“Ravens are found here but they are scarce,” wrote Charles Clerke in his journal in February 1779. “Their color is dark brown inclining to black, and their Note is different from those of Europe.”
Clerke was captain of the Discovery during James Cook’s ill-fated second voyage to the Hawaiian Islands. He and his party were the first Europeans to note for posterity the presence of the Hawaiian crow, or `alala.
William Ellis, surgeon, second mate, and naturalist for Cook, also commented on the birds and their apparent rarity, as did James King, captain of the Resolution. “Some of these were kept about their [Hawaiians’] houses & they had some superstitious notions about them, for they called one an Eatooa [`aumakua],” Ellis wrote.
These comments on the `alala’s rarity, write the authors of a 1998 technical draft recovery plan for the `alala, “suggest that the species had already been extirpated from Hawai`i’s lowlands” at the time of Cook’s visits. “By the time of Western contact,” they go on to write, “the native Hawaiians had already cleared over 80 percent of the forested areas below 500 m, and the extensive cultivation in these areas is clearly detailed in the sketches and drawings made by John Webber, William Ellis, and Lieutenant William Bligh and in the written descriptions of three inland excursions made by various members of Cook’s crew.”
Fossil records suggest as many as four other species of crows inhabited the islands. All are thought to be “recently extinct” – that is, became extinct after the arrival of Hawaiian settlers.
Hawai`i’s remaining crow species, Corvus hawaiiensis, may soon join them. According to a census last October, just three birds are all that remain of the wild population. They include two that were once counted as a breeding pair, but which have not successfully raised young since 1996.
In the face of that decline, however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state Department of Land and Natural Resources have suddenly made public a proposal to establish `alala populations in up to five areas of the island of Hawai`i where somewhat suitable habitat for nesting and foraging exists. This would be in addition to continuing the current program of releasing `alala into the South Kona area of McCandless Ranch. The proposed action is described in a recent draft environmental assessment that the agencies have released. (The public comment period on the draft EA ends February 14.)
`Shocking News’
The document has been greeted with some dismay among people working closely on the `alala recovery.
“This shocks us,” says David Henkin, attorney with the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, which sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in the early 1990s over its desultory pursuit of measures to save the bird. “If the scientists most knowledgeable about the `alala felt we were at a stage to consider new release sites, that would be one thing. But this is putting out a different issue for public discussion without the input of scientists.”
For years, the `Alala Recovery Team, established under the federal Endangered Species Act to recommend measures for buiding up the bird’s population, has recommended as a long-term goal the establishment of several discrete subpopulations of the `alala in areas of its former range. With the wild population plummeting with such rapidity, and the captive-reared birds failing utterly to thrive in the wild, some say discussion of potential release sites at this time is premature.
But within the Fish and Wildlife Service, staffers rise to the defense of the document. Says one biologist who has worked for several years on the `alala: “The issues for the `alala are habitat issues. For the recovery project to move forward and go to where the `Alala Recovery Team says it should be – that is, to multiple populations – you’re going to have to start working on habitat pretty quickly.
“If we wait until we get it all figured out and have 50 birds ready to put out with no place for them, it’s too late to start the process of habitat recovery.”
Routine Failure
The introduction of captive-hatched `alala into the wild is hardly new. Since 1993, The Peregrine Fund (TPF), under contract to the state and the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been releasing, or “hacking,” captive-reared juvenile `alala into the South Kona area, in hopes the wild population would serve as mentors.
But while the practice of hacking may now be “routine,” as TPF characterizes it, the release program could hardly be called successful. Altogether, 27 juvenile `alala have been released, of which 21 have died or disappeared. The surviving six have been recaptured and are now back in captivity, where they join the 20 other `alala that make up the captive flock.
The draft EA notes, “There is little positive interaction or mentoring between the remaining wild individuals and the released `alala, although harassment by adults is probably a normal and necessary learning experience for young `alala.” Also, it goes on to say, “the mortality rate of released `alala has not declined with age as in most birds.”
Given the grim state of the `alala recovery and release program, some are wondering why the Fish and Wildlife Service would have developed and published this document in the first place. A member of the `Alala Recovery Team, established by the Fish and Wildlife Service to advise on measures needed to restore the endangered `alala’s numbers, told Environment Hawai`i that the team was not involved in production of the EA, nor was it consulted in advance. “The whole thing is very odd,” the team member said, requesting anonymity.
But the claim that the recovery team was not involved is preposterous, says a Fish and Wildlife staffer. The very idea of re-establishing `alala populations throughout their former range comes from the recovery team, he noted.
Wildly Hopeful
The draft EA describes several optimum conditions for the release of `alala at sites which, running counter-clockwise around the island of Hawai`i, are the state wildlife sanctuary near Pu`uwa`awa`a; the Honomalino section of the state’s South Kona Forest Reserve; Kapapala, in the district of Ka`u; the state-owned area around Kulani prison; and the Hakalau Forest Bird Refuge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the slopes of Mauna Kea.
Among other things, the draft EA presupposes a captive breeding population of at least 10 reproducing pairs. At present, there are five breeding pairs in captivity, which last year produced five viable eggs and two chicks. Also, the plan assumes that the wild population will be able to produce birds that can be translocated into the new areas.
As with the environmental assessment for alternatives to management of the po`ouli – a Maui forest bird of whose population numbers no more than three – the draft EA for the `alala places great emphasis on habitat management. Of the 21 released birds that have died or disappeared, seven “have been killed or scavenged by `io” (the Hawaiian hawk, which is itself listed as an endangered species), “five have died from toxoplasmosis, bacterial, or fungal infections, and one was killed or scavenged by a mammal (perhaps when weakened by disease).”
“In order for a population of `alala to maintain itself in the wild, mortality rates of juveniles and adults must be much lower than those observed in the wild (and reintroduced) populations over the last 30 years,” the draft EA states. To restore forest cover and vegetation density, ungulates (including pigs) need to be removed from release sites. To reduce the risk of toxoplasmosis, feral cat populations need to be eradicated many months in advance of the planned reintroductions, owing to the persistence of Toxoplasma gondii in tissues of potential `alala prey. Cats, mongoose, and rats also need to be controlled in the release area, owing to their potential to prey on juvenile birds or eggs.
The problem of `io-`alala interaction also needs to be addressed before any reintroduction program is under way. “Although `io predation appears to have been a significant mortality factor in the release program to date, the agencies consider it impractical and potentially counterproductive to attempt to reduce local `io populations at release sites,” the draft EA states. “Experimental relocation of territorial `io has been attempted, did not succeed, and in one case actually increased local `io density,” the draft EA notes. “Reduction of `alala mortality from `io will be attempted through careful site selection, maintenance of good physical condition in released `alala, forest restoration activities, and potentially through behavioral modification of `io resident near the release site. Temporary capture and holding of resident `io might be considered in order to protect an `alala nest during the breeding season. A long-term possibility is to reduce the prey base for `io (e.g., rats, kalij pheasant) and thus to reduce the density of `io in the release area.”
The state of the forest itself is an important factor in the relationship between `io and `alala. If there is no understory – a situation that exists in many areas of former habitat that have been grazed – the `alala can be more easily spotted by `io. “The `io can fly through the forest where they weren’t able to before,” says one Fish and Wildlife Service employee. “Areas that used to be thick with understory are now like a park.”
Thane Pratt with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division in Hawai`i, says the Fish and Wildlife Service has “a rough row to hoe.”
“The `alala needs a lot of habitat at the elevation where people like to ranch,” he notes. “Also, opening up the habitat makes it better for the `io.”
“It’s a combination of things. There’s the sitting-duck factor, where the `alala are more easily spotted in the open forest. Then there’s the fact that the `alala may already be weakened by disease. Generally, after the `io got into the mix, it became very difficult” for the `alala in South Kona to make it.
“You’ve got a bird that requires a large range in good habitat that just isn’t there now.”
Safe Harbors
The draft environmental assessment repeatedly draws attention to the need for improved habitat and to the need for cooperation from owners of potentially suitable habitat near the proposed release sites. To encourage such cooperation, the draft EA suggests the use of so-called Safe Harbor Agreements, or SHAs.
“Although the `alala themselves are not expected to have an effect on the land, their legal status as an endangered species could result in new land use restrictions,” the document states. “This is because some of the land use activities could result in ‘take’ of `alala as defined” by the Endangered Species Act. A taking occurs whenever a protected species is harassed, harmed, pursued, hunted, shot, wounded, killed, trapped, captured, or collected, or whenever someone attempts an action that could result in a taking.
Safe Harbor Agreements were developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect landowners who cooperate with FWS programs from claims of taking. As the draft EA describes them, the agreements “are used to ensure that landowners who manage their land in a way that benefits listed species will not have new restrictions placed on their land as a result of their voluntary actions.” The document goes on to note that in 1997, state law was amended to allow the state to enter into similar arrangements with private landowners.
According to Gina Shultz of the Honolulu office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in a Safe Harbor Agreement, the landowners “agree to do something to benefit a species. In return, we give them a permit that in the future will allow them to take the species if necessary.”
“In Hawai`i,” she continued, “we don’t have any agreements as yet, though we are working on some. Part of the reason was that state law didn’t allow for takes until a few years ago. That was changed, and we’re working now on agreements for nene [the Hawaiian goose]É.
“In the case of the `alala, the kind of taking anticipated would likely be habitat. One type of agreement might be to reintroduce `alala on non-federal lands where they do not exist. And then, eventually, when the agreement expires, if the landowner wants to, he’d be able to do something with his land other than have it for `alala habitat.”
The agreements can be for different lengths of time, Shultz said. “State law requires a minimum of five years. Federal law has no minimum, but there has to be a conservation benefit – that is, it has to be long enough to provide some sort of benefit for the species,” she said.
“If you decided not to continue the agreement, you’d give us notice, and if there were `alala on your land, we’d try to rescue them and relocate them. You’d then have a permit to allow you, the landowner, to do whatever else is lawful. But the Endangered Species Act, for the species covered in the agreement, would not be an object of action.”
Barbara Maxfield, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agreements would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, “but that doesn’t necessarily mean there would be an environmental assessment prepared for them.” Notice of the application for an agreement would be published in the Federal Register, she said, and the public would be given the opportunity to comment on them in that fashion.
Some members of the `Alala Recovery Team fear that the private owners of land adjoining candidate release sites may already be hoping to get Safe Harbor Agreements from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Following litigation (settled out of court) over the Fish and Wildlife Service’s reluctance to protect the `alala on private lands, the service has set up an advisory “partnership team” made up of private landowners and their representatives, in addition to the recovery team. According to several observers, the Fish and Wildlife Service has given the private “partners” what amounts to veto power over recommendations from the recovery team.
The service “did a good job setting up the recovery team,” one member said. “But they shot that out of the sky by setting up a partnership group which has the authority to put the kibosh on anything proposed by the recovery team.
“The bird is taking the short end of the stick. The landowners in South Kona are getting rich, taking a higher profit than is justified. They’re holding all the political, public-relations cards. If this process fails, we’ll be told all that’s wrong with the Endangered Species Act, with environmental groups suing, the Fish and Wildlife Service, etc., when in fact they’ve hamstrung the whole process from the outset.”
According to Maxfield, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the service paid $7.78 million for about 5,300 acres of what once was part of the McCandless Ranch and which is now the Kona Unit of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. It took clear title to the property in October 1997.
Maxfield said that the service is considering purchase of an additional 11,000 acres that would be added to the Kona Unit of the Hakalau refuge. “We have developed a preliminary project proposal to acquire a portion of McCandless Ranch,” she told Environment Hawai`i. So far, there has been no work-up of a formal proposal or environmental assessment, she added.
To Comment
Members of the public may comment on the draft environmental assessment by February 14. Comments should be sent to Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu HI 96850. The draft EA is available on-line at the web site maintained by the Division of Forestry and Wildlife: [url=http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/pubs/index.html]http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/pubs/index.html[/url]
For Further Reading
On the `alala: Environment Hawai`i, April 1991 (cover story and sidebars).
On Pu`uwa`awa`a: Environment Hawai`i, March 1991 (cover story and sidebars).
On Safe Harbor Agreements: Environment Hawai`i, June 1997 (cover story).
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 10, Number 8 February 2000