as wildlife and vegetation. 

Wildlife Observation: 

Physical and habitat alteration: The impact of these activities depends upon the size of the group 

(typically a single car or SUV at one time in Upper Maulua), the season of use, the location within 

the Upper Maulua Unit and the duration of the activity. The construction and maintenance of visitor 

use facilities (i.e., trail, parking lot) would have some effect on soils, vegetation, and possibly 

hydrology in specific areas. This could potentially increase erosion and cause localized soil 

compaction (Liddle 1975), reduced seed emergence (Cole and Landres1995), alteration of vegetative 

structure and composition, and sediment loading (Cole and Marion 1988). 

Human disturbance - general: The presence of people observing or photographing wildlife will also 

cause some impact to wildlife. Numerous studies have confirmed that people on foot can cause a 

variety of disturbance reactions in wildlife, including flushing or displacement (Erwin 1989; Fraser et 

al. 1985; Freddy 1986), heart rate increases (MacArthur et al. 1982), altered foraging patterns 

(Burger and Gochfeld, 1991), and even, in some cases, diminished reproductive success (Boyle and 

Samson 1985). These studies and others have shown that the severity of the effects depends upon the 

distance to the disturbance and its duration, frequency, predictability, and visibility to wildlife 

(Knight and Cole 1991). The variables found to have the greatest influence on wildlife behavior are 

(a) the distance from the animal to the disturbance and (b) the duration of the disturbance. Animals 

show greater flight response to humans moving unpredictably than to humans following a distinct 

path (Gabrielsen and Smith 1995). Short-term and immediate responses to disturbance are fairly 

simple to document. A question that has received less research attention is whether these short-term 

responses, which generally require increased energetic expenditures on the part of the individual, 

ultimately diminish an individual or population’s capacity to survive and breed successfully (fitness). 




Energetic demands of responding to disturbance events were measured by Belanger and Bedard. In 

Quebec, they found that if disturbance was severe enough to cause geese to fly and not resume 

feeding upon alighting, hourly energy expenditure increased by 3.4 percent; and hourly metabolized 

energy intake decreased by 2.9 - 19.4 percent. A 32 percent increase in nighttime feeding was 

required to restore the energy losses incurred. 

Effect of disturbance intensity: Some researchers have attempted to correlate disturbance events in 

wildlife to the intensity, proximity, or loudness of human disturbance. Burger, studying shorebirds on 

an eastern coastal refuge, found that the level of disturbance in the shorebirds increased (fewer 

remained, more flew) as the total number of disturbances and the number of children, joggers, people 

walking, dogs, aircraft, and boats increased, and the duration of the disturbance and distance from the 

disturbance decreased. 

Effect of human proximity: Other researchers have looked at the question of proximity. At what 

distance do humans on foot elicit a disturbance response? From an examination of the available 

studies, it appears that the distance varies dramatically from species to species. Burger and Gochfeld 

(1991) found that sanderlings foraged less during the day and more during the night as the number of 

people within 109 yards increased. Elk in Yellowstone National Park were disturbed when people 

were at average distances of 626 yards (Cassirer, 1990). These elk temporarily left the drainage and 

their home range core areas and moved to higher elevations, steeper slopes, and closer to forested 

areas. Average return time to the drainage was 2 days. Erwin studied colonial wading and seabirds in 

Virginia and North Carolina. Mixed colonies of common terns-black skimmers responded at the 

greatest distances, with respective means of 155 and 142 yards; mixed wading bird species were 

more reluctant to flush (33-55 yards average). There were few statistically significant relationships 

between flushing distance and colony size. Similarly, there were few differences between responses 

during incubation compared to post-hatching periods. 

An analysis of over 4,000 human activity events near bald eagle nests in Central Arizona (Grubb and 

King 1991) found distance to disturbance to be the most important classifier of bald eagle response, 

followed in decreasing order of discriminatory value by duration of disturbance, visibility, number of 

units per event, position relative to affected eagle, and sound. 

Breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota (Fraser et al. 1985) flushed at an average distance of 

520 yards at the approach of a pedestrian. A multiple regression model including number of previous 

disturbances and date and time of day explained 82 percent of the variability in flush distance and 

predicted a maximum flush distance at the first disturbance of 550 yards (SE=131). Skagen (1980), 

also studying bald eagles in northwest Washington, found a statistically significant decrease in the 

proportion of eagles feeding when human activity was present within 200 yards of the feeding area in 

the previous 30 minutes. A statistically significant between-season variation occurred in the use of 

feeding areas relative to human presence, which correlated with food availability. Eagles appeared 

more tolerant of human activity in the season of low food availability. 

In a review of several studies of the reaction of waterfowl and other wetland birds to people on foot, 

distances greater than 109 yards in general did not result in a behavioral response (DeLong 2002). 


Wildlife Photography: 



Wildlife photography is likely more disturbing, per instance, than wildlife observation. Klein (1993) 

observed at Ding Darling NWR, that of all the nonconsumptive uses, photographers were the most 

likely to attempt close contact with birds, and that even slow approach by photographers disrupted 

waterbirds. 

Dwyer and Tanner (1992) noted that wildlife habituate best to disturbance that is somewhat 

predictable or “background.” Investigating 111 nests of sandhill cranes in Florida, Dwyer and Tanner 

found that nesting cranes seemed to habituate to certain forms of human disturbance and nested 

within 436 yards of highways, railroads, and mines; cranes also were tolerant of helicopter flyovers. 

Even so, investigator visits to nests and development-induced alterations of surface water drainage 

were implicated in 24 percent of the nest failures. 

Minor impacts to wildlife, plants, and habitat would occur on the Refuge in the form of disturbance. 

Movement and behavior patterns could be altered by the presence of visitors. Some trampling of 

vegetation could occur as visitors stray to the edges of trails and access roads. 

Use of the Hakalau Forest NWR increases the potential for introductions of nonnative species and 

interactions (some negative) by visitors with sensitive endangered bird and/or plant habitats. 

Accidental introduction of a nonnative plant species could be detrimental to the rainforest 

environment. 

A number of nonnative plant and wildlife species occur on Hakalau Forest NWR in general, and 

many of those (e.g., pigs, mongooses, rats, numerous invasive plants and insects) have become 

established on the Refuge. Refuge personnel strive to eliminate or reduce pest species. It is possible 

that invasive plants and animals could be transported onto the Refuge in vehicles or from seeds that 

are trapped in clothing or vehicle wheels. Protocols for prevention of introducing invasive weeds are 

supplied to all SUP holders and to visitors requesting access to Maulua. 






list, and circulation of Planning Update 3. Comments were received related to opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography and addressed in Appendix K. 


___ Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 




Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Wildlife observation and photography may only occur in the Upper Maulua Unit area that has been 

opened to the public. The two Refuge Managers, the Refuge Wildlife Biologist, and the Refuge 

Maintenance Crew Leader and maintenance staff administer and monitor the activities of visiting 

public. 

User stipulations: 

� Visitors will be required to access Upper Maulua Unit only at designated access points/areas, 

thus reducing potential for wildlife disturbance and establishment of illegal trails; 

� Visitors will be required to stay on legally established trails thus limiting the amount of area 

on the Refuge where impacts may take place; 

� Use is restricted to daylight hours; and 

� Visitors will be required to follow protocols in order to avoid introductions of nonnative 

species (e.g., cleaning mud and seeds from boots, gear, and vehicles before entering the 

Upper Maulua Unit). 

Administrative stipulations: 

� Directional, informational, and interpretive signs will be posted and maintained to help keep 

visitors on trails and help educate the public on minimizing wildlife and habitat disturbance; 

� Monitoring by Refuge staff, volunteers, and partners. Refuge staff will monitor impacts to 

wildlife, vegetation, and soil and employ adaptive management when needed. Management 

responses may include such actions as developing additional instructional guidance in 

brochures or signs, designating parking areas, passing lanes on roads, limiting vehicle access 

to the upper road by gating, etc.; 

� Promote the “Leave No Trace” philosophy. At least 95 percent of the Refuge will be 

managed as wildlife sanctuary, free from routine disturbance. 

Additionally, the following activities are prohibited: 

� Hunting; 

� Use or possession of domestic animals; 

� Use or possession of alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs; 

� Operation of all terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, and mountain bikes, etc.; 

� Removal or damage to any plant or plant material; 

� Harassment of forest birds or other wildlife; 

� Littering or dumping trash; 

� Removal or damage to numbered tags, colored flagging tape, mist nets, and other equipment 

or materials used for biological research; 

� Disposal of lighted smoking materials; 

� Open fires; 

� Overnight parking and camping; and 

� Damage to fences, signs, or other structures. 


Individuals and groups are able to spend time outdoors and provide the Service an opportunity to 

expose the general population to the Refuge System, habitat management, and the impacts of 

invasive species on the native ecosystem. Hakalau Forest NWR provides a unique opportunity in this 




regard because of the limited amount of high-elevation native forest and endangered bird habitats 

remaining in the Hawaiian Islands. Public support for the Refuge could be improved through 

grassroots outreach to the public. Offering opportunities for wildlife observation and photography 

presents a wildlife conservation message to members of the public who are not likely to be reached 

by other means. In addition, allowing these activities supports the “connecting people with nature” 

initiative within the Service. When determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, wildlife 

observation and photography are priority public uses of that national wildlife refuge. As endangered 

species recovery activities increase, it may be necessary to limit this activity and/or reevaluate for 

compatibility. 

The combination of limiting visiting days/hours, properly maintaining visitor access points, allowing 

visitors to access only certain areas of the Refuge, and monitoring visitor use and behavior allows the 

Refuge to minimize any adverse effects associated with Refuge visitation. Given the scale of the 

activity, the stipulations outlined above, as well as the best management practices identified above, 

potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions are expected to be minimal. 

By applying the stipulations described above, it is anticipated that wildlife populations will find 

sufficient food resources, nesting, and resting refugia such that their abundance and use of the Refuge 

will not be measurably decreased by wildlife observation and photography activities. The relatively 

limited number of individuals expected to be adversely affected due to wildlife observation and 

photography will not cause wildlife populations to materially decline; the physiological condition 

and production of native bird, plant, and bat species will not be impaired; their behavior and normal 

activity patterns will not be altered dramatically; and their overall welfare will not be negatively 

impacted. The opportunity to engage in several priority public uses provided would outweigh any 

anticipated negative impacts associated with implementation of the program. Thus, allowing wildlife 

observation and photography to occur with stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with 

the purposes for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge System mission. The stipulations 

included herein would allow such uses to occur in a compatible manner. 


_____X_____ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

____________ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for non-wildlife-dependent public uses) 




_X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 






Belanger, L. and Bedard, J. 1989. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging 

snow geese. J. Wildl. Management. 54: 36-41. 

Boyle, S.A. and Samson, F.B. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 110-116. 

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in 

northeastern United States. Environ. Conserv. 13:123-130. 

Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal 

foraging of sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93: 259-265. 

Cassirer, E. F. 1990. Responses of elk to disturbance by cross-country skiers in northern 

Yellowstone National Park. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Cole, D.N. and J. L Marion. 1988. Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the 

eastern United States. Env. Manage. 12:99-107. 

Cole, D. N. and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183- 

201 in R.L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through 

management and research Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp. 

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds, a literature review of 

impacts and mitigation measures prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L 

(114pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for 

the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Dwyer, N.C. and G.W Tanner. 1992. Nesting success in Florida sandhill cranes. Wilson 

Bulletin 104: 22-31. 

Erwin, R. M. 1989. Responses to human intruders by birds nesting in colonies: 

Experimental results and management guidelines. Colon. Waterbirds 12:104-108. 

Fraser, James D., L. D. Frenzel, and John E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human 

activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592. 

Freddy, D. J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Pages 286 in 

Comer, R. D., Baumann, T. G., Davis, P., Monarch, J. W., Todd, J., VanGytenbeek, S., Wills, D., 

and Woodling, J., eds. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western 

wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium. Thorne Ecol. Inst., Boulder, Colorado. 

Gabrielson, G. W. and E. N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. 

Pages 95-107 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence 

through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 372pp. 




Grubb, T. G. and King, R. M. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with 

classification tree models. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:500-511. 

Klein, M. L. 1989. Effects of high levels of human visitation on foraging waterbirds at J. N. "Ding" 

Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Final research report. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands, In 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36. 

MacArthur, R. A., Geist, V., and Johnston, R. H. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of 

mountain sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:351-358. 

Skagen, S.S. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on 

the Skagit River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in Knight, R.L., Allen, G.T., Stalmaster, M.V., and 

Servheen, C.W., eds.1980. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium; Seattle, 

Washington. 




Use: Commercial Photography, Videography, Filming, or Audio Recording 








fulfill the Refuge System mission, to maintain and, where appropriate, restore the refuge’s ecological 

integrity, and achieve the specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. 













1966). 


Commercial photography, video, filming, and audio recording (“recording”) are considered in this 

compatibility determination. This use has occurred at Hakalau Forest NWR for almost 20 years, and 

future requests are expected to increase. Commercial recording activities not related to natural, 

historic, or cultural subjects are not covered under this compatibility determination. The Refuge has 

averaged 2-4 permits for this use annually during the last 5 years. The use typically involves creating 

a documentary film, taking still photographs, or recording wildlife sounds for commercial purposes. 

For example, the permittee may wish to take photographs of endangered forest birds or rare plants 

most easily seen at the Refuge. Afterwards, the permittee would attempt to sell the photos to a 




publication. Commercial photographers, journalists, and film crews may wish to visit Hakalau Forest 

NWR to take stills or movies for use in a wide variety of publications, documentaries, newscasts, 

exhibitions, or other presentations. Some of the products will be available to the Refuge for use in 

brochures, PowerPoint presentations, orientation movies, and other interpretive and educational 

purposes. Special use permits will be issued to cover these types of activities. 

Much of the Refuge, including areas with the highest populations of rare birds and plants, is not open 

to the public. The photos, films, artwork, narratives, and recordings resulting from permitted 

activities will enable the general public to vicariously view and experience Hakalau Forest NWR’s 

rare and imperiled wildlife and plant resources and learn about research and management activities. 

These products will also serve as tools for environmental education and cultivate support for Refuge 

programs and conservation actions. 

Photography, video, filming, or audio recording of a noncommercial nature are addressed under a 

separate compatibility determination (wildlife observation and photography). This compatibility 

determination does not apply to bona fide news media activities. 

Commercial photography, video, filming, or audio recording may be conducted only on lands within 

our jurisdiction. Although applications for this activity may be for any time of year, time restrictions 

may be required to limit disturbance. This may include such specifications as time of day and 

seasonal restrictions. Specific conditions have been developed by the Refuge to minimize or avoid 

impacts to Refuge resources and are listed in “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility” in 

this document. 

In order to ensure there are no negative impacts to Refuge resources, the applicant will be required to 

obtain a Special Use Permit from the Refuge, which is reviewed and signed by the Refuge Manager. 

Additionally, when conducting actual onsite operations, the applicant could be accompanied or 

contacted by Refuge personnel to ensure compliance with the permit conditions and prevent any 

unforeseen negative impacts to Refuge resources. 


At present, Hakalau Forest NWR can only accommodate one or two commercial video, filming, or 

audio recording operations per month. If the number of applicants begins to increase, additional 

staffing would be required. The Refuge requires the permittee to offset any cost incurred by the 

Refuge by payment of a one-time permit fee of $150.00. 


Administration and Management $150/permittee $4,000 




and 1 percent of the GS-9 Administrative staff, the estimated portion of the year that this activity 

would require to administer this use. The one-time administration and monitoring cost reflects the 

approximate cost per commercial photography, video, filming, or audio recording operation incurred 

by the Refuge, and the offsetting cost reflects the reimbursement provided by the permittee. The user 




fees are designed to be equal to the Refuge-incurred cost (costs to administer the use, including any 

costs associated with facilities, equipment, supplies) and would come to the Refuge in the form of 

monies paid by the commercial photographers. 


The area in which most photojournalistic and/or filming activities will occur at Hakalau Forest NWR 

is forested and characterized by moderately closed canopy stands of ‘ōhi‘a and koa trees with a 

subcanopy of native trees and bushes. Ground cover consists of nonnative grasses and some native 

shrubs and ferns. Much of the understory and ground cover has been disturbed by more than 

100 years of cattle grazing and pig rooting. 

To the extent possible, permittees will confine their activities to existing roads, natural clearings, and 

trails. Foot traffic will compact or crush a small amount of native vegetation, but the impact will be 

minimal when compared to the damage done by pigs or cattle. Birds being photographed are unlikely 

to be negatively impacted if the conditions of the permit are followed; however, even with the proper 

management and execution of a well-planned project, certain behavioral responses in avifauna may 

occur that are not easily recognized by the casual observer. Stress reactions (elevated heart rate, 

elevated corticosterone levels, and behavioral responses) have been documented in several species of 

birds as a result of human activities in nesting areas. However, studies have not been conducted to 

document long-term cumulative effects of human-caused disturbances. Limited duration disturbance, 

however, has only minor, short-term effects. It is important to note that even wildlife photography by 

professionals can cause disturbance, depending upon the manner in which it is pursued. 

Although a single commercial filming, photography, video, or audio recording visit for 1 day may 

cause few, if any, negative resource impacts, it may in fact cause cumulative impacts over a longer 

span of time when considered additively with all activity on the Refuge. Therefore, it is critical for 

the Refuge Manager to examine all permit proposals with a multiyear timeframe in mind and 

consider all activities that are planned concurrently on the Refuge before approval is granted. It may 

be appropriate to set a limit to the number of commercial photography, filming, video, or recording 

visits occurring in a particular habitat or relative to a single species or species group, even if 

personnel are available to coordinate the projects. Some proposed activities will require further 

analysis and compliance by the Refuge as more detailed information becomes available. These 

requirements may include additional analysis in accordance with NEPA and consultation under ESA. 





are trapped in clothing or vehicle wheels. Adhering to appropriate protocols should reduce the risk of 

introducing nonnative species. 

Overall, however, allowing well-designed and properly reviewed commercial filming, photography, 

video, or audio recording visits is likely to have very little impact on Refuge wildlife populations. If 

the visit is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to be 

outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, habitat, or public use. 









list, and circulation of Planning Update 3. No public comment was received on this compatibility 

determination. 





Special Use Permits (SUP) will be issued for all photography, filming, video, or audio recording 

activities conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will list the conditions that the Refuge 

Manager determines to be necessary to ensure compatibility. Any permit may be terminated at any 

time for noncompliance with the SUP conditions, or modified, redesigned, relocated or terminated, 

upon a determination by the Refuge Manager that the activity is causing unanticipated adverse 

impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved priority public uses, or other Refuge management 

activities. Care will be taken to minimize the impacts of permitted photography, filming, video, or 

audio recording activities on native birds, plants, and habitat to ensure compatibility. One of the 

special conditions attached to each permit will state that activities may not be conducted in a manner 

that modifies the natural behavior of the birds being filmed or photographed. Activities will cease 

immediately if the subject shows signs of disturbance and/or stress, and the permittee must vacate the 

vicinity. Special conditions to protect the habitat will also be incorporated. These include taking 

precautions to prevent the introduction of nonnative plants and insects to the Refuge. Vehicles, boots, 

clothing, and equipment must be cleaned and inspected for seeds, eggs, and larvae prior to entry to 

the Refuge. Cutting or clearing vegetation is not permitted. Temporary blinds must be approved by 

the Refuge Manager and removed after use. Refuge gates must be secured at all times to prevent 

ungulate entry. Other conditions prohibit fires, require the removal of all trash, and restrict activities 

to existing roads, trails, and natural clearings to minimize adverse impacts to native vegetation. 

Permittees will be required to provide the Refuge with at least one free copy of all commercial 

products generated on the Refuge for noncommercial use promoting the Hakalau Forest NWR and 

the Refuge System. 

All commercial films, books, and other recordings of images and sounds collected on the Refuge are 

required to reference the fact they were collected at Hakalau Forest NWR under the administration of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 


Allowing commercial photography, video, filming, or audio recording as an economic use would 

contribute to the achievement of the Refuge purpose and the Refuge System mission. The products 




may reach groups of people who would not normally know about the Refuge. The services provided 

by commercial filmmakers and photographers are beneficial to expand public appreciation for and 

understanding of unique wildlife, diverse native habitats, management programs, and the mission of 

the Refuge System. 

Because each SUP will contain specific conditions for minimizing adverse effects to Refuge 

resources while the commercial activity is being conducted, it is anticipated that wildlife populations 

will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge 

will not be measurably lessened from these activities. The relatively limited number of individuals 

expected to be adversely affected from these activities will not cause wildlife populations to 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of native wildlife species will not be 

impaired, their behavior and normal activity patterns will not be altered dramatically, and their 

overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. In light of the benefits these uses are expected to 

have in expanding public appreciation for and understanding of Hakalau Forest NWR’s unique 

wildlife, diverse native habitats, management programs, and the mission of the Refuge System, 

allowing commercial photography, filming, video, or audio recording activities to occur with 

stipulations will contribute to the purposes for which the Refuge was established and the Refuge 

System mission. 


____________Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

____X______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for nonwildlife-dependent public uses) 








Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Compatibility determination for commercial photography, 

videography, filming, or audio recording, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 




Use: Commercial Tour Operation/Conservation and Education Group Visits 








fulfill the Refuge System mission, to maintain and where appropriate, restore the refuge’s ecological 

integrity; and achieve the specific purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. 













1966). 


Entry requests from the general public are increasing as more people learn about the Refuge and the 

resources it protects. Due to staffing and funding limitations, the risk of adverse impacts to 

endangered species and their habitats prevents the Refuge from offering unlimited access to 

everyone. Visitor safety and the potential for visitor interference with management programs and 

research projects must also be considered. The entry of a limited number of small groups, led by 

competent and conscientious people familiar with Refuge objectives and programs, will minimize the 

risk of adverse impacts. Guided visits will provide significant environmental education for 

participants as well as further knowledge of and appreciation for the Refuge System. 




A maximum of 12 SUPs allowing 100 individual person visits will be issued during a calendar year 

to commercial tour operators and conservation and education groups to permit entry to the upper Pua 

‘Ākala and Hakalau Forest Unit tracts to observe common and endangered native forest birds, plants, 

and rainforest habitats. A maximum of six visits may occur under any one permit. The maximum 

group size will be 25 individuals. Specific conditions would be developed by the Refuge to minimize 

or avoid impacts to Refuge resources and are listed in “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure 

Compatibility” in this document. 

The permittee is required to provide a list of the number of visits and individuals when requesting 

permission to access the Refuge. The permittee will submit a monthly written report with the total 

number of visits and individuals. 

Visitors associated with volunteer activities, the annual Open House, Refuge inspections, and other 

official visits will continue to enter the Refuge without requiring issuance of a SUP. The Refuge 

Manager will limit these visits to minimize the risk of adverse impacts on wildlife and habitat. 

The proposed action will provide limited access to portions of the Refuge (Pua ‘Ākala and HFU 

tracts) which are not open to the general public and have relatively high populations of endangered 

birds, specifically ‘akiapōlā‘au, Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, and Hawai‘i creeper. These endangered birds are 

seldom seen within the Upper Maulua Tract, which is open to the public every weekend. 



At present, Hakalau Forest NWR can only accommodate 12 tour group permits per year. If the 

number of applicants begins to increase, additional staffing would be required. The Refuge requires 

the permittee to offset any cost incurred by the Refuge by payment of a one-time permit fee of 

$150.00. 


Administration and Management $150/permit issued $9,200 




3 percent of the GS-9 Administrative, and 1 percent of the Maintenance Supervisor’s staff time, 

based on the assumption that this activity would use that portion of their year to administer and 

coordinate commercial tour, conservation, and education group tours. 

The one-time administration and monitoring cost reflects the approximate cost per tour group 

operation incurred by the Refuge and the offsetting cost reflects the reimbursement provided by the 

permittee. The user fees are designed to be equal to the Refuge-incurred cost (costs to administer the 

use, including any costs associated with facilities, equipment, supplies) and would come to the 

Refuge in the form of monies paid by the commercial photographers. 





The area in which most commercial guided tours and noncommercial education group activities will 

occur at Hakalau Forest NWR is forested, and characterized by moderately closed to closed-canopy 

stands of ‘ōhi‘a and koa trees, with a subcanopy of native trees and bushes. Ground cover consists of 

nonnative grasses and some native shrubs and ferns. Much of the understory and ground cover has 

been disturbed by more than 100 years of cattle grazing and pig rooting. 

To the extent possible, permittees will confine their activities to existing roads, natural clearings, and 

trails. Foot traffic will compact or crush a small amount of native vegetation, but the impact will be 

minimal when compared to the damage done by pigs or cattle. Birds being observed by tour groups 

are unlikely to be negatively impacted if the conditions of the permit are followed; however, even 

with the proper management and execution of a well-planned project, certain behavioral responses in 

avifauna may occur that are not easily recognized by the casual observer. Stress reactions (elevated 

heart rate, elevated corticosterone levels, and behavioral responses) have been documented in several 

species of birds as a result of human activities in nesting areas. However, studies have not been 

conducted to document long-term cumulative effects of human-caused disturbances. Limited 

duration disturbance, however, has only minor, short-term effects. It is important to note that even 

wildlife observation conducted by professionals can cause disturbance, depending upon the manner 

in which it is pursued. 

Although a single commercial or noncommercial conservation group visit for 1 day may cause few, 

if any, negative resource impacts, it may cause cumulative impacts over a longer span of time when 

considered additively with all activity on the Refuge. Therefore, it is critical for the Refuge Manager 

to examine all permit proposals with a multiyear timeframe in mind and consider all activities that 

are planned concurrently on the Refuge before approval is granted. It may be appropriate to 

periodically reevaluate the number of visits occurring in a particular habitat or relative to a single 

species or species group, even if personnel are available to coordinate and monitor the tours. 

Specialized proposed activities will require further analysis and compliance by the Refuge as more 

detailed information becomes available. These requirements may include additional analysis in 

accordance with NEPA and consultation under ESA. 





are trapped in clothing or vehicle wheels. Adhering to appropriate protocols should reduce the risk of 

introducing nonnative species. 

Overall, however, allowing well-designed and properly reviewed commercial tours and 

noncommercial conservation/education group visits is unlikely to have significant impacts on Refuge 

wildlife populations. If visits are conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse 

impacts are likely to be outweighed by the knowledge gained about the Refuge’s programs, protected 

species, and habitats. 









list, and circulation of Planning Update 3. Comments were received related to commercial tour 

operations, and conservation and education group visits, and are addressed in Appendix K. 





Special Use Permits (SUP) will be issued for all commercial and noncommercial conservation and 

education group tour activities conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will list the conditions 

that the Refuge Manager determines to be necessary to ensure compatibility. Any permit may be 

terminated at any time for noncompliance with the SUP conditions, or modified, redesigned, 

relocated or terminated upon a determination by the Refuge Manager that the activity is causing 

unanticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved priority public uses, or other 

Refuge management activities. 

Care will be taken to minimize the impacts of permitted commercial and noncommercial tour 

activities on native birds, plants, and habitat to ensure compatibility. Tour group leaders will provide 

a 5-10 minute environmental education talk to each tour group. The talk will include information 

relative to establishment and management of the Refuge, endangered forest birds, and protection and 

management of the native plants and animals. One of the special conditions attached to each permit 

states that activities may not be conducted in a manner that modifies the natural behavior of the birds 

being viewed. Activities will cease immediately if the subject shows signs of disturbance and/or 

stress, and the permittee must vacate the vicinity. The handling or harassment of birds or their nests 

is strictly prohibited. Special conditions to protect the habitat are incorporated. These include taking 

precautions to prevent the introduction of nonnative plants and insects to the refuge. Vehicles, boots, 


the Refuge. Cutting or clearing vegetation is not permitted. Other conditions prohibit fires and 

require the removal of all trash and refuse resulting from his/her activities. 


Hakalau Forest NWR provides unique educational opportunities to highlight the conservation and 

management of Hawaiian forest birds and their habitats unmatched elsewhere. Compatible tours 

promote environmental education and interpretation, which are priority public uses of the Refuge 

System as identified in the Improvement Act. 

Allowing limited numbers of closely monitored guided tours for educational purposes should have 

indirect positive impacts on Refuge resources. Supporting environmental education services and 




programs that strive to convey an understanding and appreciation of wildlife resources, the issues 

affecting them, and the techniques and programs pursued to restore them supports the goals of 

Hakalau Forest NWR. The services provided by commercial tour guides are beneficial to expand 

public appreciation for and understanding of unique wildlife, diverse native habitats, management 

programs, and the mission of the Refuge System. 

Because each SUP will contain specific permit conditions for minimizing adverse effects to Refuge 

resources while the commercial activity is being conducted, it is anticipated that wildlife populations 

will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge 

will not be measurably lessened from these activities. The relatively limited number of individuals 

expected to be adversely affected from these activities will not cause wildlife populations to 

materially decline, the physiological condition and production of native wildlife species will not be 


overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. In light of the benefits the use is expected to having 

in expanding public appreciation for and understanding of Hakalau Forest NWR’s unique wildlife, 

diverse native habitats, management programs, and the mission of the Refuge System, allowing 

commercial tours and noncommercial conservation and education group visits to occur with 

stipulations will contribute to the purpose(s) for which the Refuge was established or the Refuge 

System mission. 


___________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_____X_____ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for nonwildlife-dependent public uses) 




_ X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 




Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Compatibility determination for commercial photography, 

videography, filming, or audio recording, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 




U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Addendum No. 1, Compatibility Determination No: 

COMPAT-03-94, Special Use Permit, Commercial Tour Operations, Conservation and Education 

Groups. 

Boyle, S.A. and Samson, F.B. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. 

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 110-116. 

Cole, D. N. and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. Pages 183-201 in R.L. 

Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp. 

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands, In 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 56:238-247. 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects on human trampling on natural 

ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 7:17-36. 







Use: Research, Scientific Collecting, and Surveys 






















1966). 


When determined appropriate and compatible on a refuge-specific basis, research, scientific 

collecting, and surveys (research) are allowable uses and are conducted on Refuge lands and waters 

by independent researchers, partnering agencies, and educational groups. 

The Service defines these uses as: 

� Research: Planned, organized, and systematic investigation of a scientific nature; 

� Scientific collecting: Gathering of refuge natural resources or cultural artifacts for scientific 

purposes; and 


� Surveys: Scientific inventory or monitoring. 



The types of research vary greatly but could revolve around birds, bats, plants, insects/pollinators, 

invasive species, habitat classification, restoration techniques, and cultural and historic resources. 

Research proposals may be for any time of the year and on any of the habitat types within Hakalau 

Forest NWR. However, the Refuge may limit the time and location of research projects to ensure that 

negative impacts to Refuge resources are avoided or limited. Additionally, the Refuge may impose 

limits on the duration and/or number of animals trapped for research purposes, specifically, mistnetting 

capture of birds and/or bats and handling techniques. 

Each research, scientific collection, or survey project on the Hakalau or Kona Forest Units would 

undoubtedly have different protocols and methodologies; therefore, each study necessitates its own 

scientific review. Each research project would be carefully reviewed to prevent any significant shortterm, 

long-term or cumulative impacts. New research requests would be evaluated by Refuge staff by 

comparing them to ongoing or recently completed research on the Refuge to determine if the species 

studied, methodologies used, or habitat type and locations used may lead to undesirable cumulative 

impacts. All projects would be subject to the Refuge permitting process. This review would help 

ensure all levels and types of impacts are carefully considered before any permit for research is 

issued. Within the Hakalau and Kona Forest Unit’s SUP, conditions will be clearly defined so as to 

protect and conserve the existing natural, cultural, and historic resources found on the Refuge. 

Standard and specific conditions are included in this Compatibility Determination under 

“Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility.” 

Research is a specialized use (603 FW1) and, therefore, it is not considered a priority public use by 

Refuge System policy. Refuge plans and actions based on research and monitoring provide an 

informed approach to habitat, wildlife, and public use management programs. Forest bird 

conservation and management at the Refuge are based upon best available scientific information 

from research combined with long-term monitoring. Some research is used to address specific 

wildlife conservation questions, such as understanding the causes of reduced or declining forest bird 

populations and development of tools and techniques to aid recovery of threatened or endangered 

species. Other research has broader applicability, such as using a suite of forest birds as indicators of 

native forest health conditions, and to document change in the larger island environment and 

associated impacts related to climate change and global warming. 

The Service will encourage and support research and management studies on Hakalau and Kona 

Forest Units that improve and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The Hakalau 

Forest NWR Refuge manager will encourage and seek research relative to approved Refuge 

objectives that clearly improve land management approaches and promote adaptive management. 

Information that enables better management of the Nation’s biological resources and is generally 

considered important to agencies of the Department of the Interior, including the Service, the Refuge 

System, conservation and State agencies, and/or that addresses important management issues or 

demonstrate techniques for management of species and/or habitats, will be the priority. 

The Service’s Appropriate Refuge Uses policies (603 FW1.10D (4)) indicate priority research that 

contributes to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refuge- 




specific and/or wilderness management, where applicable, would be given a higher priority over 

other requests. Research applicants must submit a detailed proposal that would outline: 

1) Objectives of the study; 

2) Justification for the study; 

3) Detailed methodology and schedule; 

4) Potential impacts on Refuge wildlife or habitat, including disturbance (short and long term), 

injury and/or mortality. This includes a description of measures the researcher will take to 

reduce disturbance or impacts; 

5) Personnel required; 

6) Costs to the Refuge, if any, including staff time and equipment; 

7) Expected outcomes or results; and 

8) A time line for submitting progress reports and final products (e.g., reports, theses, 

dissertations, publications). 

Research proposed to be conducted on the Refuge would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others as 

appropriate, to weigh the anticipated impacts versus the benefits of the research activity to refuge 

management and understanding of natural systems. This would form the basis for allowing the 

project to proceed or be denied. If the proposal is approved, the Refuge Manager would issue a 

SUP(s) that would set the terms and conditions of the study to avoid and/or minimize the impacts on 

Refuge resources, public use activities, and Refuge field operations. All research projects would be 

assessed during implementation to ensure that impacts remain within acceptable levels. 

Research would not be allowed on Refuge lands if one or more of the following criteria apply to a 

project proposal: 

� Research that conflicts with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will 

not be granted; 

� Highly intrusive or manipulative research is generally not permitted in order to protect native 

birds and other wildlife populations and wilderness values; 

� Research projects that can be accomplished off the Refuge are less likely to be approved; 

� Research that causes undue disturbance or is more than minimally intrusive is not likely to be 

granted; 

� The level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request. 

Strategies to minimize disturbance through study design, including location, timing, scope, 

number of permittees, study methods, number of study sites, etc., will be required; 

� If staffing or logistics make it impossible for Refuge staff to monitor the researcher, the permit is 

likely to be denied; and 

� If the activity is in a sensitive area, the research request may be denied, depending on the specific 

circumstances. 

Hakalau Forest NWR may also consider research for purposes not directly associated to Refugespecific 

objectives; such research could potentially contribute to the broader enhancement, 

protection, use, preservation, and management of wildlife and plant populations and their natural 

diversity within the Hawaiian Islands. These proposals must comply with the Service’s compatibility 

policy. 




Hakalau Forest NWR has developed a preliminary list of research needs that will be provided to 

prospective researchers or organizations at the Refuge Manager’s discretion. Refuge support of 

research directly related to Refuge objectives may take the form of funding, in-kind services such as 

housing or use of other facilities, direct staff assistance with the project in the form of data collection, 

provision of historical records, conducting of management treatments, or other assistance as 

appropriate. 


The bulk of the cost for research is incurred in staff time to review research proposals, coordinate 

with researchers, write SUPs, attend meetings, and review the research results. The amount of 

resource required is highly variable depending on the nature of the work involved. In some cases, a 

research project may only require 1 day of staff time to write a SUP. In other cases, a research project 

may require a week or more of staff time. 

The Refuge requires the permittee to offset any cost incurred by the Refuge by payment of a onetime 

permit fee of $150.00. 


Administration and Management $150/permittee $13,500 




1 percent of the GS-9 Administrative, and 2 percent of the Maintenance Supervisor’s staff time, 

based on the assumption that this activity would use that portion of the year to administer and 

coordinate outside research. 


Use of Hakalau Forest NWR to conduct research, scientific collection, and surveys will generally 

benefit plant populations, wildlife, and habitats. The impacts of research activities would be project- 

and site-specific, and would vary depending on the scope and type of research conducted. Scientific 

findings gained through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of 

species and species groups as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource 

management objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty 

regarding wildlife and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired 

outcomes reflected in resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in 

accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If a project’s methods impact or conflict with Refuge resources, other public-uses, other high-priority 

research, and Refuge management programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that its scientific 

findings will be essential to resource management and that the project cannot be conducted offrefuge 

lands for the project to be compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in 

advance required to minimize or eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable 

impacts cannot be avoided, then the project will not be compatible and will not be approved. Projects 

that represent public or private economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge 




(e.g., bioprospecting), in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to the achievement of the 

national wildlife refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and scope 

of the field work. Data collection techniques will generally have negligible animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. 

To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and 

statistical analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share collections to reduce 

sampling needed for multiple projects. 

Although a single research project for a single year may cause few, if any, negative resource impacts, 

it may in fact cause cumulative impacts over multiple years or when considered additively with all 

activity on the Refuge. Therefore, it is critical that the Refuge Wildlife Biologist and Refuge 

Manager examine all projects with a multi-year timeframe in mind and consider all activities that are 

planned concurrently on the Refuge before approval is granted. It may be appropriate to set a limit to 

the number of research projects occurring in a particular habitat or relative to a single species or 

species group, even if personnel are available to coordinate the projects. 

Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through observation, a variety of 

wildlife capture techniques, banding, and accessing the area by foot or vehicle. It is possible that 

direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct of research activities. Mist-netting or other 

wildlife capture techniques, for example, can cause mortality directly through the capture method or 

in trap predation, and indirectly through capture injury or stress caused to the organism. Some level 

of disturbance is expected with all research activities, since most researchers will be entering areas 

that are normally closed to the public and, depending on specific research activities, may also be 

collecting samples or handling wildlife. However, minimal impact to Refuge wildlife and habitats 

will be expected with research studies because SUPs will include conditions to ensure that impacts to 

wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum (see discussion above). 

Direct damage or alteration to the habitat from researchers would be minor due to the research 

proposal evaluation process and stipulations imposed through the SUP. However, some increase in 

invasive plants is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation of source seed on research 

equipment and personnel, and rodents and disease organisms could potentially be transferred from 

boats and trapping equipment. Likewise, localized and temporary effects could result from direct 

impacts of vegetation trampling, collecting soil and plant samples, or trapping and handling wildlife. 

Other potential, but localized and temporary, effects would include wildlife disturbance, which is 

expected with some research activities. Researcher disturbance could result in altering wildlife 

behavior. However, only research with reasonably certain short-term effects from disturbance would 

be permitted. Only the minimum of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

macroinvertebrates, tissue etc.) required for identification and/or experimentation and statistical 

analysis would be permitted. 

State and Federal collecting permits will also ensure minimal impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats. A Section 7 consultation under the ESA will be required for activities that may affect a 

federally listed species and/or critical habitat. 




At least 6 months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval of the 

Refuge Manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format provided 

in Attachment 1. Project proposals will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess 

the potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation 

to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This assessment will form the 

primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which result in unacceptable 

Refuge impacts will not be found compatible and will not be approved. 

If the proposal is approved, then the Refuge Manager will issue a SUP(s) with required stipulations 

(terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to Refuge resources 

as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and Refuge field management operations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure 

that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of 

native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these projects will help 

fulfill Refuge purposes; contribute to the Refuge System mission; and maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary. If 

after all practical measures are taken, an unacceptable spread of invasive species is anticipated to 

occur, the project will be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

Localized and temporary effects may occur from vegetation trampling, collecting soil and plant 

samples, or trapping and handling wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure necessary to 

support projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, monitoring equipment, 

solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of disturbance is expected with 

these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the public and collect samples or 

handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered behavior) will be localized and 

temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative unacceptable effects cannot be avoidable, the 

project will not be found compatible. Project proposals will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, 

as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-term, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits 

of the investigation to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This 

assessment will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. 

Overall, however, allowing well designed and properly reviewed research to be conducted by non- 

Service personnel is likely to have very little impact on Refuge wildlife populations. If the research 

project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to be 

outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, habitat or public use. 









list, and circulation of Planning Update 3. Comments were received related to research activities on 

the refuge and addressed in Appendix K. 





The SUP will be issued for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will list the 

conditions that the Refuge Manager determines to be necessary to ensure compatibility. The SUPs 

will also identify a schedule for progress reports and the submittal of a final report or scientific paper. 

Regional Refuge biologists, U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Discipline staff scientists, 

other Service programs, State agencies, or nongovernmental organizations and biologists may be 

asked to provide additional review and comment on any research proposal at the discretion of the 

Refuge Wildlife Biologist and/or Refuge Manager. 

All researchers are required to obtain appropriate State and Federal permits. 

If the proposed research methods would impact or potentially impact Refuge resources (habitat or 

wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the research is essential (i.e., critical to the survival of a 

species; Refuge provides only or critical habitat for a species; contributes significantly to 

understanding of impacts from climate change; or assessment and/or restoration after cataclysmic 

events), and the researcher must identify the issues in advance of the impact. Highly intrusive or 

manipulative research is generally not permitted in order to protect native bird populations. 

All SUPs will have a definite termination date. Renewals will be subject to Refuge Manager review 

and approval based on timely submission of and content in progress reports, compliance with SUP 

stipulations, and required permits. Other stipulations and provisions would include the following: 

� Potential researchers must submit a written, detailed research proposal to the Refuge Manager at 

least 6 months prior to start of field work. The required proposal format would be provided to 

researchers (see Attachment 1); 

� Researchers are responsible for acquiring and/or renewing any necessary State and Federal 

permits prior to beginning or continuing their project; 

� A Section 7 consultation under the ESA would be required for research activities that may affect 

a federally threatened, endangered, or proposed species; 

� Research that does not involve birds generally will only be allowed outside of the breeding 

season of avian species, unless it can be demonstrated that there likely will be no impact to those 

breeding species. If a research project can only be conducted during the breeding season, such 

studies will only be permitted where there are specific protocols to minimize disturbance; 

� Research will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and feasible; 

� Approved research projects will be conducted under a Refuge-issued SUP that will have 

additional project-specific stipulations; 




� Annual or other short-term SUPs are preferred; however, some permits will be for a longer 

period, if needed, to facilitate the research. All SUPs will have a definite termination date. 

Renewals will be subject to Refuge Manager review of research data, status reports, compliance 

with compatibility determination and permit stipulations, and other permits; 

� If unacceptable impacts or issues arise or be noted by the Refuge staff, then the Refuge Manager 

can suspend/modify conditions/terminate on Refuge research that is already permitted and in 

progress; 

� Research progress reports are required at least annually, and final reports are due within 1 year of 

the completion of the project, unless negotiated otherwise. The minimum required elements for a 

progress report will be provided to investigator(s); 

� The Refuge staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the project 

before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication; 

� The Refuge staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database format) 

at the conclusion of the project; 

� The Refuge staff will be provided with copies of all publications developed from Refuge research 

projects; 

� The Service and the Refuge will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all written and oral 

presentations resulting from the research on the Refuge; 

� Where appropriate, the Refuge staff reserves the right to be coauthor(s) on any reports or 

publications resulting from the study conducted on the Refuge. Authorship is appropriate where 

justifiably based upon participation in the project over the course of implementation occurs (e.g., 

field work, data analyses, summary of findings); 

� Upon completion of the project or annually, research sites must be cleaned up to the Refuge 

Manager’s satisfaction and all physical markers removed. For long-term projects, conditions for 

clean up and removal of equipment and physical markers would be stipulated in the SUP; 

� All samples collected on Refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not clearly 

identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for review and 

approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work; 

� Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all Refuge-specific regulations that specify access 

and travel on the Refuge; 

� At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the researchers; 

� Only projects that have no effect or will result in not likely to adversely affect determinations 

will be considered compatible; 

� After approval, all projects also will be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and 

conflicts remain within acceptable levels; and 

� Projects that are not covered by the CCP or subsequent step-down plans may require additional 

NEPA documentation. 

All research related SUPs contain a statement regarding the Service’s policy regarding disposition of 

biotic specimen. The current Service policy language in this regard is: 

“You may use specimens collected under this permit, any components of any specimens 

(including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic material or seeds), and research results 

derived from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and not for 

commercial purposes unless you have entered into a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the sale of collected research specimens or other 




transfers to third parties. Breach of any of the terms of this permit will be grounds for 

revocation of this permit and denial of future permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise 

transfer collected specimens, any components thereof, or any products or any research 

results developed from such specimens or their components without a CRADA, you will pay 

us a royalty rate of 20 percent of gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, 

we may seek other damages and injunctive relief against you.” 

Any research project may be terminated at any time for noncompliance with the SUP conditions, or 

modified, redesigned, relocated or terminated, upon a determination by the Refuge manager that the 

project is causing unanticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved priority public 

uses, or other Refuge management activities. 


Research on the Hakalau Forest NWR is inherently valuable to the Service, since it is intended to 

expand the knowledge base of those who are given the responsibility of managing the resources 

found within the Refuge. This is particularly true for Hakalau Forest NWR, where many of the 

resources remain in pristine condition and detailed information is lacking for a portion of these 

species. In many cases, if it were not for the Refuge providing access to the lands and waters along 

with some support, the research would never take place and less scientific information would be 

available to the Service to aid in managing and conserving the Refuge resources. 

Because each SUP will contain specific conditions for minimizing adverse effects to Refuge 

resources while the research project is being conducted, it is anticipated that wildlife populations will 

find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of the Refuge will 

not be measurably lessened from research activities. The relatively limited number of individuals 

expected to be adversely affected due to research will not cause wildlife populations to materially 

decline, the physiological condition and production of native wildlife and plant species will not be 


overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Thus, allowing research to occur with the 

stipulations described above will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which 

Hakalau Forest NWR was established or the Refuge System mission. 


____________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_____X______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for nonwildlife-dependent public uses) 










U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Director’s Order No. 109: Use of Specimens Collected on Fish 

and Wildlife Lands. March 30, 1999. 


Attachment 1 

Title 



FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS TO CONDUCT RESEARCH OR LONG-TERM 

ECOLOGICAL STUDY 

Principal Investigator(s) and background 

Provide the name(s) and affiliation(s) of all principal investigator(s) that will be responsible for 

implementation of the research and/or long-term monitoring described in the proposal. In addition, 

provide a brief description of expertise for principal investigator(s) germane to work described in the 

proposal. 

Background and justification 

In a narrative format, describe the following as applicable: 

� The conservation issue (e.g., decline in Pisonia rainforest) and/or knowledge gap regarding 

ecological function that currently exists with any available background information; 

� Benefit of research/study findings (e.g., management implications) to resources associated with 

refuge purpose(s); and 

� Potential consequences if the conservation issue and/or knowledge gap regarding ecological 

function is not addressed. 

Objectives 

Provide detailed objective(s) to be evaluated by the proposed research or study. 

Methods and Material 

Provide a detailed description of the methods and materials associated with field work to be 

conducted for the research and/or ecological study. Methods should include the following: 

� Study area(s); 

� Number of samples; 

� Sampling dates and locations; 

� Sampling techniques; and 

� Data analyses including statistical tests and significance levels. 

Previously published methods should be cited without explanation; whereas, new or modified 

techniques should be described in detail. Include number of personnel as well as all facilities and 

equipment (e.g., vehicles, structures, markers) required to collect samples/data. Provide a clear 

description of the relationships among study objectives, field methods, and statistical analyses. 


Permits 



Identify all State and Federal permits required if applicable. If appropriate, assess the impact on the 

species population if animals or eggs are to be sacrificed or collected. Note any official status of the 

species involved (e.g., threatened or endangered). 

Compatibility and Section 7 assessments 

In order for a research and/or long-term ecological monitoring project to be compatible, it must not 

materially interfere with or detract from refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission. Describe 

potential impacts to threatened or endangered species as well as other refuge plants, wildlife, and fish 

species that could result from the implementation of project activities on the refuge if applicable. 

Consider the cumulative impacts associated with this project in relationship to other on-going or 

proposed research and/or long-term monitoring. 

Animal welfare Plan 

If appropriate, attach a copy of animal welfare plans that are required by the supporting research 

affiliate. 

Partnerships and funding sources 

List other participating institutions, agencies, organizations, or individuals as well as the nature and 

magnitude of their cooperative involvement (e.g., funding, equipment, personnel). 

Project schedule 

Provide estimated initiation and completion dates for field sampling, laboratory work, data analyses, 

and report/manuscript preparation. If the study is divided into phases to be accomplished separately, 

provide initiation and completion dates for each phase. 

Reports and raw data 

Establish a schedule for annual progress and final reports; include adequate time for peer review for 

the final report/manuscript. Copies of annual progress reports must be submitted to the Refuge 

manager by January 1 during each year that the study is in progress. Draft reports/manuscripts must 

be submitted to the Refuge manager for review prior to submission for consideration of publication. 

At the conclusion of a research study (manuscripts accepted for publication), an electronic copy of 

the data (e.g., GIS vegetation layers, animal species composition and numbers, genetics) should be 

provided to the Refuge manager. For long-term monitoring projects, the Service may request raw 

data for management and planning purposes for the refuges. 

Publications 

Describe the ultimate disposition of study results as publications in scientific journals, presentation at 

professional symposiums, or final reports. Publications must also credit the Service and staff. 


Disposition of samples 



If the project entails the collection of biotic and/or abiotic (e.g., sediment) samples, then describe 

their storage. Although the samples may be in the possession of scientists for the purposes of 

conducting research in accordance with the special use permit, the USFWS retains ownership of all 

samples collected on refuge lands. If the samples will be used for subsequent research activities that 

are not described within the original proposal, an addendum to the original proposal must be 

submitted to the Refuge manager to obtain a new special use permit before initiation of the follow-up 

project. After conclusion of the research activities, consult with the Refuge manager regarding the 

final disposition of the samples. 


Attachment 2 

Study title: 

Fiscal year: 

Progress: 



ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR REFUGE RESEARCH 

AND LONG-TERM MONITORING PROJECTS 

In a narrative format, summarize the work that was completed on the study including 

the number and types of samples collected and/or data analyses. 

Important findings: 

In narrative format, generally describe any conclusions and/or management 

recommendations that may be drawn from the work completed to date. 

Describe problems encountered: 

In narrative format, describe any problems that were encountered during the year 

and their effects upon the study. 

Proposed resolution to problems: 

For each problem encountered, describe the actions that have been taken to 

remediate it. 

Preparer: 

Date prepared: 


Attachment 3 



MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

FOR CURATORIAL SERVICES 

BETWEEN THE 

(Name of the Federal agency) 

AND THE 

(Name of the Repository) 

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this (day) day of (month and year), between 

the United States of America, acting by and through the (name of the Federal agency), hereinafter 

called the Depositor, and the (name of the Repository), hereinafter called the Repository, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory). 

The Parties do witness that 

WHEREAS, the Depositor has the responsibility under Federal law to preserve for future use certain 

collections of paleontological specimens and/or biological samples as well as associated records, 

herein called the Collection, listed in Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, 

and is desirous of obtaining curatorial services; and 

WHEREAS, the Repository is desirous of obtaining, housing and maintaining the Collection, and 

recognizes the benefits which will accrue to it, the public and scientific interests by housing and 

maintaining the Collection for study and other educational purposes; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the Federal Government's continued ownership and control 

over the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, listed in Attachment B 

which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, provided to the Repository, and the Federal 

Government's responsibility to ensure that the Collection is suitably managed and preserved for the 

public good; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto recognize the mutual benefits to be derived by having the Collection 

suitably housed and maintained by the Repository; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties do mutually agree as follows: 

1. The Repository shall: 

a. Provide for the professional care and management of the Collection from the (names of the 

resources) sites, assigned (list site numbers) site numbers. The collections were recovered in 

connection with the (name of the Federal or federally authorized project) project, located in 

(name of the nearest city or town), (name of the county, if applicable) county, in the 

State/Territory of (name of the State/Territory)- 




b. Assign as the Curator, the Collections Manager and the Conservator having responsibility for 

the work under this Memorandum, persons who are qualified museum professionals and whose 

expertise is appropriate to the nature and content of the Collection. 

c. Begin all work on or about (month, date and year) and continue for a period of (number of 

years) years or until sooner terminated or revoked in accordance with the terms set forth herein. 

d. Provide and maintain a repository facility having requisite equipment, space and adequate 

safeguards for the physical security and controlled environment for the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property in the possession of the Repository. 

e. Not in any way adversely alter or deface any of the Collection except as may be absolutely 

necessary in the course of stabilization, conservation, scientific study, analysis and research. Any 

activity that will involve the intentional destruction of any of the Collection must be approved in 

advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

f. Annually inspect the facilities, the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned 

personal property. Every (number of years) years inventory the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property. Perform only those conservation treatments as are absolutely 

necessary to ensure the physical stability and integrity of the Collection, and report the results of all 

inventories, inspections and treatments to the Depositor. 

g. Within five (5) days of discovery, report all instances of and circumstances surrounding loss 

of, deterioration and damage to, or destruction of the Collection and any other U.S. Governmentowned 

personal property to the Depositor, and those actions taken to stabilize the Collection and to 

correct any deficiencies in the physical plant or operating procedures that may have contributed to 

the loss, deterioration, damage or destruction. Any actions that will involve the repair and restoration 

of any of the Collection and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property must be approved 

in advance and in writing by the Depositor. 

h. Review and approve or deny requests for access to or short-term loan of the Collection (or a 

part thereof) for scientific and educational uses. In addition, refer requests for consumptive uses of 

the Collection (or a part thereof) to the Depositor for approval or denial. 

i. Not mortgage, pledge, assign, repatriate, transfer, exchange, give, sublet, discard or part with 

possession of any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property in any 

manner to any third party either directly or indirectly without the prior written permission of the 

Depositor, and redirect any such request to the Depositor for response. In addition, not take any 

action whereby any of the Collection or any other U.S. Government-owned personal property shall or 

may be encumbered, seized, taken in execution, sold, attached, lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. 

2. The Depositor shall: 

a. On or about (month, date and year), deliver or cause to be delivered to the Repository the 

Collection, as described in Attachment A, and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property, 

as described in Attachment B. 




b. Assign as the Depositor's Representative having full authority with regard to this 

Memorandum, a person who meets pertinent professional qualifications. 

c. Every (number of years) years, jointly with the Repository's designated representative, have 

the Depositor's Representative inspect and inventory the Collection and any other U.S. Governmentowned 

personal property, and inspect the repository facility. 

d. Review and approve or deny requests for consumptively using the Collection (or a part 

thereof). 

3. Removal of all or any portion of the Collection from the premises of the Repository for scientific 

or educational purposes; any conditions for handling, packaging and transporting the Collection; 

and other conditions that may be specified by the Repository to prevent breakage, deterioration 

and contamination. 

4. The Collection or portions thereof may be exhibited, photographed or otherwise reproduced and 

studied in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in Attachment C to this Memorandum. 

All exhibits, reproductions and studies shall credit the Depositor, and read as follows: 

"Courtesy of the (name of the Federal agency)."The Repository agrees to provide the Depositor 

with copies of any resulting publications. 

5. The Repository shall maintain complete and accurate records of the Collection and any other U.S. 

Government-owned personal property, including information on the study, use, loan and location 

of said Collection which has been removed from the premises of the Repository. 

6. Upon execution by both parties, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on this 

(day) day of (month and year), and shall remain in effect for (number of years) years, at which 

time it will be reviewed, revised, as necessary, and reaffirmed or terminated. This Memorandum 

may be revised or extended by mutual consent of both parties, or by issuance of a written 

amendment signed and dated by both parties. Either party may terminate this Memorandum by 

providing 90 days written notice. Upon termination, the Repository shall return such Collection 

and any other U.S. Government-owned personal property to the destination directed by the 

Depositor and in such manner to preclude breakage, loss, deterioration and contamination during 

handling, packaging and shipping, and in accordance with other conditions specified in writing by 

the Depositor. If the Repository terminates, or is in default of, this Memorandum, the Repository 

shall fund the packaging and transportation costs. If the Depositor terminates this Memorandum, 

the Depositor shall fund the packaging and transportation costs. 

7. Title to the Collection being cared for and maintained under this Memorandum lies with the 

Federal Government. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Memorandum. 




Signed: (signature of the Federal Agency Official) Date: 

(date) 

Signed: (signature of the Repository Official) Date: 

(date) 

Attachment 3A: Inventory of the Collection 

Attachment 3B: Inventory of any other U.S. Government-owned Personal Property 

Attachment 3C: Terms and Conditions Required by the Depositor 





Use: University of Hawai‘i Field Station 
























1966). 


The University of Hawai‘i (UH) operates a biological field station located on the Hakalau Forest 

NWR Administrative Site. Operation of the field station is described in a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA), dated October 29, 1985 (Contract No. 14-48-0001-95500) between the Service 

and UH. That agreement expired on October 24, 2009. The field station is used to house and support 

UH faculty, students, and visiting scientists conducting research supporting the conservation and 

restoration of native species and habitats at Hakalau Forest NWR. Maintaining a collaborative 

research environment on the Refuge with various partners is strongly encouraged. Studies conducted 

on the Refuge require a Special Use Permit and Refuge Manager’s approval. This compatibility 




determination is confined to the field station; individual research projects taking place at the Refuge 

are covered under a separate compatibility determination titled “Research, Scientific Collecting, and 

Surveys.” A separate CD is required because some research activity at Hakalau Forest NWR is 

independent of and accommodated without the use of the UH facility. All operations at the field 

station, including expected dates of overnight stays and the purpose for each visit must be 

coordinated with the Refuge Manager in advance. UH bears all operational and maintenance costs 

related to the station and thus does not require routine involvement by Refuge staff working at the 

Administration Site. Access to the Refuge requires guests to be given secure combination lock 

numbers that are strictly confidential. UH activities not directly pertaining to activities conducted on 

the Refuge are not covered in this determination and are thus subject to separate review and 

appropriate use considerations if the station is used for offsite projects. 

Research is a specialized use (603 FW1) and, therefore, it is not considered a priority public use by 

Refuge System policy. Refuge plans and actions based on research and monitoring provide an 

informed approach to habitat, wildlife, and public use management programs. Forest bird 

conservation and management at the Refuge are based upon best available scientific information 

from research combined with long-term monitoring. Some research is used to address specific 

wildlife conservation questions, such as understanding the causes of reduced or declining forest bird 

populations and development of tools and techniques to aid recovery of threatened or endangered 

species. Other research has broader applicability, such as using a suite of forest birds as indicators of 

native forest health conditions, and to document change in the larger island environment and 

associated impacts related to climate change and global warming. 

The Service’s Appropriate Refuge Uses policies (603 FW1.10D (4)) indicate priority for research 

that contributes to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native wildlife 

populations and their habitat as well as their natural diversity. Projects that contribute to refugespecific 

and/or wilderness management, where applicable, would be given a higher priority over 

other requests. Research applicants must submit a detailed proposal that would outline: 

1) Objectives of the study; 

2) Justification for the study; 

3) Detailed methodology and schedule; 

4) Potential impacts on Refuge wildlife or habitat, including disturbance (short and long term), 

injury and/or mortality. This includes a description of measures the researcher will take to 

reduce disturbance or impacts; 

5) Personnel required; 

6) Costs to the Refuge, if any, including staff time and equipment; 

7) Expected outcomes or results; and 

8) A time line for submitting progress reports and final products (e.g., reports, theses, 

dissertations, publications). 

UH research proposed to be conducted on the Refuge would be reviewed by Refuge staff and others 

as appropriate, to weigh the anticipated impacts versus the benefits of the research activity to Refuge 

management and understanding of natural systems. This would form the basis for allowing the 

project to proceed or be denied. If the proposal is approved, the Refuge Manager would issue a 

SUP(s) which would set the terms and conditions of the study to avoid and/or minimize the impacts 

on Refuge resources, public use activities, and Refuge field operations. All research projects would 

be assessed during implementation to ensure that impacts remain within acceptable levels. 




Research would not be allowed on Refuge lands if one or more of the following criteria apply to a 

project proposal: 

� Research that conflicts with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management programs will 

not be granted; 

� Highly intrusive or manipulative research is generally not permitted in order to protect native 

birds and other wildlife populations and wilderness values; 

� Research projects that can be accomplished off the Refuge are less likely to be approved; 

� Research which causes undue disturbance or is more than minimally intrusive is not likely to be 

granted; 

� The level and type of disturbance will be carefully evaluated when considering a request. 

Strategies to minimize disturbance through study design, including location, timing, scope, 

number of permittees, study methods, number of study sites, etc., will be required; 

� If staffing or logistics make it impossible for Refuge staff to monitor the researcher, the permit is 

likely to be denied; and 

� If the activity is in a sensitive area, the research request may be denied, depending on the specific 

circumstances. 


Normally, minimal Refuge staff resources are required to provide coordination and oversight for 

activities conducted on the Refuge and supported by the operation of the field station: 


Administration and Management No fees charged $9,300 

The above annual cost reflects the cost to provide oversight for the UH field station facility and 

prevent impacts to natural resources. The cost was conservatively estimated as requiring 2 percent of 

the base cost of a GS-12 Deputy Refuge Manager, 3 percent of the GS-13 Refuge Manager, 2 percent 

of the GS-12 Wildlife Biologist, 1 percent of the GS-9 Administrative, and 1 percent of the 

Maintenance Supervisor’s staff time, based on the assumption that this activity would use that 

portion of the year to administer and coordinate activities conducted on the Refuge and supported by 

the operation of the field station. 

The estimated administration and management cost reflects the portion of each year necessary to 

work with UH faculty to assure appropriate, compatible use of the field station in accordance with 

the MOA. Depending upon the amount of activity planned for the field station in a given year, the 

actual amount of time and funding required to administer the operation could vary significantly. 


The field station is situated within the 15-acre Hakalau Forest NWR Administrative Site situated at 

the upper (western) boundary of the Refuge. Much of the vicinity understory and ground cover has 

been disturbed by more than 100 years of cattle grazing and pig rooting, primarily preceding the 

establishment of the Refuge. This resulted in conversion of native forest habitats to open rangeland 

carpeted with nonnative grasses. Since construction of the field station, the immediate vicinity 

surrounding the Administrative Site has been restored with planted koa. The area surrounding the 




field station is not high quality habitat for imperiled Refuge species, with the exception of the nēnē. 

Because it is necessary to maintain an open area to store and maintain equipment and facilities, and 

because of resident nēnē nesting in the area, there are no plans to restore forest within the boundaries 

of the 15-acre Administrative Site. 

Operation and maintenance of the station has little if any impact on forest birds and the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 

Impacts to nēnē are minimal and limited to temporary displacement of individuals by vehicles and 

pedestrian traffic in and around the building structures and area roads. During the nēnē breeding 

season of 2009-10, two pairs of geese nested beneath the field station building and entranceway 

decking. 

Operation of the field station is intended to provide benefits to the management of the Refuge by 

facilitating research contributing to conservation of resident Refuge species and restoration of Refuge 

habitats. Numerous studies that have taken place at the Refuge over the last 16 years would likely 

have been infeasible without use of the field station on site at the Refuge. 

Use of Hakalau Forest NWR to conduct research, scientific collection, and surveys will generally 

benefit plant populations, wildlife, and habitats. The impacts of research activities would be projectand 

site-specific, and would vary depending on the scope and type of research conducted. Scientific 

findings gained through these projects provide important information regarding life-history needs of 

species and species groups, as well as identify or refine management actions to achieve resource 

management objectives in refuge management plans (especially CCPs). Reducing uncertainty 

regarding wildlife and habitat responses to refuge management actions in order to achieve desired 

outcomes reflected in resource management objectives is essential for adaptive management in 

accordance with 522 DM 1. 

If project methods impact or conflict with Refuge resources, other public-uses, other high-priority 

research, and Refuge management programs, then it must be clearly demonstrated that scientific 

findings will be essential to resource management and that the project cannot be conducted off 

Refuge lands for the project to be compatible. The investigator(s) must identify methods/strategies in 

advance required to minimize or eliminate the potential impact(s) and conflict(s). If unacceptable 

impacts cannot be avoided, then the project will not be compatible and not be approved. Projects that 

represent public or private economic use of the natural resources of any national wildlife refuge (e.g., 

bioprospecting), in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 715s, must contribute to the achievement of the 

national wildlife refuge purposes or the Refuge System mission to be compatible (50 C.F.R. 29.1). 

Impacts would be project- and site-specific, where they will vary depending upon nature and scope 

of the field work. Data collection techniques will generally have negligible animal mortality or 

disturbance, habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, and no introduction of 

nonindigenous species. In contrast, projects involving the collection of biotic samples (plants or 

animals) or requiring intensive ground-based data or sample collection will have short-term impacts. 

To reduce impacts, the minimum number of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, plants, 

invertebrates, vertebrates) will be collected for identification and/or experimentation and statistical 

analysis. Where possible, researchers would coordinate and share collections to reduce sampling 

needed for multiple projects. 

Some level of disturbance is expected with all research activities since most researchers will be 

entering areas that are normally closed to the public and, depending on specific research activities, 




may also be collecting samples or handling wildlife. However, minimal impact to Refuge wildlife 

and habitats will be expected with research studies because SUPs will include conditions to ensure 

that impacts to wildlife and habitats are kept to a minimum (see discussion above). 

Direct damage or alteration to the habitat from researchers would be minor due to the research 

proposal evaluation process and stipulations imposed through the SUP. However, some increase in 

invasive plants is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation of source seed on research 

equipment and personnel, and rodents and disease organisms could potentially be transferred from 

boots and trapping equipment. Likewise, there could be localized and temporary effects resulting in 

direct impacts of vegetation trampling, collecting soil and plant samples, or trapping and handling 

wildlife. Other potential, but localized and temporary, effects would include wildlife disturbance, 

which is expected with some research activities. Researcher disturbance could result in altering 

wildlife behavior. However, only research with reasonably certain short-term effects from 

disturbance would be permitted. Only the minimum of samples (e.g., water, soils, vegetative litter, 

plants, invertebrates, tissue, etc.) required for identification and/or experimentation and statistical 

analysis would be permitted. 

State and Federal collecting permits will also ensure minimal impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and 

their habitats. A Section 7 consultation under the ESA will be required for activities that may affect a 

federally listed species and/or critical habitat. 

At least 6 months before initiation of field work (unless an exception is made by prior approval of the 

Refuge Manager), project investigator(s) must submit a detailed proposal using the format provided 

in Attachment 1 to the Research CD. Project proposals will be reviewed by Refuge staff and others, 

as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short-, long-term, and cumulative) relative to benefits of 

the investigation to Refuge management issues and understanding of natural systems. This 

assessment will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific project. Projects which 

result in unacceptable Refuge impacts will not be found compatible and will not be approved. 

If the proposal is approved, then the Refuge Manager will issue a SUP(s) with required stipulations 

(terms and conditions) of the project to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to Refuge resources 

as well as conflicts with other public-use activities and Refuge field management operations. 

The combination of stipulations identified above and conditions included in any SUP(s) will ensure 

that proposed projects contribute to the enhancement, protection, conservation, and management of 

native wildlife populations and their habitats on the Refuge. As a result, these projects will help 

fulfill Refuge purposes; contribute to the Refuge System mission; and maintain the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge. 

Spread of invasive plants and/or pathogens is possible from ground disturbance and/or transportation 

of project equipment and personnel, but it will be minimized or eliminated by requiring proper 

cleaning of investigator equipment and clothing as well as quarantine methods, where necessary. If 

after all practical measures are taken an unacceptable spread of invasive species is anticipated to 

occur, the project will be found not compatible without a restoration or mitigation plan. 

There also could be localized and temporary effects from vegetation trampling, collecting of soil and 

plant samples, or trapping and handling of wildlife. Impacts may also occur from infrastructure 

necessary to support projects (e.g., permanent transects or plot markers, exclosure devices, 




monitoring equipment, solar panels to power unattended monitoring equipment). Some level of 

disturbance is expected with these projects, especially if investigator(s) enter areas closed to the 

public and collect samples or handle wildlife. However, wildlife disturbance (including altered 

behavior) will be localized and temporary in nature. Where long-term or cumulative unacceptable 

effects cannot be avoidable, the project will not be found compatible. Project proposals will be 

reviewed by Refuge staff and others, as needed, to assess the potential impacts (short, long-term, and 

cumulative) relative to benefits of the investigation to Refuge management issues and understanding 

of natural systems. This assessment will form the primary basis for allowing or denying a specific 

project. 






list, and circulation of Planning Update 3. No public comment was received on this compatibility 

determination. 





Conditions have changed since the original MOA was established. This compatibility determination 

establishes a basis for the operation of a field station on the grounds of the Refuge. The uses 

described here are conditional upon the development of a new Memorandum of Agreement or 

Cooperative Agreement that is acceptable under current Refuge System standards. The previous 

MOA expired on October 24, 2009. A current, fully executed MOA must be in place at all times for 

this use to be permitted by the Refuge Manager. Any new MOA needs to be revised to include, but 

not limited to, the following conditions: 

The field station will be operated solely for the purpose of conducting environmental, conservation, 

biotic, climatic, and management studies that will assist the Service in accomplishing the objectives 

for which the Refuge was established. 

1. Most of the Refuge is not open to the public, therefore access to the Field Station is restricted 

and subject to Service approval. Access codes for entry to the Refuge may change from time 

to time and will be provided by the Refuge as needed. Standard notification for visits 

scheduled by permit holders to the Refuge is 7 days from the time of anticipated use. The UH 

will maintain a log of visitors to the facility stating name, affiliation, contact information, 

vehicle identification information, and purpose for the visit, citing relevant SUPs, project or 

coordination needs. The Refuge Manager or his /her agent will be provided with this 




information upon request or, at a minimum, within 30 days of the end of each calendar year 

(January 30). 

2. The UH shall have the use of a site approved by the Service for operation and maintenance of 

a biological field station at no cost to the Service. The site consists of an existing facility used 

under prior (expired) agreement as a research station located on Refuge land within the 

Administration Site for the Refuge as identified on the approved site plan. 

3. It is expressly agreed by the parties that the UH is solely responsible for the cost of the 

maintenance of the field station, pursuant to the terms of this permit. Continued maintenance 

of and related operating expenses for the facility subsequent to occupation is to be borne by 

the designated unit of the UH. The Service will not be responsible for capital costs for future 

construction or additional maintenance expenses that may occur as a result of this SUP. 

4. Use of the field station and all use of premises outside such buildings located on the Refuge 

will be coordinated with and subject to the approval of the Refuge Manager and will be 

compatible with Refuge objectives and operation. Individual research projects will require 

approval and issuance of SUPs by the Refuge Manager. 

5. Use of the field station will be limited to scientists, professors, students, volunteers, and UH 

officials and others designated to conduct authorized research and educational programs on 

the Refuge or official purposes related to facility operations and coordination with the 

Refuge. No unapproved guests are authorized on the Refuge at any time. 

6. The UH shall develop a policy for assigning residency at the field station by mutual 

agreement with the Refuge, and priority shall be given to those individuals and projects 

conducted on the Refuge. This policy shall include acceptable provisions for accommodating 

visiting scientists and other authorized professionals who are not associated with the 

University (e.g., visiting scientists and students) on a space available basis. Access to the 

Refuge and use of the facility for offsite researchers, contractors, interns, etc., is not 

authorized by this permit. 

7. The Service shall at all times have the right of access to the land and facilities covered by this 

permit. The Service, owing to site and space limitations, may by prior arrangement with UH, 

occasionally reserve the field station for meeting space for official business (e.g., internal or 

partnership meetings) and may arrange use of the dorm/kitchen when Service cabins are full 

and space is available. 

8. At the discretion of the Refuge, the field station may not be available to any person who is 

not in good standing with the Refuge due to noncompliance with the Refuge SUP conditions. 

9. Permittee agrees that all users of the facility agree to comply with all Federal, State, and 

County laws and Refuge regulations applicable to the Refuge and the UH’s occupancy and 

use of the land and facilities. 




10. All research and study projects undertaken by UH that involve the use of the Refuge must be 

approved in advance by the Refuge manager. Applications for a SUP require a completed 

research/management study proposal. 

11. Permittee agrees to take such soil and resource conservation and protection measures 

including weed control, on the land covered by this Agreement as the Refuge Manager may 

request. 

12. Permittee agrees to pay the United States the full value for damages to the lands or other 

property of the United States caused by UH, its officers, employees, students, interns and 

agents, and to hold the United States harmless against any liability not caused by negligence 

or intentional acts of Service employees for damages to life, person, or property arising from 

UH that it is legally empowered to do so under the laws of the State of Hawai‘i, including but 

not limited to Chapters 661 and 662, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and subject legislative 

appropriation. 

13. Permittee agrees to provide the use of the Station’s catchment tank water supply to the 

County of Hawai‘i, State of Hawai‘i, and Service firefighters for emergencies involving 

wildland and structural fire suppression efforts. 

The MOA between the Service and UH requires Refuge Manager approval of individual research 

projects based out of the field station. Residential use of the field station is limited to scientists, 

professors, students, volunteers, and UH officials conducting activities determined by the Refuge 

Manager to benefit the Refuge. The Refuge Manager will ensure all operations of the field station 

remain compatible with the purpose for which the Refuge was established. 

Permits will be issued for all research activities conducted from the field station and will list the 

conditions the Refuge manager determines necessary to ensure compatibility. The MOA between the 

Refuge and UH for operation of the field station may be terminated at any time for noncompliance 

with MOA conditions. The MOA may be modified, redesigned, or terminated upon determination by 

the Refuge Manager that field station activities exceed MOA parameters or are causing unanticipated 

adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved priority public uses, noncompliance with 

Special Use Permit conditions, or other Refuge management activities. 

Special conditions to protect fragile Refuge habitats will be incorporated. These include taking 

precautions to prevent the introduction of nonnative plants and insects to the Refuge. Vehicles, boots, 


the Refuge. Cutting or clearing vegetation is not permitted. Other conditions prohibit fires and 

require the removal of all trash. 

If the proposed research methods would impact or potentially impact Refuge resources (habitat or 

wildlife), it must be demonstrated that the research is essential (i.e., critical to the survival of a 

species; Refuge lands provide the only or critical habitat for a species; contributes significantly to 

understanding of impacts from climate change; or assessment and/or restoration after cataclysmic 

events), and the researcher must identify the issues in advance of the impact. Highly intrusive or 

manipulative research is generally not permitted in order to protect native bird populations. 




All SUPs will have a definite termination date. Renewals will be subject to Refuge Manager review 

and approval based on timely submission of and content in progress reports, compliance with SUP 

stipulations, and required permits. Other stipulations and provisions would include the following: 

� Potential researchers must submit a written, detailed research proposal to the Refuge Manager at 

least 6 months prior to start of field work. The required proposal format would be provided to 

researchers (see Attachment 1 to the Research CD); 

� Researchers are responsible for acquiring and/or renewing any necessary State and Federal 

permits prior to beginning or continuing their project; 

� A Section 7 consultation under the ESA would be required for research activities that may affect 

a federally threatened, endangered, or proposed species; 

� Research that does not involve birds generally will only be allowed outside of the breeding 

season of avian species, unless it can be demonstrated that there likely will be no impact to those 

breeding species. If a research project can only be conducted during the breeding season, such 

studies will only be permitted where there are specific protocols to minimize disturbance; 

� Research will adhere to scientifically defensible protocols for data collection, where available 

and feasible; 

� Approved research projects will be conducted under a Refuge-issued Special Use Permit which 

will have additional project-specific stipulations; 

� Annual or other short-term Special Use Permits are preferred; however, some permits will be a 

longer period, if needed, to facilitate the research. All Special Use Permits will have a definite 

termination date. Renewals will be subject to Refuge Manager review of research data, status 

reports, compliance with compatibility determination and permit stipulations, and other permits; 

� If unacceptable impacts or issues arise or be noted by the Refuge staff, then the Refuge Manager 

can suspend/modify conditions/terminate on Refuge research that is already permitted and in 

progress; 

� Research progress reports are required at least annually, and final reports are due within 1 year of 

the completion of the project, unless negotiated otherwise. The minimum required elements for a 

progress report will be provided to investigator(s); 

� The Refuge staff will be given the opportunity to review draft manuscript(s) from the project 

before being submitted to a scientific journal(s) for consideration of publication; 

� The Refuge staff will be provided with copies of raw data (preferably electronic database format) 

at the conclusion of the project; 

� The Refuge staff will be provided with copies of all publications developed from Refuge research 

projects; 

� The Service and the Refuge will be appropriately cited and acknowledged in all written and oral 

presentations resulting from the research on the Refuge; 

� Where appropriate, the Refuge staff reserves the right to be coauthor(s) on any reports or 

publications resulting from the study conducted on the Refuge. Authorship is appropriate where 

justifiably based upon participation in the project over the course of implementation occurs (e.g., 

field work, data analyses, summary of findings); 

� Upon completion of the project or annually, research sites must be cleaned up to the Refuge 

Manager’s satisfaction and all physical markers removed. For long-term projects, conditions for 

clean up and removal of equipment and physical markers would be stipulated in the Special Use 

Permit; 

� All samples collected on Refuge lands are the property of the Service even while in the 

possession of the investigator(s). Any future work with previously collected samples not clearly 




identified in the project proposal will require submission of a subsequent proposal for review and 

approval. In addition, a new SUP will be required for additional project work; 

� Investigator(s) and support staff will follow all Refuge-specific regulations that specify access 

and travel on the Refuge; 

� At any time, Refuge staff may accompany the researchers; 

� Only projects which have no effect or will result in not likely to adversely affect determinations 

will be considered compatible; 

� After approval, all projects also will be assessed during implementation to ensure impacts and 

conflicts remain within acceptable levels; and 

� Projects which are not covered by the CCP or subsequent stepdown plans may require additional 

NEPA documentation. 


Operation of the UH field station at the Refuge can contribute to the achievement of the Refuge 

purpose and the mission of the Service. Research performed by UH faculty and students and other 

research partners expands understanding of the unique wildlife, diverse native habitats, management 

programs, and mission of Hakalau Forest NWR and the Refuge System. 

Because the aforementioned MOA contains specific conditions for minimizing adverse effects to 

Refuge resources associated with operation of the field station, it is anticipated that wildlife 

populations will find sufficient food resources and resting places such that their abundance and use of 

the Refuge will not be measurably lessened from these activities. The relatively limited number of 

individuals expected to be adversely affected from these activities will not cause wildlife populations 

to materially decline, the physiological condition and production of native wildlife species will not be 


overall welfare will not be negatively impacted. Allowing field station operations to occur with 

stipulations will not materially detract or interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established or the Refuge System mission. 


____________ Mandatory 15-year reevaluation date (for wildlife-dependent public uses) 

_____X______ Mandatory 10-year reevaluation date (for nonwildlife-dependent public uses) 










U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Memorandum of Agreement between the University of 

Hawaii and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Construction and Maintenance of a Biological 

Field Station at the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii County, Hawaii. 




Appendix C. Plan Implementation 

Overview 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes numerous projects to be implemented over the next 

15 years. Implementation of the CCP will require increased funding, which will be sought from a 

variety of sources. This plan will depend on additional congressional allocations, partnerships, and 

grants. There are no guarantees that additional Federal funds will be made available to implement 

any of these projects. Other sources of funds (both public and private) will need to be obtained. 

Activities and projects identified will be implemented as funds become available. The 5-year 

intervals column indicates the Service anticipating implementation during the first, second, and third 

5-year period of the 15-year life of the CCP (e.g., 2015, 2020, 2025). 

Many of these projects are included in either the Refuge Operational Needs System (RONS) or 

Service Asset Maintenance and Management System (SAMMS), both of which are used to document 

funding needs and request funding from Congress. The RONS database tracks proposed new projects 

to implement the CCP to meet refuge goals and objectives and legal mandates. The SAMMS 

database documents and tracks repairs, replacements, and maintenance of facilities and equipment. 

Smaller proposed projects will be implemented as funding allows, and funding will be sought for 

these projects through a variety of resources and partnerships. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring activities will be conducted on a percentage of all new and existing projects and activities 

to document wildlife populations and changes across time, habitat conditions, and response to 

management practices. General monitoring activities are discussed in Chapter 2 under Goal 6, as well 

as existing monitoring activities summarized in Appendix L. Additionally, under each objective in 

Chapter 2, attributes have been identified that serve as monitoring indicators. 

Monitoring of CCP implementation is addressed in the last section of this appendix. 

Costs to Implement CCP 

A. One-time and recurring costs 

The following sections detail both one-time and recurring costs for various projects. One-time costs 

reflect the initial costs associated with a project, such as the purchase of equipment, contracting 

services, construction, etc. Recurring costs reflect the future operational and maintenance costs 

associated with the project. The following tables primarily document projects with a physically 

visible, trackable “on-the-ground” component, such as public use and management facilities and 

structures, habitat restoration, research, and monitoring and surveys. The scope and costs for 

“administrative” activities such as MOAs, reporting, and establishment of partnerships are difficult to 

estimate in advance and thus are not accounted for in the tables below. Cost estimates are in 2010 

dollars and do not account for future inflation and other anticipated rising costs. 

Appendix C. Plan Implementation C-1



One-time costs are project costs that have a start-up cost associated with them, such as purchasing a 

new vehicle for wildlife and habitat monitoring, or designing and installing an interpretive sign. 

Some are full project costs for those projects that can be completed in 3 years or less. One-time costs 

can include the cost of temporary or term salary associated with a short-term project. Salary for 

existing and new positions, and operational costs, are reflected in operational (or recurring) costs. 

Funds for one-time costs will be sought through increases in Refuge base funding, special project 

funds, and grants. Projects listed below show one-time costs, such as those associated with building 

and facility needs including offices, road improvements, or new signs. One-time costs are also 

associated with projects such as habitat restoration, invasive plant and animal control, and research. 

Operational costs reflect Refuge spending of base funds allocated each year. These are also known as 

recurring costs and are usually associated with day-to-day operations and projects that last longer 

than 3 years. The CCP will require increased funding for new or expanded public uses and facilities, 

habitat restoration and conservation activities, and new monitoring needs. The table below includes 

operational expenditures such as supplies, utilities, and maintenance costs. Project costs include 

seasonal staff needed year after year to accomplish each project; these staffing costs are not isolated 

in this table but are included as part of the entire project cost. Staffing costs are addressed in table C- 

4 later in this appendix. 

Note that for the implementation timeline, priority is not indicated by the 5-year interval identified. If 

a strategy is identified for implementation in the first 5-year interval, this does not indicate priority, 

but rather fiscal and logistical realities that allow for that activity to occur the first 5 years. 

Additionally, some strategies are sequential and depend on other strategies or may require additional 

planning (e.g., step-down plans) before they can be implemented, thereby moving them into the 

second or third 5-year interval segments. Also note that additional explanatory text for activities 

identified in tables C-1 and C-2 can be found under sections outlining maintenance costs and 

partnering projects. 

Funding for the Refuge in FY2010 was $1,168,098. 

Table C-1. One-time Costs Related to CCP Implementation. 

Activity 5-year 

intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

CCP 

Goals 

Cost Estimate Potential fund 

source 

One-time Cost 

Fence construction: 

KFU fenced (15 mile fencing 

including 15 ft wide fuel breaks) 

2015 1-2 $1,246,097 In-hand (R1/ENG) 

HFU units 9 and A-F 2020 3-5 • Unit 9: 

$334,000; 

DM, 1113(ES) 

• Units A-F, TBD 

Site-specific fencing to protect 

endangered plant populations at 

both units 

2020 1,3 KFU: $25,000 DM, 1113 (ES) 

C-2 Appendix C. Plan Implementation


intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

Construct fence to protect Carex 

bog habitats where feasible at 

HFU 

Construct fence for 15-acre 

grassland breeding for nēnē at Pua 

‘Ākala 

Species and Habitat restoration and protection: 

Removal of existing abandoned 

fence and other former ranch 

debris at both units 

Land acquisitions at both units to 

enhance Refuge purposes 

Site preparation for outplanting to 

restore montane mesic koa forest 

Install excluder device to control 

the impact of turkeys on koa 

seedlings and improve planting 

survival 



CCP 

Goals 


source 

2020 3 TBD 1113(ES) 

2015 5 $45,000 1113(ES) 

2015 1, 3 12.12 mi barbed 

fence at HFU: 

$230,500 

DM, 1113(ES) 

2025 1, 3, 4 $12-20 million LWCF 

2015 3 TBD TBD 

2015 3 $75,000 1113(ES) 

Surveys, inventories, and monitoring: 

Inventory and map lava tube and 

skylight communities at KFU 

2015 2 TBD 1113(ES) 

Inventory vegetation communities 

at HFU 

2020 3 TBD 1113(ES) 

Develop an updated vegetation 

cover map for both units 

2020 6 TBD USGS, IPIF 

Inventory streams and stream 2020 4 TBD USGS, Watershed 

corridors at HFU 

Partners 

Inventory endemic species in all 2020 6 TBD USGS, Watershed 

aquatic habitats 

Partners 

Survey extent and number of bogs 2020 4 TBD USGS 

Inventory endemic species in all 2020 6 Plants: $260,000 USGS 

forest habitats 

Animals: TBD 

Inventory plants, invertebrates, 

vertebrates at both units 

2020 6 TBD USGS 

Develop early detection and rapid 

response monitoring to identify 

new or spread invasive plant 

problems 

2015 6 TBD ISST 

Inventory endemic species, 

subfossil remains, and cultural 

2015 6 TBD RONS, USGS 



intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

resources associated with lava 

tube and skylight ecosystems at 

KFU 

Identify pest plant and animal 

species presence, distribution, 

abundance, and trends 



CCP 

Goals 


source 

2015 6 TBD 1113(ES) 

Develop a soil survey map 2020 6 n/a NRCS (in process) 

Evaluate known/potential Refuge 

cultural resources and historic 

sites 

2020 8 TBD 1263 

Conduct a comprehensive cultural 

resources investigation of both 

units 

Threat mitigation: 

2020 8 TBD 1263 

Remove all ungulates, nonnative 

mammalian predators, and dogs 

and cats at both units 

2015 1-5 TBD 1113(ES) 

Establish a fire prevention 

program (includes signage, 

education, fire closure criteria) at 

both units 

2020 1, 3 TBD 1263 

Control or eradicate invasive 2025 1, 2, 3 build 600 sq ft ISST, USFS, 1262 

plants at both units 

storage building for 

materials $100,000 

Research (note additional projects in partnering projects section): 

Investigate methods for forest 

regeneration and reforestation 

techniques 

2020 6 TBD USFS 

Conduct research to determine 

arthropod abundance 

2020 6 TBD USGS 

Conduct research to determine 

species-specific thresholds for 

disturbances from Refuge uses 

such as outplanting and bird 

watching activities 

2020 6 TBD 1113(ES), USGS 

Conduct an investigation to 

identify and quantify avian and 

plant disease issues 

2020 6 TBD 1113(ES), USGS 

Research demography, lifehistory, 

carrying capacity, and 

competition for native forest birds 

2015 6 $340,000 1113(ES), USGS 



intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

Support research to determine 

ecological parameters for 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a 

Complete global climate change 

impacts assessment for the Refuge 

Facilities development: 

Establish native plant nursery at 

field camp site at KFU 

Expand native plant nursery at 

administration site at HFU 

Develop 0.3-0.5 mile wildlife trail 

with interpretive signs and 

associated parking area on the 

Upper Maulua Tract 

Public Use: 



CCP 

Goals 


source 

2020 6 TBD 1113(ES), USGS 

2020 6 TBD PICCC 

2020 1 $35,000 1113(ES), PEPP 

2015 3 $14,000 1113(ES), PEPP 

2020 7 $77,757 (signs and 

kiosk) 

1263, Friends of 


(NFWF),VFE 

Develop interpretive brochures 2015 7 TBD 1263, Friends of 


(NFWF), 8081,VFE 

Develop and expand interpretive 

programming relative to cultural 

resources and historic sites 

2020 7 TBD 1263, 8081, VFE 

Coordinate with County, State, 

and NGO partners for offsite 

environmental education 

opportunities, including Kīpuka 

21 

2020 7 $30,000 CCS, NFWF, 

1113(ES) 




Table C-2. Recurring Costs Related to CCP Implementation. 


intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

CCP 

Goals 


source 

Operational (Recurring) Costs 

Note that cost estimate = annual costs and Year 2025 indicates ongoing for 15 years 

Threat mitigation: 

Control or eradicate invasive 

plants at both units 

Control or eradicate pest animals 

(e.g., ungulates, invertebrates, 

cats/dogs, rats, mongooses, etc.) 

at both units 

Conduct hazardous fuels 

treatment to reduce threats from 

wildland fires at both units 

Maintain fire prevention program 

(includes fuel breaks and 

education) at both units 

Conduct annual surveys for 

invasive species 

(absence/presence and percent 

cover) at both units 

Conduct surveys for pest animals 

such as ungulates, nonnative 

mammalian predators, 

invertebrates, cats and dogs at 

both units 

Species and Habitat restoration and protection: 

Outplanting endangered plants at 

both units 

Outplant common native plants 

for reforestation and restoration at 

both units 

2025 1-5 $150,000 annual; 

$200,00 every 5 th 

year; 

USFS Forest Health, 

USFWS/ISST, 1113 

(ES), 1261,1262 

2025 1-5 $250,000/year USFS Forest Health, 

USFWS/ISST,1261, 

1113(ES) 

2025 1, 3 TBD 9264, 1262 

2025 1, 3 $ 40,000/year 1262, USFS Forest 

Health, 9264 

2025 1-5 $35,000/year USFS Forest Health, 

USFWS/ISST 

2025 1-5 TBD USFS Forest Health, 

USFWS/ISST,1261, 

1113(ES) 

2025 1, 3 $15,000/year USFS Forest Health, 

USFWS/ISST, 1261, 

1113(ES) 

2025 1, 3 $10,000/year USFS Forest Health, 

USFWS/ISST, 1261, 

1113(ES) 

Research: note additional projects in partnering projects section 

Surveys, inventories, and monitoring: 

Continue annual Hawai‘i Forest 

Bird Surveys 

2025 1-6 TBD USGS and partners 

Survey for endemic invertebrates 

at HFU ponds 

2025 4 TBD 1261,1113(ES) 



intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

Test water quality for reduced 

levels of disease, sediments, 

contaminants (e.g., fecal coliform) 

Annual transect surveys to 

monitor species and habitat 

response to management actions 

Monitor nesting density and 

success of nēnē 

Monitor plant and animal disease 

(e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust, koa wilt, avian 

malaria and pox) 

Monitor global climate change 

parameters (e.g., temperature, 

CO2, etc.) 

Monitor public uses (e.g., 

disturbances) 

Investigate and monitor 

endangered plant propagation and 

outplanting strategies 

Conduct surveys to determine role 

of predators in native flora and 

fauna abundance 

Public Use: 

Administer volunteer program and 

develop partnerships to support 

nursery and outplanting program 

within 7 years at KFU 

Maintain volunteer program at 

HFU 

Provide 35-40 weekend-long 

service opportunities with partner 

organizations 



CCP 

Goals 


source 

2025 4 TBD 1261,1113(ES) 

2025 1-6 TBD 

1261,1113(ES) 

2025 6 $35,000/year 1261,1113(ES) 

2025 6 TBD 1261,1113(ES) 

2025 6 TBD 1261,1113(ES), 

PICCC 

2025 6 TBD 1261,1113(ES) 

2025 6 TBD 1261,1113(ES) 

2025 6 TBD 1261,1113(ES) 

2017 1 $15,000/year 1263,8081, VFE 

2025 7 $150,000/year 1263, 8081, VFE 

2025 7 See above 1263, 8081, VFE 

Maintain annual open house 2025 7 $3,500/year 1263, 8081, VFE, 

Grants 



intervals: 

2015, 

2020, 2025 

Facilities maintenance: 

Maintain (include both repair and 

replacement costs) existing fences 

(45 miles in units 1-8), new fences 

(KFU and units A-F at HFU), 

endangered plant exclosures, 

Carex bog fencing; 15 acre nēnē 

breeding site 

Maintain existing structures 

(roads, parking area, trail, 

signage, cabins, nurseries, 

bunkhouse, power supply 

building, garage, storage sheds, 

equipment storage building, 

utilities, vehicles 

Maintain administrative office 

(rent, computer equipment, 

utilities, etc.) 

B. Maintenance costs 



CCP 

Goals 

Cost Estimate 

(numbering = 

priority level) 

2025 1-5 See deferred 

maintenance table 

below for some cost, 

others TBD 

2025 All 

goals 

2025 All 

goals 

See deferred 

maintenance table 

below for some cost, 

others TBD 

Potential fund 

source 

C-8 Appendix C. Plan Implementation 

DM 

DM 

$90,000/year 1261,1262,1263 

The maintenance need over the next 15 years is defined as funds needed to repair or replace building, 

equipment, signs, facilities and other structures. Maintenance includes preventative maintenance, 

cyclical maintenance, repairs, replacement of parts, components, or items of equipment, adjustments, 

lubrication, cleaning of equipment, painting, resurfacing, rehabilitation, special safety inspections, 

and other actions to assure continuing service and to prevent breakdown. Maintenance costs include 

the maintenance “backlog” – maintenance needs that have come due but are yet unfunded, as well as 

the increased maintenance need associated with facilities and infrastructure. 

The facilities and maintenance currently associated with Hakalau Forest NWR include management 

of (unpaved) roads, parking area, cabins, nursery, bunkhouse, power supply building, garage, storage 

sheds, equipment storage building, and utilities. Proposed new facilities and infrastructure include an 

interpretive walking trail, parking area, signage (for interpretive, Refuge welcome and identification, and 

fire purposes), and an additional nursery at KFU as well as expanded nursery at HFU. 

Maintenance costs comprised approximately 28 percent of the total FY2010 Refuge budget.



Table C-3. Deferred Maintenance and Construction Projects. 

Rank Project 

Capital Improvement 

Estimated 

Cost 

1 Construct a fence to exclude cattle and pigs from the 1,800-acre Middle 

Maulua Feral Ungulate Management Unit (Unit 9). Approximately 32,000 ft 

of fence is required. Cattle and pigs will be removed from the exclosure to 

enable recovery of native vegetation as habitat for six species of endangered 

plants and provide optimal habitat for eight species of endangered birds and 

$ 334,000 

the endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 

2 Construct clear directional and entrance signs and a kiosk with welcoming 

and orienting information to meet public use standards for visitors. The kiosk 

will provide a map and visitor orientation information on the Service’s 

mission, Refuge goals, Refuge wildlife, and habitat management. This 

Refuge receives between 1,500-3,500 visitors per year but currently has no 

visitor facilities. 

3 A contractor will be hired to fence 1,800-acre North Lower Maulua Unit to 

exclude ungulates. Approximately 42,000 ft of fence is required. Ungulates 

will be removed from the exclosures to enable recovery of native vegetation 

as habitat for six species of endangered plants and provide optimal habitat for 

eight species of endangered birds and the endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 

4 A contractor will be hired to fence 1,800-acre South Lower Maulua Unit to 

exclude ungulates (Figure 2-1). Approximately 23,000 ft of fence is required. 

Ungulates will be removed from the exclosures to enable recovery of native 

vegetation as habitat for six species of endangered plants and provide optimal 

habitat for eight species of endangered birds and the endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 

5 Construct a 600 square ft hazardous materials and fuel storage building for 

safe storage of materials such as paint, pesticide, and petroleum projects. The 

structure will reduce fire hazards and increase safety. 

6 A contractor will be hired to fence seven new management units (Figure 2-1) 

totaling 13,200 acres to exclude ungulates. Approximately 199,000 ft of 

fence is required. Ungulates will be removed from the exclosures to enable 

recovery of native vegetation as habitat for six species of endangered plants 

and provide optimal habitat for eight species of endangered birds and the 

endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 

Deferred Maintenance 

1 Rehabilitate 6.45 miles of fence surrounding the Shipman Feral Ungulate 

Management Unit. The fences exclude ungulates from native rain forest that 

provides habitat for eight endangered bird species, the endangered 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a, nine species of endangered plants, and a wide diversity of other 

Hawaiian plants and animals. 

2 Rehabilitate 2.38-mile Frog Pond Road, which provides access to portions of 

the Shipman and Upper Honohina Management Units. The project will 

provide all-weather access to facilitate wildlife and habitat management 

efforts such as fence maintenance, pig control, weed removal, population 

monitoring, biological research, and tree planting that will benefit 

15 endangered species. 

$ 77,757 

$ 482,000 

$ 264,000 

$ 100,000 

$ 697,000 

$ 140,000 

$ 321,900 




Rank Project Estimated 

Cost 

3 Rehabilitate 2.5-mile Alleyway Road, which provides access to the Upper, 

Middle, and Lower Honohina Units and the northern portion of the Middle 

Hakalau Unit. Repairs will provide all-weather access to maintain upland 

habitat in desired condition by facilitating critical wildlife and habitat 

management efforts such as fence maintenance, pig control, weed removal, 

population monitoring, biological research, and tree planting that will benefit 


$ 319,300 

4 Rehabilitate 4 miles of eroded dirt road that provides access to the upper 

portions of the Pua ‘Ākala, Hakalau, and Honohina Tracts. Repairs will 

provide all-weather access to maintain upland habitat in desired condition by 

facilitating wildlife and habitat management efforts such as fence 

maintenance, pig control, weed removal, population monitoring, biological 

research, and tree planting that will benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 511,700 

5 Rehabilitate the 2.1-mile fence surrounding the Pua ‘Ākala Feral Ungulate 

Management Unit. The fence will exclude ungulates from 500 acres of 

upland native rain forest habitat used to maintain populations of eight 

endangered bird species, the endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and nine species of 

endangered plants. 

$ 120,100 

6 Rehabilitate 0.6 miles of road on a private lands easement to allow access to 

the KFU. Repairs will provide all-weather access to maintain upland habitat 

in desired condition by facilitating fence maintenance, ungulate control, weed 

removal, and wildlife population monitoring, which will help lead to the 

recovery of 17 endangered species. 

$ 56,500 

7 Remove 12.12 miles of abandoned barbed wire fences on the HFU. These 

fences were erected during the ranching operations of previous landowners. 

They are all in poor condition and no longer functional. The fences impede 

access by staff engaged in weed and ungulate control, interfere with tree 

planting and wildlife viewing by visitors, and are a safety hazard when the 

wire becomes hidden by grass or tangled in vegetation. 

$ 230,500 

8 Rehabilitate dilapidated 115-year-old Pua ‘Ākala Cabin and outbuilding to 

preserve the historic structures. A November 2002 Architectural Survey by 

the National Park Service contractors concluded that Pua ‘Ākala Cabin and 

outbuilding are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and that 

immediate steps should be taken to prevent further deterioration. 

$ 583,400 

9 Rehabilitate 1.87-mile Hakalau Stream Road, which provides access to the 

midsection of the Shipman Management Unit. Repairs will provide allweather 

access to maintain upland habitat in desired condition by facilitating 

fence maintenance, pig control, weed removal, population monitoring, 

biological research, and tree planting to benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 341,000 

10 Rehabilitate 2.87 mile Nauhi Road, an eroded dirt road that provides access 

to Nauhi Cabin and 3 management units. Repairs will provide all-weather 

access to facilitate critical wildlife and habitat management efforts such as 


biological research, and tree planting to benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 378,000 





Cost 

11 Replace the photovoltaic system located in the Battery Building, which is 

used to generate electric power for eight Refuge-owned structures. The 

building itself is in good condition, but the photovoltaic subsystem is 

deteriorating and becoming increasingly unreliable. The photovoltaic 

subsystem directly supports activities that benefit endangered species. 

$ 68,800 

12 Rehabilitate 1.69-mile Pua ‘Ākala Road, which provides access to the 

midsection of the Pua ‘Ākala Management Unit. Project will provide allweather 

access to facilitate critical wildlife and habitat management efforts 

such as fence maintenance, pig control, weed removal, population 

monitoring, biological research, and tree planting that will benefit 15 

endangered species. 

$ 210,163 

13 Rehabilitate 0.36-mile Honohina Cut-off Road, which provides access to the 

midsection of the Upper Honohina Management Unit. The project will 

provide all-weather access to facilitate critical wildlife and habitat 

management efforts such as fence maintenance, pig control, weed removal, 

population monitoring, biological research, and tree planting, which will 

benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 65,700 

14 Repair 1 mile of Kona Forest’s 4,800 ft road to provide daily and emergency 

access for staff. This project will provide all-weather access to facilitate 

critical wildlife and habitat management efforts such as endangered species 

recovery, fence maintenance, ungulate control, weed removal and population 

monitoring. 

$ 437,144 

15 Rehabilitate 2.7-miles of Pedro Road, which provides access to the 

midsection of the Shipman Management Unit. The project will provide allweather 

access to facilitate critical wildlife and habitat management efforts 


monitoring, biological research, and tree planting which will benefit 


$ 239,832 

16 Repair Hakalau staff residence at the Administrative Site by repainting. The 

structure is a single-story, wood-frame building. The project will repaint the 

exterior walls, window frames, doors, decks, railings, and steps to protect 

them from the harsh weather. The staff residence provides housing and 

operation support for staff involved in habitat recovery work for native and 

endangered species. 

$ 27,000 

17 Rehabilitate Biological Resources Discipline Cabin. The cabin needs to be 

painted and plumbing fixtures (i.e., sink, shower and toilet) need to be 

replaced. The cabin is occupied by researchers, contractors, and volunteers 

who control nonnative species, repair fences and facilities, plant trees, and 

conduct biological surveys to recover 15 endangered species and conserve 

native plants and animals. 

$ 27,099 

18 Rehabilitate 1.9-mile Nobriga Road, which provides access to the midsection 

of the Upper Maulua Management Unit. Project will provide all-weather 

access to facilitate wildlife and habitat management efforts such as fence 


research, and tree planting that will benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 270,033 





Cost 

19 Rehabilitate 1.16-mile Halfway Road, which provides access to the 

midsection of the Upper Maulua Management Unit. The project will provide 

all-weather access to facilitate wildlife and habitat management efforts such 

as fence maintenance, pig control, weed removal, population monitoring, 

biological research, and tree planting that benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 206,077 

20 Rehabilitate 0.3-mile Freddy’s Pond Road, which provides access to the 

midsection of the Upper Maulua Management Unit. The project will provide 

all-weather access to conduct critical wildlife and habitat management efforts 


monitoring, biological research, and tree planting that benefit 15 endangered 

species. 

$ 54,900 

21 Rehabilitate 1.45-mile Bottom Road, which provides access to the midsection 

of the Upper Maulua Management Unit. The project will provide all-weather 

access to facilitate critical wildlife and habitat management efforts such as 


biological research, and tree planting that benefit 15 endangered species. 

$ 180,318 

22 Rehabilitate 1.01-mile Maulua/Piha Road, which provides access to the 

Upper Maulua Management Unit. The project will provide all-weather access 

to facilitate critical wildlife and habitat management efforts such as fence 


research, and tree planting that benefit 15 endangered species. 

Road Improvement Projects 

$ 179,430 

Condition assessment for Maulua Road (Rte. 100) based upon inventory of 

4/21/2004 found the road to be in poor condition. Cost estimate to correct 

deficiencies in the 0.41 miles of road. 

$ 494,628 

Assessment was performed on Asset #10042056 (Pua ‘Ākala Road). 

Assessment Documents are located at Regional Office. Material cost was 

$524,385. Labor cost was $0. Total item cost was $524,385. Repair total was 

$524,385. Assessor notes said FHA condition rating poor. 

$ 524,385 

FHWA condition assessment for Administrative Access Road (Rte. 102) 

based upon inventory of 4/7/2004 found the parking area to be in poor 

condition. Cost estimate to correct deficiencies in the 0.34 miles of road. 

$ 434,856 

Conduct CCA on Asset #10042145 (Hakalau greenhouse loop road). 

Assessment was performed on 4/21/2004 and Assessment Documents are 

located at Regional Office. Material cost was $179,870. Labor cost was $0. 

Total item cost was $179,870. Repair total was $179,870. Assessor notes said 

FHA condition rating poor. 

$ 179,870 

Conduct CCA on Asset #10042102 (Pua ‘Ākala cabin road). Assessment was 

performed on 4/21/2004 and Assessment Documents are located at Regional 

Office. Material cost was $243,008. Labor cost was $0. Total item cost was 

$24,3008. Repair total was $243,008. Assessor notes said FHA condition 

rating poor. 

$ 243,008 

FHWA condition assessment for Pua ‘Ākala Parking (Rte. 900) based upon 

inventory of 4/14/2004 found the parking area to be in fair condition. Cost 

estimate to correct deficiencies in the 7,564 sq. ft of parking area. 

$ 8,849 





Cost 

FHWA condition assessment for New Housing Parking (Rte. 902) based 

upon inventory of 4/7/2004 found the parking area to be in fair condition. 

Cost estimate to correct deficiencies in the 4,396 sq. ft of parking area. 

$ 5,144 

FHWA condition assessment for Housing Parking (Rte. 903) based upon 


estimate to correct deficiencies in the 9,002 sq. ft of parking area. 

$ 10,531 

FHWA condition assessment for Greenhouse Parking (Rte. 904) based upon 


estimate to correct deficiencies in the 4,134 square feet of parking area. 

$ 4,134 

D. Staffing 

Necessary staffing as projected by the Service’s National Staffing Model generated 15 positions for 

Hakalau Forest NWR (Big Island NWR Complex). The existing, core-funded staff is only 7; 

therefore the Refuge is 8 additional positions under necessary conditions to effectively fulfill current 

obligations and agreements based on anticipated workload with the existing land base of 

38,030 acres. Dedicated staffing for the KFU was initially established after acquisition and later 

eliminated years ago due to legal disputes over access to Refuge lands. Some previously established 

positions were temporarily reassigned and not returned. Access issues have since been resolved and 

work on the KFU, starting with boundary clearing, has resumed using staff stationed at Hilo. 

However, given the long distance to KFU (it takes 2.5 hours one-way from Hilo), this further 

stretches available Refuge staff resources as KFU activities come on line, compromising the success 

of efforts to date such as greenhouse operation, ungulate control, and invasive species control efforts, 

with less time spent at HFU. Restoring staffing levels to a “critical mass” to also manage the KFU is 

a key aspect of our planning effort. The additional staffing would provide increased coordination 

with other Federal, State, and local agencies, neighboring landowners, and local communities; 

additional capacity to conduct biological inventory, monitoring, and research; improved maintenance 

capability for visitor facilities and Refuge buildings; visitor safety and law enforcement to reduce 

wildlife disturbance; environmental education and interpretation of Refuge resources; and invasive 

species control. 

The table below outlines permanent staffing needs considered core to implementing the CCP 

(numbering does not indicate priority). The table outlines salary/benefits for each position. These 

costs are considered recurring (annual) costs. For 2010, projected staffing costs for full-time and term 

employees were expected to comprise 86 percent of the base budget although significant staff 

turnover and resulting salary savings resulted in only 67 percent of the base being used for staffing 

during the fiscal year. 




Table C-4. Current and Proposed Staffing to Implement CCP*. 

Staff position GS & grade Annual cost 

(salary & 

benefits) 

Funding source 

1. Refuge Manager GS-13 $127,922 1261,1263 

2. Deputy Refuge Manager GS-12 $110,557 1261,1263 

3. Wildlife Biologist GS-12 $107,570 1261 

4. Horticulturist GS-11 $ 87, 254 1261 

5. Maintenance Supervisor WS-4 $ 84,737 1262 

6. Maintenance Worker Leader WG-8 $ 73,917 1262 

7. Administrative Officer GS-9 $ 76,241 1261,1263 

8. Park Ranger/Volunteer 

Coordinator (HFU) 

GS-5/7/9 $117,598 FY10-1992 

9. Maintenance/Pest Control 

Worker (HFU) 

WG-5/6 $84,583 FY08-5988 


Worker (HFU) 

WG-5/6 $84,583 FY08-5971 


Worker (HFU) 

WG-5/6 $84,583 FY08-5989 

12. Maintenance Worker WG-5/6 $84,583 FY08-5989 

(HFU) 

13. Wildlife Biologist/GIS GS-9/11 $142,274 FY08-6703 

14. Budget Technician GS-5/6 $77,165 FY08-6702 

15. Wildlife Refuge Specialist GS-9/11 $142,000 FY08 5965 


Worker (KFU) 

WG 5/6 $84,583 FY08-6709 


Worker (KFU) 

WG 5/6 $84,583 FY08-5990 


Worker (KFU) 

WG 5/6 $84,583 RONS 

19. Park Ranger/Volunteer 

Coordinator (KFU) 

GS-5/7/9 $120,000 RONS 

20. Visitor Services Specialist GS-5/7 $90,000 RONS 

21. Wildlife Biologist (KFU) GS-5/7/9 $120,000 FY08-5965 

22. Park Ranger/Law 

Enforcement (HFU) 

GS-5/7/9 $120,000 FY10-1292 

23. Park Ranger/Law 

GS-5/7/9 $120,000 FY10-1293 

Enforcement (KFU) 

24. Office Assistant GS-4/5 $65,000 RONS 

25. Fuels Specialist (Fire) GS-9/11 $142,000 RONS 

26. Horticulturist GS-11 $142,000 RONS 

* Shaded cells indicate positions that are currently approved and filled. Highlighted 

cells indicate permanent full time positions needed under current management 

(based on the National Staffing Model). Italicized positions indicate additional 

staff required to implement the CCP. 


Partnering Projects 



Current funding at Hakalau Forest NWR cannot meet all management needs. As a result, we rely on 

working with various partners to assist with implementation. The projects identified below are 

potential research and resource management actions and opportunities proposed by partner 

organizations and academic investigators as well as include Service database projects currently used 

for budget purposes. If pursued, these projects will be opportunistically pursued through internal and 

external funding sources. Following is a brief list of unranked projects which could assist the Refuge 

with implementing portions of its CCP. Adaptive approaches to meeting our funding needs will be 

applied throughout the plan period to achieve Refuge objectives. 

A) Forest bird survey training workshop 

To support goal six and objective “annual transect surveys to monitor species and habitat 

response to management actions,” funding is needed to host and coordinate a forest bird 

survey/training workshop to increase the number of qualified forest bird surveyors available to 

monitor population trends of these endangered species. With projected climate change impacts 

expected to severely affect Hakalau Forest NWR birds and habitats, it is essential to improve our 

collective capacity to document and detect gradual changes and trends in populations. The high 

elevation old growth koa/‘ōhi‘a forests at Hakalau are largely considered one of the best remaining 

refugia for these species. 

Based on results of a forest bird workshop held in October 2008, the need for replacing older, more 

experienced observers who have retired or are soon to retire from the field with a younger or 

expanded cadre of capable field biologists to carry on decades of specialized survey efforts is an 

acute crisis that needs to be addressed. Hakalau Forest NWR is uniquely situated to host such an 

exercise due to its complement of endangered birds, available facilities on site to train and house 

participants, long-history of established bird transects and readings, and ease of transportation to and 

from airport facilities. This would be an interagency initiative with invitations to USGS-BRD, the 

Service, DOFAW, UH, USFS, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector specialists in 

Hawaiian bird conservation, as well as nominated/sponsored trainees with basic field proficiencies all 

participating. Appropriate species experts would conduct the training. Funding would be available to 

support travel needs of participants, training equipment, materials, and supplies in the field. The 

desired outcome would be to increase the number of available forest bird monitors/surveyors in 

partner agencies and organizations and spur the potential for the next generation of forest bird experts 

to take over this essential function. 

Cost estimate: $57,000 

B) Population dynamics and viability of ‘ākepa and other species in Hakalau Forest NWR: 

Influences of management, environmental factors, and potential nonnative competitors 

Identify changes in trends of Hakalau birds with best available models. Evaluate the best models to 

estimate trend and viability of monitored Hakalau birds using stochastic models. Evaluate uncertainty 

in estimates of trend and viability metrics and partition this variation into its sources, including 

model form, estimation method, parameter estimation, etc., to assist managers in reducing 

uncertainty in viability predictions. Set up viable population monitoring (VPM) for managers to 

monitor changes in short-term viability of Hakalau birds. Evaluate methods for improving 




predictions of models, including habitat characteristics, oceanic condition indices, weather, 

predator/parasite indices, global climate change forecasts, etc. Cluster spatial locations surveyed 

across each of the reforested pastureland, open forest, and closed forest regions for reanalysis as 

spatial replicates to estimate dynamics of Hakalau birds using the best models identified. 

Estimate the magnitude of the effect of increasing abundance of Japanese white eyes on ‘ākepa over 

the past 20 years by applying the best available models to annual population estimates for both 

species in closed forest and open forest regions of the Refuge. Evaluate effects of habitat restoration 

using best models above applied to spatial replicates identified above. 

Organize, train, supervise, and provide logistical support for observers. Conduct and analyze paired 

observer variable circular plot survey to obtain unbiased abundance estimates for endangered, native 

and nonnative bird species occupying upper elevation newly reforested abandoned pasture lands and 

mid-elevation open forest and closed forests of Hakalau NWR. 

Cost Estimate: $140,000 

C) Foraging ecology and competition among native and nonnative forest bird species at 

Hakalau Forest NWR 

A detailed knowledge of feeding ecology is important to the conservation of Hawaiian forest bird 

populations and their habitats. Recent studies have indicated that populations of many feeding 

specialists have declined historically, in part because food webs have been disrupted by nonnative 

species. A wide range of nonnative species have been identified as potential competitors for 

important foods of Hawaiian forest birds; nevertheless, much attention has focused on the role of 

nonnative bird species, particularly the introduced Japanese white-eye, which is a widespread and 

generalist forager. 

Studies have inferred the existence of competition between native forest birds and Japanese whiteeyes 

through analyses of population distributions, demographic changes, or reductions in juvenile 

sizes and weights of native species. Claims that the foraging behavior of Japanese white-eyes and 

native bird species overlap sufficiently to be causing food limitation, leading to a severe decline in 

numbers of ‘ākepa at Hakalau Forest NWR need to be further evaluated. A quantitative evaluation of 

the degree of overlap between forest bird species in foraging behavior or the use of resources will be 

useful in this evaluation. 

Preliminary analyses of fecal samples from Hakalau Forest NWR indicate relatively little overlap 

between native and nonnative bird species in the use of arthropod prey (U.S. Geological Survey 

unpublished data). Additional research is needed on the foraging behavior of bird species. In 

particular, it is important to determine the degree of overlap in the use of habitat types, plant species, 

and foraging substrates (e.g., foliage, small branches, large branches, etc.). Results from these studies 

will help managers evaluate threats from nonnative species and assess their options for protecting 

populations of endangered bird species. 

Research will identify the means by which forest bird species at Hakalau Forest NWR obtain food 

over time and space, determine how bird species partition resources, and directly assess the extent to 

which species may compete for food due to overlapping niche requirements. This research will 

evaluate overlap among species in the use of: 

1. habitat types (e.g., old-growth forest, planted koa stands, other plantings); 




2. plant species (e.g., canopy tree species, understory species, rare species); 

3. foraging substrates (e.g., foliage, branches); 

4. foraging maneuvers (e.g., gleaning, probing); and 

5. food types (e.g., nectar, fruit, arthropods). 

To investigate forest bird foraging behavior, we will first identify the most effective methods for 

observing birds and scoring their behavior. Bird behavior will be recorded while narrating behavioral 

events. Recorded sessions will be transferred to computers and behaviors will be scored later for 

analysis. Both methods require close tracking of individual birds under conditions that frequently 

make bird behavior difficult to interpret; nevertheless, videography offers at least the promise of 

being able to review questionable behaviors multiple times, whereas without it, the observer’s initial 

interpretation is the final interpretation. 

Appropriate criteria for distinguishing habitat types across Hakalau will be established. Old-growth 

forest (both ‘ōhi‘a and mixed ‘ōhi‘a-koa), planted stands of koa, and patches of other planted species 

(e.g., Clermontia pyrularia, Cyanea shipmanii) will be determined. Each observation will be 

georeferenced using GPS, and forest community structure and composition will be characterized. 

Foraging data will be collected near established bird survey stations to relate the foraging behavior of 

particular species to the historical values of the frequency of occurrence and abundance of the same 

or other species. 

Plants species on which birds are foraging will be recorded. The foraging height of birds in the forest 

(e.g., canopy, subcanopy, and understory) would also be noted along with the species of tree, shrub, 

or epiphyte in which the bird is feeding. Substrates on which birds are foraging would be designated 

by various categories, including foliage, terminal branches (i.e., twigs), medium branches (< 3 cm 

diameter), large branches, and trunks. Finally, a characterization of the types of foods being 

exploited, including nectar, fruit, and arthropods is required. 

Cost Estimate: $50,000/year, $200,000 total 

D) Avian disease distribution and climate change 

To support Goal 6 and objective “monitor plant and animal disease (e.g., ‘ōhi‘a rust, koa wilt, 

avian malaria and pox)”, a related subset of this strategy is research into climate change and avian 

disease distribution at Hakalau Forest NWR. Avian disease and their mosquito vectors have not been 

sampled at the Refuge since 1999. More than 300 native and nonnative birds were sampled at high 

elevation Nauhi Camp, and mid-elevation Maulua and Pua ‘Ākala in 1998 and 1999 for avian 

malaria, and detailed mosquito surveys were conducted at mid-elevation sites. This baseline data on 

disease prevalence provides a reference point for measuring changes in malaria prevalence under 

changing climatic conditions. Since that time a temperate mosquito, Aedes japonicus, has become 

established on the island and malaria prevalence has increased elsewhere in the islands. 

Cost Estimate: TBD 

E) Climate change assessment and development of management options for endangered 

species on NPS and Service lands in Hawai‘i 

In supporting the development of Land Protection Planning and related species/habitat research 

under goals 1, 5, and 6, working with the Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative will be key. 




The effects of climate change on Hawaiian ecosystems and species is considered a significant 

priority by land management agencies in Hawai‘i. This project seeks to provide land managers with 

the information they need to manage their biological resources. USGS recently completed a climate 

model for the Hawai‘i region to: 

• Map the predicted 2100 AD distributions of important management species from Haleakalā 

National Park and Hakalau Forest NWR (e.g., endangered species, forest dominants, and key 

invasive species); 

• Assess the impacts of climate change on these species; and 

• Develop options for land managers to mitigate the effects of climate change on endangered 

species and their habitats. 

Recent USGS funded regional climate models provide the basic physical inputs that will be used to 

modify existing species distribution models and then predict future potential distributions for 

endangered Hawaiian plants and birds. Future and current distributions of each species will be 

compared. Each species will be independently assessed to determine the relative risk that a changing 

climate poses to it. Options to mitigate or minimize these risks will be developed and assessed for 

their likelihood of succeeding. Land management scientists will be integral members of the research 

team. The resulting maps of species distributions, risk assessments, and potential management 

options will be directly applicable to the management of these two areas and those responsible for 

management of the target species. Land and species managers of adjacent state and private lands will 

also benefit from these results. This study is directly relevant to the National Climate Change and 

Wildlife Science Center charge, USGS Science Strategy, the DOI climate change strategy, Service 

needs, and National Park Service needs. 

This project will assess the impacts of climate change to Federally threatened and endangered species 

in two, highly-significant biodiversity reserves: Haleakalā National Park on Maui and Hakalau Forest 

NWR on the Island of Hawai‘i. Following the assessment, the project will focus on developing 

mitigation options and then evaluating their likelihood of success. Land managers from these two 

areas have identified a number of key information needs. 

The primary issues of concern for Hakalau Forest NWR deal with how endangered and native 

species are affected by changing temperature and rainfall patterns and how avian disease 

distributions and prevalence change as climate changes. Additional issues of concern include how 

climate change will impact the spread of invasive weeds as well as change fire cycle regimes. 

To address key management and information needs the project will focus on three major areas: 

1. Use a recently completed statistical downscaled climate change projections for the Hawai‘i 

region to predict the 2100 AD potential distributions of species of management concern; 

specifically: 

a. All Federally endangered plants and birds known from Haleakalā National Park (24 species) 

and Hakalau Forest NWR (12 species); 

b. Additional Federally endangered plants known from areas adjacent to Haleakalā National 

Park (11 species) that are likely to have new habitat created in the Park; 

c. Key forest dominants for Haleakalā National Park (4 species) and Hakalau Forest NWR 

(4 species); 

d. Key invasive species that pose threats to Haleakalā National Park and Hakalau Forest NWR 

(6 species); and 




e. ‘I‘iwi, a nonendangered but recently declining endemic forest bird, shared by Haleakalā 

National Park and Hakalau Forest NWR. 

2. Assess how predicted climate changes are likely to affect the habitat and population viability of 

Haleakalā and Hakalau’s endangered species and other management species. 

3. Work with Haleakalā and Hakalau to develop management options for land managers to mitigate 

the effects of climate change on their species and habitats. 

Expected Products: 

• Updated moisture availability base layer for the islands of Maui and Hawai‘i; 

• Species distribution maps for all threatened and endangered species, forest dominants, a 

common flagship bird species, ‘i‘iwi, and key invasive species threats for Haleakalā National 

Park and Hakalau Forest NWR; 

• Maps will show three spatially explicit types of habitat: 

o Currently unsuitable habitat that becomes suitable by 2100AD; 

o Current habitat that remains suitable in 2100 AD; and 

o Current habitat that becomes unsuitable by 2100 AD; 

• Assessment of each species and its habitat with respect to physical or land use barriers to 

migration/colonization; 

• Assessment of the potential for endangered species from adjacent properties to move on to 

Park and Refuge lands; and 

• Comparison of potential management options with respect to their ability to provide for the 

recovery of listed species. 

Cost Estimate: 3 years @ $273,000 (average cost/yr). Total funding needed: $818,000 

F) Conduct endangered and threatened plant survey, HFU 

Some of the rarest plants in the world are known from the eastern slopes of Mauna Kea including 

Hakalau Forest NWR. Very little of the Refuge has been adequately surveyed for rare plants. 

Currently, 18 rare plant species, including endangered, threatened, and species of concern, are known 

from the Refuge’s 33,000 acres. Botanists will conduct rare plant surveys in unsurveyed areas of the 

Refuge. Rare plant locations will be gleaned from existing data and maps from the Hawai‘i Forest 

Bird Surveys. Plants will be plotted using a hand held GPS unit, inputted into ArcView data base and 

mapped. Due to the higher plant diversity and greater numbers of rare plant species, the survey will 

begin in the Middle and Lower Maulua and the Lower Honohina Units of the Refuge to determine 

locations of rare plants on the Refuge and recommend means to protect them from the destructive 

forces of feral ungulates and rats. Once found, the plants can be propagated and outplanted to assist 

in the recovery of the species. Conduct/contract for a rare plant search/survey, especially for midelevation 

portions of the Refuge, focusing initially on the Middle Maulua Unit. 


G) Invasive weed control and monitoring efforts at Hakalau Forest NWR 

This proposal requests $150,000 annually for 5 years to continue control efforts for Florida 

blackberry and other invasive weed species at Hakalau Forest NWR. A 5-year management plan is 

currently in preparation to facilitate multiyear funding for this program. The funds will be used to 




contract for labor and equipment and to purchase herbicide to spray blackberry and other invasive 

species. Backpack sprayers will be used to spray patches of blackberry scattered throughout the 

forest. The contractor will also be asked to provide a tractor-mounted spray rig (with two spray 

wands) for use on larger patches located in more accessible areas within the grasslands and upper 

edge of the forest. The Refuge will direct the contractor where to spray, provide herbicide, provide 

water at minimal distance to the operational area, and do everything possible to maximize efficiency. 

Concurrently, Refuge staff will continue their blackberry control efforts (spray application of 

herbicide, pig control and reforestation) at similar levels to those of the past few years. Outlying 

blackberry colonies will receive highest priority for eradication. As the periphery is controlled, the 

effort will constrict inward toward the core infestation, where blackberry patches reach their greatest 

size and density. 

Monitoring will consist of continuing annual weed and ungulate surveys on established transect lines. 

Every fifth year a more intensive survey methodology will be applied to assess control efforts and 

make adaptive adjustments to the control approach. Progress of the blackberry eradication effort will 

be monitored though annual weed and ungulate surveys using established transect methods. Gross 

changes in distribution and abundance will be monitored through collection of presence/absence and 

density data within a contiguous series of 5 x 10 meter plots along the 17 transects. This will 

maintain the continuous series of data collected annually since 1995 and sporadically before that 

date. Continued funding for weed and ungulate surveys will be essential through the planning period, 

beginning in FY2010 and beyond. 

Six endangered bird species (‘akiapōlā’au, Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, Hawai‘i creeper, ‘io, nēnē, and koloa 

maoli) the endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, six endangered plant species, and the diverse assemblage of other 

native plants and animals that inhabit the Refuge will all benefit from blackberry and other invasive 

weed species control efforts. Endangered and native plants will experience reduced competition for 

space, light and nutrients. Areas currently occupied by blackberry and other invasives will be 

recolonized by native plants that provide food and habitat for the native animals and plants the 

Refuge is mandated to protect. The absence of thorny blackberry thickets will facilitate fence 

maintenance, tree planting efforts, and the ability of staff and visitors to walk and work in the forest. 

The biodiversity and health of the native forest community will increase. 

A weed control program will be established on the Kona Forest Unit to promote restoration of the 

forest understory to benefit native wildlife species. Intensive weed monitoring and control efforts at 

the Kona Forest Unit will require resources that are not currently available. It is hoped that during the 

plan period resources can be obtained that will make the program viable on the Kona Unit modeled 

loosely on what has been done at the Hakalau Unit (i.e., use of staff, partner and contractor resources 

as available). 

Cost Estimate: $150K annually, $200,000 every 5th year 

H) Predator exclusionary fence for nēnē nesting at Hakalau Forest NWR 

Nēnē at Hakalau Forest NWR thrive well, except during breeding when predation on nēnē goslings 

by cats, mongooses, and possibly ‘io has been a problem. The current fences in the area are not 

working well. The fences are outdated, too small, and do not prevent predation. A 15-acre fenced 

exclosure will be built using predator proof fencing materials to reduce predation by terrestrial 

predators. Reproductive success is measured each year at Hakalau Forest NWR, and comparisons 




between years will show changes in reproductive success once an exclusionary fence is installed. The 

objective of this project is to minimize predation of nēnē goslings at the Refuge. 


I) Fence Middle Maulua Unit at Hakalau Forest NWR 

Construct a fence to exclude cattle and pigs from the 1,800 acre Middle Maulua Feral Ungulate 

Management Unit (Unit 9). Approximately 32,000 ft of fence is required. The Middle Maulua Unit is 

considered by Refuge staff to be the highest priority for additional fencing on the Refuge and is 

consistent with trying to remove ungulates from the next lowest elevation gradient on the Refuge as a 

priority for limiting forest bird exposure to mosquitos and thus avian malaria. Cattle and pigs will be 

removed from the exclosure to enable recovery of native vegetation as habitat for six species of 

endangered plants and provide optimal habitat for eight species of endangered birds and the 

endangered ‘ōpe‘ape‘a. 


J) Expand greenhouse capacity at Hakalau Forest NWR 

Additional greenhouse space is needed to provide room for propagation and outplanting of rare 

plants. A simple expansion of the existing greenhouse space is possible on an area already graded 

and previously used for equipment and vehicle storage but now available for use due to completion 

of a maintenance storage building project in 2010. Expanding the greenhouse program will increase 

carrying capacity for rare plants prior to outplanting on the Refuge. 


K) Install rare plant exclosures on the Kona Forest Unit 

The Kona Forest Unit is expected to be fenced in the immediate future with funding previously 

obtained for the purpose. On the ground management in this area has thus far been minimal, but with 

access issues resolved and an approved fencing plan, immediate conservation gains may be realized. 

Within the three management units that will have permanent fencing, smaller temporary exclosures 

(1-5 acre) specifically set up for outplanting appropriate rare plant species indigenous to the area can 

be achieved by Refuge and partner organizations staff. As ungulate control efforts succeed in the 

area, the need for these subexclosures will diminish over time and plantings can extend to the rest of 

the Refuge unit. 

Outplanting of propagules of geographically isolated individual(s) and/or population(s) found on 

similar habitats, and consolidating these relics at protected sites, preserves genetic diversity 

(maximize founder representation) within the species and ensures demographic persistence and 

stability for each species. The mixing of as many relic founders as possible can potentially 

reintroduce genetic vigor (viability) back into a population that suffers from the effects of genetic 

bottleneck (genetic drift). 

The construction of several exclosure fences to exclude destructive nonnative animals is the 

necessary first step in the protection and recovery of the proposed federally listed as well as the rare 

to uncommon native Hawaiian plant species outplantings. The goal of these exclosure fences is to 

preclude nonnative animal ingress, thereby allowing the establishment of these outplantings enabling 




them to thrive within the protected units, ultimately providing a safe haven for these critically 

imperiled native plant species. 

The Plant Extinction Prevention program (PEP) (formerly the Genetic Safety Net) operates under 

several directives of which the chief directive is to secure seeds and/or cuttings (propagules) of the 

rarest and most critically endangered native plant species regardless of their Federal status listing. 

The most critically imperiled native plant species are ones that are currently known to have less than 

50 individuals in the wild and are on-the-brink of extinction. Surveying, monitoring, and collecting 

material for propagation from the remaining wild individual(s)/population(s) of PEP species are the 

primary activities mandated by this program. The preservation of these species through collection, 

storage and propagation ensures genetic representation for the future. 

Another goal of this program is to ensure that these on the brink of extinction plant species are 

protected from major threats in a manner consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations. 

Working cooperatively and developing long term partnerships with the Hawai‘i Department of Land 

and Natural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Army, The Nature Conservancy, Three Mountain 

Alliance, Kohala Watershed Partnership, and private landowners will help to identify potential 

refugia and recommend (and provide) the implementation of conservation management actions 

(fencing, nonnative animal and plant removal, restoration, outplanting, and monitoring). These newly 

identified protected sites can serve as the repatriation point sources that will ensure the long term 

potential survival of these species. 


L) Investigate the impact of rats on forest birds and habitat and develop indices for 

rat population monitoring and control methodology for the Refuge 

Studies to investigate the impact of rat predation on forest birds at Hakalau Forest and development 

of appropriate site specific rat population indices and control measures for Hakalau are needed to 

assist refuge management in addressing this threat. Previous efforts have not been conclusive and 

require follow up. In addition, no exclosure design has been applied at Hakalau to assess the efficacy 

of rat control and exclusion as a means of enhancing nesting success for forest bird species. 

Cost Estimate: $ 100K/year for 3 years 

M) Remove invasive rats from an 1,000 acre area in Unit 2 

Rats are known to be predators of native forest birds as well as waterbirds. They are also known to 

consume native seeds. Removal of this threat will aid in recovery of these listed species as well as 

inform on project L above. 

Cost Estimate: $ 195,000 (FY08-6055) 

Monitoring CCP Implementation 

Successful implementation of this CCP relies on our ability to secure funding, personnel, 

infrastructure, and other resources to accomplish the strategies identified. Monitoring of CCP 

implementation has been described in part of the costs analysis above as well as part of the strategies 

where a time element is identified. Additional ways in which the CCP implementation will be 

integrated with existing Service processes include budget requests tied into CCP goals, objectives, 




and strategies (e.g., RONS, SAMM, etc.), workplans, staff performance evaluations, and continued 

engagement with partners and the larger public who have helped to develop this CCP. Where 

feasible, 5-year updates (possibly on the Refuge website or continuation of planning updates) can be 

considered. CCP implementation will also follow adaptive management per policy 602 FW 1 and 

522 DM 1. 

As part of implementing the CCP, step-down management plans have been identified. These plans 

are the formulation of detailed plans for meeting goals and objectives identified in the CCP. All stepdown 

plans require appropriate NEPA compliance and implementation may require additional 

permits. Project-specific plans, with appropriate NEPA compliance, may be prepared outside of these 

step-down plans. Step-down plans for the Refuge are as follows: 

Step-Down Plans Identified in CCP Strategies: 

Land Protection Plan 2011 

Inventory and Monitoring Plan 2013 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2014 

Proposed Wilderness Study 2015 

Visitor Services Plan 2020 







Appendix D. Wilderness Review for Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge 

General Information on Wilderness Reviews 

Wilderness review is the process used to determine whether or not to recommend lands or waters in 

the Refuge System to the Congress for designation as wilderness. Planning policy for the Refuge 

System (602 FW 3) mandates conducting wilderness reviews every 15 years through the 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) process. 

The wilderness review has three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. After first 

identifying lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness, the resulting wilderness 

study areas (WSA) are further evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation from the Service 

to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(NWPS). Areas recommended for designation are managed to maintain wilderness character in 

accordance with management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the final CCP until 

Congress makes a decision or the CCP is amended to modify or remove the wilderness proposal. A 

brief discussion of wilderness inventory, study, and recommendation follows. 

Wilderness Inventory 

The wilderness inventory consists of identifying areas that minimally meet the requirements for 

wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act). Wilderness is defined as an 

area which: 

• Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to wilderness 

character through appropriate management at the time of review, or be a roadless island; 

• Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint 

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

• Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 


• May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, 

or historic value. These features and values, though desirable, are not necessary for an area 

to qualify as a wilderness. 

Wilderness Study 

During the study phase, lands and waters qualifying for wilderness as a result of the inventory are 

studied to analyze values (ecological, recreational, cultural, spiritual, economic), resources (e.g., 

wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (habitat management, public use) within the 

area. These values, resources, and uses are analyzed to determine whether the refuge can be managed 

effectively to achieve its purposes while also preserving wilderness character. The findings of the 

study determine whether to recommend the area for designation as wilderness. 

Wilderness Recommendation 

Once a wilderness study determines that a WSA meets the requirements for inclusion in the NWPS, a 

wilderness study report that presents the results of the wilderness review, accompanied by a 

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS), is prepared. The wilderness study report and 

Appendix D. Wilderness Review D-1



LEIS that support wilderness designation are then transmitted through the Secretary of the Interior to 

the President of the United States, and ultimately to the Congress for approval. 

The following section summarizes the inventory phase of the wilderness review for the Hakalau 

Forest NWR. 

Wilderness Inventory 

The wilderness inventory is a broad look at the planning area to identify WSAs. These WSAs are 

roadless areas within refuge boundaries, including submerged lands and their associated water 

column, that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness identified in Sect. 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

A WSA must meet the minimum size criteria (or be a roadless island), appear natural, and provide 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. Other supplemental values are 

evaluated, but not required. Three inventory units were identified in order to evaluate whether the 

lands and waters of Hakalau Forest NWR meet the minimum criteria for a WSA. These inventory 

units are identified in Figures D-1 and D-2 as Inventory Unit A on the Kona Forest Unit (KFU) and 

Inventory Units B1 and B2 on the Hakalau Forest Unit (HFU). 

Note that management activities for wilderness areas can be conducted in a manner that maintains the 

wilderness character by using the minimal tools necessary to achieve Refuge purposes, as required 

under the Wilderness Act and Service policy (610 FW 1-4, Wilderness Stewardship). For Hakalau 

Forest NWR, this would include ongoing management activities such as fence construction, 

inspection, and repairs, a variety of surveys, threat mitigation (e.g., ungulate removal, predator 

control, invasive weed management, etc.), and outplantings. These activities currently occur in 

inventory unit B1 and are planned for inventory units A and B2. 


Inventory Unit A consists of the entire KFU, which is located on the leeward slope of Mauna Loa. 

The 5,300 acre Refuge supports diverse native bird and plant species as well as the rare habitats 

found in lava tubes and lava tube skylights. 

Hakalau Forest Units 

1. Inventory Unit B1 includes the management Units that are located in the upper elevation and 

contain the existing access roads and facilities. This unit contains approximately 9,000 acres and 

includes all Refuge lands above approximately 5,000 feet elevation. 

2. Inventory Unit B2 contains approximately 23,000 acres and includes all Refuge lands below 

approximately 5,000 feet elevation. 

Evaluation of Size Criteria for Roadless Areas, Roadless Islands, and Submerged Lands and 

Associated Water Column 

Identification of roadless areas, roadless islands, and submerged lands and associated water column 

required gathering land status maps, land use and road inventory data, satellite imagery, aerial 

photographs, and personal observations of areas within Refuge boundaries. “Roadless” refers to the 

absence of improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of motorized vehicles 

primarily intended for highway use. 

D-2 Appendix D. Wilderness Review

Figure D-1. HFU wilderness inventory units. 






To preserve the quality of our figure, this side was left blank intentionally. 


Figure D-2. KFU wilderness inventory unit. 






To preserve the quality of our figure, this side was left blank intentionally. 




Inventory units meet the size criteria for a WSA if any one of the following standards applies: 

• An area with over 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in making 

this acreage determination; 

• A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defined as an area surrounded by 

permanent waters or that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by 

topographical or ecological features; 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is of sufficient size as to make 

practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for 

wilderness management; or 

• An area of less than 5,000 contiguous Federal acres that is contiguous with a designated 

wilderness, recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another Federal 

wilderness managing agency such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Inventory Unit A is approximately 5,300 acres, which is just above the minimum threshold for 

wilderness consideration. Large numbers of access road trails are used for Refuge management. 

Although not suitable for public access, the road trails will be maintained and used to access the 

difficult terrain that exists at the KFU. Inventory Unit A meets the minimum size criteria and 

roadless as defined in the Wilderness Act does not apply. Therefore this unit meets this criteria for 

Wilderness Study Area designation. 

Inventory Unit B1 is approximately 9,000 acres. Large numbers of access road trails are used for 

Refuge management. Although not suitable for access with standard vehicles, they are available to 

four-wheel drive vehicles. The road trails will be maintained and used to access the HFU and 

administrative site. Inventory Unit B1 meets the minimum size criteria and roadless as defined in the 

Wilderness Act does not apply. Therefore this unit meets this criteria for Wilderness Study Area 

designation. 

Inventory Unit B2 is approximately 23,000 acres of roadless land. This unit meets the minimum size 

and roadless criteria for Wilderness Study Area designation. Inventory Unit B2 meets the minimum 

size criteria and roadless as defined in the Wilderness Act does not apply. Therefore this unit meets 

this criteria for Wilderness Study Area designation. 

Evaluation of the Naturalness Criteria 

A WSA must meet the naturalness criteria. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines wilderness as 

an area that “…generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The presence of ecologically accurate, historical 

landscape conditions is not required. An area may include some manmade features and human 

impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. Human-caused hazards, 

such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity, and the physical impacts of 

refuge management facilities and activities are also considered in the evaluation of the naturalness 

criteria. An area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis of “sights and 

sounds” of human impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit. The cumulative effects of 

these factors were considered in the evaluation of naturalness for each wilderness inventory unit. 




In the wilderness inventory, specific manmade features and other human impacts need to be 

identified that affect the overall apparent naturalness of the tract. The following factors were primary 

considerations in evaluating the naturalness of the inventory units: 

Inventory Unit A: 

• Field Camp; 

• Remnant ranch fences, galvanized pipes, corrals, and agricultural equipment; 

• High percentage of nonnative groundcover species; 

• Ungulates and other animal pest species; and 

• Gates, fences, and access road trails. 

Inventory Unit B1: 

• Administrative site including, maintenance building, housing cabins, greenhouse with 

outbuildings, powerplant building, weather ports, UH field station; 

• Remnant ranch fences, galvanized pipes, corrals, and agricultural equipment; 

• High percentage of nonnative groundcover species; 

• Ungulates and other animal pest species; and 

• Gates, fences, parking areas, and access road trails. 

Inventory Unit B2: 

• Nonnative groundcover species, particularly at lowest elevations; 

• Ungulates and other nonnative animal pest species present; and 

• Remnant fences and gates left by previous owner. 

Though in the CCP, removal of ranch debris has been identified as a strategy (which will improve the 

naturalness of the area), inventory Unit A still contains numerous roadways, fences, gates, and 

administrative field camp structures. This inventory unit does not meet the naturalness criteria. 

Inventory Unit B1 is also a highly modified former ranchland area, containing stock ponds, corrals, 

fences, nonnative tree plantings, administrative site buildings, and roadways. Water quality in 

streams and rivers has been degraded through the introduction of sediment, animal waste, and 

diseases. This inventory unit does not meet the naturalness criteria. 

Inventory Unit B2 contains remnant abandoned fences and gates that only slightly detract from the 

naturalness of the Unit and are a minor component of the landscape. Vegetative growth has muted 

any visual impact and these manmade structures are substantially unnoticeable in the area as a whole. 

Removal of these features would promote restoration of the natural character of this Unit. Overall, 

the forces of nature sculpt the forest resources of this Unit. The naturalness of the forest in the upper 

elevations of unit B2 has been modified somewhat with regard to species composition by invasion of 

cattle and pigs from adjoining areas. The understory and groundcover have been altered through 

eating and rooting by ungulates and has a groundcover that consists of mainly nonnative species. 

There are areas of high rainfall that have been turned into mud wallows by pig rooting and soil 

compaction from movement of cows and pigs. Water quality in streams and rivers may be degraded 

through the introduction of sediment, animal waste, and diseases (e.g., leptospirosis) caused by 

ungulates damaging understory and groundcover plants. Nonnative mosquitoes breed in the standing 

water in wallows created by pigs and spread avian malaria and pox to native bird populations that 

have completely eliminated native forest bird populations below 4,500 ft. However, native forest 




birds in some areas are showing apparent signs of resistance to avian malaria and cases of 

reoccupation of former habitat by native birds have been documented on the islands of Hawai‘i and 

Moloka‘i. Using IPM strategies identified in this CCP, native forest ecosystem restoration can occur 

over time. Therefore, while these invasive species attributes of inventory unit B2 currently detract 

somewhat from the naturalness criteria, over time wilderness values associated with the natural 

character of this Unit can be improved through implementation of this CCP. This unit is considered 

to meet the naturalness criteria. 

Evaluation of Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

In addition to meeting the size and naturalness criteria, a WSA must provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. The area does not have to possess outstanding 

opportunities for both solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, and does not need to have 

outstanding opportunities on every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public use and 

access to qualify under these criteria. Congress has designated a number of wilderness areas in the 

NWPS that are closed to public access to protect ecological resource values. 

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors 

in the area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means nonmotorized, dispersed outdoor recreation 

activities that do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. These primitive recreation 

activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, self reliance, and adventure. 

These two opportunity “elements” are not well defined by the Wilderness Act but in most cases can 

be expected to occur together. However, an outstanding opportunity for solitude may be present in an 

area offering only limited primitive recreation potential. Conversely, an area may be so attractive for 

recreation use that experiencing solitude is not an option. 

Inventory Unit A has not been opened to the public and is unstaffed. The dangers associated with the 

lava tubes and lava tube skylights would focus use in road corridors and could considerably limit 

opportunities for solitude, yet meet the recreation criteria of providing an opportunity to experience 

challenge and risk. Current construction of perimeter as well as internal fencing could impact 

opportunities for solitude. Additionally, this unit is surrounded by working private ranches as well as 

a major highway which can impact opportunities for solitude (Unit A is about a mile wide at the 

narrow configuration). Though not considered in this analysis, it should be noted future management 

plans (when funding becomes available) could impact solitude as they include adding volunteer work 

weekends, where groups of volunteers would help with management needs such as outplanting and 

invasive weed work and ongoing management of the unit, which would require human presence to 

conduct fencing inspections and repairs, a variety of surveys for monitoring, and permitted research. 

Therefore this unit does not meet the solitude criteria, but does meet the recreation criteria. 

Inventory Unit B1 is currently open to the public under SUP or by reservation in Upper Maulua. The 

reservation area is generally open to motor vehicles on the roads and hiking from pull-off areas. 

Additionally this unit houses much of the Refuge management facilities such as a maintenance 

building, housing cabins, greenhouse with outbuildings, powerplant building, weather ports, and UH 

field station. As such, the recreational opportunities are neither primitive nor offer outstanding 

opportunities for solitude. 

Inventory Unit B2 has not been opened to the public. Public access is not a requirement for 

wilderness designation. Due to the naturalness of this unit and its isolation and difficult access, it 




would provide for both primitive and unconfined recreation. Similar to unit A, planned management 

actions for this unit would require human presence to conduct fencing inspections and repairs, a 

variety of surveys for monitoring, and permitted research. As such solitude could be impacted if 

these management actions were implemented. However, given the vast acreage of this unit, such 

activity would likely go unnoticed. Therefore, this unit is considered to meet both the recreation and 

the outstanding opportunities for solitude criteria. 

Evaluation of Supplemental Values 

Supplemental values are defined by the Wilderness Act as “ecological, geological, or other features 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.” Unit A contains unique lava tube and lava tube 

skylight formations. In addition, it contains rare forest bird and native plant species. Units B1 and B2 

contain rare species of forest bird and native plants. The ecological values of these units enhance the 

potential wilderness characteristics. 

Inventory Findings 

Inventory units A and B1 do not meet the minimum criteria for consideration as a WSA (Table D-1). 

Unit B2 meets the minimum criteria for wilderness and will be considered as a WSA. The study is 

expected to take some time to complete. If unresolved before such time, the HFU WSA Inventory 

Unit B2 will be included in the wilderness study conducted for all of the Hawaiian and Pacific 

Islands NWRs at the completion of the CCP process for all refuges. The WSA will be considered 

with regard to this status as management actions are undertaken to improve the naturalness of the 

area through control and/or removal of nonnative species and subsequent fencing projects. A 

minimum requirements analysis will be used as part of the management planning for this area. As 

explained above, the naturalness criteria are somewhat compromised at present due primarily to 

nonnative species of plants and animals in the area. Expected management actions will improve these 

qualities with regard to the habitat needs of native species and potential future wilderness 

designation. Conversely, additional study may result in ultimately withdrawing the area from 

consideration. 

Table D-1. Wilderness Inventory Summary. 

Inventory Unit 

A: Kona Forest 

NWR (5,300 

acres) 

(1) Has at least 5,000 acres of 

roadless land or is of sufficient size 

to make practicable its preservation 

and use in an unconfined condition, 

or is a roadless island. 

(2) Generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable. 

(3a) Has outstanding opportunities 

for solitude. 


B1: 


Unit (9,000 

acres) 


B2: 


Unit (23,000 

acres) 

Yes Yes Yes 

No No Yes 

No No Yes 


(3b) Has outstanding opportunities 

for a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation. 

(4) Contains ecological, geological 

or other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historic 

value. 

Parcel qualifies as a wilderness 

study area (meets criteria 1, 2 & 3a 

or 3b). 




A: Kona Forest 

NWR (5,300 

acres) 


B1: 


Unit (9,000 

acres) 


B2: 


Unit (23,000 

acres) 

Yes No Yes 

Yes Yes Yes 

No No Yes 







Appendix E. Forest Bird Workshop Report 

Report on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Implementing Recovery for Endangered Forest Bird Species in Hawai‘i Workshop 

Hilo, Hawai‘i 

October 8-10, 2008 

Background: 

The U. S. Fish and Service (Service) has received contradictory information over the population 

status of the Hawai‘i ‘akepa in a portion of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) – a 

major stronghold of the endangered Hawai‘i ‘akepa – over the last several years. It was deemed 

necessary to clarify the current status of the Hawai‘i ‘akepa and other endangered Hawaiian forest 

birds at the Refuge for development of efficacious management alternatives in the 3-year 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) The Regional Director obtained the assistance of the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s (USGS) Dr. J. Michael Scott in conducting a review of available information on 

the Hawai‘i ‘akepa, and decided to hold a workshop with partner agencies, renowned forest bird 

researchers, and statisticians to further expand this review. 

Process: 

Working with Dr. Scott, the eventual moderator of the workshop, employees in both the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and Ecological Services programs of the Service prepared a draft agenda for 

the workshop that included purposes and objectives, major discussion topics, potential speakers, etc. 

From a group of invitees developed by the Service and USGS, volunteers to serve on a workshop 

steering committee were selected. These individuals and their affiliations were: 

1. Dr. Sheila Conant (Steering Committee Chair) University of Hawai‘i- Mānoa; 

2. Dr. Leonard Freed, University of Hawai‘i- Mānoa; 

3. Dr. David Leonard, Hawai‘i State Division of Forestry and Wildlife; 

4. Dr. Loyal Mehrhoff, USGS-BRD; 

5. Dr. J. Michael Scott, USGS-BRD; and 

6. Gina Shultz, Deputy Field Supervisor, FWS-Ecological Services Honolulu Office. 

The steering committee pared down the agenda from a broader scope in terms of both geographic 

area and species to focusing on the endangered Hawaiian forest birds found at the Refuge. It was 

hoped that although focusing on the Refuge, much of the information shared at the workshop would 

be applicable to these species throughout their ranges and to the broader Mauna Kea and Hawai‘i 

Island ecosystems or forest bird survey methodology in general. Originally development of a stepdown 

work plan for the Recovery Plan for Endangered Hawaiian Forest Birds was an objective, but 

with the narrowing of the workshop focus it was decided that the Refuge CCP would capture most of 

those actions for these species in that geographic area. 

The final workshop purposes and objectives were: 

Appendix E. Forest Bird Workshop Report E-1



1) Identify and prioritize management needs and activities, including research, at Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge to recover endangered Hawaiian forest birds; 

2) Incorporate identified needs and activities in the Hakalau Forest 15-year Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan; and 

3) Extrapolate Hakalau-specific information to the broader Mauna Kea area and other 

geographic areas and bird species and suites of birds as appropriate. 

The final workshop agenda is included at the end of this report for reference. This report was shared 

with all meeting participants on October 24, 2008, for 2 work weeks for their concurrence for 

accurate representation of their contributions and overall outcomes. 

The major points or conclusions of each presenter are as follows: 

Day 1 – October 8 

Stieglitz: Meeting outcome will provide products that will assist in setting management alternative 

priorities for the Refuge CCP. The products from the workshop will include a ‘white paper report’ 

from the workshop, an action plan, and a summary evaluation from the participants. The products 

will be sent to the participants for review and evaluation. 

Bohan: Protection, reforestation, and restoration are vitally important for endangered plants and 

animals found on refuges. Adaptive management, research, and partnerships will provide the refuge 

with input and information needed to protect endangered species. The CCP will provide a plan for 

the future direction of management of endangered species at the refuge and provide avenues for 

staffing and funding to accomplish the management actions. The refuge is interested in and 

committed to obtaining input from other agencies and the public in the development and 

implementation of the CCP. 

Pratt: “Population status of threatened and endangered forest birds in Hawai‘i” Hawai‘i’s native 

forest birds have suffered great losses over the last 200 years with almost 50 species lost to extinction 

due to habitat loss, predation, competition, and avian disease. Mosquito-borne avian diseases have 

almost completely eliminated native forest birds below 1500 meters on all islands, making high 

elevation habitat essential to protecting forest birds. The Refuge contains critically important high 

elevation habitat. The Hawai‘i Interagency Data Base Program team (USGS-BRD) has analyzed 

forest bird survey data collected on all of the Hawaiian Islands since 1976. These data show that 

throughout the State there is one consistent theme: forest bird populations in managed areas are 

stable or increasing; forest bird populations in nonmanaged areas are stable or decreasing. 

Scott: Conservation in Hawai‘i has been building on a foundation of research and management over 

the last 30 years to protect endangered species and prevent extinctions. Because of its isolation and 

progress in the field of conservation, Hawai‘i is the “window to the future” for endangered species. 

Important tools are needed to move forward (research, habitat restoration). It is of utmost importance 

to get the research information to the people that make funding decisions. Policy changes will allow 

for funding for research that is needed to make management decisions on a temporal and landscape 

scale. 

E-2 Appendix E. Forest Bird Workshop Report



Camp: “Densities and trends in Hakalau Forest Birds” The Refuge was established in 1985 to protect 

native forest birds and their habitat. Refuge forest bird surveys were conducted between 1987 and 

2007. The USGS-BRD Interagency Database Program team analyzed all Refuge forest bird survey 

data using a Bayesian approach to log linear regression. They tested for changes in bird densities in 3 

study areas: previously heavily grazed middle elevation forest, upper elevation pasture that was 

reforested and lower elevation relatively intact forest. They found that densities of the ‘elepaio and 

the endangered ‘akiapola‘au and creeper increased in the middle area forests. All other forest bird 

species showed stable trends in the middle area with no evidence of decline as seen elsewhere in 

Hawai‘i. Trends for alien birds were also stable except for the house finch, which is declining. 

However, short term trajectories for some native species (‘elepaio, ‘amakihi, ‘akepa, ‘i‘iwi, and 

‘apapane) at middle elevations from 1999-2007 showed a decline, whereas the Japanese white-eye 

showed a stable to increasing trajectory. At lower elevations creeper and ‘akepa showed increasing 

trajectories, and densities have declined for the other native species. In the upper pastures densities 

increased for three common native species--‘amakihi, ‘i‘iwi, and ‘apapane--and two alien species— 

Japanese white-eye and house finch. We advise caution on relying on short-term trajectories to 

assess population status. These trends show some of the first results of habitat improvement for 

forest birds in Hawai‘i. Also, 1) There was no change in detectability for ‘akepa or ‘amakihi over 

that time span, 2) long term population trends for all native species in forested areas showed no 

decreasing trends, and 3) Hawai‘i ‘akepa showed stable to increasing densities over the study time 

period. Additional analytical techniques, such as species habitat models and spatial pattern analysis 

should also be used in the future. 

Freed (I): “Chewing lice and competition from Japanese White eye are synergistically starving every 

native species at Hakalau Forest NWR” Food competition from an increasing population of 

introduced Japanese white-eyes in the Pua ‘Ākala area, and the resultant increase in chewing lice, 

have synergistically increased food requirements and reduced food levels for all native birds at the 

Refuge. All life history parameters of ‘akepa (fledgling mass, bill length, fat levels, feather 

degradation, call rates, breeding success, sex ratio of young, juvenile survival, and adult survival ) 

have become significantly lower, making the population non-viable as reflected in a shift in lambda 

to significantly less than one. The ‘akepa at the 1650 m site, with lowest number of white-eye, still 

appears to be viable based on fledgling mass. Mist-netting data show that the white-eye is replacing 

the ‘akepa at elevations between 1900 and 1770 m. The decline became more severe between 2006- 

2008 at these elevations, which represent the former site of highest density of the ‘akepa on the 

Refuge. There are also changes in numbers and begging behavior of the endangered Hawai‘i 

Creeper. Control of white-eye numbers is essential to reverse the decline of the ‘akepa and other 

forest birds. 

Freed (II): “When Methodologies collide: Issues of scale, assumptions of models and appropriate 

analysis” Two study sites on the Refuge appear to be at different stages of effects by Japanese whiteeyes. 

No decline in ‘akepa has been detected at the Pedro study site as occurred at the Pua ‘Ākala 

study site after 2005. Pedro previously had a much lower density of ‘akepa associated with lower 

number of big trees with cavities for nesting. Based on mist-netting in the 1990’s, ‘akepa and whiteeye 

appeared to be at comparable density. Survey of birds during March 2008 revealed more whiteeye 

than ‘akepa. More Japanese white-eyes, or longer exposure to the same increase in white-eyes, 

might be necessary to generate the same competitive effect observed in higher density areas such as 

Pua ‘Ākala. The early stages at Pedro may be revealed by the absence of calling by ‘akepa and mate 

feeding observed in silence. The Pedro site might be especially important for determining if there is 




a delayed response to white-eye increase in lower density ‘akepa populations that may be previously 

limited by cavities more than food. 

VCP methodology is based on numerous assumptions. Some of these assumptions may be being 

violated, which may lead to misleading conclusions. Fixed plot surveys may be more accurate than 

VCP. With any statistical analysis, violation of assumptions of a model can lead to erroneous results. 

One problem involves scale. A decline in one section of the refuge, analyzed separately, may not be 

apparent when the refuge is analyzed as a whole. Analyses should be performed for separate 

portions of the Refuge, especially where endangered birds used to be common. 

Gorreson: “Time series analysis of spatial patterns in species abundance at Hakalau Forest NWR” 

Two questions need to be answered: 1) are Hawai‘i ‘akepa populations in decline at Hakalau?, and 2) 

are Hawai‘i ‘akepa in competition with Japanese white-eyes? Forest bird survey data collected 1977- 

2007 were analyzed using Spatial Analysis by Distance Indices (SADIE). The data show that 

Hawai‘i ‘akepa have strong cluster-gap patterns. They are centered in the south of the Refuge (Pua 

‘Ākala area). Japanese white-eyes are highly variable with moderately weak patterns and are mostly 

centered in the north of the Refuge but eruptive patterns do occur in some years, which weakened 

between 1987 and 1998 but have stabilized since 1999. Japanese white-eye distribution does not 

show consistent association with ‘akepa distribution. There is no evidence that ‘akepa are declining 

or that Japanese white-eyes are displacing ‘akepa. 

Garton (I): “Interspecific competition between ‘akepa and Japanese white-eye in Hakalau NWR” 

Four different models were used to analyze the refuge forest bird survey data: 1.) the Null model (No 

density dependence); 2.) The Ricker model (density dependence on Nt,, 3.) the Gompertz model 

(density dependence on lnNt), and 4.) the Theta model (density dependence on N t θ ). Each of the 

models shows different levels of competition between ‘akepa and Japanese white-eyes, but none of 

these models show any significant effect. Because these effects are minor, it is difficult to tease out 

the other environmental factors that may have other negative effects. Through modeling it appears 

that environmental parameters that benefit ‘akepa also benefit Japanese white-eyes. 

Day 2 – October 9 

Horne: “Distance estimation of abundance: Assumptions and possible sources of bias” Distance 

sampling is a good way for estimating forest bird abundance because it can provide unbiased 

estimates and is relatively easy and inexpensive to implement. Distance sampling assumes that: 1) 

the density of animals (forest birds) is homogenous in the area surveyed, 2) the probability of an 

individual being detected is related to the distance from the observer, and 3) that all individuals at 

close distances are observed. Increased detectability of individuals in a population, due to possible 

changes in behavior of stressed individuals, affects abundance estimates based on distance sampling. 

While increased detectability results in more individuals being counted, estimates of abundance are 

unaffected by the change as long as the probability of detection at close distances is one (or does not 

change). However, if greater detectability also results in a greater proportion of detections at very 

close distances, then estimates will be affected by changes in detectability. Even if detectability 

changes over time, trend analyses based on these abundance estimates remain valid if the changes are 

random about some constant mean. In this case, the abundance estimates become an index and the 

changes in detectability are subsumed in observation error. If there are systematic changes in 

detectability over time, abundance estimates can be corrected using recently developed paired 

observer methods. 




Garton (II): “Adaptive Management of the ‘akepa and Japanese white-eye” Adaptive management is 

a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from 

the outcomes of operational programs. Garton compared two different adaptive management 

definitions from Walters’ (1986) Four Fundamentals of Adaptive Management of Natural Resources, 

and the Williams, Szaro, & Shapiro(2007) 9 Step Program used by USDI. By using several 

predictive mathematical models (with different sensitivities, and changing the parameters of the 

model, i.e., habitat improvement (reforestation, removal of grazers etc.) removing predators), 

predictions can be made on the potential consequences of each management action. With a Time 

Series Model, predictions show that both ‘akepa and Japanese white-eye densities increase with 

positive habitat changes, removal of Japanese white-eyes will actually reduce ‘akepa densities, and 

that, if the current management continues, it is unlikely that ‘akepa will go extinct with in the next 

30 years. 

Dennis: “Analysis of population trend: Getting the details right” Regression of log-abundance of a 

population versus time is often used to estimate the population's trend. It is not widely realized that 

such regression carries implicit assumptions about how the trend and the variability in the population 

abundances arise. If the statistical model does not adequately describe the process by which the data 

are produced, the trend estimate can be seriously in error. Three different models for estimating 

population trend are described and are different stochastic versions of the exponential growth model: 

1) observation error only, 2) environmental process noise only, and 3) a state space model which 

combines both observation error and process noise. Each model leads to a different statistical 

calculation for obtaining estimates of model parameters, including trend, for time series abundance 

data. Log-abundance regression turns out to correspond to deterministic exponential growth with 

observation error only that is, model 1. In computer simulations, model 3 provides confidence 

intervals for trend that remain valid when data are generated under models 1 and 2. Confidence 

intervals calculated with models 1 or 2; however, fail miserably when data are generated under each 

other or under model 3. The hugely volatile Hawai‘i ‘akepa data (conforest time series) analyzed 

with model 3 yield a wide 95% confidence interval for trend that contains zero. The analysis 

suggests that the time series abundances contain substantial amounts of both environmental process 

noise and observation error. Building a density dependent model for this data set with environmental 

driving variables included might produce results more useful to management. 

Duffy: “Rightsizing the Ark: Exclosures for Hawaiian Forest Birds” To protect native species, we 

need to fence at a scale appropriate to protect landscapes that will conserve bird populations large 

enough to survive at the scale of centuries, or we are wasting our time and money, and should spend 

it on other organisms. We have to operate at the appropriate scale, and this information needs to be 

presented to funding agencies and policy makers. With global warming, highland forests won’t be 

safe from avian malaria. Fencing and removing feral ungulates at the upper and mid elevations will 

create buffers where mosquitoes cannot breed, helping to keep mosquitoes at lower elevations and 

outside of the refuge. 

In the late afternoons of October 8 and 9, Dr. Scott led discussions of the days’ presentations. 

The focus on October 8 was identifying major threats to the forest birds at the Refuge. Dr. Scott used 

a multi-voting technique for workshop participants to describe and rank the immediate threats to 

forest birds at the refuge. Each attendee was given the opportunity to vote for any of the “Threats to 

Hawaiian forest birds” decided upon earlier in the workshop. The threats identified, and their 

ranking of importance by participants was: 





Feral Ungulates (24 votes) 

Lack of Habitat (21) 

Invasive Plants (12 votes) 

Predation (7 votes) 

Data Insufficient to meet Management Needs (8 votes) 

Parasites (2 votes) 

Interspecific Competition (1 vote) 

Avian Disease (no votes were received, so removed from list) 

The focus on October 9 was identifying and prioritizing major management actions and research 

necessary to recover the forest birds found at the Refuge. These management actions and research 

(collectively, activities) were also ranked using a multi-voting technique as follows: 

Management Actions (Priority Ranked by Voting) 

1) *Grazers/browsers (Habitat destruction/mosquito production) – High (overall 24 votes) 

• Fence construction, maintenance, and removal of animals (combined total = 30 votes) 

• See Research Priorities 

2) Habitat Restoration – High (21 votes) 

• Revegetation of pasture land (15 votes) 

• Improve ‘ohi‘a densities (7 votes) 

3) Invasive plants – High (overall 12 votes) 

• Continue invasive species control (blackberry, banana poka, gorse) (11 votes) 

• Prevent and eliminate incipient weeds (2 votes) 

• See Research Priorities 

4) Monitoring and Data Needs – High (overall 8 votes) 

• See Research priorities 

• Delivery of technical information (2 votes) 

5) Predation – Medium (overall 7 votes) 


6) Parasites – Low (overall 2 votes) 

• Incipient invasive parasites, true population counts, de-louse birds (2 votes) 

7) Interspecific competition – Low (overall 1 vote) 


• Identify ectoparasites/mites 




Research Priorities (Priority Ranked by Voting) 

1) Monitoring and Data: Expand point counts/banding data – 15 votes 

(combined primary counter training (8 votes), consider use of a B-Bird (Breeding Biology Research 

and Monitoring Database) system (http://www.umt.edu/bbird/info.htm) (7 votes), and threat 

surveillance (1 vote)) 

2) Predation: Investigate effects of rats on forest birds (9 votes); rodent population index (2 votes) – 

11 votes 

3) Invasive Plants: Develop effective biocontrols – 8 votes 

4)*Grazers/Browsers: Predator proof fencing – 7 votes 

5) Invasive Plants: Develop more efficient control methods and registration of herbicides – 4 votes 

5) Determine the effects of global climate change at the Refuge – 4 votes 

6) Develop more effective cat control techniques – 2 votes 

6) Determine effects of ectoparasites on non-endangered bird populations – 2 votes 

7) Experimental control of Japanese white-eyes – 1 vote 

*Caveat: Activities to construct an ungulate proof fence and a predator-proof fence caused some 

confusion amongst the participants. Dr. Scott obtained consensus that these activities could be 

combined with a third separate but related activity of removing feral ungulates. 

Conclusion: 

A workshop evaluation was distributed to all participants on October 24, 2008. Of the 

37 participants, 11 provided evaluations (= respondents). A number of Service employees, as 

organizers of the workshop and authors of this summary, did not provide written evaluations, so the 

response rate is actually higher than it initially appears. A summary of the evaluations is attached as 

Appendix A. In short, however, findings of the evaluations were: 

Overall the perception of the workshop organization and format was entirely positive. However, 

some respondents felt the workshop purpose and objectives fluctuated too much in advance of the 

workshop, were unclear, or were known but unstated. While this was in part a result of ‘adaptive 

management’ of the agenda and a deliberative process by the steering committee, more, earlier input 

from potential participants would help address this criticism for future workshops. 

The presentations themselves were largely felt to be very informative and address the workshop 

purpose and objectives, given the previously mentioned concerns about those objectives. The 

amount of time allotted to presentations was generally thought adequate, and the facilitation by Dr. J. 

Michael Scott very good. 




Regarding present and future management and research management actions at Hakalau Forest 

NWR, respondents were generally positive. Some thought, however, that we had merely validated 

current management actions – a positive in the eyes of the refuge staff and this author – but others 

saw this as “reinventing the wheel” and unnecessary. 

The field trip on Day 3 was very positively received. 

In summary, the workshop was very useful in clarifying the status of the endangered Hawai‘i ‘akepa, 

with most respondents supporting the interpretation of survey data indicating stable or increasing 

population trends. In turn, this finding validates the substantial investment of resources and energy at 

the Hakalau Forest NWR over the last 20 years, specifically the fencing/ungulate removal, 

reforestation, and invasive species removal programs. Finally, the priority activities (management 

actions and research) identified at the workshop will be used during the development of the Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge CCP and provide a road map to guide Service staff in the 

management and recovery of Hawaiian forest birds at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Future workshops should be designed with special attention to purpose and objectives, leaving 

additional time to address the “what is not known” question and develop priority research to answer 

that question, and ensure early input from all potential participants and stakeholders (especially on 

workshop purpose and objectives). 


Attachment 1 



Summary of Evaluation of Hawaiian 

Forest Birds Workshop 

October 8-10, 2008 


Total number of participants: 37 

Total number of participants who completed evaluation forms: 11 

Total number of participants who provided comments on workshop notes: 2 

1. The organization/format of the workshop was (please check one): 

Day One 

Excellent 5 

Good 6 

Comments or Suggestions: 

Day Two 

Excellent 4 

Good 5 

Adequate 2 

Day Three 

Excellent 7 

• It is too bad that more empirical studies were not included. 

• The field trip was a terrific idea as it gave participants from outside Hawaii and those within 

the state but less familiar with Hakalau, a great on-the-ground view of the refuge's success 

with restoration and the richness of the bird community. We saw perhaps a dozen akepa! 

• This was pretty close to the most informative 3 days I’ve ever spent in the Service –perhaps 

in my entire 15 year Fed. Career. Well done to have the room filled with those who know 

these species and conservation issues the best. 

2. The time allotted for presentations and discussions was (please check one): 

Sufficient 11 Insufficient Excessive 

Comments or Suggestions: 

• There were some presentations where discussion was cut off early, but not sure that could be 

helped without eliminating a presentation or going significantly over time. 

• I appreciated that there was plenty of time for questions and discussion in addition to 

presentations. Michael Scott did an excellent job guiding the discussion. 

• I think the time allotted was just right. 

3. The presentations and discussions adequately addressed the workshop purpose and 

objectives. (please check one) 

Strongly Agree 3 Agree 6 Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree 


Comments or suggestions: 



• Some excellent presentations on point count methodology – I learned quite a bit. The 

weakest parts of the workshop were the presentations on competition from white-eyes and 

ectoparasites – most likely because the data were unverified, highly controversial, and not 

supported by excessive census data from the refuge. 

• Did a good job of not allowing discussion to focus solely on the controversy between Lenny 

and others, which likely would not have been productive. I was not fully aware of the 

underlying impetus for the workshop prior to Day 1, and it might have helped to have 

presented in advance the information that now appears at the beginning of the notes 

(although I understand there was some evolution of the focus of the meeting in the weeks 

leading up to it, so perhaps there was not time). 

• This is a loaded statement! In all honesty the stated purpose and objectives kept changing 

and were never very clear, and from the get-go were counfounded by other well known but 

unstated objectives, so I'll refrain from checking a box here. For a workshop ostensibly 

about management priorities as well as research, the presentations mostly treated data 

analysis and population and trend modeling -- and in fact addressed the unstated objectives 

better than the stated ones. Is seems that what we had, especially from the University of 

Idaho participants, was primarily a live performance of contributions to the most recent 

external review of the survey data from Hakalau to address the Japanese white-eye-Hawai’i 

‘akepa questions. This was interesting, but I'm not certain it was what best served the 

participants of this workshop. 

• Too much time was spent on addressing the competition issue. 

• There were conflicting data sets and more time should have been used to resolve the 

conflicts. 

• This is a difficult question to answer because the workshop purpose was not entirely clear. 

On the one hand, the workshop seemed focused on whether or not the interspecific 

competition between Akepa and White-eyes is something to be concerned about, and on the 

other hand the workshop was also trying to address all management and research priorities 

for Hakalau. I think we accomplished the former but were less successful on the latter. 

• Because so much discussion focused on Lenny Freed’s concerns about ‘akepa, I think he 

should have spoken more about his data and spent less time critiquing census methods. 

Plenty of other people did the latter. Lenny changed topics at the last minute, so this was 

hard to control, but I think we needed to see and hear more of the actual data. 

4. Management needs and activities, including research, at the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife 

Refuge were properly identified and prioritized to recover endangered Hawaiian forest birds. 

(please check one): 

Strongly Agree 3 Agree 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 


• A little too much emphasis on reinventing the wheel. Most of the management needs and 

activities were identified and prioritized in the Forest Bird Recovery Plan and it was 

reassuring that these have not changed since the plan was finalized. As someone from the 




workshop pointed out – the most important management needs can be summarized as “Build 

fence, kill pigs, plant trees, count birds”. The refuge has been doing this well the past 20 

years and FWS support for the activities should continue. 

• I agree only in that the “process”, such as it was, on the second day clearly demonstrated 

that a room full of Hawaiian forest bird experts with years or decades of experience do not 

believe that investigating (or acting on) potential interspecific competition as a threat to 

endangered birds is a priority. I don’t think the results of this workshop lead to a big shift in 

activities or emphasis at Hakalau, but maybe the view from the Refuge is different… 

• I think the priorities were properly identified. Funding to implement is still the question to be 

resolved. 

• How could the audience ignore the fact that lambda for the akepa was significantly less than 

one? 

• I do not think we properly identified management needs for the refuge in the sense that we 

reaffirmed collectively that the Refuge is very much on the right track. I think we could have 

done a much better job at identifying research priorities. With much of the refuge staff 

present, it would have been very useful to ask then to come to the meeting with a list of what 

they see as research priorities. What data would be helpful in understanding whether their 

management actions are achieving success? What projects would be useful understanding 

whether addiditional management actions are necessary? It would have been great to 

outline and prioritize specific projects and then collectively think about where the funding 

could come from to support them. 

• I think we did a pretty comprehensive job, certainly enough to provide pretty specific 

guidelines for the development of the CCP. 

• I believe it would be worthwhile to identify additional lines of field investigation to validate 

Dr. Freed’s claims regarding competition from white-eyes and parasitism from 

ectoparasites. If biologist from the mainland could be encouraged to conduct relevant field 

studies here, that would bring independence to the findings and generate interest in the wider 

scientific and conservation communities. 

5. Do the results of this workshop clearly define future research and management actions at 

Hakalau Forest NWR? (please check one): 

Strongly Agree 2 Agree 7 Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree 1 


• Seems to me the results just validated what the Refuge is already doing, ES is already 

helping to fund, and what the wider forest bird conservation community already has 

identified has priorities – in about the same order. 

• Yes, for forest birds. Need to have similar discussions relative to plant species management. 

This was an excellent group of people to address the forest bird issues. I wish we also could 

have used this group to look at forest bird research and management needs statewide. 

• They identified management but not address research. There should have been a session on 

what we need to know that we don't know at present. 

• There is still a lot of work to be done to “clearly define” research management in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, but this workshop gave us a very good start. 




• To me the management actions were more clearly defined than the research actions. I felt 

that the discussion of research actions did not go far enough beyond what is already being 

done or considered, and there was no blueprint drafted for follow-through on the few 

resulting recommendations. Lack of funding, more specifically lack of adequate funding 

sources, may be discouraging initiative for research. 

Additional Comments: 

• This was an effective venue to try to settle conflicting interpretations of current population 

trends for Hawaii Akepa and other endangered birds at Hakalau. I hope the majority 

opinions were clearly heard by USFWS officials. 

• Overall, a good job of staying on schedule and not letting talks go over. The initial talks 

occurred ahead of schedule. If possible, this also should be avoided, particularly if people 

might need to come & go during the workshop. 

• Refuge staff and officials from Honolulu and region need to direct the workshop to focus 

discussion on their most significant needs. 

• I think the discussion should have had very specific questions and objectives spelled out 

before it started. That would have helped focus our identification of needs and priorities and 

given us a bit more time to talk about them. Still, between Mike’s moderating and Ken’s note 

taking, we did a very good job. 

• Seemed to me to be a well-organized workshop. The field trip also went extremely well---it 

was great to see all those birds! 

• Make explicit any implicit objectives or drivers, and make sure all the key stakeholders are 

present. 

• It’s a good thing the scope of this workshop was changed, very near the last minute, to 

Hakalau only (rather than the whole Big Island, or Big Island and Kauai etc.), because the 

State was represented at the workshop by a total of one person (from DOFAW administrative 

office). 

• Ensure that all participants have a 100% clear understanding of the purpose/objectives, the 

contributions expected of them, and the specific methods that will be used to meet objectives, 

make decisions etc. To achieve “buy in” or wide agreement, it isn’t enough to have a good 

moderator for individual presentations and discussions (which we did have); the facilitator 

has to move the whole group toward achieving a small number of very clear objectives, 

present – up front – a well-defined process or processes for doing that, and resolve 

procedural concerns or differences of opinion along the way. In this case, the ad hoc 

“process” we undertook on the second day was reasonably effective, but I think that was 

largely because the task was a no-brainer for this group, and wide agreement about 

priorities for forest bird research and conservation already existed. That process was 

conducted in an extemporaneous manner and without clear explanation of how the results 

would be used, and would have backfired in a group that was divided over the topics under 

discussion. 


Appendix F. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health and Resources of 

Concern 

Table F-1. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH). 

Natural Processes 

(biotic and abiotic processes 

responsible for habitat conditions) Limiting Factors 

Population/Habitat Attributes 

(age class, structure, serial stage, species 

composition) 

Habitats (plant 

communities that represent 

existing BIDEH) 

The upper canopy is composed of scattered 

mature (100+ years), and medium stature 

‘ōhi‘a (30 ft). The mid-canopy zone (10- 

15 ft) is dominated by hāpu‘u (tree fern). The 

vegetation at ground level, up to 6-10 ft, is 

dominated by dense Dicranopteris sp. (matted 

ferns), making access difficult. This habitat 

type is found between 2,500 ft - 4,000 ft 

elevation with many Carex sp. bogs found 

scattered throughout the lower elevations. 

Plant diversity is low and dominated by ‘ōhi‘a 

and Dicranopteris sp. Although unstudied, it 

is assumed that invertebrate diversity is also 

low. 


Montane wet 

‘ōhi‘a/Dicranopteris 

sp. forest 



Limiting factors 

include a lack of native 

pollinators and several 

pest species (e.g., 

ungulates, rats, mice, 

slugs, mosquitoes, 

invasive plants, and 

diseases). 

The windward east-facing Hakalau 

Forest Unit receives northeasterly 

tradewind-dominated rainfall 

throughout the year with up to 250 

inches annually. Heavier rainfall 

occurs October-March. 

Mosquitoes, the vector 

for avian diseases, 

breed up to 4,500 feet 

in elevation. 

There is limited current 

and historical human 

disturbance. The threat 

of wildfire is slight. 

Mountain slopes are mild. Soils are 

aged, eroded, and volcanic in origin. 

Soils are typically poorly drained. The 

ground surface is bisected by numerous 

streams (surface flow). These streams 

create and maintain stream channels 

that are highly eroded and steep-sided, 

providing protection to native and 

endangered plants from grazing 

ungulates. 

Native bird densities are low due to disease 

such as avian malaria. Consequently, 

nonnative bird species dominate the avifauna. 

Potential conservation species in this habitat 

include endangered plant species, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, 

and koloa maoli. However, this habitat type 

may best be described as a buffer zone for 

invasive plants encroaching from lower 

elevations. 

Appendix F: Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health and Resources of Concern F-1




The windward east-facing Hakalau Limiting factors 

Forest Unit receives northeasterly include a lack of native 



throughout the year with up to 250 pest species (e.g., 

inches annually. Heavier rainfall ungulates, rats, mice, 




diseases). 





Mountain slopes are moderate. Soils 

are aged, eroded, and volcanic in origin. 






providing protection for native and 


ungulates. 


composition) 

Montane wet ‘ōhi‘a forest The upper canopy of this habitat type is 

dominated by somewhat taller (60-90 ft) 

mature closed canopy ‘ōhi‘a. Mid-canopy is 

dominated by a mix of flowering and fruiting 

tree species (e.g., ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōlapa, pilo, kōlea), 

tree ferns (up to 15 ft), and epiphytes. 

Ground cover is dominated by mixed ferns, 

Astelia (lilly), ‘ōhelo, kanawao, pūkiawe, and 

kāwa‘u. This habitat type is found between 

4,000-5,000 ft elevation. Compared to lower 

elevation habitat, the ground level contains 

downed timber and areas dominated by 

sphagnum moss. 



Higher densities of pigs 

at this elevation have 

disturbed native Carex 

sp. bogs which have 

converted to nonnative 

Juncus sp. bogs. 

A diverse native bird community first appears 

in this habitat type, primarily due to 

elevations above the mosquito zone and a 

more diverse forest plant community. 








diseases). 







This habitat type contains a mixed age class 

of koa and ‘ōhi‘a-dominated forest and occurs 

5,000-6,000 ft in elevation. The mid-canopy 

is dominated by a mix of flowering and 

fruiting trees (e.g., ‘ōlapa, ‘ākala, pilo, 

pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), mixed ferns, 

and epiphytes. 

Montane wet koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forest 

Past human 

disturbances include 

cattle grazing. The 

effects of this past 

activity include 

increased grasslands 









A diverse native bird community occurs in 

this habitat type, primarily due to elevations 

above mosquito zone and more diverse forest 

plant community. Other species of 

conservation and management concern 

include koloa maoli, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and 


F-2 Appendix F: Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health and Resources of Concern




endangered plants from grazing and loss of native plant 

ungulates. 

species. 



composition) 











diseases). 




throughout the year. This habitat type 

receives approximately 275 inches of 

rainfall annually. Heavier rainfall 


Montane mesic koa forest This habitat type contains a mixed age class 

of koa-dominated forest and occurs 6,000 ft - 

6,600 ft in elevation. The mid-canopy is 


trees (e.g. ‘ōlapa, ‘ākala, pilo, pūkiawe, 

‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), mixed ferns, and 

epiphytes. 

















include the koloa maoli, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and 


ungulates. 

Former mesic koa 

forest was historically 

reduced to grassland by 

grazing, timber harvest, 

and fires. Mesic koa 

habitat is currently 

being restored. 







This park-like habitat contains mixed 

nonnative grasses and a native grass and is 

found between 5,600 - 6,500 ft elevation. 

Scattered mature koa and ‘ōhi‘a trees also 

occur. Nonnative grasses include 

Anthoxanthum sp., Holcus sp., Pennisetum 

sp., and Ehrharta sp. Native species include 

the native grass Deschampsia sp., the native 

shrub Vaccinium sp. (‘ōhelo), and a native 

bracken fern. Mid-canopy vegetation is 

primarily absent from this habitat. 

Grasslands/forest 

restoration area 












streams (surface flow). These streams pest species (e.g., 

create and maintain stream channels ungulates, rats, mice, 

that are highly eroded and steep-sided, slugs, mosquitoes, 

providing protection to native and invasive plants, and 

endangered plants from grazing diseases). 

ungulates. 

The use of this habitat 

by ‘io, nēnē, and other 

endangered species will 

need to be considered 

during planning and 

reforestation activities. 



composition) 




The forest restoration program has outplanted 

approximately 382,000 native trees, 

including koa, ‘ōhi‘a, pilo, kōlea, ‘ōlapa, 

māmane, naio, and other natives on 

approximately 1,700 acres. Approximately 

4,000 acres of additional grassland is 

scheduled to be restored to montane mesic 

koa forest community. 



Native forest birds currently occur in this 

habitat at greatly reduced numbers and 

diversity when compared to nearby intact 

forest communities though populations are 

increasing as forest restoration occurs. Nēnē 

are found throughout the current habitat. 

Species of conservation and management 

concern include the native forest birds, 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. 

Ungulates and rats 

degrade water quality 

through soil 

disturbance and feces 

deposition. Lack of 

groundwater retention 

due to upstream human 

disturbance (e.g., 

grazing, soil 

compaction) can lead to 

flash floods. Streams 

also transport and 

disperse pest plant 

seeds. 

Glacial meltwater created ravines 

during the Pleistocene era. Rainfall and 

runoff currently maintains stream 

habitat. 

Streams Streams cross through various habitat types, 

being intermittent at higher elevations, and 

perennial at lower elevations. Some streams 

with steep walls protect endangered and 

native plants from grazing by ungulates. 

Fauna within the streams and riparian areas at 

lower elevations are unstudied and unknown. 

Although unstudied at higher elevations, the 

fauna is suspected to be exclusively 

invertebrate. Other species of conservation 

and management concern include native 

forest birds, koloa maoli, and endangered 

plants. 





Rainfall current maintains pond Seasonality of rainfall 

habitats. 

and encroachment of 

ponds by nonnative 

Juncus sp. 






composition) 

Ponds Semipermanent natural ponds are scattered 

throughout the upper elevations of the 

Refuge, all above the mosquito line. Koloa 

maoli and ‘alae ke‘oke‘o are known to 

frequent these ponds along with migratory 

shorebirds and invertebrates. 

Carex Bogs Bogs naturally occur in flat areas and are 

dominated by sedges and rushes. Limited 

areas of open water also occur. Bogs are 

primarily located below 4,500 ft. While 

sphagnum exists in these bogs, it is unclear 

whether it is native. 










diseases). 

The hydrology of bogs is driven by the 

retention of rainfall and surface water 

retention in a clay layered depression, 

as opposed to perched (i.e., the 

expression of groundwater at the 

surface) water table. 

The conversion of 

Carex sp. to Juncus sp. 

has occurred due to the 

rooting activities of 

pigs. Enhanced soil 

erosion from ungulate 

activities also has 

increased the 

eutrophication of bogs. 

Faunal use of bogs is primarily by 

invertebrates. However, koloa maoli are 

known to use bogs. Other species of 


include native forest birds, nēnē, and 








composition) 











diseases). 

The leeward west-facing slopes of the 

Kona Forest Unit are protected from the 

majority of tradewind-dominated 

rainfall which occurs throughout the 

year. The lower elevation gradient of 

this habitat type receives approximately 

80 inches of rainfall annually. The 

upper gradient receives approximately 

60 inches of rainfall. Heavier rainfall 





Montane wet ‘ōhi‘a forest Upper and lower elevation gradients occur in 

this habitat type. The lower gradient occurs 

2,000-3,000 ft elevation. The lower gradient 

upper tree canopy is dominated by 60-80 ft 

mature closed canopy ‘ōhi‘a. The midcanopy 

is dominated by nonnative Christmas 

berry, strawberry guava, and a mix of 

flowering and fruiting tree species (e.g., 

‘ōhi‘a, hame, kōlea), tree ferns (up to 15 ft), 

the vine ‘ie‘ie, and epiphytes. Ground cover 

is dominated by nonnative Clidemia sp., 

thimbleberry, a mix of nonnative and native 

ferns, and areas of dense matted ferns. 

Past human 

disturbances include 

traditional farming and 

ranching practices and 

fire. The effects of this 

past activity include 

increased grasslands 

and a loss of native 

plant species. 

Moderately steep slope and relatively 

young lava flows are found along with a 

thin layer of organic soil. Surface water 

streams are not present in either the 

upper or lower elevation gradient. 

The upper gradient is found between 3,500- 

4,500 ft elevation. The upper gradient tree 

canopy is also dominated by 60-80 ft mature 

closed canopy ‘ōhi‘a. The mid-canopy is 


tree species (e.g., ‘ōhi‘a, pilo, Clermontia sp., 

‘ōlapa, kāwa‘u, kōlea, pūkiawe), tree ferns 

(up to 15 ft), the vine ‘ie‘ie, and epiphytes. 

Ground cover is dominated by nonnative 

grasses, mixed nonnative and native ferns, 

and areas of dense matted ferns. 

The primary differences between the upper 

and lower elevation gradients in this habitat 

type are the increased plant diversity in the 

mid-canopy of the upper gradient, and the 







composition) 




change from a herbaceous ground cover in the 

lower gradient to a grass-dominated ground 

cover in the upper gradient. 

A diverse native bird community first appears 

in the upper gradient of this habitat type, 

primarily due to elevations above the 

mosquito zone and more diverse forest. Other 

species of conservation and management 

concern include the ‘alalā, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and 











diseases). 





year. This habitat type receives 

approximately 75 inches of rainfall 

annually. Heavier rainfall occurs 

October-March. 


of koa- and ‘ōhi‘a- dominated forest and 

occurs 4,500-5,800 ft in elevation. The midcanopy 

is dominated by a mix of flowering 

and fruiting trees (e.g., Clermontia sp., pilo, 

pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), tree ferns, 

mixed ferns, and epiphytes. 

Montane mesic koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forest 




streams are not present in this habitat. 






include the ‘alalā, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, endangered 

plants, and an endangered invertebrate. 











year. This habitat type receives 

approximately 40 inches of rainfall 


koa/‘ōhi‘a/māmane co-dominant forest and 

occurs 5,800 ft - 6,100 ft in elevation. The 

mid-canopy is dominated by a mix of 

flowering and fruiting trees (e.g. ‘iliahi 

(sandalwood), pilo, naio, pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo) 

Dry koa/‘ōhi‘a/māmane 

forest 





annually. Heavier rainfall occurs invasive plants, and 

October-March. 

diseases). 



composition) 




and mixed ferns. 




streams are not present in this habitat. 






include the ‘alalā, the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, endangered 

plants, and an endangered invertebrate. 



Trampling or the 

release of pest species 

from human 

disturbance, rats, or 

breaches in the lava 

tube ceiling could 

destroy the entire 

invertebrate community 

and destroy sub-fossil 

and archeological 

resources. 

During periods of active volcanism, 

flowing lava often times created 

subterranean channels where molten 

lava flowed. When flowing lava 

subsided, a hollow channel or lava tube 

was formed, the opening to which 

creates a lava tube cave. 

Lava tube caves Lava tubes contain an endemic subterranean, 

invertebrate faunal community. Moisture, 

moist air, relatively constant moderate 

temperature, and lack of light are required 

attributes of these cave systems. 

Within the confines of the cave, 

invertebrates have evolved in this 

unique habitat. These mostly blind 

invertebrates feed on ‘ōhi‘a roots that 

penetrate the lava tube roof. 

Sub-fossil bird remains found in the detrital 

soils inside the cave systems are a valuable 

resource which can be used to document premodern 

Hawaiian avifauna. 

Lava tube caves found throughout the Island 

of Hawai‘i supported use by Native 

Hawaiians. Insufficient study has occurred on 

the Refuge to document archeological 

resources. However, there is the potential that 

cultural resources do exist in Refuge caves. 





Collapse of lava tube roof and resulting Limiting factors 

vertical walled opening protects include a lack of native 

remnants of once common plants, now pollinators and several 

rare or endangered, from grazing by pest species (e.g., 

ungulates. 




diseases). 



composition) 




The vertical walls created from the collapse of 

lava tube roofs naturally protect native plant 

communities. Skylights, unlike the lava tubes 

themselves, are exposed to the surface 

environment of rainfall, sunlight, and 

temperature fluctuations. 

Lava tube skylights 

[Various above-ground 

habitats surround 

skylights, depending upon 

elevation] 



There are a finite 

number of lava tubes. 

Typically skylights 

form shortly after lava 

tube formation. 

These steep-sided depressions prevent 

degradation from ungulates, thus providing 

protected habitat for one fern species, 

Asplenium peruvianum var. insulare that is 

unique to skylight habitats, and also high 

populations of other rare and endangered 

plant species. 

Human disturbance 

such as trampling could 

destroy any sub-fossil 

or archeological 

resources. 

Appendix F: Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health and Resources of Concern F-9 

Note: nomenclature for habitat names follows Jacobi et al. (1989).

Table 4-2. Resources of Concern. 

Other Benefiting 

Species 

Life History 

Requirement 

Focal Species Habitat Type Habitat Structure 

Nesting and foraging. All native forest bird 

species and 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a and 

plants. 

A mixed age class of koa- and ‘ōhi‘a-dominated 

forest, occurring between 5,000-6,000 ft in 

elevation on the windward slopes of Mauna 

Kea. The mid-canopy is dominated by a mix of 

flowering and fruiting trees (e.g., ‘ōlapa, ‘ākala, 

pilo, pūkiawe, ‘ōhelo, kōlea, kāwa‘u), mixed 

ferns, and epiphytes. Ground cover is ferns and 

woody seedlings, herbs and nonnative grasses. 

Birds 

‘akiapōlā‘au Montane wet 

koa/‘ōhi‘a forest. 



A diverse native bird community occurs in this 

habitat type, primarily due to elevations above 

mosquito zone and more diverse forest plant 

community. Other species of conservation and 

management concern include koloa maoli, 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a, and endangered plants. 

Foraging. ‘Amakihi, ‘elepaio, 

‘apapane, Hawai‘i 

creeper. 

Koa, in reforestation areas, a minimum 8-10 

year old growth, density and height 

requirements unknown but density is a 

‘akiapōlā‘au Koa/‘ōhi‘a forestreforestation 

from 

grassland. 

dependent factor. Above mosquito zone. 




plants. 

Nesting: Old growth trees, minimum 24 inches 

dbh with cavities for nesting. 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa Native ‘ōhi‘a and 


Foraging: mixed age class stand native koa and 

‘ōhi‘a forest above mosquito zone. 




plants. 

Mature koa and ‘ōhi‘a forest with native 

understory 

above mosquito zone. 

Hawai‘i creeper Native ‘ōhi‘a and 





Life History Other Benefiting 


Requirement Species 

‘io Native ‘ōhi‘a and Mature ‘ōhi‘a trees, home range of 7-988 acres. Nesting. All native forest bird 




plants. 

‘io Native and Forests, grasslands, urban areas. Hunting for prey. In native forest, all 

nonnative forest 

native forest bird 

and open habitats. 



plants. 

nēnē Open shrublands Short grass, native and nonnative, less than 18 Foraging. Pueo, ‘io, kōlea, 

and grasslands. inches, mixed shrubs. 

native plant dispersal. 

nēnē Open shrublands Short grass, native and nonnative, less than 18 Nesting, roosting, Pueo, ‘io, kōlea. 

and grasslands. inches, mixed shrubs. 

foraging 

‘ō‘ū Native koa/‘ōhi‘a Mature koa and ‘ōhi‘a forest with native Nesting and foraging. All native forest bird 

forest. 

understory, above mosquito zone. 



plants. 




plants. 

Mature koa and ‘ōhi‘a forest with native 

understory, above mosquito zone. Elevational 

gradient with closed canopy, with mid-canopy 

understory to seasonally follow maturing fruits. 

‘alalā Native koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forest. 

Shallow water, with emergent vegetation edge. Foraging and nesting. ‘Alae ke‘oke‘o, nēnē 

Ponds, streams, 

bogs. 

Hawaiian duck, koloa 

maoli 

Ponds, bogs. Shallow water, with emergent vegetation edge. Foraging and nesting. Koloa maoli and 

nēnē. 

Hawaiian coot, ‘alae 

ke‘oke‘o 


Other Benefiting 

Species 

Life History 

Requirement 


Mammal 

All native forest bird 

species and plants. 

Breeding, roosting, 

and foraging. 

Mature forest. 

Native koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forest and nonnative 

forest. 

Hawaiian hoary bat, 

‘Ōpe‘ape‘a 

Invertebrate 


species, ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, 

and plants. 

Breeding and 

feeding. 

Mature mesic native forest with abundant 

clermontia sp. 

Endemic to west 

side of Hawai‘i 

Island, native 


Drosophila 

heteroneura, Picturewing 

fly 





invertebrates, and 

other forest plant 

species. 

Mature, undisturbed, and uneven aged forests. All life-history stages 

for all plant species 

are required. 

Wet ‘ōhi‘a and 

mesic koa/‘ōhi‘a 

forests. 

Plants 

Asplenium peruvianum 

var. insulare 

Clermontia lindseyana 

Clermontia peleana 

Clermontia pyrularia 

Cyanea hamatiflora 

Cyanea platyphylla 

Cyanea shipmannii 

Cyanea stictophylla 

Cyrtandra tintinabula 

Nothocestrum 

breviflorum 

Phyllostegia floribunda 

Phyllostegia racemosa 

Phyllostegia velutina 

Sicyos macrophyllus 



invertebrates, and 

other forest plant 

species. 

Mature, undisturbed, and uneven aged forests. All life-history stages 

for all plant species 

are required. 

Dry 

koa/‘ōhi‘a/māmane 

forest 

Portulaca sclerocarpa 

Silene hawaiiensis 




Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program 

1.0 Background 

IPM is an interdisciplinary approach utilizing methods to prevent, eliminate, contain, and/or control 

pest species in concert with other management activities on refuge lands and waters to achieve 

wildlife and habitat management goals and objectives. 1 

IPM is also a scientifically based, adaptive 

management process where available scientific information and best professional judgment of the 

refuge staff as well as other resource experts would be used to identify and implement appropriate 

management strategies that can be modified and/or changed over time to ensure effective, sitespecific 

management of pest species to achieve desired outcomes. In accordance with 43 CFR 

46.145, adaptive management would be particularly relevant where long-term impacts may be 

uncertain and future monitoring would be needed to make adjustments in subsequent implementation 

decisions. After a tolerable pest population (threshold) is determined considering achievement of 

refuge resource objectives and the ecology of pest species, one or more methods, or combinations 

thereof, would be selected that are feasible, efficacious, and most protective of non-target resources, 

including native species (fish, wildlife, and plants), and Service personnel, Service authorized agents, 

volunteers, and the public. Staff time and available funding would be considered when determining 

feasibility/practicality of various treatments. 

IPM techniques to address pests are presented as CCP strategies (see Chapter 2 of this CCP) in an 

adaptive management context to achieve refuge resource objectives. In order to satisfy requirements 

for IPM planning as identified in the Director’s Memo (dated September 9, 2004) entitled Integrated 

Pest Management Plans and Pesticide Use Proposals: Updates, Guidance, and an Online Database, 

the following elements of an IPM program have been incorporated into this CCP: 

• Habitat and/or wildlife objectives that identify pest species and appropriate thresholds to indicate 

the need for and successful implementation of IPM techniques; and 

• Monitoring before and/or after treatment to assess progress toward achieving objectives including 

pest thresholds. 

Where pesticides would be necessary to address pests, this Appendix provides a structured procedure 

to evaluate potential effects of proposed uses involving ground-based applications to refuge 

biological resources and environmental quality. Only pesticide uses that likely would cause minor, 

temporary, or localized effects to refuge biological resources and environmental quality with 

appropriate best management practices (BMPs), where necessary, would be allowed for use on the 

refuge. 

This Appendix does not describe the more detailed process to evaluate potential effects associated 

with aerial applications of pesticides. Moreover, it does not address effects of mosquito control with 

pesticides (larvicides, pupacides, or adulticides) based upon identified human health threats and 

presence of disease-carrying mosquitoes in sufficient numbers from monitoring conducted on a 

refuge. However, the basic framework to assess potential effects to refuge biological resources and 

environmental quality from aerial application of pesticides or use of insecticides for mosquito 

1 This appendix uses the term “pest” to describe those species referred to as “nonnative” in the main body of this 

CCP. In Hawai‘i, nonnative refers to invasive or introduced species, which also aligns with the 569 FW1 pest 

definition. 

Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-1



management would be similar to the process described in this Appendix for ground-based treatments 

of other pesticides. 

2.0 Pest Management Laws and Policies 

In accordance with Service policy 569 FW 1 (Integrated Pest Management), plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate pests on units of the Refuge System can be controlled to assure balanced wildlife and fish 

populations in support of refuge-specific wildlife and habitat management objectives. Pest control 

on Federal (refuge) lands and waters also is authorized under the following legal mandates: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 668dd- 

668ee); 

• Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 USC 7701 et seq.); 

• Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act of 2004 (7 USC 7781-7786, Subtitle E); 

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (7 USC 136-136y); 

• National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (16 USC 4701); 

• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 USC 4701); 

• Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (7 USC 136); 

• Executive Order 13148, Section 601(a); 

• Executive Order 13112; and 

• Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 USC 426-426c, 46 Stat. 1468). 

Pests are defined as “…living organisms that may interfere with the site-specific purposes, 

operations, or management objectives or that jeopardize human health or safety” from Department 

policy 517 DM 1 (Integrated Pest Management Policy). Similarly, 569 FW 1 defines pests as 

“…invasive plants and introduced or native organisms that may interfere with achieving our 

management goals and objectives on or off our lands, or that jeopardize human health or safety.” 

517 DM 1 also defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health.” Throughout the remainder of this CCP, the terms pest and invasive species 

are used interchangeably because both can prevent/impede achievement of refuge wildlife and 

habitat objectives and/or degrade environmental quality. 

In general, control of pests (vertebrate or invertebrate) on the refuge would conserve and protect the 

nation’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources as well as maintain environmental quality. From 

569 FW 1, animal or plant species, which are considered pests, may be managed if the following 

criteria are met: 2 

• Threat to human health and well being or private property, the acceptable level of damage by the 

pest has been exceeded, or State or local government has designated the pest as noxious; 

• Detrimental to resource objectives as specified in a refuge resource management plan (e.g., 

comprehensive conservation plan, habitat management plan), if available; and 

• Control would not conflict with attainment of resource objectives or the purpose(s) for which the 

refuge was established. 

2 Note that during the 15 year life span of the CCP, policies, such as 569 FW 1, may be updated and revised. As 

such, the Refuge will comply with the most updated Service policies related to IPM. 

G-2 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management



The specific justifications for pest management activities on the refuge are the following: 

• Protect human health and well being; 

• Prevent substantial damage to important to refuge resources; 

• Protect newly introduced or re-establish native species; 

• Control nonnative (exotic) species in order to support existence for populations of native species; 

• Prevent damage to private property; and 

• Provide the public with quality, compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

In accordance with Service policy 620 FW 1 (Habitat Management Plans), there are additional 

management directives regarding invasive species found on the refuge: 

• “We are prohibited by Executive Order, law, and policy from authorizing, funding, or carrying 

out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the 

United States or elsewhere.” 

• “Manage invasive species to improve or stabilize biotic communities to minimize unacceptable 

change to ecosystem structure and function and prevent new and expanded infestations of 

invasive species. Conduct refuge habitat management activities to prevent, control, or eradicate 

invasive species...” 

Animal species damaging/destroying Federal property and/or detrimental to the management 

program of a refuge may be controlled as described in 50 CFR 31.14 (Official Animal Control 

Operations). For example, on the mainland, the incidental removal of beaver damaging refuge 

infrastructure (e.g., clogging with subsequent damaging of water control structures) and/or negatively 

affecting habitats (e.g., removing woody species from existing or restored riparian areas) managed on 

refuge lands may be conducted without a pest control proposal. Exotic nutria, whose denning and 

burrowing activities in wetland dikes causes cave-ins and breaches, can be controlled using the most 

effective techniques considering site-specific factors without a pest control proposal. Along with the 

loss of quality wetland habitats associated with breaching of impoundments, the safety of refuge 

staffs and public (e.g. auto tour routes) driving on structurally compromised levees and dikes can be 

threaten by sudden and unexpected cave-ins. 

Trespass and feral animals also may be controlled on refuge lands. Based upon 50 CFR 28.43 

(Destruction of Dogs and Cats), dogs and cats running at large on a national wildlife refuge and 

observed in the act of killing, injuring, harassing or molesting humans or wildlife may be disposed of 

in the interest of public safety and protection of the wildlife. Feral animals should be disposed by the 

most humane method(s) available and in accordance with relevant Service directives (including 

Executive Order 11643). Disposed wildlife specimens may be donated or loaned to public 

institutions. Donation or loans of resident wildlife species will only be made after securing State 

approval (50 CFR 30.11 (Donation and Loan of Wildlife Specimens)). Surplus wildlife specimens 

may be sold alive or butchered, dressed and processed subject to federal and state laws and 

regulations (50 CFR 30.12 (Sale of Wildlife Specimens)). 

3.0 Strategies 

To fully embrace IPM as identified in 569 FW 1, the following strategies, where applicable, would 

be carefully considered on the refuge for each pest species: 




• Prevention. This is the most effective and least expensive long-term management option for 

pests. It encompasses methods to prevent new introductions or the spread of the established pests 

to un-infested areas. It requires identifying potential routes of invasion to reduce the likelihood 

of infestation. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning can be used 

determine if current management activities on a refuge may introduce and/or spread invasive 

species in order to identify appropriate BMPs for prevention. See http://www.haccp-nrm.org/ for 

more information about HACCP planning. 

Prevention may include source reduction, using pathogen-free or weed-free seeds or fill; 

exclusion methods (e.g., barriers) and/or sanitation methods (e.g., wash stations) to prevent reintroductions 

by various mechanisms including vehicles, personnel, livestock, and horses. 

Because invasive species are frequently the first to establish newly disturbed sites, prevention 

would require a reporting mechanism for early detection of new pest occurrences with quick 

response to eliminate any new satellite pest populations. Prevention would require consideration 

of the scale and scope of land management activities that may promote pest establishment within 

uninfested areas or promote reproduction and spread of existing populations. Along with 

preventing initial introduction, prevention would involve halting the spread of existing 

infestations to new sites (Mullin et al. 2000). The primary reason of prevention would be to keep 

pest-free lands or waters from becoming infested. Executive Order 11312 emphasizes the 

priority for prevention with respect to managing pests. 

The following are methods to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests on refuge lands: 

o Before beginning ground-disturbing activities (e.g., disking, scraping), inventory and 

prioritize pest infestations in project operating areas and along access routes. Refuge 

staff would identify pest species on site or within reasonably expected potential invasion 

vicinity. Where possible, the refuge staff would begin project activities in uninfested 

areas before working in pest-infested areas. 

o The refuge staff would locate and use pest-free project staging areas. They would avoid 

or minimize travel through pest-infested areas, or restrict to those periods when spread of 

seed or propagules of invasive plants would be least likely. 

o The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when appropriate, identify sanitation 

sites where equipment can be cleaned of pests. Where possible, the refuge staff would 

clean equipment before entering lands at on-refuge approved cleaning site(s). This 

practice does not pertain to vehicles traveling frequently in and out of the project area 

that will remain on roadways. Seeds and plant parts of pest plants would need to be 

collected, where practical. The refuge staff would remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from 

project equipment before moving it into a project area. 

o The refuge staff would clean all equipment, before leaving the project site, if operating in 

areas infested with pests. The refuge staff would determine the need for, and when 

appropriate, identify sanitation sites where equipment can be cleaned. 

o Refuge staffs, their authorized agents, and refuge volunteers would, where possible, 

inspect, remove, and properly dispose of seed and parts of invasive plants found on their 

clothing and equipment. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and 

then properly discarding of them (e.g., incinerating). 

o The refuge staff would evaluate options, including closure, to restrict the traffic on sites 

with on-going restoration of desired vegetation. The refuge staff would revegetate 

disturbed soil (except travel ways on surfaced projects) to optimize plant establishment 

for each specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, 




fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching as necessary. The refuge staff would use 

native material, where appropriate and feasible. The refuge staff would use certified 

weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where certified materials are reasonably 

available. 

o The refuge staff would provide information, training and appropriate pest identification 

materials to refuge staffs, permit holders, and recreational visitors. The refuge staff 

would educate them about pest identification, biology, impacts, and effective prevention 

measures. 

o The refuge staff would inspect borrowed material for invasive plants prior to use and 

transport onto and/or within refuge lands. 

o The refuge staff would consider invasive plants in planning for road maintenance 

activities. 

o The refuge staff would restrict off road travel to designated routes. 

o In order to confine potential weed introductions to frequently monitored areas, visitors 

will restrict their activities to roads and established trails whenever possible. 

o Permittees and visitors will implement precautions to prevent the introduction of alien 

plants and arthropods to the Refuge. Vehicles, boots, clothing, day packs, photographic 

gear and equipment must be cleaned and inspected for seeds, insects, eggs, larvae, etc. 

prior to entry. 

o All researchers and assistants must have and use Refuge-dedicated rain gear, packs and 

boots. This equipment is to be used and stored only at the Refuge. 

These prevention methods to minimize/eliminate the introduction and/or spread of pests were 

taken verbatim or slightly modified from Appendix E of US Forest Service (2005). 

• Mechanical/Physical Methods. These methods would remove and destroy, disrupt the growth 

of, or interfere with the reproduction of pest species. For plants species, these treatments can be 

accomplished by hand, hand tool (manual), or power tools (mechanical) and include pulling, 

grubbing, digging, tilling/disking, cutting, swathing, grinding, sheering, girdling, mowing, and 

mulching of the pest plants. 

For animal species, Service employees or their authorized agents could use mechanical/physical 

methods (including trapping) to control pests as a refuge management activity. Based upon 50 

CFR 31.2, trapping can be used on a refuge to reduce surplus wildlife populations for a “balanced 

conservation program” in accordance with Federal or state laws and regulations. In some cases, 

non-lethally trapped animals would be relocated to off-refuge sites with prior approval from the 

state. 

Each of these tools would be efficacious to some degree and applicable to specific situations. In 

general, mechanical controls can effectively control annual and biennial pest plants. However, to 

control perennial plants, the root system has to be destroyed or it would resprout and continue to 

grow and develop. Mechanical controls are typically not capable of destroying a perennial 

plant’s root system. Although some mechanical tools (e.g., disking, plowing) may damage root 

systems, they may stimulate regrowth producing a denser plant population that may aid in the 

spread depending upon the target species. In addition, steep terrain and soil conditions would be 

major factors that can limit the use of many mechanical control methods. 




Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), used in combination with herbicides, can be a 

very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing perennial plants 

followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide often would 

improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide only treatment. 

• Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest 

mortality by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods could include water-level 

manipulation, mulching, winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest impact, 

prescribed burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist 

in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, crop rotations that 

would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition of beneficial insect habitat, 

reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable species to shade or outcompete 

invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation, prescriptive grazing, 

and other habitat alterations. 

• Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate 

introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce 

pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the 

United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, which are free from 

natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a competitive advantage 

over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often allows introduced species 

to flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to crops or out compete and 

displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species population reaches a certain level, 

traditional methods of pest management may be cost-prohibitive or impractical. Biological 

controls typically are used when these pest populations have become so widespread that 

eradication or effective control would be difficult or no longer practical. 

Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing 

pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low 

cost/acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to 

hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. 

Disadvantages would include the following: limited availability of agents from their native 

lands, the dependence of control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, 

biotype matching, the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host 

specificity when host populations are low. 

A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and 

efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does work 

well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to 

survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially 

understood or not at all. 

Biological control agents will not completely eradicate a target pest. When using biological 

control agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level 

or survival would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, 

the population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural 

cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a 




biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the 

agents search behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. 

The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include 

diseases, invertebrates, vertebrates and invasive plants (most common group). Often it is 

assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest problems. There 

are several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive weed species in the 

Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. Johnswort (Klamath weed) and tansy 

ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, 

purple loosestrife, and yellow star thistle. In Hawai‘i, it would include banana poka and 

Eurythrina gall wasps. However, historically, each new introduction of a biological control agent 

in the United States has only about a 30% success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). Refer to Coombs et 

al. (2004) for the status of biological control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific Northwest. 

Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be 

selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related 

plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, Hasan and 

Ayres 1990). 

The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. 

Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by EPA under 

FIFRA, most biological control agents are regulated by the US Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS- 

PPQ). State departments of agriculture and, in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or 

weed districts, have additional approval authority. 

Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents from 

another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: 

or 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ 

Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 

4700 River Road, Unit 113 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

through the internet at URL address: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/organism/plantpest_howtoapply.shtml 

The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, 

safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. 

State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or 

they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial 

sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds 

(USDA-PPQ Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support, 

4700 River Road, Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific biological control agents in 

a state and/or county. Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity 

(genus, specific epithet, sub-species and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and 

biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. 




Biological control agents are subject to 7 RM 8 (Exotic Species Introduction and Management). 

In addition, the refuge staff would follow the International Code of Best Practice for Classical 

Biological Control of Weeds (http://sric.ucdavis.edu/exotic /exotic.htm) as ratified by delegates 

to the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, July 9, 1999. 

This code identifies the following: 

o Release only approved biological control agents; 

o Use the most effective agents; 

o Document releases; and 

o Monitor for impact to the target pest, and nontarget species and the environment. 

Biological control agents formulated as pesticide products and registered by the EPA (e.g., Bti) 

are also subject to PUP review and approval (see below). 

A record of all releases would be maintained with date(s), location(s), and environmental 

conditions of the release site(s); the identity, quantity, and condition of the biological control 

agents released; and other relevant data and comments such as weather conditions. Systematic 

monitoring to determine the establishment and effectiveness of the release is also recommended. 

The NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control 

agents prepared by another federal agency, where the scope is relevant to evaluation of releases 

on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible source agencies for such NEPA documents include 

the Bureau of Land Management, USFS, National Park Service, USDA-APHIS, and the military 

services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference parts or all of existing document(s) 

from the review. Incorporating by reference (43 CFR 46.135) is a technique used to avoid 

redundancies in analysis. It also can reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, which only 

must identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant portions 

must be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the 

decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the 

current analysis. 

• Pesticides. The selective use of pesticides would be based upon pest ecology (including mode of 

reproduction), the size and distribution of its populations, site-specific conditions (e.g., soils, 

topography), known efficacy under similar site conditions, and the capability to utilize best 

management practices (BMPs) to reduce/eliminate potential effects to non-target species, 

sensitive habitats, and potential to contaminate surface and groundwater. All pesticide usage 

(pesticide, target species, application rate, and method of application) would comply with the 

applicable federal (FIFRA) and state regulations pertaining to pesticide use, safety, storage, 

disposal, and reporting. Before pesticides can be used to eradicate, control, or contain pests on 

refuge lands and waters, pesticide use proposals (PUPs) would be prepared and approved in 

accordance with 569 FW 1. The PUP records would provide a detailed, time-, site-, and targetspecific 

description of the proposed use of pesticides on the refuge. All PUPs would be created, 

approved or disapproved, and stored in the Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS), which is a 

centralized database only accessible on the Service’s intranet (https://systems.fws.gov/pups). 

Only Service employees would be authorized to access PUP records for a refuge in this database. 

Application equipment would be selected to provide site-specific delivery to target pests while 

minimizing/eliminating direct or indirect (e.g., drift) exposure to non-target areas and 

degradation of surface and groundwater quality. Where possible, target-specific equipment (e.g., 




backpack sprayer, wiper) would be used to treat target pests. Other target-specific equipment to 

apply pesticides would include soaked wicks or paint brushes for wiping vegetation and lances, 

hatchets, or syringes for direct injection into stems. Granular pesticides may be applied using 

seeders or other specialized dispensers. In contrast, aerial spraying (e.g., fixed wing or 

helicopter) would only be used where access is difficult (remoteness) and/or the size/distribution 

of infestations precludes practical use of ground-based methods. 

Because repeated use of one pesticide may allow resistant organisms to survive and reproduce, 

multiple pesticides with variable modes of action would be considered for treatments on refuge 

lands and waters. This is especially important if multiple applications within years and/or over a 

growing season likely would be necessary for habitat maintenance and restoration activities to 

achieve resource objectives. Integrated chemical and non-chemical controls also are highly 

effective, where practical, because pesticide resistant organisms can be removed from the site. 

Cost may not be the primary factor in selecting a pesticide for use on a refuge. If the least 

expensive pesticide would potentially harm natural resources or people, then a different product 

would be selected, if available. The most efficacious pesticide available with the least potential 

to degrade environment quality (soils, surface water, and groundwater) as well as least potential 

effect to native species and communities of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats would be 

acceptable for use on refuge lands in the context of an IPM approach. 

• Habitat restoration/maintenance. Restoration and/or proper maintenance of refuge habitats 

associated with achieving wildlife and habitat objectives would be essential for long-term 

prevention, eradication, or control (at or below threshold levels) of pests. Promoting desirable 

plant communities through the manipulation of species composition, plant density, and growth 

rate is an essential component of invasive plant management (Masters et al. 1996, Masters and 

Shelly 2001, Brooks et al. 2004). The following three components of succession could be 

manipulated through habitat maintenance and restoration: site availability, species availability, 

and species performance (Cox and Anderson 2004). Although a single method (e.g., herbicide 

treatment) may eliminate or suppress pest species in the short term, the resulting gaps and bare 

soil create niches that are conducive to further invasion by the species and/or other invasive 

plants. On degraded sites where desirable species are absent or in low abundance, revegetation 

with native/desirable grasses, forbs, and legumes may be necessary to direct and accelerate plant 

community recovery, and achieve site-specific objectives in a reasonable time frame. The 

selection of appropriate species for revegetation would be dependent on a number of factors 

including resource objectives and site-specific, abiotic factors (e.g., soil texture, 

precipitation/temperature regimes, and shade conditions). Seed availability and cost, ease of 

establishment, seed production, and competitive ability also would be important considerations. 

4.0 Priorities for Treatments 

For many refuges, the magnitude (number, distribution, and sizes of infestations) for pest problems is 

too extensive and beyond the available capital resources to effectively address during any single field 

season. To manage pests in the refuge, it would be essential to prioritize treatment of infestations. 

Highest priority treatments would be focused on early detection and rapid response to eliminate 

infestations of new pests, if possible. This would be especially important for aggressive pests 

potentially impacting species, species groups, communities, and/or habitats associated refuge 




purpose(s), Refuge System resources of concern (Federally listed species, migratory birds, selected 

marine mammals, and interjurisdictional fish), and native species for maintaining/restoring BIDEH. 

The next priority would be treating established pests that appear in one or more previously uninfested 

areas. Moody and Mack (1988) demonstrated through modeling that small, new outbreaks of 

invasive plants eventually would infest an area larger than the established, source population. They 

also found that control efforts focusing on the large, main infestation rather than the new, small 

satellites reduced the chances of overall success. The lowest priority would be treating large 

infestations (sometimes monotypic stands) of well established pests. In this case, initial efforts 

would focus upon containment of the perimeter followed by work to control/eradicate the established 

infested area. If containment and/or control of a large infestation is not effective, then efforts would 

focus upon halting pest reproduction or managing source populations. Maxwell et al. (2009) found 

treating fewer populations that are sources represents an effective long-term strategy to reduce of 

total number of invasive populations and decreasing meta population growth rates. 

Although state listed noxious weeds would always be of high priority for management, other pest 

species known to cause substantial ecological impact would also be considered. For example, 

cheatgrass may not be listed by a state as noxious, but it can greatly alter fire regimes in shrub steppe 

habitats resulting in large monotypic stands that displace native bunch grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Pest control would likely require a multi-year commitment from the refuge staff. Essential to the 

long-term success of pest management would be pre- and post-treatment monitoring, assessment of 

the successes and failures of treatments, and development of new approaches when proposed 

methods do not achieve desired outcomes. 

5.0 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

The BMPs can minimize or eliminate possible effects associated with pesticide usage to non-target 

species and/or sensitive habitats as well as degradation of water quality from drift, surface runoff, or 

leaching. Based upon the Department of Interior Pesticide Use Policy (517 DM 1) and the Service 

Pest Management Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), the use of applicable BMPs (where 

feasible) also would likely ensure that pesticide uses may not adversely affect federally listed species 

and/or their critical habitats through determinations made using the process described in 50 CFR part 

402. 

The following are BMPs pertaining to mixing/handling and applying pesticides for all ground-based 

treatments of pesticides, which would be considered and utilized, where feasible, based upon target- 

and site-specific factors and time-specific environmental conditions. Although not listed below, the 

most important BMP to eliminate/reduce potential impacts to non-target resources would be an IPM 

approach to prevent, control, eradicate, and contain pests. 

5.1 Pesticide Handling and Mixing 

• As a precaution against spilling, spray tanks would not be left unattended during filling. 

• All pesticide containers would be triple rinsed and the rinsate would be used as water in the 

sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 

• All pesticide spray equipment would be properly cleaned. Where possible, rinsate would be used 

as part of the makeup water in the sprayer tank and applied to treatment areas. 




• The refuge staff would dispose of triple-rinsed pesticide containers per label directions. 

• All unused pesticides would be properly discarded at a local “safe send” collection. 

• Pesticides and pesticide containers would be lawfully stored, handled, and disposed of in 

accordance with the label and in a manner safeguarding human health, fish, and wildlife and 

prevent soil and water contaminant. 

• The refuge staff would consider the water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness) that are 

important to ensure greatest efficacy where specified on the pesticide label. 

• All pesticide spills would be addressed immediately using procedures identified in the refuge 

spill respond plan. 

5.2 Applying Pesticides 

• Pesticide treatments would only be conducted by or under the supervision of Service personnel 

and non-Service applicators with the appropriate, state or Bureau of Land Management 

certification to safely and effectively conduct these activities on refuge lands and waters. 

• The refuge staff would comply with all federal, state, and local pesticide use laws and regulations 

as well as Department, Service, and Refuge System pesticide-related policies. For example, the 

refuge staff would use application equipment and apply rates for the specific pest(s) identified on 

the pesticide label as required under FIFRA. 

• Before each treatment season and prior to mixing or applying any product for the first time each 

season, all applicators would review the labels, MSDSs, and PUPs for each pesticide, 

determining the target pest, appropriate mix rate(s), PPE, and other requirements listed on the 

pesticide label. 

• A 1-ft no-spray buffer from the water’s edge would be used, where applicable, and it does not 

detrimentally influence effective control of pest species. 

• Use low impact herbicide application techniques (e.g., spot treatment, cut stump, oil basal, 

Thinvert system applications) rather than broadcast foliar applications (e.g., boom sprayer, other 

larger tank wand applications), where practical. 

• Use low volume rather than high volume foliar applications where low impact methods above are 

not feasible or practical, to maximize herbicide effectiveness and ensure correct and uniform 

application rates. 

• Applicators would use and adjust spray equipment to apply the coarsest droplet size spectrum 

with optimal coverage of the target species while reducing drift. 

• Applicators would use the largest droplet size that results in uniform coverage. 

• Applicators would use drift reduction technologies such as low-drift nozzles, where possible. 

• Where possible, spraying would occur during low (average



• Spray applications would not be conducted on days with >30% forecast for rain within 6 hours, 

except for pesticides that are rapidly rain fast (e.g., glyphosate in 1 hour) to minimize/eliminate 

potential runoff. 

• Where possible, applicators would use drift retardant adjuvants during spray applications, 

especially adjacent to sensitive areas. 

• Where possible, applicators would use a non-toxic dye to aid in identifying target area treated as 

well as potential over spray or drift. A dye can also aid in detecting equipment leaks. If a leak is 

discovered, the application would be stopped until repairs can be made to the sprayer. 

• For pesticide uses associated with cropland and facilities management, buffers, as appropriate, 

would be used to protect sensitive habitats, especially wetlands and other aquatic habitats. 

• When drift cannot be sufficiently reduced through altering equipment set up and application 

techniques, buffer zones may be identified to protect sensitive areas downwind of applications. 

The refuge staff would only apply adjacent to sensitive areas when the wind is blowing the 

opposite direction. 

• Applicators would utilize scouting for early detection of pests to eliminate unnecessary pesticide 

applications. 

• The refuge staff would consider timing of application so native plants are protected (e.g., 

senescence) while effectively treating invasive plants. 

• Rinsate from cleaning spray equipment after application would be recaptured and reused or 

applied to an appropriate pest plant infestation. 

• Application equipment (e.g., sprayer, all-terrain vehicle, tractor) would be thoroughly cleaned 

and personal protective equipment (PPE) would be removed/disposed of on-site by applicators 

after treatments to eliminate the potential spread of pests to un-infested areas. 

6.0 Safety 

6.1 Personal Protective Equipment 

All applicators would wear the specific PPE identified on the pesticide label. The appropriate PPE 

will be worn at all times during handling, mixing, and applying. PPE can include the following: 

disposable (e.g., Tyvek) or laundered coveralls; gloves (latex, rubber, or nitrile); rubber boots; and/or 

an NIOSH-approved respirator. Because exposure to concentrated product is usually greatest during 

mixing, extra care should be taken while preparing pesticide solutions. Persons mixing these 

solutions can be best protected if they wear long gloves, an apron, footwear, and a face shield. 

Coveralls and other protective clothing used during an application would be laundered separately 

from other laundry items. Transporting, storing, handling, mixing and disposing of pesticide 

containers will be consistent with label requirements, EPA and OSHA requirements, and Service 

policy. 

If a respirator is necessary for a pesticide use, then the following requirements would be met in 

accordance with Service safety policy: a written Respirator Program, fit testing, physical 

examination (including pulmonary function and blood work for contaminants), and proper storage of 

the respirator. 


6.2 Notification 



The restricted entry interval (REI) is the time period required after the application at which point 

someone may safely enter a treated area without PPE. Refuge staff, authorized management agents 

of the Service, volunteers, and members of the public who could be in or near a pesticide treated area 

within the stated re-entry time period on the label would be notified about treatment areas. Posting 

would occur at any site where individuals might inadvertently become exposed to a pesticide during 

other activities on the refuge. Where required by the label and/or state-specific regulations, sites 

would also be posted on its perimeter and at other likely locations of entry. The refuge staff would 

also notify appropriate private property owners of an intended application, including any private 

individuals have requested notification. Special efforts would be made to contact nearby individuals 

who are beekeepers or who have expressed chemical sensitivities. 

6.3 Medical Surveillance 

Medical surveillance may be required for Service personnel and approved volunteers who mix, 

apply, and/or monitor use of pesticides (see 242 FW 7 (Pesticide Users) and 242 FW 4 (Medical 

Surveillance)). In accordance with 242 FW 7.12A, Service personnel would be medically 

monitoring if one or more of the following criteria is met: exposed or may be exposed to 

concentrations at or above the published permissible exposure limits or threshold limit values (see 

242 FW 4); use pesticides in a manner considered “frequent pesticide use”; or use pesticides in a 

manner that requires a respirator (see 242 FW 14 for respirator use requirements). In 242 FW7.7A, 

“Frequent Pesticide Use means when a person applying pesticide handles, mixes, or applies 

pesticides, with a Health Hazard rating of 3 or higher, for 8 or more hours in any week or 16 or more 

hours in any 30-day period.” Under some circumstances, individuals may be medically monitored 

who use pesticides infrequently (see section 7.7), experience an acute exposure (sudden, short-term), 

or use pesticides with a health hazard ranking of 1 or 2. This decision would consider the 

individual’s health and fitness level, the pesticide’s specific health risks, and the potential risks from 

other pesticide-related activities. Refuge cooperators (e.g., cooperative farmers) and other authorized 

agents (e.g., state and county employees) would be responsible for their own medical monitoring 

needs and costs. 

Standard examinations (at refuge expense) of appropriate refuge staff would be provided by the 

nearest certified occupational health and safety physician as determined by Federal Occupational 

Health. 

6.4 Certification and Supervision of Pesticide Applicators 

Appropriate refuge staff or approved volunteers handling, mixing, and/or applying or directly 

supervising others engaged in pesticide use activities would be trained and state or federally (BLM) 

licensed to apply pesticides to refuge lands or waters. In accordance with 242 FW7.18A and 569 FW 

1.10B, certification is required to apply restricted use pesticides based upon EPA regulations. For 

safety reasons, all individuals participating in pest management activities with general use pesticides 

also are encouraged to attend appropriate training or acquire pesticide applicator certification. The 

certification requirement would be for a commercial or private applicator depending upon the state. 

New staff unfamiliar with proper procedures for storing, mixing, handling, applying, and disposing 

of herbicides and containers would receive orientation and training before handling or using any 

products. Documentation of training would be kept in the files at the refuge office. 


6.5 Record Keeping 

6.5.1 Labels and material safety data sheets 



Pesticide labels and material safety data sheets (MSDSs) would be maintained at the refuge shop and 

laminated copies in the mixing area. These documents also would be carried by field applicators, 

where possible. A written reference (e.g., note pad, chalk board, dry erase board) for each tank to be 

mixed would be kept in the mixing area for quick reference while mixing is in progress. In addition, 

approved PUPs stored in the PUPS database typically contain website links (URLs) to pesticide 

labels and MSDSs. 

6.5.2 Pesticide use proposals (PUPs) 

A PUP would be prepared for each proposed pesticide use associated with annual pest management 

on refuge lands and waters. A PUP would include specific information about the proposed pesticide 

use including the common and chemical names of the pesticide(s), target pest species, size and 

location of treatment site(s), application rate(s) and method(s), and federally listed species 

determinations, where applicable. 

In accordance with Service guidelines (Director’s memo (December 12, 2007)), a refuge staff may 

receive up to 5-year approvals for Washington Office and field reviewed proposed pesticide uses 

based upon meeting identified criteria including an approved IPM plan, where necessary (see 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/IPM.cfm). For a refuge, an IPM plan (requirements 

described herein) can be completed independently or in association with a CCP or HMP if IPM 

strategies and potential environmental effects are adequately addressed within appropriate NEPA 

documentation. 

The PUPs would be created, approved or disapproved, and stored as records in the Pesticide Use 

Proposal System (PUPS), which is centralized database on the Service’s intranet 

(https://systems.fws.gov/pups). Only Service employees can access PUP records in this database. 

6.5.3 Pesticide usage 

In accordance with 569 FW 1, the refuge Project Leader would be required to maintain records of all 

pesticides annually applied on lands or waters under refuge jurisdiction. This would encompass 

pesticides applied by other Federal agencies, state and county governments, non-government 

applicators including cooperators and their pest management service providers with Service 

permission. For clarification, pesticide means all insecticides, insect and plant growth regulators, 

dessicants, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, acaricides, nematicides, fumigants, avicides, and 

piscicides. 

The following usage information can be reported for approved PUPs in the PUPS database: 

• Pesticide trade name(s); 

• Active ingredient(s); 

• Total acres treated; 

• Total amount of pesticides used (lbs or gallons); 

• Total amount of active ingredient(s) used (lbs); 


• Target pest(s); and 

• Efficacy (% control). 



To determine whether treatments are efficacious (eradicating, controlling, or containing the target 

pest) and achieving resource objectives, habitat and/or wildlife response would be monitored both 

pre- and post-treatment, where possible. Considering available annual funding and staffing, 

appropriate monitoring data regarding characteristics (attributes) of pest infestations (e.g., area, 

perimeter, degree of infestation-density, % cover, density) as well as habitat and/or wildlife response 

to treatments may be collected and stored in a relational database (e.g., Refuge Habitat Management 

Database), preferably a geo-referenced data management system (e.g., Refuge Lands GIS (RLGIS)) 

to facilitate data analyses and subsequent reporting. In accordance with adaptive management, data 

analysis and interpretation would allow treatments to be modified or changed over time, as 

necessary, to achieve resource objectives considering site-specific conditions in conjunction with 

habitat and/or wildlife responses. Monitoring could also identify short- and long-term impacts to 

natural resources and environmental quality associated with IPM treatments in accordance with 

adaptive management principles identified in 43 CFR 46.145. 

7.0 Evaluating Pesticide Use Proposals 

Pesticides would only be used on refuge lands for habitat management as well as facilities 

maintenance after approval of a PUP. In general, proposed pesticide uses on refuge lands would only 

be approved where there would likely be minor, temporary, or localized effects to fish and wildlife 

species as well as minimal potential to degrade environmental quality. Potential effects to listed and 

non-listed species would be evaluated with quantitative ecological risk assessments and other 

screening measures. Potential effects to environmental quality would be based upon pesticide 

characteristics of environmental fate (water solubility, soil mobility, soil persistence, and 

volatilization) and other quantitative screening tools. Ecological risk assessments as well as 

characteristics of environmental fate and potential to degrade environmental quality for pesticides 

would be documented in Chemical Profiles (see Section 7.5). These profiles would include threshold 

values for quantitative measures of ecological risk assessments and screening tools for environmental 

fate that represent minimal potential effects to species and environmental quality. In general, only 

pesticide uses with appropriate BMPs (see Section 4.0) for habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge lands that would potentially have minor, temporary, or 

localized effects on refuge biological and environmental quality (threshold values not exceeded) 

would be approved. 

7.1 Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment 

An ecological risk assessment process would be used to evaluate potential adverse effects to 

biological resources as a result of a pesticide(s) proposed for use on refuge lands. It is an established 

quantitative and qualitative methodology for comparing and prioritizing risks of pesticides and 

conveying an estimate of the potential risk for an adverse effect. This quantitative methodology 

provides an efficient mechanism to integrate best available scientific information regarding hazard, 

patterns of use (exposure), and dose-response relationships in a manner that is useful for ecological 

risk decision-making. It would provide an effective way to evaluate potential effects where there is 

missing or unavailable scientific information (data gaps) to address reasonable, foreseeable adverse 

effects in the field as required under 40 CFR Part 1502.22. Protocols for ecological risk assessment 




of pesticide uses on the refuge were developed through research and established by the EPA (2004). 

Assumptions for these risk assessments are presented in Section 6.2.3. 

The toxicological data used in ecological risk assessments are typically results of standardized 

laboratory studies provided by pesticide registrants to the EPA to meet regulatory requirements under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1996 (FIFRA). These studies assess the 

acute (lethality) and chronic (reproductive) effects associated with short- and long-term exposure to 

pesticides on representative species of birds, mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and 

terrestrial and aquatic plants. Other effects data publicly available would also be utilized for risk 

assessment protocols described herein. Toxicity endpoint and environmental fate data are available 

from a variety of resources. Some of the more useful resources can be found in 

Section 7.5. 

Table 1. Ecotoxicity tests used to evaluate potential effects to birds, fish, and mammals to establish 

toxicity endpoints for risk quotient calculations. 

Species Group Exposure Measurement endpoint 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Bird 

Chronic 

No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or 

No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) 1 

Acute Median Lethal Concentration (LC50) 

Fish 

Chronic 



Mammal 

Acute 

Chronic 

Oral Lethal Dose (LD50) 



1 

Measurement endpoints typically include a variety of reproductive parameters (e.g., number of 

eggs, number of offspring, eggshell thickness, and number of cracked eggs). 

2 

Measurement endpoints for early life stage/life cycle typically include embryo hatch rates, time 

to hatch, growth, and time to swim-up. 

3 

Measurement endpoints include maternal toxicity, teratogenic effects or developmental 

anomalies, evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and interference with cellular mechanisms 

such as DNA synthesis and DNA repair. 

7.2 Determining Ecological Risk to Fish and Wildlife 

The potential for pesticides used on the refuge to cause direct adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

would be evaluated using EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Process (2004). This deterministic 

approach, which is based upon a two-phase process involving estimation of environmental 

concentrations and then characterization of risk, would be used for ecological risk assessments. This 

method integrates exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentration (EEC) and 

toxicological endpoints (e.g., LC50 and oral LD50)) to evaluate the potential for adverse effects to 

species groups (birds, mammals, and fish) representative of legal mandates for managing units of the 

Refuge System. This integration is achieved through risk quotients (RQs) calculated by dividing the 

EEC by acute and chronic toxicity values selected from standardized toxicological endpoints or 

published effect (Table 1). 




RQ = EEC/Toxicological Endpoint 

The level of risk associated with direct effects of pesticide use would be characterized by comparing 

calculated RQs to the appropriate Level of Concern (LOC) established by EPA (1998 (Table 2)). 

The LOC represents a quantitative threshold value for screening potential adverse effects to fish and 

wildlife resources associated with pesticide use. The following are four exposure-species group 

scenarios that would be used to characterize ecological risk to fish and wildlife on the refuge: acutelisted 

species, acute-nonlisted species, chronic-listed species, and chronic-nonlisted species. 

Acute risk would indicate the potential for mortality associated with short-term dietary exposure to 

pesticides immediately after an application. For characterization of acute risks, median values from 

LC50 and LD50 tests would be used as toxicological endpoints for RQ calculations. In contrast, 

chronic risks would indicate the potential for adverse effects associated with long-term dietary 

exposure to pesticides from a single application or multiple applications over time (within a season 

and over years). For characterization of chronic risks, the no observed concentration (NOAEC) or no 

observed effect concentration (NOEC) for reproduction would be used as toxicological endpoints for 

RQ calculations. Where available, the NOAEC would be preferred over a NOEC value. 

Listed species are those federally designated as threatened, endangered, or proposed in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884, as amended-Public Law 

93-205). For listed species, potential adverse effects would be assessed at the individual level 

because loss of individuals from a population could detrimentally impact a species. In contrast, risks 

to nonlisted species would consider effects at the population level. A RQLOC would indicate a “may affect, likely to adversely 

affect” for listed species and it would also pose unacceptable ecological risk for adverse effects to 

nonlisted species. 

Table 2. Presumption of unacceptable risk for birds, fish, and mammals (US Environmental 

Protection Agency 1998). 

Risk Presumption Level of Concern 

Listed Species Non-listed Species 

Acute Birds 0.1 0.5 

Fish 0.05 0.5 

Mammals 0.1 0.5 

Chronic Birds 1.0 1.0 

Fish 1.0 1.0 

Mammals 1.0 1.0 


7.2.1 Environmental exposure 



Following release into the environment through application, pesticides would experience several 

different routes of environmental fate. Pesticides which would be sprayed can move through the air 

(e.g., particle or vapor drift) and may eventually end up in other parts of the environment such as 

non-target vegetation, soil, or water. Pesticides applied directly to the soil may be washed off the 

soil into nearby bodies of surface water (e.g., surface runoff) or may percolate through the soil to 

lower soil layers and groundwater (e.g., leaching) (Baker and Miller 1999, Pope et. al. 1999, Butler 

et. al. 1998, Ramsay et. al. 1995, EXTOXNET 1993a). Pesticides which would be injected into the 

soil may also be subject to the latter two fates. The aforementioned possibilities are by no means 

complete, but it does indicate movement of pesticides in the environment is very complex with 

transfers occurring continually among different environmental compartments. In some cases, these 

exchanges occur not only between areas that are close together, but it also may involve transportation 

of pesticides over long distances (Barry 2004, Woods 2004). 

7.2.1.1 Terrestrial exposure 

The estimated environmental concentration (ECC) for exposure to terrestrial wildlife would be 

quantified using an USEPA screening-level approach (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). 

This screening-level approach is not affected by product formulation because it evaluates pesticide 

active ingredient(s). This approach would vary depending upon the proposed pesticide application 

method: spray or granular. 

7.2.1.1.1 Terrestrial-spray application 

For spray applications, exposure would be determined using the Kanaga nomogram method (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005a, US Environmental Protection Agency 2004, Pfleeger et al. 

1996) through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) version 1.2.3 (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005b). To estimate the maximum (initial) pesticide residue on 

short grass (



output from the T-REX Kanaga nomogram would be used as an EEC for calculation of RQs. This 

approach would yield a conservative estimate of ecological risk. 

Table 3. Average body weight of selected terrestrial wildlife species frequently used in research to 

establish toxicological endpoints (Dunning 1984). 

Species Body Weight (kg) 

Mammal (15 g) 0.015 

House sparrow 0.0277 

Mammal (35 g) 0.035 

Starling 0.0823 

Red-winged blackbird 0.0526 

Common grackle 0.114 

Japanese quail 0.178 

Bobwhite quail 0.178 

Rat 0.200 

Rock dove (aka pigeon) 0.542 

Mammal (1000 g) 1.000 

Mallard 1.082 

Ring-necked pheasant 1.135 

7.2.1.1.2 Terrestrial – granular application 

Granular pesticide formulations and pesticide-treated seed would pose a unique route of exposure for 

avian and mammalian species. The pesticide is applied in discrete units which birds or mammals 

might ingest accidentally with food items or intentionally as in the case of some bird species actively 

seeking and picking up gravel or grit to aid digestion or seed as a food source. Granules may also be 

consumed by wildlife foraging on earthworms, slugs or other soft-bodied soil organisms to which the 

granules may adhere. 

Terrestrial wildlife RQs for granular formulations or seed treatments would be calculated by dividing 

the maximum milligrams of active ingredient (ai) exposed (e.g., EEC) on the surface of an area equal 

to 1 square foot by the appropriate LD50 value multiplied by the surrogate’s body weight (Table 3). 

An adjustment to surface area calculations would be made for broadcast, banded, and in-furrow 

applications. An adjustment also would be made for applications with and without incorporation of 

the granules. Without incorporation, it would be assumed that 100% of the granules remain on the 

soil surface available to foraging birds and mammals. Press wheels push granules flat with the soil 

surface, but they are not incorporated into the soil. If granules are incorporated in the soil during 

band or T-band applications or after broadcast applications, it would be assumed only 15% of the 

applied granules remain available to wildlife. It would be assumed that only 1% of the granules are 

available on the soil surface following in-furrow applications. 

EECs for pesticides applied in granular form and as seed treatments would be determined 

considering potential ingestion rates of avian or mammalian species (e.g., 10-30% body weight/day). 

This would provide an estimate of maximum exposure that may occur as a result of granule or seed 

treatment spills such as those that commonly occur at end rows during application and planting. The 

availability of granules and seed treatments to terrestrial vertebrates would also be considered by 




calculating the loading per unit area (LD50/ft 2 ) for comparison to USEPA Level of Concerns (US 

Environmental Protection Agency 1998). The 

T-REX version 1.2.3 (US Environmental Protection Agency 2005b) contains a submodel which 

automates Kanaga exposure calculations for granular pesticides and treated seed. 

The following formulas will be used to calculate EECs depending upon the type of granular pesticide 

application: 

• In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft. 2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lbs)(1% exposed))] / {[(43,560 ft. 2 

/acre)/(row 

spacing (ft.))] / (row spacing (ft.)} 

or 

mg a.i./ft 2 

= [(lbs product/1000 ft. row)(% a.i.)(1000 ft row)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1% exposed) 

Where: 

EEC = [(mg a.i./ft. 2 

)(% of pesticide biologically available)] 

• Incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, seeds are unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft. 2 

= [(lbs. product/1000 row ft.)(% a.i.)(453,580 mg/lb.)(1-% incorporated)] / (1,000 

ft.)(band width (ft.)) 



• Broadcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are 

unincorporated. 

mg a.i./ft. 2 

= [(lbs. product/acre)(% a.i.)(453,590 mg/lb.)] / (43,560 ft. 2 

/acre) 



• % of pesticide biologically available = 100% without species specific ingestion rates 

• Conversion for calculating mg a.i./ft. 2 

using ounces: 453,580 mg/lb. /16 = 28,349 mg/oz. 

The following equation would used to calculate a RQ based on the EEC calculated by one of the 

above equations. The EEC would divided by the surrogate LD50 toxicological endpoint multiplied by 

the body weight (Table 3) of the surrogate. 

RQ = EEC / [LD 50 (mg/kg) * body weight (kg)] 

As with other risk assessments, a RQ>LOC would be a presumption of unacceptable ecological risk. 

A RQ

7.2.1.2 Aquatic exposure 



Exposures to aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands, meadows, ephemeral pools, water delivery ditches) 

would be evaluated separately for ground-based pesticide treatments of habitats managed for fish and 

wildlife compared with cropland/facilities maintenance (for Hakalau Forest NWR, this would be 

streams and bogs). The primary exposure pathway for aquatic organisms from any ground-based 

treatments likely would be particle drift during the pesticide application. However, different 

exposure scenarios would be necessary as a result of contrasting application equipment and 

techniques as well as pesticides used to control pests on agricultural lands (especially those cultivated 

by cooperative farmers for economic return from crop yields) (not applicable to Hakalau Forest 

NWR) and facilities maintenance (e.g., roadsides, parking lots, trails) compared with other managed 

habitats on the refuge. In addition, pesticide applications may be done



Lbs/acre EEC (ppb) 

5.00 1839 

6.00 2207 

7.00 2575 

8.00 2943 

9.00 3311 

10.00 3678 

7.2.1.2.2 Cropland/facilities maintenance treatments 

Field drift studies conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, which is a joint project of several 

agricultural chemical businesses, were used to develop a generic spray drift database. From this 

database, the AgDRIFT computer model was created to satisfy USEPA pesticide registration spray 

drift data requirements and as a scientific basis to evaluate off-target movement of pesticides from 

particle drift and assess potential effects of exposure to wildlife. Several versions of the computer 

model have been developed (i.e., v2.01 through v2.10). The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT® 

model version 2.01 (SDTF 2003, AgDRIFT 2001) would be used to derive EECs resulting from drift 

of pesticides to refuge aquatic resources from ground-based pesticide applications >25 feet from the 

high water mark. The Spray Drift Task Force AgDRIFT model is publicly available at 

http://www.agdrift.com. At this website, click “AgDRIFT 2.0” and then click “Download Now” and 

follow the instructions to obtain the computer model. 

The AgDRIFT model is composed of submodels called tiers. Tier I Ground submodel would be used 

to assess ground-based applications of pesticides. Tier outputs (EECs) would be calculated with 

AgDRIFT using the following input variables: max application rate (acid basis [see above]), low 

boom (20 inches), fine to medium droplet size, EPA-defined wetland, and a 

≥25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. No croplands exist for Hakalau Forest NWR. 

7.2.2 Use of information on effects of biological control agents, pesticides, degradates, and 

adjuvants 

NEPA documents regarding biological and other environmental effects of biological control agents, 

pesticides, degradates, and adjuvants prepared by another federal agency, where the scope would be 

relevant to evaluation of effects from pesticide uses on refuge lands, would be reviewed. Possible 

source agencies for such NEPA documents would include the Bureau of Land Management, US 

Forest Service, National Park Service, US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, and the military services. It might be appropriate to incorporate by reference 

parts or all of existing document(s). Incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) is a technique 

used to avoid redundancies in analysis. It also would reduce the bulk of a Service NEPA document, 

which only would identify the documents that are incorporated by reference. In addition, relevant 

portions would be summarized in the Service NEPA document to the extent necessary to provide the 

decision maker and public with an understanding of relevance of the referenced material to the 

current analysis. 

In accordance with the requirements set forth in 43 CFR 46.135, the Service would specifically 

incorporate through reference ecological risk assessments prepared by the US Forest Service 




(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/Risk-Assessments/Herbicides-Analyzed-InvPlant- 

EIS.htm) and Bureau of Land Management (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html). 

These risk assessments and associated documentation also are available in total with the 

administrative record for the Final Environmental Impact Statement entitled Pacific Northwest 

Region Invasive Plant Program – Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (US Forest Service 

2005) and Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS (PEIS) (Bureau of Land Management 2007). In accordance with 

43 CRF 46.120(d), use of existing NEPA documents by supplementing, tiering to, incorporating by 

reference, or adopting previous NEPA environmental analyses would avoid redundancy and 

unnecessary paperwork. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide and adjuvant uses prepared by the US Forest 

Service would be incorporated by reference: 

• 2,4-D; 

• Chlorosulfuron; 

• Clopyralid; 

• Dicamba; 

• Glyphosate; 

• Imazapic; 

• Imazapyr; 

• Metsulfuron methyl; 

• Picloram; 

• Sethoxydim; 

• Sulfometuron methyl; 

• Triclopyr; and 

• Nonylphenol polyethylate (NPE) based surfactants. 

As a basis for completing “Chemical Profiles” for approving or disapproving refuge PUPs, 

ecological risk assessments for the following herbicide uses as well as evaluation of risks associated 

with pesticide degradates and adjuvants prepared by the Bureau of Land Management would be 

incorporated by reference: 

• Bromacil; 

• Chlorsulfuron; 

• Diflufenzopyr; 

• Diquat; 

• Diuron; 

• Fluridone; 

• Imazapic; 

• Overdrive (diflufenzopyr and dicamba); 

• Sulfometuron methyl; 

• Tebuthiuron; 

• Pesticide degradates and adjuvants (Appendix D – Evaluation of risks from degradates, 

polyoxyethylene-amine (POEA) and R-11, and endocrine disrupting chemicals). 


7.2.3 Assumptions for ecological risk assessments 



There are a number of assumptions involved with the ecological risk assessment process for 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms associated with utilization of the US Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (2004) process. These assumptions may be risk neutral or may lead to an over- or underestimation 

of risk from pesticide exposure depending upon site-specific conditions. The following 

describes these assumptions, their application to the conditions typically encountered, and whether or 

not they may lead to recommendations that are risk neutral, underestimate, or overestimate ecological 

risk from potential pesticide exposure. 

• Indirect effects would not be evaluated by ecological risk assessments. These effects include the 

mechanisms of indirect exposure to pesticides: consuming prey items (fish, birds, or small 

mammals), reductions in the availability of prey items, and disturbance associated with pesticide 

application activities. 

• Exposure to a pesticide product can be assessed based upon the active ingredient. However, 

exposure to a chemical mixture (pesticide formulation) may result in effects that are similar or 

substantially different compared to only the active ingredient. Non-target organisms may be 

exposed directly to the pesticide formulation or only various constituents of the formulation as 

they dissipate and partition in the environment. If toxicological information for both the active 

ingredient and formulated product are available, then data representing the greatest potential 

toxicity would be selected for use in the risk assessment process (US Environmental Protection 

Agency 2004). As a result, this conservative approach may lead to an overestimation of risk 

characterization from pesticide exposure. 

• Because toxicity tests with listed or candidate species or closely related species are not available, 

data for surrogate species would be most often used for risk assessments. Specifically, bobwhite 

quail and mallard duck are the most frequently used surrogates for evaluating potential toxicity to 

federally listed avian species. Bluegill sunfish, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow are the most 

common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for freshwater fishes. However, sheep’s head minnow 

can be an appropriate surrogate marine species for coastal environments. Rats and mice are the 

most common surrogates for evaluating toxicity for mammals. Interspecies sensitivity is a major 

source of uncertainty in pesticide assessments. As a result of this uncertainty, data is selected for 

the most sensitive species tested within a taxonomic group (birds, fish, and mammals) given the 

quality of the data is acceptable. If additional toxicity data for more species of organisms in a 

particular group are available, the selected data will not be limited to the species previously listed 

as common surrogates. 

• The Kanaga nomogram outputs maximum EEC values that may be used to calculate an average 

daily concentration over a specified interval of time, which is referred to as a time-weightedaverage 

(TWA). The maximum EEC would be selected as the exposure input for both acute and 

chronic risk assessments in the screening-level evaluations. The initial or maximum EEC 

derived from the Kanaga nomogram represents the maximum expected instantaneous or acute 

exposure to a pesticide. Acute toxicity endpoints are determined using a single exposure to a 

known pesticide concentration typically for 48 to 96 hours. This value is assumed to represent 

ecological risk from acute exposure to a pesticide. On the other hand, chronic risk to pesticide 

exposure is a function of pesticide concentration and duration of exposure to the pesticide. An 

organism’s response to chronic pesticide exposure may result from either the concentration of the 

pesticide, length of exposure, or some combination of both factors. Standardized tests for 

chronic toxicity typically involve exposing an organism to several different pesticide 

concentrations for a specified length of time (days, weeks, months, years or generations). For 




example, avian reproduction tests include a 10-week exposure phase. Because a single length of 

time is used in the test, time response data is usually not available for inclusion into risk 

assessments. Without time response data it is difficult to determine the concentration which 

elicited a toxicological response. 

• Using maximum EECs for chronic risk estimates may result in an overestimate of risk, 

particularly for compounds that dissipate rapidly. Conversely, using TWAs for chronic risk 

estimates may underestimate risk if it is the concentration rather than the duration of exposure 

that is primarily responsible for the observed adverse effect. The maximum EEC would be used 

for chronic risk assessments although it may result in an overestimate of risk. TWAs may be 

used for chronic risk assessments, but they will be applied judiciously considering the potential 

for an underestimate or overestimate of risk. For example, the number of days exposure exceeds 

a Level of Concern may influence the suitability of a pesticide use. The greater the number of 

days the EEC exceeds the Level of Concern translates into greater the ecological risk. This is a 

qualitative assessment, and is subject to reviewer’s expertise in ecological risk assessment and 

tolerance for risk. 

• The length of time used to calculate the TWA can have a substantial effect on the exposure 

estimates and there is no standard method for determining the appropriate duration for this 

estimate. The T-REX model assumes a 21-week exposure period, which is equivalent to avian 

reproductive studies designed to establish a steady-state concentration for bioaccumulative 

compounds. However, this does not necessarily define the true exposure duration needed to elicit 

a toxicological response. Pesticides, which do not bioaccumulate, may achieve a steady-state 

concentration earlier than 21 weeks. The duration of time for calculating TWAs will require 

justification and it will not exceed the duration of exposure in the chronic toxicity test 

(approximately 70 days for the standard avian reproduction study). An alternative to using the 

duration of the chronic toxicity study is to base the TWA on the application interval. In this case, 

increasing the application interval would suppress both the estimated peak pesticide 

concentration and the TWA. Another alternative to using TWAs would be to consider the 

number of days that a chemical is predicted to exceed the LOC. 

• Pesticide dissipation is assumed to be first-order in the absence of data suggesting alternative 

dissipation patterns such as bi-phasic. Field dissipation data would generally be the most 

pertinent for assessing exposure in terrestrial species that forage on vegetation. However, this 

data is often not available and it can be misleading particularly if the compound is prone to 

“wash-off”. Soil half-life is the most common degradation data available. Dissipation or 

degradation data that would reflect the environmental conditions typical of refuge lands would be 

utilized, if available. 

• For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable fraction 

of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water column. 

• Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is 

assumed that species exclusively and permanently occupy the treated area, or adjacent areas 

receiving pesticide at rates commensurate with the treatment rate. This assumption would 

produce a maximum estimate of exposure for risk characterization. This assumption would 

likely lead to an overestimation of exposure for species that do not permanently and exclusively 

occupy the treated area (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). 

• Exposure through incidental ingestion of pesticide contaminated soil is not considered in the 

USEPA risk assessment protocols. Research suggests



nomogram indicates incidental soil ingestion will not likely increase dietary exposure to 

pesticides. Inclusion of soil into the diet would effectively reduce the overall dietary 

concentration compared to the present assumption that the entire diet consists a contaminated 

food source (Fletcher et al. 1994). An exception to this may be soil-applied pesticides in which 

exposure from incidental ingestion of soil may increase. Potential for pesticide exposure under 

this assumption may be underestimated for soil-applied pesticides and overestimated for foliarapplied 

pesticides. The concentration of a pesticide in soil would likely be less than predicted on 

food items. 

• Exposure through inhalation of pesticides is not considered in the USEPA risk assessment 

protocols. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: spray material in droplet 

form at time of application, vapor phase with the pesticide volatilizing from treated surfaces, and 

airborne particulates (soil, vegetative matter, and pesticide dusts). The USEPA (1990) reported 

exposure from inhaling spray droplets at the time of application is not an appreciable route of 

exposure for birds. According to research on mallards and bobwhite quail, respirable particle size 

(particles reaching the lung) in birds is limited to maximum diameter of 2 to 5 microns. The 

spray droplet spectra covering the majority of pesticide application scenarios indicate that less 

than 1% of the applied material is within the respirable particle size. This route of exposure is 

further limited because the permissible spray drop size distribution for ground pesticide 

applications is restricted to ASAE medium or coarser drop size distribution. 

• Inhalation of a pesticide in the vapor phase may be another source of exposure for some 

pesticides under certain conditions. This mechanism of exposure to pesticides occurs post 

application and it would pertain to those pesticides with a high vapor pressure. The USEPA is 

currently evaluating protocols for modeling inhalation exposure from pesticides including nearfield 

and near-ground air concentrations based upon equilibrium and kinetics-based models. Risk 

characterization for exposure with this mechanism is unavailable. 

• The effect from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed generically 

as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties of the applied 

pesticides render the exposure potential from this route highly situation specific. 

• Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: direct application of spray to 

terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, incidental contact with 

contaminated vegetation, or contact with contaminated water or soil. Interception of spray and 

incidental contact with treated substrates may pose risk to avian wildlife (Driver et al. 1991). 

However, available research related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides is extremely 

limited, except dermal toxicity values are common for some mammals used as human surrogates 

(rats and mice). The USEPA is currently evaluating protocols for modeling dermal exposure. 

Risk characterization may be underestimated for this route of exposure, particularly with high 

risk pesticides such as some organophosphates or carbamate insecticides. If protocols are 

established by the USEPA for assessing dermal exposure to pesticides, they will be considered 

for incorporation into pesticide assessment protocols. 

• Exposure to a pesticide may occur from consuming surface water, dew or other water on treated 

surfaces. Water soluble pesticides have potential to dissolve in surface runoff and puddles in a 

treated area may contain pesticide residues. Similarly, pesticides with lower organic carbon 

partitioning characteristics and higher solubility in water have a greater potential to dissolve in 

dew and other water associated with plant surfaces. Estimating the extent to which such 

pesticide loadings to drinking water occurs is complex and would depend upon the partitioning 

characteristics of the active ingredient, soils types in the treatment area, and the meteorology of 

the treatment area. In addition, the use of various water sources by wildlife is highly species- 




specific. Currently, risk characterization for this exposure mechanism is not available. The 

USEPA is actively developing protocols to quantify drinking water exposures from puddles and 

dew. If and when protocols are formally established by the USEPA for assessing exposure to 

pesticides through drinking water, these protocols will be incorporated into pesticide risk 

assessment protocols. 

• Risk assessments are based upon the assumption that the entire treatment area would be subject 

to pesticide application at the rates specified on the label. In most cases, there is potential for 

uneven application of pesticides through such plausible incidents such as changes in calibration 

of application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific areas in or near the treated 

field that are associated with mixing and handling and application equipment as well as 

applicator skill. Inappropriate use of pesticides and the occurrence of spills represent a potential 

underestimate of risk. It is likely not an important factor for risk characterization. All pesticide 

applicators are required to be certified by the state in which they apply pesticides. Certification 

training includes the safe storage, transport, handling, and mixing of pesticides, equipment 

calibration and proper application with annual continuing education. 

• The USEPA relies on Fletcher (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife 

dietary items. The USEPA (2004) “believes that these residue assumptions reflect a realistic 

upper-bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a specific 

percentile estimate is difficult to quantify”. Fletcher’s (1994) research suggests that the pesticide 

active ingredient residue assumptions used by the USEPA represent a 95 th 

percentile estimate. 

However, research conducted by Pfleeger et al. (1996) indicates USEPA residue assumptions for 

short grass was not exceeded. Baehr and Habig (2000) compared USEPA residue assumptions 

with distributions of measured pesticide residues for the USEPA’s UTAB database. Overall 

residue selection level will tend to overestimate risk characterization. This is particularly evident 

when wildlife individuals are likely to have selected a variety of food items acquired from 

multiple locations. Some food items may be contaminated with pesticide residues whereas others 

are not contaminated. However, it is important to recognize differences in species feeding 

behavior. Some species may consume whole above-ground plant material, but others will 

preferentially select different plant structures. Also, species may preferentially select a food item 

although multiple food items may be present. Without species specific knowledge regarding 

foraging behavior characterizing ecological risk other than in general terms is not possible. 

• Acute and chronic risk assessments rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with LC50 or 

NOEC values expressed as concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These comparisons 

assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate with those in the 

laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight estimates of food 

intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake estimates, it does not 

allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between wildlife food items and 

laboratory feed. Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets suggest 

that current screening assessment methods are not accounting for a potentially important aspect 

of food requirements. 

• There are several other assumptions that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These include possible additive or synergistic effects from applying two or 

more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of pesticides in the environment, 

cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, effects of multiple stressors 

(e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic and biotic factors) and behavioral 

changes induced by exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing 




to adverse affects to non-target species, but they are usually characterized in the published 

literature in only a general manner limiting their value in the risk assessment process. 

• It is assumed that aquatic species exclusively and permanently occupy the water body being 

assessed. Actual habitat requirements of aquatic species are not considered. With the possible 

exception of scenarios where pesticides are directly applied to water, it is assumed that no habitat 

use considerations specific for any species would place the organisms in closer proximity to 

pesticide use sites. This assumption produces a maximum estimate of exposure or risk 

characterization. It would likely be realistic for many aquatic species that may be found in 

aquatic habitats within or in close proximity to treated terrestrial habitats. However, the spatial 

distribution of wildlife is usually not random because wildlife distributions are often related to 

habitat requirements of species. Clumped distributions of wildlife may result in an under- or 

over-estimation of risk depending upon where the initial pesticide concentration occurs relative 

to the species or species habitat. 

• For species found in the water column, it would be assumed that the greatest bioavailable fraction 

of the pesticide active ingredient in surface waters is freely dissolved in the water column. 

Additional chemical exposure from materials associated with suspended solids or food items is 

not considered because partitioning onto sediments likely is minimal. Adsorption and 

bioconcentration occurs at lower levels for many newer pesticides compared with older more 

persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Pesticides with RQs close to the listed species level of 

concern, the potential for additional exposure from these routes may be a limitation of risk 

assessments, where potential pesticide exposure or risk may be underestimated. 

• Mass transport losses of pesticide from a water body (except for losses by volatilization, 

degradation and sediment partitioning) would not be considered for ecological risk assessment. 

The water body would be assumed to capture all pesticide active ingredients entering as runoff, 

drift, and adsorbed to eroded soil particles. It would also be assumed that pesticide active 

ingredient is not lost from the water body by overtopping or flow-through, nor is concentration 

reduced by dilution. In total, these assumptions would lead to a near maximum possible waterborne 

concentration. However, this assumption would not account for potential to concentrate 

pesticide through the evaporative loss. This limitation may have the greatest impact on water 

bodies with high surface-to-volume ratios such as ephemeral wetlands, where evaporative losses 

are accentuated and applied pesticides have low rates of degradation and volatilization. 

• For acute risk assessments, there would be no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous 

peak concentration would be assumed, where instantaneous exposure is sufficient in duration to 

elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods 

(typically 48 to 96 hours) tested in the laboratory. In the absence of data regarding time-to-toxic 

event, analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, risk would likely be 

overestimated. 

• For chronic exposure risk assessments, the averaging times considered for exposure are 

commensurate with the duration of invertebrate life-cycle or fish-early life stage tests (e.g., 21-28 

days and 56-60 days, respectively). Response profiles (time to effect and latency of effect) to 

pesticides likely vary widely with mode of action and species and should be evaluated on a caseby-case 

basis as available data allow. Nevertheless, because the USEPA relies on chronic 

exposure toxicity endpoints based on a finding of no observed effect, the potential for any latent 

toxicity effects or averaging time assumptions to alter the results of an acceptable chronic risk 

assessment prediction is limited. The extent to which duration of exposure from water-borne 

concentrations overestimate or underestimate actual exposure depends on several factors. These 

include the following: localized meteorological conditions, runoff characteristics of the 




watershed (e.g., soils, topography), the hydrological characteristics of receiving waters, 

environmental fate of the pesticide active ingredient, and the method of pesticide application. It 

should also be understood that chronic effects studies are performed using a method that holds 

water concentration in a steady state. This method is not likely to reflect conditions associated 

with pesticide runoff. Pesticide concentrations in the field increase and decrease in surface water 

on a cycle influenced by rainfall, pesticide use patterns, and degradation rates. As a result of the 

dependency of this assumption on several undefined variables, risk associated with chronic 

exposure may in some situations underestimate risk and overestimate risk in others. 

• There are several other factors that can affect non-target species not considered in the risk 

assessment process. These would include the following: possible additive or synergistic effects 

from applying two or more pesticides or additives in a single application, co-location of 

pesticides in the environment, cumulative effects from pesticides with the same mode of action, 

effects of multiple stressors (e.g., combination of pesticide exposure, adverse abiotic [not 

pesticides] and biotic factors), and sub-lethal effects such as behavioral changes induced by 

exposure to a pesticide. These factors may exist at some level contributing to adverse affects to 

non-target species, but they are not routinely assessed by regulatory agencies. Therefore, 

information on the factors is not extensive limiting their value for the risk assessment process. As 

this type of information becomes available, it would be included, either quantitatively or 

qualitatively, in this risk assessment process. 

• USEPA is required by the Food Quality Protection Act to assess the cumulative risks of 

pesticides that share common mechanisms of toxicity, or act the same within an organism. 

Currently, USEPA has identified four groups of pesticides that have a common mechanism of 

toxicity requiring cumulative risk assessments. These four groups are: the organophosphate 

insecticides, N-methyl carbamate insecticides, triazine herbicides, and chloroacetanilide 

herbicides. 

7.3 Pesticide Mixtures and Degradates 

Pesticide products are usually a formulation of several components generally categorized as active 

ingredients and inert or other ingredients. The term active ingredient is defined by the FIFRA as 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating the effects of a pest, or it is a plant regulator, 

defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. In accordance with FIFRA, the active ingredient(s) must 

be identified by name(s) on the pesticide label along with its relative composition expressed in 

percentage(s) by weight. In contrast, inert ingredient(s) are not intended to affect a target pest. Their 

role in the pesticide formulation is to act as a solvent (keep the active ingredient is a liquid phase), an 

emulsifying or suspending agent (keep the active ingredient from separating out of solution), or a 

carrier such as clay in which the active ingredient is impregnated on the clay particle in dry 

formulations. For example, if isopropyl alcohol would be used as a solvent in a pesticide 

formulation, then it would be considered an inert ingredient. FIFRA only requires that inert 

ingredients identified as hazardous and associated percent composition, and the total percentage of 

all inert ingredients must be declared on a product label. Inert ingredients that are not classified as 

hazardous are not required to be identified. 

The USEPA (September 1997) issued Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-6 which encouraged 

manufacturers, formulators, producers, and registrants of pesticide products to voluntarily substitute 

the term “other ingredients” for “inert ingredients” in the ingredient statement. This change 

recognized that all components in a pesticide formulation potentially could elicit or contribute to an 

adverse effect on non-target organisms and, therefore, are not necessarily inert. Whether referred to 




as “inerts” or “other ingredients,” these constituents within a pesticide product have the potential to 

affect species or environmental quality. The USEPA categorizes regulated inert ingredients into the 

following four lists (http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/index.html): 

• List 1 – Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern; 

• List 2 – Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients; 

• List 3 – Inerts of Unknown Toxicity; 

• List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Toxicity. 

Several of the List 4 compounds are naturally-occurring earthen materials (e.g., clay materials, 

simple salts) that would not elicit toxicological response at applied concentrations. However, some 

of the inerts (particularly the List 3 compounds and unlisted compounds) may have moderate to high 

potential toxicity to aquatic species based on MSDSs or published data. 

Comprehensively assessing potential effects to non-target fish, wildlife, plants, and/or their habitats 

from pesticide use is a complex task. It would be preferable to assess the cumulative effects from 

exposure to the active ingredient, its degradates, and inert ingredients as well as other active 

ingredients in the spray mixture. However, it would only be feasible to conduct deterministic risk 

assessments for each component in the spray mixture singly. Limited scientific information is 

available regarding ecological effects (additive or synergistic) from chemical mixtures that typically 

rely upon broadly encompassing assumptions. For example, the US Forest Service (2005) found that 

mixtures of pesticides used in land (forest) management likely would not cause additive or 

synergistic effects to non-target species based upon a review of scientific literature regarding 

toxicological effects and interactions of agricultural chemicals (ATSDR 2004). Moreover, 

information on inert ingredients, adjuvants, and degradates is often limited by the availability of and 

access to reliable toxicological data for these constituents. 

Toxicological information regarding “other ingredients” may be available from sources such as the 

following: 

• TOMES (a proprietary toxicological database including USEPA’s IRIS, the Hazardous Substance 

Data Bank, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [RTECS]). 

• USEPA’s ECOTOX database, which includes AQUIRE (a database containing scientific papers 

published on the toxic effects of chemicals to aquatic organisms). 

• TOXLINE (a literature searching tool). 

• Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) from pesticide suppliers. 

• Other sources such as the Farm Chemicals Handbook. 

Because there is a lack of specific inert toxicological data, inert(s) in a pesticide may cause adverse 

ecological effects. However, inert ingredients typically represent only a small percentage of the 

pesticide spray mixture, and it would be assumed that negligible effects would be expected to result 

from inert ingredient(s). 

Although the potential effects of degradates should be considered when selecting a pesticide, it is 

beyond the scope of this assessment process to consider all possible breakdown chemicals of the 

various product formulations containing an active ingredient. Degradates may be more or less 

mobile and more or less hazardous in the environment than their parent pesticides (Battaglin et al. 

2003). Differences in environmental behavior (e.g., mobility) and toxicity between parent pesticides 

and degradates would make assessing potential degradate effects extremely difficult. For example, a 

less toxic and more mobile, bioaccumulative, or persistent degradate may have potentially greater 




effects on species and/or degrade environmental quality. The lack of data on the toxicity of 

degradates for many pesticides would represent a source of uncertainty for assessing risk. 

An USEPA-approved label specifies whether a product can be mixed with one or more pesticides. 

Without product-specific toxicological data, it would not be possible to quantify the potential effects 

of these mixtures. In addition, a quantitative analysis could only be conducted if reliable scientific 

information allowed a determination of whether the joint action of a mixture would be additive, 

synergistic, or antagonistic. Such information would not likely exist unless the mode of action would 

be common among the chemicals and receptors. Moreover, the composition of and exposure to 

mixtures would be highly site- and/or time-specific and, therefore, it would be nearly impossible to 

assess potential effects to species and environmental quality. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects associated with applying two or more pesticides 

as a mixture, the use would be conducted in accordance with the labeling requirements. Labels for 

two or more pesticides applied as a mixture should be completely reviewed, where products with the 

least potential for negative effects would be selected for use on the refuge. This is especially relevant 

when a mixture would be applied in a manner that may already have the potential for an effect(s) 

associated with an individual pesticide (e.g., runoff to ponds in sandy watersheds). Use of a tank mix 

under these conditions would increase the level of uncertainty in terms of risk to species or potential 

to degrade environmental quality. 

Adjuvants generally function to enhance or prolong the activity of pesticide. For terrestrial 

herbicides, adjuvants aid in the absorption into plant tissue. Adjuvant is a broad term that generally 

applies to surfactants, selected oils, anti-foaming agents, buffering compounds, drift control agents, 

compatibility agents, stickers, and spreaders. Adjuvants are not under the same registration 

requirements as pesticides and the USEPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray 

adjuvants. Individual pesticide labels identify types of adjuvants approved for use with it. In 

general, adjuvants compose a relatively small portion of the volume of pesticides applied. Selection 

of adjuvants with limited toxicity and low volumes would be recommended to reduce the potential 

for the adjuvant to influence the toxicity of the pesticide. 

7.4 Determining Effects to Soil and Water Quality 

The approval process for pesticide uses would consider potential to degrade water quality on and off 

refuge lands. A pesticide can only affect water quality through movement away from the treatment 

site. After application, pesticide mobilization can be characterized by one or more of the following 

(Kerle et al. 1996): 

• Attach (sorb) to soil, vegetation, or other surfaces and remain at or near the treated area; 

• Attach to soil and move off-site through erosion from run-off or wind; 

• Dissolve in water that can be subjected to run-off or leaching. 

As an initial screening tool, selected chemical characteristics and rating criteria for a pesticide can be 

evaluated to assess potential to enter ground and/or surface waters. These would include the 

following: persistence, sorption coefficient (Koc), groundwater ubiquity score (GUS), and solubility. 

Persistence, which is expressed as half-life (t½), represents the length of time required for 50% of the 

deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially). Persistence in the soil can be categorized as 




the following: non-persistent 100 

days (Kerle et. al. 1996). Half-life data is usually available for aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

Another measure of pesticide persistence is dissipation time (DT50). It represents the time required 

for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, half-life 

describes the rate for degradation only. As for half-life, units of dissipation time are usually 

expressed in days. Field or foliar dissipation time is the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide 

concentrations in the environment. However, soil half-life is the most common persistence data 

cited in published literature. If field or foliar dissipation data is not available, soil half-life data may 

be used. The average or representative half-life value of most important degradation mechanism will 

be selected for quantitative analysis for both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Mobility of a pesticide is a function of how strongly it is adsorbed to soil particles and organic 

matter, its solubility in water, and its persistence in the environment. Pesticides strongly adsorbed to 

soil particles, relatively insoluble in water, and not environmentally persistent would be less likely to 

move across the soil surface into surface waters or to leach through the soil profile and contaminate 

groundwater. Conversely, pesticides that are not strongly adsorbed to soil particles, are highly water 

soluble, and are persistent in the environment would have greater potential to move from the 

application site (off-site movement). 

The degree of pesticide adsorption to soil particles and organic matter (Kerle et. al. 1996) is 

expressed as the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc). The soil adsorption coefficient is measured as 

micrograms of pesticide per gram of soil (μg/g) that can range from near zero to the thousands. 

Pesticides with higher Koc values are strongly absorbed to soil and, therefore, would be less subject 

to movement. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide that will dissolve in a known quantity of water. 

The water solubility of a pesticide is expressed as milligrams of pesticide dissolved in a liter of water 

(mg/l or ppm). Pesticide with solubility 10,000 ppm highly soluble (US Geological Survey 2000). As pesticide 

solubility increases, there would be greater potential for off-site movement. 

The Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) is a quantitative screening tool to estimate a pesticide’s 

potential to move in the environment. It utilizes soil persistence and adsorption coefficients in the 

following formula. 

GUS = log10 (t½) x [4 - log10 (Koc)] 

The potential pesticide movement rating would be based upon its GUS value. Pesticides with a GUS 

4.0 would have a very high potential to move toward groundwater. 

Water solubility describes the amount of pesticide dissolving in a specific quantity of water, where it 

is usually measured as mg/l or parts per million (ppm). Solubility is useful as a comparative measure 

because pesticides with higher values are more likely to move by run-off or leaching. GUS, water 

solubility, t½, and Koc values are available for selected pesticides from the OSU Extension Pesticide 

Properties Database at http://npic.orst.edu/ppdmove.htm. Many of the values in this database were 




derived from the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision Making 

(Wauchope et al. 1992). 

Soil properties influence the fate of pesticides in the environment. The following six properties are 

mostly likely to affect pesticide degradation and the potential for pesticides to move off-site by 

leaching (vertical movement through the soil) or runoff (lateral movement across the soil surface). 

• Permeability is the rate of water movement vertically through the soil. It is affected by soil 

texture and structure. Coarse textured soils (e.g., high sand content) have a larger pore size and 

they are generally more permeable than fine textured soils (i.e., high clay content). The more 

permeable soils would have a greater potential for pesticides to move vertically down through the 

soil profile. Soil permeability rates (inches/hour) are usually available in county soil survey 

reports. 

• Soil texture describes the relative percentage of sand, silt, and clay. In general, greater clay 

content with smaller the pore size would lower the likelihood and rate water that would move 

through the soil profile. Clay also serves to adsorb (bind) pesticides to soil particles. Soils with 

high clay content would absorb more pesticide than soils with relatively low clay content. In 

contrast, sandy soils with coarser texture and lower water holding capacity would have a greater 

potential for water to leach through them. 

• Soil structure describes soil aggregation. Soils with a well developed soil structure have looser, 

more aggregated, structure that would be less likely to be compacted. Both characteristics would 

allow for less restricted flow of water through the soil profile resulting in greater infiltration. 

• Organic matter would be the single most important factor affecting pesticide adsorption in soils. 

Many pesticides are adsorbed to organic matter which would reduce their rate of downward 

movement through the soil profile. Also, soils high in organic matter would tend to hold more 

water, which may make less water available for leaching. 

• Soil moisture affects how fast water would move through the soil. If soils are already wet or 

saturated before rainfall or irrigation, excess moisture would runoff rather than infiltrate into the 

soil profile. Soil moisture also would influence microbial and chemical activity in soil, which 

effects pesticide degradation. 

• Soil pH would influence chemical reactions that occur in the soil which in turn determines 

whether or not a pesticide will degrade, rate of degradation, and, in some instances, which 

degradation products are produced. 

Based upon the aforementioned properties, soils most vulnerable to groundwater contamination 

would be sandy soils with low organic matter. In contrast, the least vulnerable soils would be welldrained 

clayey soils with high organic matter. Consequently, pesticides with the lowest potential for 

movement in conjunction with appropriate best management practices (see below) would be used in 

an IPM framework to treat pests while minimizing effects to non-target biota and protecting 

environmental quality. 

Along with soil properties, the potential for a pesticide to affect water quality through run-off and 

leaching would consider site-specific environmental and abiotic conditions including rainfall, water 

table conditions, and topography (Huddleston 1996). 

• Water is necessary to separate pesticides from soil. This can occur in two basic ways. Pesticides 

that are soluble move easily with runoff water. Pesticide-laden soil particles can be dislodged 

and transported from the application site in runoff. The concentration of pesticides in the surface 

runoff would be greatest for the first runoff event following treatment. The rainfall intensity and 




route of water infiltration into soil, to a large extent, determine pesticide concentrations and 

losses in surface runoff. The timing of the rainfall after application also would have an effect. 

Rainfall interacts with pesticides at a shallow soil depth (¼ to ½ inch), which is called the mixing 

zone (Baker and Miller 1999). The pesticide/water mixture in the mixing zone would tend to 

leach down into the soil or runoff depending upon how quickly the soil surface becomes 

saturated and how rapidly water can infiltrate into the soil. Leaching would decrease the amount 

of pesticide available near the soil surface (mixing zone) to runoff during the initial rainfall event 

following application and subsequent rainfall events. 

• Terrain slope would affect the potential for surface runoff and the intensity of runoff. Steeper 

slopes would have greater potential for runoff following a rainfall event. In contrast, soils that 

are relatively flat would have little potential for runoff, except during intense rainfall events. In 

addition, soils in lower areas would be more susceptible to leaching as a result of receiving 

excessive water from surrounding higher elevations. 

• Depth to groundwater would be an important factor affecting the potential for pesticides to leach 

into groundwater. If the distance from the soil surface to the top of the water table is shallow, 

pesticides would have less distance to travel to reach groundwater. Shallower water tables that 

persist for longer periods would be more likely to experience groundwater contamination. Soil 

survey reports are available for individual counties. These reports provide data in tabular format 

regarding the water table depths and the months during which it is persists. In some situations, a 

hard pan exists above the water table that would prevent pesticide contamination from leaching. 

7.5 Determining Effects to Air Quality 

Pesticides may volatilize from soil and plant surfaces and move from the treated area into the 

atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is determined by the pesticide’s vapor pressure 

which would be affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these numbers easier to compare, vapor 

pressure may be expressed in exponent form (I x 10 -7 ), where I represents a vapor pressure index. In 

general, pesticides with I1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). Vapor pressure 

values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) pesticide database. 

7.6 Preparing a Chemical Profile 

The following instructions would be used by Service personnel to complete Chemical Profiles for 

pesticides. Specifically, profiles would be prepared for pesticide active ingredients (e.g., glyphosate, 

imazapic) that would be contained in one or more trade name products that are registered and labeled 

with USEPA. All information fields under each category (e.g., Toxicological Endpoints, 

Environmental Fate) would be completed for a Chemical Profile. If no information is available for a 

specific field, then “No data is available in references” would be recorded in the profile. Available 

scientific information would be used to complete Chemical Profiles. Each entry of scientific 

information would be shown with applicable references. 

Completed Chemical Profiles would provide a structured decision-making process utilizing 

quantitative assessment/screening tools with threshold values (where appropriate) that would be used 

to evaluate potential biological and other environmental effects to refuge resources. For ecological 

risk assessments presented in these profiles, the “worst-case scenario” would be evaluated to 




determine whether a pesticide could be approved for use considering the maximum single application 

rate specified on pesticide labels for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments pertaining to refuges. Where the “worst-case scenario” likely would only result in minor, 

temporary, and localized effects to listed and non-listed species with appropriate BMPs (see Section 

5.0), the proposed pesticide’s use in a PUP would have a scientific basis for approval under any 

application rate specified on the label that is at or below rates evaluated in a Chemical Profile. In 

some cases, the Chemical Profile would include a lower application rate than the maximum labeled 

rate in order to protect refuge resources. As necessary, Chemical Profiles would be periodically 

updated with new scientific information or as pesticides with the same active ingredient are proposed 

for use on the refuge in PUPs. 

Throughout this section, threshold values (to prevent or minimize potential biological and 

environmental effects) would be clearly identified for specific information presented in a completed 

Chemical Profile. Comparison with these threshold values provides an explicit scientific basis to 

approve or disapprove PUPs for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance on refuge 

lands. In general, PUPs would be approved for pesticides with Chemical Profiles where there would 

be no exceedances of threshold values. However, BMPs are identified for some screening tools that 

would minimize/eliminate potential effects (exceedance of the threshold value) as a basis for 

approving PUPs. 

Date: Service personnel would record the date when the Chemical Profile is completed or updated. 

Chemical Profiles (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) would be periodically reviewed 

and updated, as necessary. The most recent review date would be recorded on a profile to document 

when it was last updated. 

Trade Name(s): Service personnel would accurately and completely record the trade name(s) from 

the pesticide label, which includes a suffix that describes the formulation (e.g., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, 

I, II or 64). The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same 

active ingredient. Service personnel would record a trade name for each pesticide product with the 

same active ingredient. 

Common chemical name(s): Service personnel would record the common name(s) listed on the 

pesticide label or material safety data sheet (MSDS) for an active ingredient. The common name of a 

pesticide is listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following 

the trade name, and the MSDS, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients. A Chemical 

Profile is completed for each active ingredient. 

Pesticide Type: Service personnel would record the type of pesticide for an active ingredient as one 

of the following: herbicide, dessicant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, insecticide, pisicide, or 

rodenticide. 

EPA Registration Number(s): This number (EPA Reg. No.) appears on the title page of the label 

and MSDS, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. It is not the EPA 

Establishment Number that is usually located near it. Service personnel would record the EPA Reg. 

No. for each trade name product with an active ingredient based upon PUPs. 

Pesticide Class: Service personnel would list the general chemical class for the pesticide (active 

ingredient). For example, malathion is an organophosphate and carbaryl is a carbamate. 




CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the second section 

(Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the MSDS. The MSDS table listing components 

usually contains this number immediately prior to or following the % composition. 

Other Ingredients: From the most recent MSDS for the proposed pesticide product(s), Service 

personnel would include any chemicals in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient 

that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in 

MSDS sections titled “Hazardous Identifications”, “Exposure Control/Personal Protection”, and 

“Regulatory Information”. If concentrations of other ingredients are available for any compounds 

identified as toxic or hazardous, then Service personnel would record this information in the 

Chemical Profile by trade name. MSDS(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s 

website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (see list 

below). 

Toxicological Endpoints 

Toxicological endpoint data would be collected for acute and chronic tests with mammals, birds, and 

fish. Data would be recorded for species available in the scientific literature. If no data are found for 

a particular taxonomic group, then “No data available is references” would be recorded as the data 

entry. Throughout the Chemical Profile, references (including toxicological endpoint data) would be 

cited using parentheses (#) following the recorded data. 

Mammalian LD50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw (body weight) or ppm-bw. Most common test 

species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LD50 value found for a rat would be 

used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk to mammals (see 

Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Mammalian LC50: For test species in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

available data for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species in scientific literature are the rat and mouse. The lowest LC50 value found for a 

rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for diet-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see 


Mammalian Reproduction: For test species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record the test results (e.g., Lowest Observed Effect Concentration [LOEC], Lowest Observed 

Effect Level [LOEL], No Observed Adverse Effect Level [NOAEL], No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration [NOAEC]) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet for reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., 

generational studies [preferred], fertility, new born weight). Most common test species available in 

scientific literature are rats and mice. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, NOEL, or NOAEL test results 

found for a rat would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LD50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg-bw or ppm-bw. Most common test species available in 




scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest LD50 value found for an avian 

species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dose-based RQ calculations to assess acute risk 

(see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian LC50: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would record 

values for dietary lethal concentration (LC50) as reported (e.g., mg/kg-diet or ppm-diet). Most 

common test species available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest 

LC50 value found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint for dietary-based 

RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Avian Reproduction: For test species available in the scientific literature, Service personnel would 

record test results (e.g., LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL) in mg/kg-bw or mg/kg-diet consumed for 

reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive). Most common test species 

available in scientific literature are the bobwhite quail and mallard. The lowest NOEC, NOAEC, 

NOEL, or NOAEL test results found for an avian species would be used as a toxicological endpoint 

for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish LC50: For test freshwater or marine species listed in the scientific literature, Service personnel 

would record a LC50 in ppm or mg/L. Most common test species available in the scientific literature 

are the bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow (marine). Test results for many game species 

may also be available. The lowest LC50 value found for a freshwater fish species would be used as a 

toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess acute risk (see Table 1 in Section 7.1). 

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For test freshwater or marine species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record test results (e.g., LOEC, NOAEL, NOAEC, 

LOAEC) in ppm for test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle). Most common test species 

available in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Test results for 

other game species may also be available. The lowest test value found for a fish species (preferably 

freshwater) would be used as a toxicological endpoint for RQ calculations to assess chronic risk (see 


Other: For test invertebrate as well as non-vascular and vascular plant species available in the 

scientific literature, Service personnel would record LC50, LD50, LOEC, LOEL, NOAEC, NOAEL, or 

EC50 (environmental concentration) values in ppm or mg/L. Most common test invertebrate species 

available in scientific literature are the honey bee and the water flea (Daphnia magna). Green algae 

(Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequently available test species for 

aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively. 

Ecological Incident Reports: After a site has been treated with pesticide(s), wildlife may be 

exposed to these chemical(s). When exposure is high relative to the toxicity of the pesticides, 

wildlife may be killed or visibly harmed (incapacitated). Such events are called ecological incidents. 

The USEPA maintains a database (Ecological Incident Information System) of ecological incidents. 

This database stores information extracted from incident reports submitted by various federal and 

state agencies and non-government organizations. Information included in an incident report is date 

and location of the incident, type and magnitude of affects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue and 

cholinesterase activity analyses conducted during the investigation. 




Incident reports can play an important role in evaluating the effects of pesticides by supplementing 

quantitative risk assessments. All incident reports for pesticide(s) with the active ingredient and 

associated information would be recorded. 

Environmental Fate 

Water Solubility: Service personnel would record values for water solubility (Sw), which describes 

the amount of pesticide that dissolves in a known quantity of water. Sw is expressed as mg/L (ppm). 

Pesticide Sw values would be categorized as one of the following: insoluble 10,000 ppm (US Geological Survey 2000). As pesticide 

Sw increases, there would be greater potential to degrade water quality through run-off and leaching. 

Sw would be used to evaluate potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species [see Octanol-Water 

Partition Coefficient (Kow) below]. 

Soil Mobility: Service personnel would record available values for soil adsorption coefficient (Koc 

[μg/g]). It provides a measure of a chemical's mobility and leaching potential in soil. Koc values are 

directly proportional to organic content, clay content, and surface area of the soil. Koc data for a 

pesticide may be available for a variety of soil types (e.g., clay, loam, sand). 

Koc values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by leaching (see 

Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Persistence: Service personnel would record values for soil half-life (t½), which represents the 

length of time (days) required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) 

in the soil. Based upon the t½ value, soil persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent 100 days (Kerle et. 

al. 1996). 

Threshold for Approving PUPs: 

If soil t½ ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil t½ >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 

protect water quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface run-off and leaching 

that can degrade water quality: 

• Do not exceed one application per site per year. 

• Do not use on coarse-textured soils where the ground water table is 12 inches. 

• Do not use on steep slopes if substantial rainfall is expected within 24 hours or ground is 

saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil t½ values would be used in evaluating the potential to degrade groundwater by 

leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below). 

Soil Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade and move from a treated site; whereas, soil t½ describes the rate for degradation 




only. As for t½, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Field dissipation time would 

be the preferred data for use to estimate pesticide concentrations in the environment because it is 

based upon field studies compared to soil t½, which is derived in a laboratory. However, soil t½ is the 

most common persistence data available in the published literature. If field dissipation data is not 

available, soil half-life data would be used in a Chemical Profile. The average or representative halflife 

value of most important degradation mechanism would be selected for quantitative analysis for 

both terrestrial and aquatic environments. 

Based upon the DT50 value, environmental persistence in the soil also would be categorized as one of 

the following: non-persistent 100 

days. 


If soil DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If soil DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 







saturated. 

Along with Koc, soil DT50 values (preferred over soil t½) would be used in evaluating the potential to 

degrade groundwater by leaching (see Potential to Move to Groundwater below), if available. 

Aquatic Persistence: Service personnel would record values for aquatic t½, which represents the 

length of time required for 50% of the deposited pesticide to degrade (completely or partially) in 

water. Based upon the t½ value, aquatic persistence would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent 100 days (Kerle et. al. 1996). 


If aquatic t½ ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic t½ >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 










saturated. 

Aquatic Dissipation: Dissipation time (DT50) represents the time required for 50% of the deposited 

pesticide to degrade or move (dissipate); whereas, aquatic t½ describes the rate for degradation only. 

As for t½, units of dissipation time are usually expressed in days. Based upon the DT50 value, 

environmental persistence in aquatic habitats also would be categorized as one of the following: 

non-persistent 100 days. 


If aquatic DT50 ≤100 days, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water 

quality. 

If aquatic DT50 >100 days, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to 







saturated. 

Potential to Move to Groundwater: Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) = log10(soil t ½) x [4 – 

log10(Koc)]. If a DT50 value is available, it would be used rather than a t ½ value to calculate a GUS 

score. Based upon the GUS value, the potential to move toward groundwater would be recorded as 

one of the following categories: extremely low potential4.0. 


If GUS ≤4.0, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to protect water quality. 

If GUS >4.0, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to protect water 

quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) section to minimize potential surface run-off and leaching that can 

degrade water quality: 




saturated. 

Volatilization: Pesticides may volatilize (evaporate) from soil and plant surfaces and move offtarget 

into the atmosphere. The potential for a pesticide to volatilize is a function of its vapor 

pressure that is affected by temperature, sorption, soil moisture, and the pesticide’s water solubility. 

Vapor pressure is often expressed in mm Hg. To make these values easier to compare, vapor pressure 




would be recorded by Service personnel in exponential form (I x 10 -7 ), where I represents a vapor 

pressure index. In general, pesticides with I1,000 would have a high potential to volatilize (Oregon State University 1996). 

Vapor pressure values for pesticides are usually available in the pesticide product MSDS or the 

USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) pesticide database (see References). 


If I ≤1000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs to minimize drift and protect air 

quality. 

If I >1000, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize drift 

and protect air quality. One or more BMPs such as the following would be included in the Specific 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce volatilization and potential to drift and 

degrade air quality: 

• Do not treat when wind velocities are 10 mph with existing or potential inversion 

conditions. 

• Apply the large-diameter droplets possible for spray treatments. 

• Avoid spraying when air temperatures >85 o F. 

• Use the lowest spray height possible above target canopy. 

• Where identified on the pesticide label, soil incorporate pesticide as soon as possible during or 

after application. 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow): The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the 

concentration of a pesticide in octanol and water at equilibrium at a specific temperature. Because 

octanol is an organic solvent, it is considered a surrogate for natural organic matter. Therefore, Kow 

would be used to assess potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in tissues of aquatic species (e.g., 

fish). If Kow >1000 or Sw30 days, then there would be high potential for a 

pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species such as fish (US Geological Survey 2000). 


If there is not a high potential for a pesticide to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, then the PUP 

would be approved. 

If there is a high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic species (Kow>1000 or Sw30 days), then the PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where approval 

would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration: The physiological process where pesticide concentrations in 

tissue would increase in biota because they are taken and stored at a faster rate than they are 

metabolized or excreted. The potential for bioaccumulation would be evaluated through 

bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) or bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Based upon BAF or BCF 

values, the potential to bioaccumulate would be recorded as one of the following: low – 0 to 300, 

moderate – 300 to 1000, or high >1000 (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993). 


If BAF or BCF≤1000, then a PUP would be approved without additional BMPs. 




If BAF or BCF>1000, then a PUP would not approved, except under unusual circumstances where 

approval would only be granted by the Washington Office. 

Worst-Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application Rates (acid equivalent): Service personnel would record the highest application 

rate of an active ingredient (ae basis) for habitat management and cropland/facilities maintenance 

treatments in this data field of a Chemical Profile. These rates can be found in Table CP.1 under the 

column heading “Max Product Rate – Single Application (lbs/acre – AI on acid equiv basis)”. This 

table would be prepared for a chemical profile from information specified in labels for trade name 

products identified in PUPs. If these data are not available in pesticide labels, then write “NS” for 

“not specified on label” in this table. 

EECs: An estimated environmental concentration (ECC) represents potential exposure to fish and 

wildlife (birds and mammals) from using a pesticide. EECs would be derived by Service personnel 

using an USEPA screening-level approach (US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). For each 

max application rate [see description under Max Application Rates (acid equivalent)], Service 

personnel would record 2 EEC values in a Chemical Profile; these would represent the worst-case 

terrestrial and aquatic exposures for habitat management and croplands/facilities maintenance 

treatments. For terrestrial and aquatic EEC calculations, see description for data entry under 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients, which is the next field for a Chemical Profile. 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk/Risk Quotients: Service personnel would calculate and record 

acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds, mammals, and fish using the provided tabular 

formats for habitat management and/or cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. RQs recorded in 

a Chemical Profile would represent the worst-case assessment for ecological risk. See Section 7.2 

for discussion regarding the calculations of RQs. 

For aquatic assessments associated with habitat management treatments, RQ calculations would be 

based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for fish and the EEC would be derived 

from Urban and Cook (1986) assuming 100% overspray to an entire 1-foot deep water body using 

the max application rate (ae basis [see above]). 

For aquatic assessments associated with cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, RQ calculations 

would be done by Service personnel based upon selected acute and chronic toxicological endpoints 

for fish and an EEC would be derived from the aquatic assessment in AgDRIFT ® model version 2.01 

under Tier I ground-based application with the following input variables: max application rate (acid 

basis [see above]), low boom (20 inches), fine to medium/coarse droplet size, 20 swaths, EPAdefined 

wetland, and 25-foot distance (buffer) from treated area to water. 

See Section 7.2.1.2 for more details regarding the calculation of EECs for aquatic habitats for habitat 

management and cropland/facilities maintenance treatments. 

For terrestrial avian and mammalian assessments, RQ calculations would be done by Service 

personnel based upon dietary exposure, where the “short grass” food item category would represent 

the worst-case scenario. For terrestrial spray applications associated with habitat management and 

cropland/facilities maintenance treatments, exposure (EECs and RQs) would be determined using the 

Kanaga nomogram method through the USEPA’s Terrestrial Residue Exposure model (T-REX) 




version 1.2.3. T-REX input variables would include the following: max application rate (acid basis 

[see above]) and pesticide half-life (days) in soil to estimate the initial, maximum pesticide residue 

concentration on general food items for terrestrial vertebrate species in short (LOCs, then a PUP would only be approved with additional BMPs specifically to minimize 

exposure (ecological risk) to bird, mammal, and/or fish species. One or more BMPs such as the 

following would be included in the Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) section to reduce 

potential risk to non-listed or listed species: 

• Lower application rate and/or fewer number of applications so RQs≤LOCs 

• For aquatic assessments (fish) associated with cropland/facilities maintenance, increase the 

buffer distance beyond 25 feet so RQs≤LOCs. 

Justification for Use: Service personnel would describe the reason for using the pesticide based 

control of specific pests or groups of pests. In most cases, the pesticide label will provide the 

appropriate information regarding control of pests to describe in the section. 

Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs): Service personnel would record specific BMPs 

necessary to minimize or eliminate potential effects to non-target species and/or degradation of 

environmental quality from drift, surface runoff, or leaching. These BMPs would be based upon 

scientific information documented in previous data fields of a Chemical Profile. Where necessary 

and feasible, these specific practices would be included in PUPs as a basis for approval. 

If there are no specific BMPs that are appropriate, then Service personnel would describe why the 

potential effects to refuge resources and/or degradation of environmental quality is outweighed by 

the overall resource benefit(s) from the proposed pesticide use in the BMP section of the PUP. See 

Section 4.0 of this document for a complete list of BMPs associated with mixing and applying 

pesticides appropriate for all PUPs with ground-based treatments that would be additive to any 

necessary, chemical-specific BMPs. 

References: Service personnel would record scientific resources used to provide data/information 

for a chemical profile. Use the number sequence to uniquely reference data in a chemical profile. 

The following on-line data resources are readily available for toxicological endpoint and 

environmental fate data for pesticides: 




1. California Product/Label Database. Department of Pesticide Regulation, California 

Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm#regprods) 

2. ECOTOX database. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) 

3. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles. Cooperative effort 

of University of California-Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell 

University and University of Idaho through Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

(http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html) 

4. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products. Pesticide Management Unit, 

Plant Protection Services, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations. 

(http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/) 

5. Human health and ecological risk assessments. Pesticide Management and Coordination, Forest 

Health Protection, US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm) 

6. Pesticide Chemical Fact Sheets. Clemson University Pesticide Information Center. 

(http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Document/Labels/factshee.htm) 

7. Pesticide Fact Sheets. Published by Information Ventures, Inc. for Bureau of Land Management, 

Dept. of Interior; Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Dept. of Energy; and Forest Service, 

US Department of Agriculture. (http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/pest-fac.html) 

8. Pesticide Fact Sheets. National Pesticide Information Center. (http://npic.orst.edu/npicfact.htm) 

9. Pesticide Fate Database. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/pfate/home.cfm). 

10. Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets. Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. 

(CDMS) (http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp) or multiple websites maintained by 

agrichemical companies. 

11. Registered Pesticide Products (Oregon database). Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

(http://www.oda.state.or.us/dbs/pest_products/search.lasso) 

12. Regulatory notes. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ontario, Canada. 

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/) 

13. Reptile and Amphibian Toxicology Literature. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 

Ontario, Canada. (http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/nwrc-cnrf/ratl/index_e.cfm) 

14. Specific Chemical Fact Sheet – New Active Ingredients, Biopesticide Fact Sheet and Registration 

Fact Sheet. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.epa.gov/pestidides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm) 




15. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Invasive 

Species Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. (http://tnsweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html) 

16. Wildlife Contaminants Online. US Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 

(http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/contaminants-online/) 

17. One-liner database. 2000. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, D.C. 




Chemical Profile 

Date: 

Trade Name(s): Common Chemical 

Name(s): 

Pesticide Type: EPA Registration 

Number: 

Pesticide Class: CAS Number: 

Other Ingredients: 

Toxicological Endpoints 

Mammalian LD50: 

Mammalian LC50: 

Mammalian Reproduction: 

Avian LD50: 

Avian LC50: 

Avian Reproduction: 

Fish LC50: 

Fish ELS/Life Cycle: 

Other: 

Ecological Incident Reports 

Environmental Fate 

Water solubility (Sw): 

Soil Mobility (Koc): 

Soil Persistence (t½): 

Soil Dissipation (DT50): 

Aquatic Persistence (t½): 

Aquatic Dissipation (DT50): 

Potential to Move to Groundwater 

(GUS score): 

Volatilization (mm Hg): 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient 

(Kow): 

Bioaccumulation/Biocentration: BAF:` 

BCF: 

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment 

Max Application 

Rate 

(ai lbs/acre – ae 

basis) 

Habitat Management: 

Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 

EECs Terrestrial (Habitat Management): 

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 

Aquatic (Habitat Management): 

Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 


Habitat Management Treatments: 



Presumption of Unacceptable Risk 

Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) 

Species 

Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments: 

Presumption of Unacceptable Risk 

Risk Quotient (RQ) 

Listed (T&E) 

Species 

Nonlisted Species 

Acute Birds [0.1] [0.5] 

Mammals [0.1] [0.5] 

Fish [0.05] [0.5] 

Chronic Birds [1] [1] 

Mammals [1] [1] 

Fish [1] [1] 

Justification for Use: 

Specific Best 

Management Practices 

(BMPs): 

References: 


Table CP.1 Pesticide Name 

Trade 

Name a 

Treatm 

ent 

Type b 



Max Product 

Rate – Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre or 

gal/acre) 

Max 

Product 

Rate - 

Single 

Application 

(lbs/acre - 

AI on acid 

equiv basis) 

Max Number 

of 

Applications 

Per Season 

Max Product 

Rate Per 

Season 

(lbs/acre/seas 

on or 

gal/acre/seas 

on) 

Minimum 

Time 

Between 

Application 

s (Days) 

a From each label for a pesticide identified in pesticide use proposals (PUPs), Service personnel 

would record application information associated with possible/known uses on Service lands. 

b Treatment type: H – habitat management or CF – cropland/facilities maintenance. If a pesticide is 

labeled for both types of treatments (uses), then record separate data for H and CF applications.




AgDrift 2001. A user’s guide for AgDrift 2.04: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of 

pesticides. Spray Drift Task Force, PO Box 509, Macon, Missouri. 

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) US Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2004. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic Action of Chemical 

Mixtures. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR, 

Division of Toxicology. 62 pages plus Appendices. 

Baehr, C.H., and C. Habig. 2000. Statistical evaluation of the UTAB database for use in terrestrial 

nontarget organism risk assessment. 10 th Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk 

Assessment, American Society of Testing and Materials. 

Baker, J. and G. Miller. 1999. Understanding and reducing pesticide losses. Extension Publication 

PM 1495, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Barry, T. 2004. Characterization of propanil prune foliage residues as related to propanil use patterns 

in the Sacramento Valley, CA. Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide 

Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 15 pages. 

Battaglin, W.A., E.M. Thurman, S.J. Kalkhoff, and S.D. Porter. 2003. Herbicides and 

Transformation Products in Surface Waters of the Midwestern United States. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(4):743-756. 

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:375-382. 

Brooks, M.L., D'Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M., Grace, J.B., Keeley, J.E. and others. 2004. 

Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:77-88. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 western states Programmatic EIS (PEIS). Washington Office, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Butler, T., W. Martinkovic, and O.N. Nesheim. 1998. Factors influencing pesticide movement to 

ground water. Extension Publication PI-2, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension 

Service, Gainesville, FL. 4 pages. 

Calabrese, E.J. and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis 

Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 

Center, T.D., Frank, J.H., and Dray Jr., F.A. 1997. Biological Control. Strangers in Paradise: Impact 

and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. P.245-263. 

Cox, R.D., and V.J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland 

through assisted succession. Journal of Range Management 57:203-210. 

Appendix G: Integrated Pest Management Program G-49



Coombs, E.M., J.K Clark, G.L. Piper, and A.F. Cofrancesco Jr. 2004. Biological control of invasive 

plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 467 pages. 

Driver, C.J., M.W. Ligotke, P. Van Voris, B.D. McVeety, B.J. Greenspan, and D.B. Brown. 1991. 

Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry 10:21-33. 

Dunning, J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding 

Association. Monograph No. 1. 

EXTOXNET. 1993a. Movement of pesticides in the environment. Pesticide Information Project of 

Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, University of California – Davis, and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, 

Michigan State University. 4 pages. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA 

food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residue on plants. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:1381-1391. 

Hasan, S. and P.G. Ayres. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and 

prospects. Tansley Review 23:201-222. 

Huddleston, J.H. 1996. How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide 

contamination. EM 8559. Oregon State University Extension Service. 4 pages. 

Kerle, E.A., J.J. Jenkins, P.A. Vogue. 1996. Understanding pesticide persistence and mobility for 

groundwater and surface water protection. EM 8561. Oregon State University Extension 

Service. 8 pages. 

Masters, R.A, and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Invited synthesis paper: principles and practices for managing 

rangeland invasive plants. Journal of Range Manage 54:502-517. 

Masters, R.A., S.J. Nissen, R.E. Gaussoin, D.D. Beran, and R.N. Stougaard. 1996. Imidazolinone 

herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technology 10:392-403. 

Maxwell, B.D., E. Lehnhoff, L.J. Rew. 2009. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant 

populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2:1- 

9. 

Mineau, P., B.T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling factors to improve interspecies 

extrapolation to acute toxicity in birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 24:24-29. 

Moody, M.E., and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of 

nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009-1021. 

Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An Invasive Species Assessment 

Protocol: NatureServe. 

G-50 Appendix G: Integrated Pest Management Program



Mullin, B.H., L.W. Anderson, J.M. DiTomaso, R.E. Eplee, and K.D. Getsinger. 2000. 

Invasive Plant Species. Issue Paper (13):1-18. 

Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET-Extension Toxicology Network, Pesticide 

Information Profiles. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch, C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation of the EPA 

(Kanaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:535-543. 

Pope, R., J. DeWitt, and J. Ellerhoff. 1999. Pesticide movement: what farmers need to know. 

Extension Publication PAT 36, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, Iowa and Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. 6 pages. 

Ramsay, C.A., G.C. Craig, and C.B. McConnell. 1995. Clean water for Washington – protecting 

groundwater from pesticide contamination. Extension Publication EB1644, Washington State 

University Extension, Pullman, Washington. 12 pages. 

SDTF 2003 Spray Drift Task Force. 2003. A summary of chemigation application studies. Spray 

Drift Task Force, Macon, Missouri. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, S.L. Ray, S.G. and Perry. 1997. A User's Guide for 

AgDRIFT TM 1.0: A Tiered Approach for the Assessment of Spray Drift of Pesticides, 

Technical Note No. 95-10, CDI, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Teske, M.E., S.L. Bird, D.M. Esterly, T.B. Curbishley, S.L. Ray, and S.G. Perry. 2002. 

AgDRIFT®: a model for estimating near-field spray drift from aerial applications. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 659-671. 

Urban, D.J and N.J. Cook. 1986. Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 94 pages. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Laboratory Test Methods of Exposure to Microbial 

Pest Control Agents by the Respiratory Route to Nontarget Avian Species. Environmental 

Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-90/070. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. A Comparative Analysis of Ecological Risks from 

Pesticides and Their Uses: Background, Methodology & Case Study. Environmental Fate & 

Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 105 pages. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the ecological risk assessment process 

in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: endangered and 

threatened species effects determinations, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 

101 pages. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005a. Technical overview of ecological risk assessment 

risk characterization; Approaches for evaluating exposure; Granular, bait, and treated seed 

Appendix G: Integrated Pest Management Program G-51



applications. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005b. User’s Guide TREX v1.2.3. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. 22 pages. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex_usersguide.htm. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota – current 

understanding of distribution and major influences. USGS Fact Sheet 092-00, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Sacramento, California. 4 pages. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 359 pages. 

Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The 

SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-155. 

Woods, N. 2004. Australian developments in spray drift management. Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii. 

8 pages. 

G-52 Appendix G: Integrated Pest Management Program



Appendix H. Statement of Compliance for Implementation of the 

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

The following Executive orders and legislative acts have been reviewed as they apply to 

implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR). 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The CCP planning 

process has been conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act implementing 

procedures, Department of the Interior and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service procedures, and has 

been performed in coordination with the affected public. Procedures used to reach this decision 

meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. These procedures included the development of a range of 

alternatives for the CCP; analysis of the likely effects of each alternative; and public involvement 

throughout the planning process. 

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that integrated the CCP into the NEPA 

document and process. The Draft CCP/EA was released for a 30-day public comment period. 

The affected public was notified of the availability of the Draft CCP/EA through a Federal 

Register notice, news release to local media outlets, the Service’s refuge and refuge planning 

websites, and a planning update. Copies of the Draft CCP/EA and/or planning update were 

distributed to an extensive mailing list. Based on public comments received no changes were 

made to the selected alternative. A summary of comments and Service response was 

included in Appendix K. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966) (16 U.S. C.470 et seq.). The management of 

historic, archaeological, and cultural resources of Hakalau Forest NWR complies with the 

regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No historic, archaeological, 

and cultural resources are known to be affected by the implementation of the CCP based on the 

criteria of an effect or adverse effect as an undertaking defined in 36 CFR 800.9 and Service 

Manual 614 FW 2. Should historic properties be identified in the future, the Service will comply 

with the National Historic Preservation Act if any management actions have the potential to 

affect any of these properties. 

Executive Order 12372. Intergovernmental Review. Coordination and consultation with 

other affected Federal, State, and County agencies have been completed through personal contact 

by Service planners, the Refuge manager and supervisors. The Refuge manager determined there 

are no local or tribal governments (as defined by Executive Order 13175) associated with 


Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and 

Low-Income Populations. All Federal actions must address and identify, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes in the 

Appendix H. Statement of Compliance H-1



United States. The CCP was evaluated and no adverse human health or environmental effects 

were identified for minority or low-income populations, Indian Tribes, or anyone else. 

Executive Order 13186. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

This Order directs departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The CCP is consistent with this Executive Order because 

management actions are consistent with the provisions of the MBTA and the CCP and NEPA 

analysis evaluated the effects of such action on MBTA species. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). This Act provides for the conservation 

of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for the determination and listing of 

endangered and threatened species and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires 

refuge managers to perform consultation before initiating projects which affect or may affect 

endangered species. The Refuge will conduct consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act for any Refuge management program actions that have the potential to affect listed 

species. 

Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 307. Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 amended, requires each Federal agency conducting or supporting 

activities directly affecting the coastal zone, to conduct or support those activities in a manner 

that is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved State coastal management 

programs. The implementation of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge CCP will not 

have an effect upon land or water use within the purview of the State’s management program. 

National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). During the CCP process, the 

Refuge Manger evaluated all existing and proposed Refuge uses at Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Priority wildlife-dependent uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation) are considered automatically appropriate under 

Service policy and thus exempt from appropriate uses review. Appropriate Use Findings have 

been prepared for the following uses: commercial photography, videography, filming or audio 

recording; commercial tour operation/conservation and education group visits; the University of 

Hawai‘i Field station; and research, scientific collecting, and surveys. Compatibility 

Determinations have been prepared for the following uses: hunting, wildlife observation and 

photography, commercial photography, videography, filming or audio recording, commercial 

tour operation/conservation and education group visits, the University of Hawai‘i Field Station, 

and research, scientific collecting, and surveys. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM), 517 DM 1 and 569 FW 1. In accordance with 517 DM 1 

and 569 FW 1, an integrated pest management (IPM) approach has been adopted to eradicate, 

control or contain pest and invasive species on the Refuge. In accordance with 517 DM 1, only 

pesticides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in full compliance 

with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and as provided in regulations, 

orders, or permits issued by the EPA may be applied on lands and waters under Refuge 

jurisdiction. 

H-2 Appendix H. Statement of Compliance



H-4 Appendix H. Statement of Compliance



Appendix I. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Ac Acres 

ACHP President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Administration Act National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee) 

ALUM State of Hawai‘i Agricultural Land Use Maps 

AM Adaptive Management 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BIDEH Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

BIISC Big Island Invasive Species 

Complex Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

BRD Biological Resources Discipline 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CCS Challenge Cost Share 

CD Compatibility Determination 

CDP Community Development Plan 

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CI Confidence Interval 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

Dbh Diameter at Breast Height 

DHHL Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

DLNR Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DM Deferred Maintenance 

DOA State of Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture 

DOFAW Division of Forestry and Wildlife 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOSP Division of State Parks 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ES Ecological Services 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FOH Friends of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FPD Frost Protection Devices 

Ft Feet (Foot) 

FUMP Feral Ungulate Management Plan 

GHG Greenhouse Gases 

HAVO Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park 

HAWP Hawai‘i Association of Watershed Partnerships 

Appendix I. Acronyms and Abbreviations I-1



HETF Hawai‘i Experimental Tropical Forest 

HFU Hakalau Forest Unit 

HPWRA Hawai‘i Pacific Weed Risk Assessment 

Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

I&M Inventory and Monitoring 

In Inch(es) 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPIF Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISST Invasive Species Strike Team 

KFU Kona Forest Unit 

LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

LEIS Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 

LUPAG Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MBCA Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Mgd Million gallons per day 

Mi Mile(s) 

MKWA Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAR Natural Area Reserve 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

NGO Nongovernmental organization 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPL National Priorities List 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWPS National Wilderness Preservation System 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

OHA Office of Hawaiian Affairs 

OKP ‘Ōla‘a-Kīlauea Partnership 

PDM Post Delisting Monitoring 

PEP(P) Plant Extinction Prevention (Program) 

PICCC Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative 

PIER Pacific Islands Ecosystem at Risk 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PFT Permanent Full-Time 

PTA U.S. Army Pōhakuloa Training Area 

RO Regional Office 

RONS Refuge Operational Needs System 

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance and Management System 

SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

I-2 Appendix I. Acronyms and Abbreviations



SD Standard Deviation 

SE Standard Error 

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

SHC Strategic Habitat Conservation 

SOC Species of Concern 

SUP Special Use Permit 

SWG State Wildlife Grants 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TBD To be Determined 

TMA Three Mountain Alliance 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

UH University of Hawai‘i 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDA-APHIS/WS USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS, FWS, 

the Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VFE Visitor Facility Enhancement 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

Appendix I. Acronyms and Abbreviations I-3



I-4 Appendix I. Acronyms and Abbreviations



Appendix J. CCP Team Members 

The CCP was developed primarily by the core team members. The team sought expert advice and 

review from other professionals from several different agencies and organizations. Extended team 

members provided input during reviews. Core and extended team members as well as regional office 

team members are listed below. 

Core Planning Team (those preparing the plan) 

Name and title (in alphabetical order) Responsibilities 

Ann Bell, Outdoor Recreation Planner, HIPAC 

NWRC (departed 2009) 

James Glynn, Deputy Refuge Manager, Hakalau 

Forest NWR 

Baron Horiuchi, Horticulturist, Hakalau Forest 

NWR 

Andy Kikuta, Maintenance Supervisor, Hakalau 

Forest NWR 

Lance Koch, Wildlife Biologist, Hakalau Forest 

NWR replaced, 

Jack Jeffrey, Wildlife Biologist, Hakalau Forest 

NWR (retired 2009) 

Jim Kraus, Refuge Manager, Hakalau Forest 

NWR replaced, 

Richard Wass, Refuge Manager, Hakalau Forest 

NWR (retired 2008) 

Writer/reviewer various CCP components; build and 

maintain mailing list; visitor services goals and 

objectives; communication plan; environmental 

education and interpretation guidance. Assist with 

outreach efforts and public meetings; review of 

documents; planning updates; NOI/NOA; news 

releases; communication plan. 

Writer/reviewer various CCP components 

(historical/cultural, physical facilities, public access 

and recreation, social and economic; vision 

statement, goals and objectives, alternatives, 

compatibility determinations, compliance, purposes, 

authorities for Hakalau Forest and Kona Unit); 

Section 7 consultations. 

Attend meetings, some writings of background 

information, review of final document related to 

outplanting strategies, implementation, and budget. 

Attend meetings, some writing of background 

information, review of final document related to 

IPM, weed management, facilities maintenance, 

ungulate control, and related implementation and 

budget. 

Writer/reviewer; refuge vision; research/analysis/ 

oversight of: habitats, invasive plants and animals, 

wildlife; Feral Ungulate Management Plan, Forest 

Reforestation Plan, Integrated Pest Management 

Plan, Wildlife Disease Contingency Plan, and 

Predator Management Plan integration; ESA 

biological assessment(s); compatibility 

determinations, Section 7, rare plants and plant 

communities; compatibility determinations; 

assistance with production of working GIS maps and 

graphics; public involvement. 

Supervision; responsible for overall coordination and 

development of the CCP; decisionmaking; public 

involvement; planning updates and NOI’s; decision 

file. Writer/reviewer; editor of documents refuge 

vision; research/analysis/oversight; socioeconomics; 

Appendix J. CCP Team Members J-1




cultural resources; visitor services and compatibility 

determinations; compliance with NEPA, ESA, 

NHPA, etc.; and Federal and State agency, Office of 

Hawaiian Affairs and partner coordination. 

Christine Ogura, Natural Resource Planner, 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWRC replaced, 

Bill Perry, Refuge Conservation Planner, 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWRC (departed 

2010) replaced, 

Charlie Pelizza, Refuge Conservation Planner, 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWRC (departed 

2008) 

Don Palawski, Deputy Project Leader, Hawaiian 

and Pacific Islands NWRC replaced, 

Jerry Leinecke, Deputy Project Leader, Hawaiian 

and Pacific Islands NWRC (retired 2009) 

Planning team leader responsible for Regional and 

Honolulu office coordination and process guidance 

for development of the CCP; process facilitator; 

public involvement; principal NEPA advisor; 

writer/reviewer/editor; document format and layout; 

and assist with refuge purposes, vision statement, and 

goals, objectives, and strategies development and 

public involvement. 

Supervised planner, reviewed both draft and final 

documents, assisted with Refuge/Honolulu office 

coordination and process guidance with the Regional 

office. 

Extended Team (those who attended periodic planning meetings and reviewed information) 

Name and Title (in alphabetical order) Responsibilities 

Donna Ball, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS - 

Ecological Services 

Laura Beauregard, Natural Resource Planner, 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWRC 

Reviewer, technical expertise for biological 

resources. 

Assisted with planning initiative during vacant 

natural resource planner period, provided guidance 

to Refuge staff and new planner, assisted with 

public meetings. 

Sandra Hall, External Affairs, USFWS Assisted with printing CCP/EA and planning 

update 3 as well as posting information on the 

Hakalau website during public comment period. 

Lynne Hanzawa, Administrative Officer, Hakalau Mailings, public meetings, logistical support. 

Forest NWR 

Barbara Maxfield, External Affairs Chief, USFWS Assist with outreach efforts and public meetings; 

review of documents; planning updates; 

NOI/NOA; news releases; communication plan; 

preparation of documents for printing/distribution. 

Pearl Mokuhalii, Office Assistant, Hakalau Forest 

NWR replaced 

Clara Tsang, Office Automation Clerk, Hakalau 

Forest NWR (departed 2010) 

Barry Stieglitz, Project Leader, Hawaiian and 

Pacific Islands NWRC 

Mailings, public meetings, assisting with compiling 

comments. 

Supervised planner early in the process, reviewed 

both draft and final documents, assisted with 

Refuge/Honolulu office coordination and process 

guidance with the Regional office, decisionmaker. 

J-2 Appendix J. CCP Team Members



Regional Office Team (provided CCP process guidance, technical assistance, and review) 


Carolyn Bohan, Regional Chief NWRS Major decisions on CCP direction. 

Liz Cruz, Geographer/GIS Specialist GIS advice; GIS data layer development and assistance with 

production of working maps for CCP/EA and final CCP, 

planning updates, agency/public involvement. 

Joe Engler, Wildlife Biologist IPM advice, data, and review; assist with development of 

objectives and strategies. 

Nicole Garner, Writer/Editor Assisted with developing planning update 3, processing 

public comments. 

Mike Green, Wildlife Biologist, Advice on birds, applicable goals from regional bird plans. 

Migratory Birds 

Ben Harrison, Division Chief Natural 

and Cultural Resources 

Chuck Houghten, Chief, Division of 

Planning, Visitor Service, Transportation 

CCP Advisor, purposes, wilderness review, policy, CD 

review. 

Reviewer; planning workload assistance; coordination with 

other divisions. 

Kay Kier-Haggenjos, Lead Writer/Editor Editing of CCP related documents, preparation of documents 

for printing/distribution, planning update format, providing 

guidance on formatting and template resources and examples, 

posting related documents on the main planning website. 

Kevin Kilbride, Wildlife Biologist, 

Regional IPM Coordinator 

Greg Larson, Environmental 

Planner/Specialist, SWCA 

Mike Marxen, Branch Chief, Visitor 

Services 

Scott McCarthy, Branch Chief, Refuge, 

Planning 

Fred Paveglio, Branch Chief, Refuge 

Biology 

IPM advice, data, and review; assist with development of 

objectives and strategies for pest management. 

CCP development. 

CCP Advisor, layout graphics design, public use goals and 

objectives; public involvement assistance, CD review. 

CCP Advisor, reviewer, coordination with other divisions. 

CCP Advisor, Conservation targets, Habitat management 

plan, habitat goals and objectives, CD review. 

Anan Raymond, Regional Archaeologist Cultural resources advice, data, and review. 

Patrick Stark, Visual Information 

Assistant 

Tiffany Thair, Environmental 

Planner/Specialist, SWCA 

Assisted with layout and cover design, processed printing 

orders. 

CCP development. 

Robyn Thorson, Regional Director Decision maker, CCP/EA approval. 

Amy Wing, Conservation Planner Land acquisition history, refuge purposes. 

Tara Zimmerman, Wildlife Biologist, 

Migratory Birds 

Advice on birds, applicable goals from regional bird plans. 

Stephen Zylstra, Regional Landscape 

Conservation Manager 

Provided guidance on addressing climate change in CCP. 

Appendix J. CCP Team Members J-3



J-4 Appendix J. CCP Team Members



Appendix K. Summary of Public Involvement 

Public involvement was sought throughout the development of the CCP. Public involvement began 

in 2009 with the scoping process and publication of our notice of intent. In February 2009, we mailed 

approximately 150 copies of Planning Update 1 to interested individuals, local conservation and 

interest groups, research organizations, Native Hawaiian organizations and local, State, and Federal 

government agencies and elected officials. Planning Update 1 was available at two public open house 

meetings in March 2009. It was also posted on the Refuge’s website 

(http://www.fws.gov/hakalauforest/planning.html) and the Service’s Pacific Region refuge planning 

website (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/main/docs/HI-PI/docshakalau.htm). A news release 

was issued announcing the open house meetings. An interagency scoping meeting was also held July 

2009, as well as briefings for government officials such as the Mayor of Hawai‘i County. 

In Planning Update 1, we described the CCP planning process; Refuge purposes; draft wildlife, 

habitat, and public use goals; and preliminary issues to be considered in the CCP. In Planning 

Update 2 (made available in October 2009 and similarly circulated as the first update) we 

summarized the comments we received and listed primary management issues we used to draft 

alternatives and refine draft goals and objectives. We also included draft vision statements for both 

units. 

In the last stage of CCP development, Planning Update 3, which announced the Draft CCP/EA 

availability during the public comment period and summarized the alternatives, was circulated 

similarly to previous planning updates. In addition, the public comment period was announced 

through a news release, holding a public open house meeting in Hilo on August 25, 2010, posting the 

draft document on both the Hakalau planning website and main Pacific Region refuge planning 

website, notice of availability in the Federal Register, and email and related list-serve 

announcements. 

Public Scoping Sessions 

The public scoping period for this CCP opened February 25, 2009, and ended March 27, 2009. Two 

public meetings were held, in Hilo and Captain Cook, Hawai‘i, on March 3, 2009, and March 4, 

2009, respectively. At the meetings, Refuge staff explained the CCP planning process; the Refuge 

purposes, vision, and management; and preliminary management issues, concerns, and opportunities. 

Refuge staff also answered questions from attendees and received written comments. Twelve private 

citizens and representatives from various organizations attended the meetings and commented on the 

issues and opportunities we presented. Six written responses were received from individuals or 

organizations during scoping. The comments we received addressed broad or long-range issues and 

very specific or detailed strategies that could be used to achieve biological or public use objectives. 

Summaries of the issues identified and Service responses in Planning Update 2 follow. 

How can we best protect endangered forest birds and the nēnē? 

The primary purpose of the Refuge is protection of endangered species. We manage Refuge 

resources to ensure high-quality habitat is available for endangered species, especially forest birds. 

Drawing on 20 years of Refuge management experience at the HFU, we have included objectives 

and strategies in the Draft CCP/EA for maintaining and enhancing native habitat communities to 

provide the life-history needs of Hakalau Forest NWR’s endangered species. 

Appendix K. Public Involvement K-1



How can we best protect montane wet koa/‘ōhi‘a forest, montane dry koa/‘ōhi‘a/māmane 

forest, lava tubes, and lava tube skylights? 

These habitat types are key to the survival of endangered species. Refuge management objectives and 

strategies will be designed to protect these habitat types, and where appropriate, restore areas to highquality 

habitat. We describe alternatives for managing these important resources in Chapter 2. 

What opportunities exist for expanding environmental education through outreach and onsite 

programs? 

Refuge staff have worked with ‘Imi Pono no ka ‘Āina on environmental education opportunities 

onsite and offsite in local schools. Through the CCP planning process, we have identified additional 

partnerships or opportunities to expand upon the work that is already in place (e.g., through the 

Friends of Hakalau Forest Refuge). 

How can we best prepare for, manage, and prevent the spread of wildfires? 

There is concern, especially from adjacent landowners, that a wildfire could be ignited on the Refuge 

and then spread onto private land. The Refuge currently coordinates with the County of Hawai‘i to 

provide wildland fire fighting capabilities. We are also concerned about the potential for wildfire as 

habitat restoration efforts are implemented. Within the past year, a fire adjacent to the HFU came 

close to spreading onto Refuge lands. Close coordination with the County, other agencies, and 

adjacent landowners is essential to ensure an efficient response to fire threats. As part of the Draft 

CCP/EA, Refuge staff will review options for creating firebreaks and obtaining the equipment and 

personnel required to meet firefighting needs at both units. 

How can we keep refuge visitors and others (e.g. contractors, Service staff) from trespassing on 

adjacent lands? 

The KFU is currently closed to the public. At both units, a number of contractors and Refuge staff 

use the easements for accessing the Refuge. We continue to impress upon all individuals who access 

the areas the importance of using only the authorized and in some cases court-ordered easements. 

Where appropriate, trespass incidents will be referred to Service law enforcement. 

Is acquiring additional easements for accessing the Kona Forest Unit feasible? 

The existing easement includes difficult access from the Mamalahoa Highway, steep slopes, and 

multiple gates. At this point, no additional access or easement opportunities have been identified. 

We will continue to explore options if they arise. 

What Native Hawaiian gathering activities occur on the Refuge? 

To date, there have been very few access requests for gathering activities. As part of the CCP, 

Refuge staff plan to review the process for granting Special Use Permits for gathering activities. 

Can we maintain public access to the historic Kaunene Trail? 

We have reviewed options for access to the trail. At this time access, safety, and resource 

management needs preclude maintenance and public access to the trail. Over time, we could revisit 

opportunities to reopen the Kaunene Trail. 

Do the Refuge units meet the minimum requirements for a wilderness designation nomination? 

A wilderness review, as required by Service policy, has been conducted as part of the CCP planning 

process and is included as Appendix D. 

K-2 Appendix K. Public Involvement



Is there the potential to protect habitat for endangered forest birds through additional land 

acquisition or conservation easements? 

At each unit we will consider opportunities for Refuge boundary expansion on a case-by-case basis, 

and in accordance with Service policy. The Refuge is working with nongovernment conservation 

organizations (NGOs) that are familiar with private lands in the vicinity of existing refuge units in 

evaluating any feasible acquisition opportunities that may arise. Currently, two tracts of land with 

high-quality habitat within the HFU’s approved acquisition boundary have not been acquired and are 

being managed by an agency partner. All of the land within the acquisition boundary for the KFU has 

been acquired. We encourage landowners with high-quality habitat for forest birds to manage their 

lands for conservation. In addition, Refuge staff will work with Regional staff to develop a land 

conservation plan as outlined in objectives 1e and 3e in Chapter 2. 

How can we better manage the Kona Forest Unit’s ungulate populations? 

Refuge staff are in the process of administering a contract to build a perimeter fence around the unit 

and two interior fences that would create three management areas within the unit. Options and 

opportunities for ungulate management, including removal, are included as part of the management 

of the KFU in the preferred alternative. 

How will climate change impact the Refuge? 

The Refuge’s two units are unique in the Hawaiian Islands because of the range of elevations that 

occur on Refuge lands. Through the CCP planning process we will evaluate the effectiveness, 

impacts, and benefits of providing wildlife habitats at a variety of elevations, temperatures, and 

rainfall regimes, so that wildlife can move freely between them as conditions are altered through 

climate change processes and management responses. 

Interagency Scoping 

On July 1, 2009, Refuge and Hawaiian and Pacific Islands staff members met with some of our 

agency partners to discuss planning for Hakalau Forest NWR. Individuals from the DLNR, DHHL, 

USGS-BRD, and USFS attended the meeting. Refuge staff provided an overview of the planning 

process and current management of the Refuge. The following list of issues was developed based 

upon feedback received from these individuals. 

� Desire by partners to see staff and a satellite office in the vicinity of the KFU; 

� Potential for some joint planning with NPS at Kahuku; 

� Interest in developing some sort of “Partnership Boundary” that could include Three Mountain 

Alliance, Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance, Wai‘ea; 

� Need for strong management partnerships at KFU; 

� Climate Change 

o Issues that will likely become larger in the context of climate change include avian malaria, 

the need for corridors to connect habitat fragments; 

o Quote - “This is one of Hawai‘i’s great opportunities to deal with climate change”; 

o The Plan should look for opportunities to connect the subalpine habitat with wet-lower 

elevation habitats; 

� On adjacent lands, DHHL is considering māmane restoration, bird corridors, koa restoration, and 

gorse control. [Since this meeting DHHL’s ‘Āina Mauna Legacy Program more completely 

outlines specific plans for adjacent areas.]; 




� Endangered plants are an important piece of the habitats that are being restored. We should 

specify actions and species; 

� There should be more exploration into carbon sequestration. Previous efforts did not get off the 

ground, but there is an emerging market for “boutique” carbon that could serve Hakalau well; 

� Research 

o There is a need for research into habitat and species responses to adaptive management to 

help make adjustments over time; 

o There is a greater need for monitoring than for pure research; 

o Consider developing a Research Management Plan with a formal subcommittee; 

o Need a way to filter research requests; 

� Additional enforcement should be present at both units; 

� Education/Outreach 

o Consider expanding the open house to twice per year; 

o Develop an airport kiosk; 

o Host an annual “low-budget” research symposium: potential ideas include poster sessions, 

keynote speakers, in conjunction with other events that may be occurring on island; 

� Hakalau nēnē appear to be a migratory subpopulation that could provide an additional avenue for 

education about management at Hakalau; 

� Develop a bibliography of Hakalau research; and 

� Review and use the Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park ungulate control Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

Forest Bird Workshop 

The Service held a workshop with partner agencies, renowned forest bird researchers, and 

statisticians in Hilo October 8-10, 2008, to expand a review of the current status of the Hawai‘i 

‘ākepa and other endangered Hawaiian forest birds at the Refuge for development of options for 

management alternatives for the CCP. 

The Service has received contradictory information over the population status of the endangered 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa in a portion of the Refuge, a major stronghold of the species, over the last several 

years. The Regional Director obtained the assistance of the USGS’ Dr. J. Michael Scott in 

conducting a review of available information on the Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, and this workshop was an 

extension of the review. 

The agenda was focused on the endangered Hawaiian forest birds found at the Refuge. It was 

anticipated that although the workshop focused specifically on the Refuge, much of the information 

shared would be applicable to these species throughout their ranges and to the broader Mauna Kea 

and Hawai‘i Island ecosystems or forest bird survey methodology in general. 

The workshop purposes and objectives were: 

1. Identify and prioritize management needs and activities, including research, at Hakalau Forest 

NWR to recover endangered Hawaiian forest birds; 

2. Incorporate identified needs and activities in the Hakalau Forest 15-year CCP; and 

3. Extrapolate Hakalau-specific information to the broader Mauna Kea area and other geographic 

areas and bird species and suites of birds as appropriate. 




A number of suggestions came out of the workshop. The suggestions are listed below. The rankings 

for each of the lists are based upon voting by workshop participants. The complete forest bird 

workshop summary is included as Appendix E. 


1. Ungulates; 

2. Lack of Habitat; 

3. Invasive Plants; 

4. Predation; 

5. Data Insufficient to Meet Management Needs; 

6. Parasites; and 

7. Interspecific Competition. 

Management Actions (Priority Ranking by Workshop Participants) 

1. *Grazers/browsers (Habitat destruction/relative to mosquito production) (High) 

� Fence construction, maintenance, and removal of animals; 


2. Habitat Restoration (High) 

� Revegetation of pasture land; 

� Improve ‘ōhi‘a densities; 

3. Invasive plants (High) 

� Continue invasive species control (e.g., blackberry, banana poka, gorse); 

� Prevent and eliminate incipient weeds; 


4. Monitoring and Data Needs (High) 


� Delivery of technical information; 

5. Predation (Medium) 


6. Parasites (Low) 

� Incipient invasive parasites, true population counts, delouse birds; 

7. Interspecific competition (Low) 


� Identify ectoparasites/mites. 

Research Priorities (Priority Ranked by Workshop Participants) 

1. Monitoring and Data: Expand point counts/banding data (combined primary counter training, 

consider use of a B-Bird (Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database) system 

(http://www.umt.edu/bbird/info.htm), and threat surveillance); 

2. Predation: Investigate effects of rats on forest birds; rodent population index; 

3. Invasive Plants: Develop effective biocontrols; 

4. *Grazers/Browsers: Predator proof fencing; 

5. Invasive Plants: Develop more efficient control methods and registration of herbicides; 

5. Determine the effects of global climate change at the Refuge; Develop more effective cat control 

techniques; 

6. Determine effects of ectoparasites on non-endangered bird populations; and 

6. Experimental control of Japanese white-eyes. 




*Caveat: Activities to construct an ungulate-proof fence and a predator-proof fence caused some 

confusion. Dr. Scott obtained consensus that these activities could be combined with a third separate 

but related activity of removing ungulates. 

Public Comment Period 

In the last stage of CCP development, Planning Update 3, which announced the Draft CCP/EA 

availability during the public open comment period (August 16-September 15, 2010) and 

summarized the alternatives, was circulated similarly to previous planning updates (which included 

mailings to national organizations). In addition, announcement of the public open comment period 

was made through a news release distributed within Hawai‘i and on the mainland; holding a public 

open house meeting in Hilo on August 25, 2010; posting the draft document on both the Hakalau 

planning website and main Refuge RO planning website; notice of availability in the Federal 

Register as well as the Environmental Notice (State Office of Environmental Quality Control); and 

email and related list-serve announcements. In addition, where meetings were already scheduled with 

partner agencies and organizations (e.g., Friends of Hakalau Forest NWR board meeting, quarterly 

Three Mountain Alliance meeting) during the public comment period, updates of the Draft CCP/EA 

were provided. 

Public Comments on the Draft CCP/EA and Service Responses 

This section addresses comments that were received on the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA, August 

2010) during the official public comment period from August 16-September 15, 2010. A total of 

19 comments were received via letter, email, or at the public meeting. All comments are categorized 

(i.e., management strategies, research and monitoring, public use, historic resources, climate change, 

refuge capacity, and adequacy of document), summarized, and listed with our responses below. 

Editorial comments have been considered in the development of the final CCP. 

Table K-1. Draft CCP/EA Respondents 

Respondent Representing City/State 

Larry Wayne Jose Keauhou, Hawai‘i 

Daniel Rubinoff, Ph.D., 

Associate Professor, University 

of Hawai‘i 

Honolulu, Hawai‘i 

Lorraine Ellison Kea‘au, Hawai‘i 

Patricia Richardson Hilo, Hawai‘i 

Jean Pbulic Florham Park, New Jersey 

Patrick Conant Volcano, Hawai‘i 

Leonard A. Freed, Ph.D., and 

Rebecca L. Cann, Ph.D., 

University of Hawai‘i 


Stephen Stearns, Ph.D., 

Professor, Yale University 

New Haven, Connecticut 

Mark Fox, Director of External The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 

Affairs 

Hawai‘i Program 




Respondent Representing City/State 

Richard Hoeflinger, President Big Island Gun Dogs Kea‘au, Hawai‘i 

Matt Hoeflinger, Hunting Mauna Kea Recreational Users Hilo, Hawai‘i 

Committee Chair and Wayne 

Blyth, Chairman 

Group 

Gordon Tribble, Director Pacific Island Ecosystems 

Research Center, USGS 

Honolulu, Hawai’i 

Chris Farmer, Ph.D., Science 

Coordinator for Endangered 

Hawaiian Birds 

American Bird Conservancy Hawai‘i National Park, Hawai‘i 

Richard C. Wass, President Friends of Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge 


Gustav Bodner, Graduate 

Student, University of Hawai‘i 


Walter D. Koenig, Ph.D., 

Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology 

Ithaca, New York 

Cathy M. Lowder Hilo, Hawai‘i 

Annie Marshall, Ph.D. Nēnē Recovery Action Group Honolulu, Hawai‘i 

BJ Leithead Todd, Planning County of Hawai‘i Planning Hilo, Hawai‘i 

Director 

Department 

Kaulana H.R. Park, Chairman Department of Hawaiian Home Honolulu, Hawai‘i 

Hawaiian Homes Commission Lands 

Management Strategies 

Alternatives 

Several commenters specifically expressed their support for implementation of Alternative B, as 

described in the Draft CCP/EA. Commenters stated Alternative B was preferable because it includes 

the most acreage of reforestation and restoration across all forest types; large inventory, research, and 

assessment components; and increased opportunities for outreach, volunteers, and environmental 

education; and because it would best maintain biodiversity. One commenter stated that Alternative B 

could be strengthened by including the best management strategies available. 

Response: Alternative B, identified as our preferred alternative in the Draft CCP/EA, has been 

incorporated into this final CCP. Based on more specific comments below, the management 

objectives and strategies have been clarified to improve the final plan. 

Biodiversity: 

A few commenters felt we should have placed more emphasis on conserving biological diversity 

rather than on protecting forest birds. Comments requested that we highlight additional species that 

may be just as endangered and important as they could be critical to ecosystem functioning. For 

example, insects may respond more quickly to positive and negative changes, but no allowance was 

made for understanding this. Another stated an effort to assess broader biodiversity would be a good 

idea to help the Service understand how thing are changing in both restored and native habitats. One 

commenter suggested expanding the Refuge goals to include the conservation of biological diversity. 




Response: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to 

ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are 

maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. The Service’s policy 

(601 FW 3) also provides guidance on consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, 

wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges, and associated ecosystems that represent biological 

diversity on each refuge. In response to the public comments, we have expanded our discussion of 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health in Chapter 4 of the final CCP. Though the 

Refuge was established for the purposes of listed species protection, the establishment language also 

incorporates the ecosystems and habitats which support these species. Consequently, additional 

species will benefit from this approach. The Service recognizes that biodiversity in an integral part of 

the overall health of a functioning ecosystem. 

Ungulate Removal: 

Commenters both opposed and supported removal of ungulates from the Refuge. Those opposed to 

removal felt the animals deserve to be here as part of what the Hawaiians brought; that removal of 

ungulates could lead to more grasses and an increase in fire danger; and that it is impossible to 

remove all ungulates. Those in support of removing ungulates indicated it is a critical action if native 

habitats are to be restored and endangered forest birds and other species are to survive into the future. 

Response: Our goal is to restore and protect the native forests within the Refuge, which is in direct 

opposition to maintaining ungulates. The final CCP continues to call for the removal of all ungulates 

from both Units of the Refuge. 

One commenter asked to review evidence that “removal of the larger more aggressive pigs could 

result in population increases through ingress by additional pigs that use smaller territories and 

reproductive response in the feral pig population.” 

Response: Since pigs are capable of rapid population growth, we have added language to clarify 

this statement that very high levels of annual removal are required from managed areas to suppress 

and retain the pig population to a near zero level. 

One commenter asked for a better description of the differences between alternatives, particularly as 

it relates to ungulate control; another asked that the Refuge’s Feral Ungulate Management Plan 

(FUMP) be included in an appendix since it is referenced throughout the document in multiple 

places. 

Response: The fencing scheme for Alternative A depicted on Map 6 was developed as part of the 

1995 Feral Ungulate Management Plan. Based on a recent review of this scheme, we determined 

that it would be more effective to reduce the number of internal fenced units and align the fences 

parallel to certain natural elevation contours. This revised fencing scheme is part of the management 

regime in Alternatives B (Map 7) and C (Map 8). We have revised the CCP to explain this new 

approach to creating internal fenced units to promote ungulate eradication. The CCP has 

superseded the FUMP, and we will produce several stepdown management plans (see Appendix C) 

that tier from the CCP, including an Inventory and Monitoring Plan that would include ungulate 

management. However, any interested party is welcome to obtain a copy of the original FUMP 

document from the Refuge upon request. 




One commenter supports the use of aerial drops of toxic baits for ungulate control wherever they are 

safe for native species, as is being done successfully in New Zealand. 

Response: The aerial distribution of toxins is being considered Statewide, and we will continue 

working with our conservation partners to evaluate its usefulness in Hawai‘i. We support and 

implement the concepts and procedures of Integrated Pest Management (as outlined in Appendix G) 

to control or eradicate invasive species on national wildlife refuges. 

Fencing: 

The internal fencing identified in Alternative B was supported as a good way to manage wild pigs. 

One commenter recommended removing feral ungulates immediately after fence installation as they 

can cause more damage if trapped in one smaller area. 

Response: Our goal is to immediately initiate ungulate removal after a management unit is fenced, 

but the schedule will be dictated by the availability of funding. We agree the action of complete 

enclosure of a unit should not occur until funding is available for immediate ungulate removal upon 

fence completion. 

Nēnē Management: 

One commenter stated that conflicts with nēnē and forest restoration will occur because the original 

Hakalau vegetation was not suitable for nēnē. He asked that we clarify how we plan to transition out 

of nēnē management in forested areas and whether expansion of nēnē efforts on adjacent lands above 

the Refuge might be possible. Another commenter suggested, to avoid conflict with restoration areas, 

moving breeding habitat to lower elevations and/or in areas where restoration is more problematic 

within the Refuge. Another person suggested no areas be altered for grasslands. 

Response: We agree that originally, no grasslands would have existed at the HFU. However, the 

existing grasslands created by years of cattle grazing do provide good habitat for this endangered 

species. Within the timeframe of this CCP (15 years), we do not expect complete reforestation of the 

HFU to occur. Thus we have chosen to continue to manage portions of this Unit for the recovery of 

nēnē and will seek a balance between the needs of various listed species on the Refuge. We will 

continue to work with our neighbors and partners to benefit native species, but have no control over 

the lands beyond our boundaries. 

Two commenters suggested combining the nēnē habitat management proposals in Alternatives B and 

C in the final CCP, thus protecting both breeding and foraging sites. Another commenter stated 

creation of additional nēnē habitat may lead to increased predation as nēnē densities increase. 

Another commenter expressed concern that nēnē develop behavioral problems when around humans 

and should not be near structures to avoid habitat imprinting that occurs. She suggested that current 

as well as future nesting and foraging areas be moved away from human infrastructure and areas 

where human/nēnē interactions would be minimal. 

Response: We have chosen to maintain the strategies for nēnē under Alternative B (the selected 

alternative) until we can evaluate how much foraging habitat is needed, our capacity to manage it 

(through mowing), and research into the predator and human/nēnē interaction and habitat 

imprinting issues. Once these issues are more fully understood, we will determine an appropriate 

acreage and location for additional nēnē habitat. The final CCP calls for adaptive management as 

factors change on the Refuge. 




Invasive Weed Control: 

One commenter supported the inclusion of biocontrol in all three alternatives as an important tool for 

controlling weeds (e.g., naio thrips in Kona could be a threat to naio trees at the Refuge). 

Response: We appreciate your support and agree that biocontrol can be an effective tool as part of 

an Integrated Pest Management program. It is further discussed in Appendix G of the final CCP. 

Fire Management: 

One commenter stated wildfire response should include development of interagency protocols, early 

detection, maintenance of water sources, and mobilization of equipment and firefighters. 

Response: A strategy under Alternative B (the selected alternative) for habitats in both units calls 

for the development of a fire prevention program, which will address the issues identified by the 

commenter. Additionally, the Refuge has fire management plans, and we are a member of the 

interagency Big Island Wildfire Coordinating Group, which also incorporates the issues above. 

Forest Bird Management: 

A commenter stated that ‘i‘iwi and ‘apapane do not live above 4,100 ft as they migrate to lower 

elevations during summer. 

Response: We have clarified this information in the final CCP. 

Another commenter said avian diseases and parasites should be emphasized as one of the top priority 

threats to all forest birds, including the Hawai‘i ‘elepaio. 

Response: We have clarified the text as requested. 

Research and Monitoring 

Two commenters expressed concern that the plan is an attempt to prioritize the management needs 

and activities for the next 15 years without a full discussion of avian population trends. They believe 

conclusions cited in the plan about forest bird recovery are untrue because they are based on flawed 

analysis and models, and that management actions are being proposed without fully understanding 

population trends. They stated that increased scrutiny needs to be given to ‘ākepa in light of its 

significant declines and that control of Japanese white-eyes should be at the core of adaptive 

management as they are limiting the food supply for native birds. They further stated that university 

scientists conducting research independent of agency bias have the potential to contribute 

significantly to the mission of the Refuge, and that these benefits outweigh any perceived 

disadvantages. 

Another commenter asked that we give weight to the research of Drs. Lenny Freed and Rebecca 

Cann on the decline of native honeycreepers in this part of Hawai‘i due to introduced forest birds and 

stated the Refuge needs to make decisions based on the best available science. An additional 

commenter suggested allowing an independent expert bird ecologist to conduct a study on the impact 

of white-eye competition on native birds at Hakalau, suggesting that funding could be arranged from 

other sources so as not to interfere with Refuge priorities. 




Response: We have based our forest bird research and management priorities on those 

recommended by the experts convened for the Forest Bird Workshop in October 2008 (see 

Appendix E. Forest Bird Workshop). We agree that research on the demography, life history, 

carrying capacity, and competition for native forest birds is very important to the Refuge, and we 

have included it as a project in Appendix C Plan Implementation. We also evaluated the 

compatibility of research, scientific collecting, and surveys in Appendix B and found “[r]esearch on 

Hakalau Forest NWR is inherently valuable to the Service, since it is intended to expand the 

knowledge base of those who are given the responsibility of managing the resources found within the 

Refuge.” We welcome suggestions for seeking non-Refuge funding to support such research. 

One comment letter indicated that the research proposal process, from evaluation and feedback to 

timetables for research and reporting, should be as transparent as possible. 

Response: We have included extensive information about the research proposal process within 

Appendix B. Appropriate Uses and Compatibility Determinations, under the Research, Scientific 

Collecting, and Surveys compatibility determination, including formats for proposals, annual 

progress reports, and Memoranda of Understanding for curatorial services. The compatibility 

determination outlines the proposal process, as well as reporting requirements and stipulations to 

ensure permitted research conforms to Service regulations and policies and will be performed in a 

manner that will not impact Refuge resources. 

One commenter asked that the alternatives description have an additional paragraph dealing with 

research and monitoring. 

Response: The final CCP does not include alternatives, thus we have not added this text. However, 

research and monitoring are fully described in several locations within the CCP, including in 

Chapter 2 and Appendices B and C. 

One commenter stated the Refuge should monitor for ungulate presence to optimize effectiveness of 

fencing and ungulate removal. 

Response: We agree that a long-term concerted effort is required as part of overall ungulate 

management. We plan to continue ungulate surveys as frequently as practicable to monitor their 

population status and will utilize available resources to take actions necessary to eliminate ungulates 

from newly fenced units and prevent the ingress of ungulates into existing restored and protected 

forest habitats. This aspect of ungulate management has been clarified in Chapter 2 under general 

guidelines, ungulate-proof boundary fencing and sequence of management actions. 

Public Use 

Hunting: 

Several commenters addressed the issue of public hunting on Hakalau Forest NWR, both in favor 

and opposed. Those in favor stated that hunting provides sustenance for local people, is part of 

Hawai‘i family lifestyles, is effective in reducing pig numbers, and can be accomplished without 

impacting other natural resources. Those opposed stated that hunters are less than 3 percent of the 

American public and should not be allowed to monopolize the sites so that the majority of Americans 

cannot safely use them, that public hunting is not effective at controlling pigs because 70 percent of 




the pig population must be removed annually to effect control, and that the potential damage to 

recovered habitat and the risk of new weed introductions is too great. 

Response: The Service recognizes its strong legal encouragement to offer public hunting on national 

wildlife refuges when this recreational use can be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the 

purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. Based on the compatibility determination found in 

Appendix B, we have determined that public hunting is not compatible with the purposes of the 

Refuge. Use of public recreational hunting as a tool to meet the overall goals of the Refuge’s 

ungulate control program was not successful in the past. Reduction and ultimately eradication of 

ungulates is necessary to achieve the required level of protection and eliminate disturbance to 

endangered species. Recreational hunting is unlikely to achieve the desired goal of reducing pig 

populations in managed units by >70 percent annually, in order to assure control objectives are 

achieved where more efficient methods are available (Hess et al.2006). Additionally, keeping 

ungulate populations at levels required to provide public recreational hunting is not compatible with 

the Refuge’s purposes of protecting listed species and the habitats they rely on. 

We believe it is most efficient and effective to control ungulates through staff efforts and/or by 

contract. Bids for such contracts would be solicited from the public and would not necessarily 

preclude a contractor from using the services and expertise of local hunting groups to complete the 

work. Such contracts would have strict stipulations to prevent negative impacts on native species as 

well as be required to obtain liability insurance, be permitted to carry a firearm, have gone through 

the State’s Hunter Education Program and carry a State hunting license/permit, and any other 

stipulations identified in the contract solicitation. 

One commenter indicated public hunting is addressed only for pig hunting, avoiding other island 

game species. 

Response: We agree. We modified our hunting compatibility determination to reflect that hunting of 

game birds is not compatible because the flight paths of the endangered nēnē and wild turkeys 

overlap. 

One commenter felt the discussion of hunting in the Draft CCP/EA offered abundant speculation and 

opinion, and little that is factually accurate. Others stated there is no substantiated evidence of 

hunters purposefully pursuing game into impenetrable vegetation or cutting or pulling endangered 

plants, and it is speculative to say public hunting has negative impacts on such resources. Another 

asked if other public uses are allowed in the area would not have the same impacts as hunters. 

Response: We have reviewed the language included within our hunting compatibility determination 

to ensure it is more objective and accurate. Unlike other public use opportunities, such as wildlife 

photography and bird watching, which occur on identified roads or paths to keep people from 

negatively impacting Refuge resources, hunting is not an activity that has similar infrastructure in 

place to protect resources and guide the user. Hunting is a pursuit of a wild animal that can go 

anywhere and the hunter follows. This unguided pathway through Refuge habitat could inadvertently 

impact native vegetation and restoration efforts as well as disturb habitat for native species. 

Additional concerns about impact to Refuge resources are the inadvertent spread of nonnative weed 

species through Refuge habitats. Given the many other hunting opportunities on the rest of the 

island, it is unknown what invasive plant species seeds or other reproductive plant medium may be 




attached to clothing or equipment. The cost of controlling invasive weeds in remote areas is high, 

and it is easier to prevent the establishment of nonnative plants than control them after the fact. 

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Interpretation, and Environmental Education: 

Two commenters supported additional visitor uses within the Refuge. One asked to open the Pua 

‘Ākala tract to the public once a month for birding, wildlife photography, and other compatible uses; 

to develop a wildlife observation platform in the vicinity of Pua ‘Ākala cabin and Maulua; and to 

advertise and host a monthly onsite environmental education event. Another suggested opening the 

KFU to the public for guided interpretation, nature study, and photography. 

Response: Based on staffing limitations and concerns about additional impacts to endangered forest 

birds and plants, we have determined a small-scale wildlife observation and photography program 

with strict stipulations is appropriate only in the Upper Maulua Unit of the HFU (See Appendix B). 

The final CCP also calls for the development of a Visitor Services Plan in the coming years, and 

proposals to expand visitor programs may be reevaluated at that time as well as when additional 

funding is available to support visitor services positions. 

One commenter stated that outreach is key to gaining public support, especially for restoring ‘alalā at 

the KFU. 

Response: We agree that outreach is important to gain public support for maintaining and 

recovering all native species and for management activities at Hakalau Forest NWR. We will seek 

further opportunities with other Hawai‘i refuges, the State, nongovernmental organizations, schools, 

and the Friends of Hakalau Forest NWR to expand our outreach efforts, as discussed under 

Objective 7.4. 

Historic Resources 

One commenter asked who would manage Pua ‘Ākala cabin if it is listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places and how it would be managed. 

Response: We have clarified in the final CCP that the cabin would remain under the management of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service if it is designated as historic and that it would be managed in 

accordance with guidelines from the National Registry and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for Historic Preservation. 

Climate Change 

Two commenters addressed the issue of climate change on the Refuge, one stating that outplanting 

species that were present many years ago is impractical and wasteful due to climate change, and the 

other encouraging the Refuge to consider other components of Hawaiian biota threatened by climate 

change (not just forest birds) in assessing future land acquisition. 

Response: We have added substantial text to the final CCP (Chapter 3) regarding climate change. 

The Service is supporting the development of regional Landscape Conservation Cooperatives that 

will integrate local climate models with models of climate change responses by species, habitats, and 

ecosystems. Cooperatives will collectively plan and design appropriate conservation actions at a 

landscape scale, monitor responses to climate change, and assess the effectiveness of management 




strategies. The local version of these Landscape Conservation Cooperatives is the Pacific Islands 

Climate Change Cooperative (PICCC), headquartered in Honolulu, Hawai‘i, but working across the 

Pacific. By working with PICCC, the Refuge will identify additional mitigation measures for climate 

change. 

Refuge Capacity 

Several commenters either expressed concern that the Service has not had the funding and staffing 

necessary to manage the Refuge at the current level or expressed support for expanding Refuge 

staffing to implement the CCP. Some particularly supported filling the positions for a park 

ranger/volunteer coordinator, fire fuels specialist, and office assistant. 

Response: As indicated in Appendix C. Plan Implementation, Hakalau Forest NWR recognizes the 

need for additional staffing for current management operations as well as to implement the final 

CCP. Position priorities will be determined as funding becomes available and based on skills needed 

at that time. 

Adequacy of Document 

One commenter stated there is little explanation of how the various management target areas were 

determined for the different forest objectives and asked that we clarify how they are currently 

managed and what needs to be done for each of the targeted areas. 

Response: Management targets were established based on evaluation of the vegetation type maps 

found in the Draft CCP/EA. A new appendix (L) was created to summarize past and current 

management actions. We recognize that more detailed planning would be beneficial in carrying out 

management actions identified in the CCP. The Service planning process provides for the 

development of “stepdown plans” to facilitate this additional planning need (see Appendix C). We 

will be preparing an Inventory and Monitoring Plan which will assist managers in implementing 

habitat protection, maintenance, and restoration strategies. Additionally, as the Service implements 

its new Inventory and Monitoring approach, we will be fine tuning our habitat related management 

targets and actions annually through the new habitat database system. 

One commenter felt availability of the draft plan for public review was not adequately publicized 

within the other 49 States. 

Response: Our efforts to seek public involvement in the planning process are outlined earlier in this 

Appendix. Although we recognize each national wildlife refuge belongs to all Americans, typically 

those nearest to the site are most interested in commenting on its management. We published a notice 

of availability in the Federal Register, mailed numerous planning updates to nonlocal entities such 

as national organizations, and distributed a news release throughout the Pacific Region. Information 

also has been available on various Service websites. 

One commenter supported development of an environmental impact statement rather than an 

environmental assessment. 

Response: As indicated in the Finding of No Significant Impact, the Service believes that 

implementing Alternative B as the CCP for management of Hakalau Forest NWR is not a major 




Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the 

meaning of section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, the 

Service is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement. 







Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management 

When Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1985 to protect native forest habitat 

for endangered animals and plants, the initial lands acquired with the help of the Nature Conservancy 

had been used for cattle ranching, some of which had also been logged. As such, the condition of the 

native forest had been degraded by 100 years of cattle grazing, with about 5,000 acres of upper 

elevation forest (mostly above 6,000 ft) converted into open woodland and pasture dominated by 

introduced grasses (though most of the Refuge still had closed canopy forest, with the most intact 

areas in the lower elevations). Under the closed canopy forest, certain sections of the understory had 

been disturbed by cattle, pigs, and rats. The mesic koa/‘ōhi‘a and koa/māmane forests were the most 

severely degraded. Listed species that were found at the time included Phyllostegia racemosa and 

Clermontia lindseyana. The first initial management actions implemented by the Refuge included 

surveys (forest bird, native plant, weed, ungulate), construction of ungulate proof fences, ungulate 

removal, weed control, and reforestation (outplanting of koa) and reforestation research focused on 

techniques (mainly with assistance of the USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF)). Due to 

the remote location of the Refuge, a cabin and storage building as well as water catchment systems 

had to be constructed to support Refuge operations. The last cattle permitted to graze at the Refuge 

were removed in 1996. Over the years, other parcels of the Refuge (Pua ‘Ākala, Middle Papaikou, 

Middle Hakalau, and units B-F) were acquired so that today, HFU is 32,730 acres. 

In 1997, an additional 5,300 acres was purchased from the Les Marks Estate in South Kona, bringing 

the total Refuge acreage up to 38,030 acres. This unit was established specifically for the endangered 

‘alalā, as well as other listed species. Vegetation at the lower portions, around the 2,000-foot 

elevation, was dominated by a mixture of introduced and native trees, shrubs, and grasses. These 

included guava (Psidium guajava), strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), silky oak (Grevillea 

robusta), and Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius), and ‘ōhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha) was 

the most common native tree. Above the 2,500-foot elevation, introduced trees and shrubs become 

less prevalent, and the forest community was dominated by an overstory of ‘ōhi‘a trees and an 

understory of native trees, shrubs, and hapu‘u tree ferns (Cibotium spp.). Between the 3,000- 

6,000 foot elevations, a diverse native forest community was found. This forest type is characterized 

by an overstory comprised of a mixture of koa (Acacia koa) and ‘ōhi‘a trees and an understory of 

native shrubs and hapu‘u. Cattle grazing had created pastures in some of these upper elevations. 

Above the 6,000-foot elevation, the native forest was characterized by a mixed māmane-sandalwood 

(Sophora chrysophylla-Santalum ellipticum) and koa or ‘ōhi‘a dryland natural communities with 

ground cover of nonnative grasses and native shrubs. Listed species found included the ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, 

Hawai‘i ‘ākepa, the Hawai‘i creeper, the ‘akiapōlā‘au, and the ‘io. Initial refuge management of this 

unit included securing road access, surveys (forest bird, native plant, weed, ungulate), and 

establishing a field camp. 

Current Refuge management for both units (Hakalau Forest Unit and Kona Forest Unit) revolves 

around maintaining and constructing new fencing, controlling pest species (plants and animals), 

native forest restoration, reforestation, and threatened and endangered species management. In 

addition, the Refuge contains structures and facilities that existed before the original acquisition. The 

Refuge has built its own facilities to support management. All require maintenance, including a 

candidate historic structure (Pua ‘Ākala Cabin). Chapter 5 provides additional information on Refuge 

facilities. 

Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management L-1



For the Hakalau Forest Unit, eight internal management units exist, consisting of 14,150 fenced 

acres. There are 45 miles of ungulate proof fencing established, including both perimeter and internal 

fences (Figure 2-1). Middle Honohina (1) is roughly 550 acres, Shipman (2) 5,000 acres, Lower 

Honohina (3) 1,800 acres, Upper Maulua (4) 2,000 acres, Upper Honohina (5) 1,000 acres, Middle 

Hakalau (6) 1,500 acres, Middle Papaikou (7) 1,800 acres, and Pua ‘Ākala (8) 500 acres. Middle and 

Lower Maulua and Lower Honohina consist of closed canopy forest with relatively intact understory. 

Middle Honohina, which has been pig free for the longest time period (since 1989), also consists of 

closed canopy forest as are units B, C, E, and F. 

A majority of restoration and reforestation work has been conducted within Pua ‘Ākala, Shipman, 

and Upper Honohina, with over 400,000 native plants (mainly koa) outplanted since 1987 in order to 

create additional native forest habitat in formerly grazed and degraded areas (see before and after 

photographs below). Most recent restoration management has focused on using other native plants to 

build up the understory now that koa canopy coverage has been established. Preparation of land for 

outplanting includes grass control to reduce competition by using mechanical (dozer) as well as hand 

control (it has been documented that pasture grasses as well as lack of seed, soil conditions, and 

harsh climate (frost) in open grasslands can inhibit natural forest regeneration). In addition, listed 

plants have also been outplanted in these areas including Clermontia pyrularia, Clermontia 

lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, Cyanea shipmanii, Phyllostegia racemosa, and Pyllostegia velutina 

and Ranunculus hawaiiensis. Native habitat vegetation in each unit can be seen in Figure 4-2, with 

Middle Papaikou, Middle Hakalau, Lower Honohina, Middle Maulua and units A-F containing the 

most intact native forests on the Refuge. 

Intermittent streams can be found in upper elevation units 1-8, while lower elevations have perennial 

streams (Figure 4-2). Additional aquatic habitats include Carex bogs found in montane wet 

‘ōhi‘a/uluhe forest. Some hydrology research has been conducted. However, very little management 

(other than gorse removal in the upper units) has been done for these aquatic habitats. 

The invasive weeds of most concern are: (1) gorse, which is found most heavily in open pasture 

areas at Pua ‘ākala, with smaller populations in Shipman and Upper Honohina, and (2) Florida 

blackberry, which can be found in all units above 5,000 ft. Pua ‘Ākala also has a heavy English holly 

infestation, with some smaller populations in Shipman and Upper Honohina. All three units of 

Honohina and the two upper units of Maulua also have banana poka. Hotenia davidiana has the 

highest concentration in Middle Honohina and the upper portions of the Lower Honohina. The 

highest concentration of nonnatives is found at the higher elevations above 5,000 ft. All invasive 

weeds that currently exist at HFU are in a monitoring, control, or maintenance stage of management, 

with a focus on both chemical and mechanical control. Florida blackberry control activities are 

conducted May-October and gorse control focused on in winter months; while English holly is yearround. 

Volunteers assist with banana poka control. 

Listed species management includes both flora and fauna. Listed animal species of most concern can 

be found in the following units with Pua ‘Ākala and Shipman having the highest concentration of 

listed species: 

• ‘Akiapōlā‘au can be found in all units above 4,500 ft elevation; 

• Hawai‘i ‘ākepa can be found in all units above 4,500 ft elevation with the greatest densities 

in the Shipman and Pua ‘Ākala units; 

• Hawai‘i creeper can be found in all units above 4,500 ft elevation; 

L-2 Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management



• ‘Ō‘ū had two unconfirmed detections in the late 1990s in the lower Honohina tract; 

• ‘Io can be found in all units; 

• Nēnē can be found at Pua ‘Ākala and Shipman; 

• Koloa maoli can be found in stock ponds in the upper units; and 

• ‘Ōpe‘ape‘a can be found in all units. 

The Plant Extinction Prevention (PEP) Program for Hawai‘i Island has been collecting seeds for PEP 

listed species. Seeds of Phyllostegia racemosa were collected from plants in the Maulua tract in years 

past are being grown at the Volcano Rare Plant facility, and seeds from these plants are being 

propagated. Other examples are Asplenium schizophyllum (collected one founder - lower Honohina 

(unit 3)) and Trematolobelia grandifolia (collected one founder in unit 6). Outplantings of PEP 

plants onto Refuge lands includes seedlings of Clermontia peleana in unit 7, unit 6, and in Maulua. 

All other PEP plant outplantings were conducted in the Maulua tract, including Clermontia 

pyrularia, Clermontia lindseyana and Cyanea shipmanii. The listed Cyanea shipmanii (3,896 acres 

of critical habitat are identified at HFU) as well as Phyllostegia racemosa (over 2,317 acres of 

critical habitat are identified at HFU) can be found at Pua ‘Ākala. Critical habitat can also be found 

for Clermenonita peleana and Clermontia lindseyana (over 2,000 acres). 

Surveys for forest birds occurred every year since 1987 (Figure 4-5). Additional surveys include 

‘ōpe‘ape‘a (in Pua ‘Ākala and Upper Maulua), invasive plants occasionally (which follow the forest 

bird transects), and ungulates on forest bird transects annually until 2005. 

Species research includes ‘ōpe‘ape‘a, nēnē, invertebrates, pollination, listed plants and animals, 

forest structure and species diversity, and restoration. Most research occurs in units 2, 4, 5 and 8 and 

some research occurs in units 1, 3, 6, and 7. 

Fire (fuel) breaks and gates are also maintained, along with internal dirt/gravel roads for management 

purposes in units 2, 4, 5 and 8 (Figure 5-2). Wildland fire history at the Refuge is minimal. The 

Refuge sustained its first fire in 2002 in the Maulua unit. Its cause is undetermined. Most of the fires 

occur outside the Refuge and are human caused. Several have burned right up to Refuge fences, but 

were stopped by the fuel breaks. 

Fences are an integral part of ungulate management. Forty-five miles of fence are inspected/repaired 

once a month (when staffed) to prevent new animals from entering control units. Several methods are 

employed to control pigs and cattle. These include hunting, trapping, snaring, and driving. Normally 

a combination of methods is used to eradicate the animals in an area. These units are sized to 

efficiently remove animals over a given period of time. As an example, a 1,500 acre unit will be 

snared at a rate of one snare per acre. This will facilitate control within 5 years. Middle Papaikou has 

1,700 snares and Middle Hakalau has 1,600 snares. Lower Honohina has 1,000 snares but also has 

active baiting and trapping as well. Monitoring of fences for ungulate ingress will be an on-going 

activity. 

For the Kona Forest Unit (Figure 2-2), a perimeter as well as internal fenceline has been cleared in 

preparation for building 17 miles of ungulate proof fencing, anticipated to be completed within 

2 years. Three management units within KFU will exist once the fencing is completed. The PEP 

Program for Hawai‘i Island has been similarly collecting seeds for PEP listed species at this unit and 

propagating them at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility. These include Asplenium peruvianum var. 




insulare (several founders, not considered PEP anymore), Sicyos macrophylla (one founder); 

Sanicula sandwicensis (three founders); Cyanea marksii (one founder); Cyanea stichtophylla (two 

founders); Phyllostegia ambigua (one founder); Phyllostegia spp. (one founder); Stenogyne 

macrantha (one founder); Rubus macraei (one founder); and Fragaria chiloensis ssp. sandwicensis 

(three founders). No outplantings have occurred at KFU because it has not been fenced. Plants that 

were collected and matured to outplanting sizes have been outplanted in State Natural Area Reserve 

fenced exclosures in nearby south Kona. Other PEP species occur on lands adjacent to the Kona 

Forest Unit and have been collected for future outplantings in the KFU once it is protected by fencing 

and animals have been removed. 

The KFU is also considered potential habitat for listed Cyanea hamatiflora carlsonii and is critical 

habitat for listed Drosophila. Four bird transects have also been established and bird surveys are 

conducted intermittently. The U.S. Geological Survey has been conducting basic cave 

reconnaissance related to lava tubes and skylights. Additional surveys that have been made of the 

area include archaeological, rare plant, ‘io, and weed surveys. There is also an access road easement 

on private lands from the highway to the Refuge that requires periodic repairs (Figure 5-3). Though 

no aquatic habitats occur at KFU, the area is considered a groundwater recharge area and critical for 

this drought prone region of the island. 

The current budget (FY2010) for Hakalau Forest NWR is $1,168,098. This budget funds seven full 

time staff members (refuge manager, deputy refuge manager, maintenance supervisor, maintenance 

worker leader, wildlife biologist, horticulturalist, and administrative officer) as well as all operational 

needs. An additional six staff (field crew and administrative support positions) are all funded through 

soft monies (non-base funding). 

The following two tables are a chronological description of the acquisition history listing dates, tract 

numbers, acreage, expiration dates as applicable, and any specific relevant comments. 

Table L-1. Refuge Acquisition History for Hakalau Forest NWR. 

Date 

Acquired 

Legal 

Document Tract # Acreage Comments 

10/28/1985 Easement 14R 19.45 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $0.00 cost included with 

Tract 14. 

10/29/1985 Fee Title 10 4,994.00 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $2,800,000.00 

Signed 10/21/85. All metallic 

minerals to the State of Hawai‘i. 


Cost: $1,000,000.00 

A road easement consisting of 

19.45 (Tract 14R) was also 

acquired in the same deed signed 

10/21/85. all minerals and metallic 

mines to State of Hawai‘i. 

Expiration 

Date 

unknown 

L-4 Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management 

n/a 

n/a

Date 

Acquired 



Legal 


06/05/1986 Easement 11-1R 1.05 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $0.00 

The price for easements 11R and 

11R1 were included with Tract 11 

and 11A. 

06/05/1986 Easement 11R 3.17 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $0.00 

The price for easements 11R and 

11R1 were included with Tract 11 

and 11A. Road, utilities, access 

trails for ancient Hawaiian use or 

custom. All mineral and metallic 

mines to State of Hawai‘i. 

06/06/1986 Fee Title 11a 2,523.78 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $849,017.00 

Tracts 112R and 11R-1 are 

included in this cost. Signed 

6/5/86. 

06/06/1986 Fee Title 11 717.54 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $240,983.00 

All minerals and metallic mines to 

State of Hawai‘i. Roads, utilities, 

access trails for ancient Hawaiian 

use or custom. Tracts 11R and 

11R-1 are included in this cost. 

Signed 6/5/86. 

09/24/1986 Easement 13-1R 1.65 From: Hawaiian Home Lands 

Cost: $900.00 

Nonexclusive, perpetual road 

easement, including right to trim 

vegetation and right of entry upon 

easement area and adjoining land 

of Hawaiian Home lands for 

maintenance of FWS jeep trailterm 

6/1/86. 


Cost: $1,064,325.00 

signed 12/29/86. 

12/11/1987 Fee Title 14a 1,977.82 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $550,000.00 

Mineral and metallic mines to State 

of Hawai‘i. Hilo Forest Reserve 

easement. Perpetual license dated 

10/31/78 for purposed of surplus 

water signed 10/5/87. 

Expiration 

Date 

unknown 

unknown 

Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management L-5 

n/a 

n/a 

perpetual 

n/a 

n/a

Date 

Acquired 



Legal 


12/14/1988 Fee Title 15 400.00 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $360,000 


of Hawaii. Signed 12/2/88 Sutton. 

01/27/1993 Fee Title 11b 1,033.94 From: The Nature Conservancy 

Cost: $1,033.94 

No deed signed date given. 

Liluokalani. 

09/14/1994 Fee Title 12 15,715.54 From: World Union 

Cost: $10,000,000.00 


of Hawai‘i. Deed signed 7/22/94. 

04/12/1995 Fee Title 17 500.00 From: W.H. Shipman LTD. 

Cost: $500,000 

Deed signed 4/6/95. 

Table L-2. Refuge Acquisition History for Kona Forest Unit. 

Date 

Acquired 

Legal 

Document 

Expiration 

Date 

n/a 

Tract # Acreage Comments Expiration 

Date 

10/01/1997 Fee Title 20 5,300.00 From: Les Marks Trust 

Cost: $7,780,000.00 

Road and utility easements. Native 

tenant rights. Other authorities are 

DT authority 1888 & 1931. 

03/30/2005 Easement 21-1R 4.00 From: Les Marks Trust 

Cost: $20,000.00 

Grant of Nonexclusive easement 

document. Monetary purchase and 

settlement agreement. 

03/30/2005 Easement 21-2R 13.00 From: Les Marks Trust 

Cost: $40,000.00 

Grant of Nonexclusive easement 

document. Monetary purchase 

and settlement agreement. 

L-6 Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

unknown 

unknown



Figure L-1. 1993 pre-reforestation and restoration efforts (photo courtesy of Jack Jeffrey). 

2007 post-reforestation and restoration effort (photo courtesy of Jack Jeffrey). 




L-8 Appendix L. Summary of Past and Current Management

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

60 Nowelo Street, Suite 100 

Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 

Phone: 808/443-2300 

Fax: 808/443-2304 

http://www.fws.gov/hakalauforest 

National Wildlife Refuge System Information 

1 800/344 WILD 

April 2011 

Front Cover Photos: Back Cover Photos: 

‘Akiapōlā‘au ‘Ākepa 

©Jack Jeffrey ©Jack Jeffrey 

‘I‘iwi ‘Io 

©Michael Walther ©Michael Walther 

Nēnē Hakalau Forest 

USFWS USFWS

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?