Biological Opinion and Informal Consultation for the Midway Seabird Protection Project, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

Photo: Daniel Clark

January 30, 2019 (01EPIF00-2019-F-0049)

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850

In Reply Refer To: January 30, 2019 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049

Memorandum

To: Acting Refuge and Monument Supervisor, Pacific Islands Refuges and Monuments Office, Honolulu, Hawaii

From: Island Team Manager, Oahu, Kauai, North Western Hawaiian Islands, and American Samoa, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office

Subject: Biological Opinion and Informal Consultation for the Midway Seabird Protection Project, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the proposed Midway Seabird Protection Project located in Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. This Opinion addresses the impacts of the proposed project of eradicating house mice (Mus musculus) from Midway and potential effects on the endangered Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis). This Opinion was prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your request for formal consultation was received on November 9, 2019.

A separate informal consultation is found in Appendix A for project impacts that may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the federally threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment and the endangered plants popolo (Solanum nelsonii) and loulu (Pritchardia remota).

This Opinion is based on information provided in (1) the November 9, 2019 Biological Assessment (BA) for your proposed project; (2) meeting held on November 28, 2018, between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Refuge and Monument Office (PIRMO) staff and our office to discuss the BA; (3) email and verbal communication between PIRMO staff and our office; (4) peer reviewed articles and reports; and (5) other information available to us. A

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 2 complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in our office. Our log number for this consultation is 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

November 9, 2018 – PIRMO submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) and Formal consultation was initiated.

November 28, 2018 – PIRMO and the Service met to discuss questions and additional information (e.g., project duration, egg incubation protocols, explanation for percentage of captive birds, captive care protocols, botulism vaccine, injury and mortality estimates, holding time for ducks post bait application) needed to conduct the consultation A list of additional information needed was emailed to PMNM after the meeting.

December 7, 2018 – PIRMO emailed the Service additional information requested by the Service on November 28, 2018. The following information was provided to the Service: project duration, egg incubation protocols, explanation for percentage of captive birds, captive care protocols, botulism vaccine and antitoxin information, revised injury and mortality estimates, holding time for ducks post bait application, and clarification and information on other items.

December 18, 2018 – The Service emailed PIRMO requesting further information regarding egg incubation, how the issue of ducklings potentially imprinting on humans will be addressed, and the monitoring involved in administering the botulism vaccine to Laysan ducks.

December 20, 2018 – PIRMO emailed the Service additional information requested by the Service on December 18, 2018. The following information was provided: clarification that artificial incubation would be conducted only as a last resort, information regarding incubation of duck eggs, measures to be implemented if needed to prevent ducklings from imprinting on humans, and information regarding the monitoring efforts for ducks receiving the botulism vaccine.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Project Description Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (MANWR) lies in the North Pacific Ocean approximately equidistant between North America and Asia. The refuge is also designated the Battle of Midway National Memorial and is within the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM). The fringing coral reef, shallow lagoons, and 3 low-lying islands (Sand, Eastern, and Spit Islands), are the breeding grounds for millions of seabirds, the wintering grounds for thousands of shorebirds, and a refuge for critically endangered species like the Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) and Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis). Over 70% of the total global population of Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) breeds at the refuge, with a majority of the Midway population nesting on Sand Island.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 3

The Proposed Action is to eradicate house mice (Mus musculus) from Sand Island by delivering a lethal dose of rodenticide to every rodent in a manner that minimizes harm to island residents and the ecosystem while still maintaining a high probability of success, and to maintain the island in rodent-free status in perpetuity. The toxicant to be employed as part of the Proposed Action is Brodifacoum-25D Conservation, a pelleted rodenticide bait intended for conservation purposes for the control or eradication of invasive rodents on islands or vessels. Bait application is currently being considered for Summer 2019.

Sand Island is one of three islands comprising the MANWR, which is part of the PMNM in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) (see Figure 1 and 2). The Papahanaumokuakea Monument Management Plan (PMMP) completed in December 2008 identified six priority management needs, with supporting action plans and corresponding desired outcomes for the PMNM (Service 2008). A specific component of Priority 3, Reducing Threats to Monument Resources, was the development of an Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP). Specifically, the ASAP identified the eradication of the house mouse on Sand Island, Midway Atoll as Strategy AS-4 (see Table 1).

Figure 1 Location Map of Main Hawaiian Islands, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Archipelago, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Boundary, and Midway Atoll.

source: https://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/visit/ (2017)

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 4

Figure 2. Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (MANWR) and Location of Sand, Eastern and Spit Islands.

Source: Planning Solutions, Inc. and Hamer Environmental (2017)

Eradicating the invasive house mouse from Sand Island and subsequently maintaining a rodent- free status for the island in perpetuity requires implementation of Strategy AS-4 from the PMMP. To eradicate invasive mice, a lethal dose of rodenticide will be delivered to every rodent on the island in a manner that minimizes harm to island residents and the ecosystem while still maintaining a high probability of successful eradication. Implementing Strategy AS-4 constitutes a federal agency action that may have an impact on threatened and endangered species, and critical habitats of Sand Island.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 5

Table 1. Strategy AS-4 of the PMMP

Strategy AS-4: Eradicate the house mouse population on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, within 15 years.

After the eradication of the black rat (Rattus rattus) at Midway Atoll and the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) at Kure Atoll, the house mouse on Sand Island, Midway, remains the only invasive mammal left in the NWHI. Mice can cause high mortality in seabirds as large as albatrosses (Wanless et al. 2007). In addition, Midway now hosts a translocated population of endangered Laysan ducks that are likely to be negatively affected by the high mouse populations. Mice are also a threat to native plants and terrestrial invertebrates.

Activity AS-4.1: Produce a house mouse eradication plan within 5 years and procure appropriate permits for chosen eradication techniques.

The eradication of introduced rodents from islands is routine, and the successful removal of black rats at Midway Atoll in recent years has provided a model for mouse eradication. Mice present additional challenges, however, as they have much smaller home range sizes and different foraging and reproductive ecology. A careful planning effort that emphasizes the minimization of effects to non-target organisms at the site and the other biological differences that may affect the operation is necessary.

Activity AS-4.2: Implement and complete house mouse eradication.

All of Sand Island 1,128 acres (ac.) (456 hectares (ha.)) will be treated with rodenticide, with active management to prevent non-target impacts to native wildlife. Surveys of the affected ecosystem components before and after the operation will provide a valuable demonstration of the effects of introduced mice on biological communities. Source: Alien Species Action Plan, Papahanaumokuakea Monument Management Plan (Service 2008)

PROJECT BACKGROUND The impacts from invasive predatory mammals, including mice and rats, are one of the leading causes of species extinction on islands (Blackburn et al. 2004; Duncan and Blackburn 2007). Over three million birds, encompassing 25 different species, can be found at MANWR and all of them are susceptible to predation by mice.

The federally endangered Laysan duck population is important because of the very limited range and small global population size of this species limited to low elevation atolls subject to impacts of climate change. The translocated population of Laysan ducks is a species considered “critically endangered” (CR) by the IUCN as well as one of the most imperiled waterfowl in the northern hemisphere (BirdLife International 2016).

Invasive house mice and black rats became established on Midway Atoll’s Sand Island more than 75 years ago during military occupancy. Eradication of rats from the NWHI was confirmed in 1997 (Rauzon 2001, Reynolds and Klavitter 2006), leaving the house mouse as the sole rodent and non-native mammal present. The Proposed Action was identified as a need in the PMMP, completed in December 2008, as Strategy AS-4 with a goal of developing an eradication plan within five years.

The need for the Proposed Action was reinforced when, in 2015, mice were confirmed to be feeding on the backs and necks of adult albatross nesting on Sand Island, leading to nest abandonment and mortality of adults, eggs and chicks (DuhrSchultz et al. In Press). The refuge is home to the largest albatross colony in the world. It is the most important and successful breeding ground for black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan albatross; the NWHI are

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 6

home to approximately 98 and almost 100 percent of the total worldwide population of these albatross species, respectively, and both are considered “near threatened” (NT) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). By itself, the MANWR is globally significant, supporting 36 percent of all black-footed albatross and 73 percent of all Laysan albatross. A complete census finalized in January 2017 concluded that Sand Island alone has approximately 360,000 pairs of Laysan albatross and 15,084 pairs of black-footed albatross.

The detrimental effects of house mice predation on nesting albatross was first detected on Sand Island in 2015. Time-lapse photography recorded mice repeatedly crawling onto and biting the head, neck, and backs of adult birds (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Necropsy and histopathology results from recovered carcasses indicate bacterial infection from bite wounds as the cause of death. In that nesting year (2015-2016), three areas on the island totaling 4.08 ac. (1.65 ha.) were affected, there were 42 adult bird fatalities, and 70 nests were abandoned. During the next nesting year, (2016-2017) the affected area increased to 27 ac. (11 ha.) and mice predation caused 242 adult albatross fatalities and 994 abandoned nests (DuhrSchultz et al. In Press).

As mouse predatory behavior is likely to spread on Sand Island, the negative impacts to Laysan ducks could be significant to the global population. If mice are tenacious enough to attack and cause mortality to the Laysan albatross, one of the largest ground-nesting seabirds at MANWR, then it is likely that mice are having similar negative effects on other ground nesting birds, including the Laysan duck. In addition, mice could be competing with ducks for invertebrate food resources. Mice are known to be a seed predator on Eragrostis variabilis, an important grass providing cover for Laysan ducks. The proposed mouse eradication would allow recruitment of native grasses useful for Laysan ducks as shelter, nesting, and foraging habitat (VanderWerf 2012, p. 3).

Predation of vulnerable populations of native seabirds is a real and ongoing threat on Sand Island that demands an immediate and effective response. Eradication of the house mouse would also facilitate the protection and restoration of all native species and habitats present in the refuge, including federally listed species.

Figure 1. Adult Laysan albatross on Sand Island showing effects of predatory mice.

Source: Service (2016)

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 7

Figure 2. Mouse biting the head of adult Laysan albatross on Sand Island

Source: Service (2016)

The proposed action will be accomplished in three phases, pre-operations, during operations, and post-operations. The action will employ three different methods of bait delivery (bait stations, and hand- and aerial bait broadcast). Bait applications will occur in July/August 2019 (Table 2). Conducting the operation during the summer dry season would target mice when their food resources are at their lowest and their abundance is declining. This timing additionally targets an optimal weather window of seasonally low rains and winds, and the period when relatively few shorebirds and seabirds are present and when the peak of the monk seal pupping season is over.

Table 2. Timeline of the Proposed Action for a July/August Bait Application Schedule

Timeline for Phases 2018 2019 of Proposed Action July/August 2019 J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Bait Drop Schedule Phase 1 Pre-Operations (2018-Jun to 2019-Jun) Laysan duck (LADU)

mitigation planning Arrival of materials for LADU mitigation needs Aviary/Infirmary construction (Sand Island) Aviary/Infirmary & wetland enhancement (Eastern Island)

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 8

Timeline for Phases 2018 2019 of Proposed Action July/August 2019 J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Bait Drop Schedule LADU Capture

efforts LADU Captive care

on Sand Island Wing-clipping and translocations to Eastern Isl. Arrival of cargo and personnel for project monitoring Staff trainings Establish baiting grids (hand- broadcasting) Baseline monitoring

begins Bait station

preparations Cargo arrival and staging of operational equipment

Phase 2 During Operations (2019-Jul/Aug) LADU capture

continues Translocate all LADU

to Eastern Isl. Covering ponds/water

pools on Sand Isl. Monitoring continues Bait station grids placed; check and re- bait Hand- and aerial broadcasting – first and second application Hand- and aerial broadcasting – third application

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 9

Timeline for Phases 2018 2019 of Proposed Action July/August 2019 J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Bait Drop Schedule Phase 3 Post-Operations (2019-Aug to 2019-Dec) LADU mitigation

continues/phased out Monitoring

continues/phased out Bait station grids checked and re- baited/phased out Final mop-up

applications Staging area breakdown; project crew & gear depart Source: Hamer Environmental (2018)

PHASE 1: PRE-OPERATIONS

Preparations for the Proposed Action would occur during Phase 1. Elements of this phase include ship transport of gear and materials from Honolulu to MANWR, initiating the duck mitigation and the project’s monitoring plans, training personnel, and preparing for Phase 2.

Phase 1 encompasses the arrival of project materials and equipment. Strike avoidance procedures would be implemented (NMFS 2018) along with any additional measures recommended in the PMNM permit to avoid ship strikes with threatened or endangered marine species. If necessary, the vessel would shut down and the engine would only be restarted after the species leave(s) the area. Biosecurity measures per MANWR’s Biosecurity Plan would be followed (Service 2018b). Rodent-proofing measures would be in place for arriving air and watercraft. Biosecurity inspections of personnel and personal luggage would occur at the point-of-entry. Cargo would be offloaded into a secured receiving area until inspected.

Preliminary stages of implementing the Laysan Duck Mitigation Strategy would focus on meeting the objectives specified in the plan for the capture and captive-holding of ducks, and on wing- clipping methods on Sand Island (Service 2018b). Initial mitigation actions include locating and preparing aviary sites, and obtaining equipment and materials for building traps, aviaries, and temporary holding pens (Service 2018b). Personnel would begin capturing ducks in February/March 2019 for a July/August 2019 bait drop schedule (Table 2). Collection stations to process captured ducks would be temporarily setup for the initial capture efforts. Personnel will include a wildlife veterinarian and an aviculturist, three capture specialists and three protection team members. Protection team members will assist with captive care tasks including food preparation, feeding aviary birds, cleaning aviaries, observation of marked birds on Eastern, supplemental feeding on Eastern, Guzzler cleaning, surveillance on Sand Island, and other duties (Service 2018b).

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 10

Baseline monitoring per the Proposed Action’s Monitoring plan (Service 2018b) would begin in Phase 1. Initial work would include obtaining and organizing scientific equipment and supplies and establishing sampling and monitoring stations. As Phase 1 progresses, the collection of samples for the documentation of baseline conditions would occur.

Other preparations that would take place ahead of the baiting operation include establishing baiting grids and staging of bait (Service 2018b) and covering seeps. Establishing grids would include marking each hand-broadcast point with flagging or pins and recording each using global positioning system (GPS) technology. Staging bait is used for hand-broadcasting and involves caching bait at various accessible locations to minimize the time and effort needed for baiters to refresh their supplies as they progress across the treatment areas.

Proximate to the first aerial bait application, seeps would be covered to prevent bait from entering. There are several natural and manmade seeps present in the baiting area, which provide habitat for Laysan ducks, shorebirds, and migratory waterfowl. The seeps include small pools that are near the water tanks, in areas of former housing along Henderson Street, and west of the active dump. Tarps and/or shade cloth would be used to cover guzzlers for the duration of the project. Seeps would likely be covered with shade cloth that is supported and secured in a manner to keep the cover over the water. The seeps will be covered shortly before the application and then rolled up afterwards between applications to eliminate potential problems caused by persistent wind and the chance of rain, both of which could cause challenges in effectively keeping the water covered. Removing the cover would be done in a way that collects any bait that settled on top (e.g., rolling up the cover or sweeping it off first). The risk of any pellets settled near the shore falling in the water is very low, given the open terrain and sparse vegetation around these sites on Sand Island.

PHASE 2: DURING OPERATIONS

All of Sand Island’s 1,128 ac. (456 ha.) will be treated with rodenticide during Phase 2 via bait stations, hand-broadcasting, and aerial broadcast applications using a helicopter and bait bucket. The action will involve the aerial broadcast of bait pellets containing rodenticide into all potential mouse territories on Sand Island along with supplemental hand-broadcasting of bait in designated areas (Service 2018b) and placing bait stations in commensal areas (Service 2018b). The first rodenticide application would occur in July 2019. A second application would occur roughly 7-10 days later and a third application conducted roughly 7-10 days after the second application. Active management to prevent non-target impacts to native wildlife and the marine environment will be in effect during each application effort. Monitoring in the form of biological sampling and surveying of specific ecosystem components will occur throughout this phase. Laysan duck mitigation will continue during Phase 2. The ~200 captive ducks held in aviaries on Sand Island will be relocated to Eastern Island aviaries immediately before the bait application to minimize the chance of them accidentally ingesting bait pellets or insects that have fed on the bait. The exception would be ducks under more intensive veterinary care. The methods of duck transport and personnel-hours projected is detailed in the Laysan Duck Mitigation Strategy (Service 2018b, Table 2). Captive care protocols were emailed to the Service on December 7, 2018 (see Consultation History).

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 11

Bait Stations Bait stations were previously and successfully used at MANWR in the 1990s to eradicate Rattus. In that effort, bait stations were spaced at ~164 feet (ft.) (50 meters (m.)) intervals with live traps in between, ensuring that at least 2 stations were found in every potential rat home range. Due to smaller territory size when targeting mice, bait stations would need to be at ~10 ft. (3 m.) intervals. Bait stations will incorporate designs that extend the life of the bait and prevent larger, non-target species from entering and accessing the bait. For this eradication, bait stations will be placed in commensal areas, on piers, and possibly along areas of the rocky coastline. Within the commensal environment, areas like kitchens and buildings where people live will be treated with enclosed bait stations (either tubes or bait boxes with lids), all other buildings will be treated with bait trays, and unsafe or difficult to access locations will be treated with bait bolas. Once stations are placed, bait crews would arm and check stations regularly and rearm each station over a period of months until bait take by rodents declines to zero.

Hand-broadcast Rodenticide bait pellets would be hand-broadcasted in specific designated areas. Any work related to hand broadcasting will occur proximately to each of the aerial bait drops. For successful hand-broadcast of bait, preparation is required to ensure efficient application and to minimize delays and errors in bait application. Preparations for bait application include preparing the baiting grid and staging bait. In general, about one person-hour of preparation for every two person-hours of baiting would be needed for hand-broadcasting. The areas that would be designated for hand-broadcasting operations would not require vegetation clearing or preparation of transects. These areas would include: 1) an approximate 0.02 square mile (mi2) (5.6 ha.) area buffer around the water catchment pond located between the runways, 2) a potential narrow strip of land between the coast and the runway (at the southeast end of the runway), and 3) unoccupied commensal environments such as within aboveground and underground structures.

Aerial Broadcast The infrastructure on MANWR, provides a highly suitable base from which to implement an aerial broadcast operation. This includes support equipment for loading bait and large operational areas for loading and refueling. The airfield services available there include: (i) equipment staging; (ii) aircraft storage; (iii) fuel supply; and (iv) necessary fire, medical, and support infrastructure.

Aerial broadcast for rodent eradication projects involves using a commercial-grade bait bucket slung under a helicopter, guided by GPS to evenly distribute bait across the entire area of the island. Bait application rates are set to ensure that adequate amounts of bait remain available to mice for long enough to be effective. Keitt et al. (2015) found up to four nights of bait availability might be necessary to eradicate mice. The set rate at which the bait exits the bucket, the width of the treatment swath, and flight speed are calibrated to achieve a desired application rate.

The pilot is guided by a computer connected to a GPS and guidance system to keep the helicopter on pre-programmed bait application flight lines. The bait flow from the bucket is always controlled by the pilot who opens and closes the bait bucket on demand to apply bait in desired areas and minimize bait application in other areas, such as the marine environment.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 12

Further, a video camera can be fitted to the underside of the helicopter to confirm that bait is being spread when the pilot opens the bucket. The bucket will be fitted with a deflector to broadcast bait out to one side, allowing the helicopter to fly parallel to and along the shoreline with minimal unintentional bait applications. Bait application along the shoreline can be accomplished with minimal bait drift into the marine environment with the use of this deflector.

Three bait drops are planned with two helicopters to maximize the chance of completing each drop in a single day. These drops would be spaced 7-10 days apart. Overall, it is expected that bait drop densities would average 65 pounds (lbs.)/ac. (73 kilograms (kg.)/ha.) in the bait application area. This program would ensure that bait is available to mice for a minimum of 4 nights each drop, and it would intercept any new generations of mice that may have been missed or emerge after earlier bait applications. All applications would be made in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bait label. The bait would be applied according to a helicopter flight plan that accounts for the need to: (i) apply bait relatively evenly and to prevent any gaps in coverage and minimize overlap in bait application; (ii) accommodate island topography; (iii) minimize bait spread into the marine environment; (iv) minimize disturbance to native wildlife and; (v) ensure human safety.

To minimize bait from entering the marine environment, prior to the application of bait pellets with rodenticide, the bait delivery system (bait bucket, controller, GPS units, and helicopter) would be tested and calibrated to ensure an accurate application rate. An onboard computer linked to a GPS and light bar would guide the pilot along pre-programmed flight lines over the island at a prescribed airspeed, which would facilitate application of bait over the terrestrial environment only. Aerial application of bait pellets would not occur in wind speeds greater than 30 knots, or when heavy rains are forecast to occur within 72 hours. While 30 knots is a maximum sustained wind for operations, wind will be assessed in conjunction with other weather conditions and operational hazards before conducting flights. In addition, for areas near the shoreline, the bait bucket would be fitted with a deflector that spreads bait out to only one side (approx. 120° angle) to minimize bait application directly into the water. For narrow shorelines, hand-broadcast methods would be used to the maximum extent practicable.

Every reasonable effort would be made to minimize the risk of bait drift into the water; however, it is expected that a small amount of bait will enter the ocean. For the Proposed Action, bait pellets have been formulated such that they would dissolve quickly, often within 15-30 minutes, such that the concentration of rodenticide in the nearshore waters would be at undetectable levels and would pose very low, if any risk to marine fish and invertebrates, coral, and algae. Bait would be applied at the lowest rate possible to achieve eradication. The pilot and on-the-ground observers would visually monitor the application of bait, and if a malfunction were detected, operations would cease until the problem is corrected. Any bait spills above a defined threshold would be collected and disposed of according to label instructions.

PHASE 3: POST-OPERATIONS Post operation activities will follow the last bait application and focus on finalizing the project. A final sweep of the island for mice following the last aerial and hand-broadcast bait applications will dictate any further actions regarding additional baiting needs and the departure of project crew

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 13

and equipment. Commensal bait stations would continue to be armed and checked until no bait is taken or the number of mice caught goes to zero. Surveys of the beaches, coastal waters, and terrestrial areas will be conducted to monitor various aspects of the operation (Service 2018b). These surveys will include assessing bait persistence, removing mouse carcasses, retrieving sick or injured wildlife, and collecting samples (including non-target fatalities) for pesticide testing. Every precaution will be taken to avoid impacting non- target species while maximizing the chance of project success. We will use adaptive management techniques to adjust the project if we experience any significant unintended consequences to non- target organisms. Environmental brodifacoum residues will be evaluated by testing of soil and seawater samples before and after baiting operations. Brodifacoum residues in living tissues (e.g., food web compartments) will be assessed by collection and euthanasia of appropriate invertebrates, lizards, fishes and birds, with liver tissues (site of greatest accumulation) harvested and submitted for chemistry. Monitoring efforts (Service 2018b), specifically those efforts conducted as part of the Laysan Duck Protection Strategy (Service 2018b), would focus efforts on determining the release time of captive ducks (Service 2018b). Birds being held in the Eastern Island aviaries would be kept there until there is confirmation through a four-step process to determine when it is safe to release ducks back to Sand Island. These four steps include: 1) there are no pellets remaining in the environment; 2) brodifacoum residue levels measured in selected invertebrates reach levels deemed safe (Horak et al. 2018 p. 98-99, Mineau 2018 p. 12) (Service 2018b); 3) migratory shore-birds returning from their northern breeding grounds appear to be staying healthy upon arrival, and; 4) sentinel canaries and Indian mynahs are released on Sand Island and show no ill effects (Service 2018b). Monitoring will also include the recapture of any released ducks demonstrating signs of toxicities (Service 2018b). Population size, reproductive performance, and behavior of Laysan ducks will be monitored into 2020 (Service 2018b).

CONSERVATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE ACTION Several conservation measures are incorporated into the Proposed Action. Conservation measures are actions that are part of the project description that will be implemented to benefit listed species. The following avoidance and minimization measures will be taken: • Implement the Laysan Duck Mitigation Strategy (Service 2018b) and Laysan duck conservation measures outlined in the Proposed Monitoring Plan (Service 2018b). • Exercise extreme care during all phases of the project to minimize trampling or damaging popolo and loulu. Prior to the project’s field work, refuge staff will be briefed on the locations of popolo and loulu populations in the action area, will be provided photo(s) and identifying description(s) of popolo and loulu, and will take precautions to avoid, divert and/or limit human disturbance in areas with known popolo and loulu populations. • Maintain a 100 ft. (30.5 m.) buffer from basking Hawaiian monk seals and sea turtles. This buffer will apply to all aspects of the project and for the entire duration of project activities.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 14

• During aerial bait broadcast, helicopters will fly over resting Hawaiian monk seals but avoid hovering over or near them. Specialists will be on site that can monitor seals throughout the bait drop for disturbance and exposure risk and provide recommendations to the project manager based on those observations • Exercise extreme care to not disturb basking Hawaiian monk seals and pupping activities during monitoring and sample-collecting activities or should biosecurity rapid response measures have to be implemented. • During aerial bait broadcast, helicopters would fly over sea turtle basking areas but avoid hovering over or near them. Specialists will be on site that can monitor sea turtles throughout the bait drop for disturbance and exposure risk and provide recommendations to the project manager based on those observations • A deflector on the helicopter’s bait bucket will be used to minimize drift into the marine environment when flight paths are parallel with the shoreline. • Helicopter pilots and on-the-ground observers would visually monitor the aerial application of bait, and if a malfunction were detected, operations would cease until the problem is corrected. • Helicopter pilots will apply bait within weather windows favorable for aerial broadcasting (e.g., low wind, low or no precipitation, good visibility). • Strictly adhere to biosecurity guidelines (Service 2018b) throughout the entire project, and especially during the transport of Laysan ducks and avian support crews from Sand Island to prevent the spread of mice to the rodent-free Eastern Island. • To minimize the chance of ship strikes to listed marine species, strictly adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) for strike avoidance guidelines and protocol during the ocean transport of materials and equipment between Honolulu and Midway Atoll. Vessels delivering materials and equipment will implement strike avoidance procedures and any additional measures to avoid the risk of negatively affecting endangered marine species outlined in consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2018). The BMPs for ship strike avoidance are:

o All vessels would comply with biosecurity protocols specified in biological assessment and appendices.

o Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when piloting vessels in the proximity of marine species outlined in consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2018);

o Reduce vessel speed to 5 knots or less when piloting vessels in areas of known or suspected activity for those marine species outlined in consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service;

o The vessel would stop when protected marine species are within 656 ft. (200 m.) of the ship. Vessel will resume operations only after the animal(s) depart the area.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 15

ACTION AREA

The Action Area, per Section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR § 402.02), means all areas to be directly or indirectly affected by the Proposed Action, including the immediate area involved in the action. Midway Atoll lies in the NWHI at 28˚15ʹ N and 177˚20ʹ W and consists of three sandy islets. Sand Island, where the bait application will take place, is the largest island at 1,128 ac. (456 ha.); the other two are Eastern Island at 366 ac. (148 ha.) and Spit Island at 15 ac. (6 ha.) (Figure 2). A channel, roughly 0.6 miles (mi.) (1 kilometer (km.)) wide is present between Sand and Spit Islands. The distance between Spit and Eastern Islands is roughly 98 ft. (30 m.) although this fluctuating channel can be difficult to distinguish at times. The Action Area includes Sand and Eastern Islands, the portion of the lagoon between these Islands. During the project, Laysan ducks will be temporarily held on Eastern Island until rodenticide pellets are no longer available in the bait application area (Sand Island) for consumption, or when biological samples collected and analyzed indicate little to no risk of toxicity (Service 2018b).

The three islands together encompass a total land area of 1,498 ac. (606 ha.) with a mean elevation of approximately 10 ft. (3 m.) above mean sea level (+MSL). Together these three islands lie in the southern portion of a large, elliptical barrier reef measuring nearly 5 mi. (8 km.) in diameter. MANWR is one of the northernmost landmasses in the NWHI; located approximately 1,313 mi. (2,113 km) northwest of Honolulu, Hawaii (Figure 1). Midway Atoll became an overlay refuge in 1988, while remaining under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy. On October 31, 1996 President William Clinton officially established MANWR as a standalone refuge by Presidential Executive Order No. 13022. On September 13, 2000, the lands and waters of MANWR were designated as the Battle of Midway National Memorial. In addition, on June 15, 2006, the lands and waters of MANWR were incorporated into the PMNM by President George Bush’s Presidential Proclamation No. 8031, and expanded by President Obama’s Presidential Proclamation No. 8112.

Geographically, MANWR is part of the Hawaiian Islands archipelago, yet it is not part of the State of Hawaii. Rather, it is an unincorporated territory of the United States. Therefore, the State Hawaii has no jurisdiction over MANWR. Current funding for operations comes from the Service, supplemented by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which fully funds airport operations costs on Sand Island and a share of infrastructure operations costs. A small amount of funding is generated by the other users of MANWR.

Sand Island As of 2018, the year-round community of people on Sand Island includes Service staff (4) and volunteers (1-4), base operations staff (~37) (mostly comprised of Thai nationals employed by Chugach Management), FAA airport staff (4) or research scientists (variable). There is also temporary construction workers and other contractors (<30) at times. Sand Island has extensive infrastructure, processes, and utilities in place to support the approximately 50-60 people that live and work there year-round, including housing, common eating spaces (known as the Clipper House), small scale agriculture, recreation facilities, transportation infrastructure, recycling, and liquid and solid waste disposal systems. In effect, Sand Island is a functioning, albeit small, municipality. There is well-developed infrastructure including subterranean utilities (electricity, potable water, and a closed sewer system), paved roadways, and roughly 115 structures including

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 16

a commercial kitchen and dining hall (Figure 5). An influx of visitors to support island-based projects can elevate the population numbers to ~100 inhabitants while unplanned emergency landings from aircraft in distress has, and can, temporarily balloon local numbers to several hundred.

Figure 5. Roads and Infrastructure on Sand Island, MANWR (Action Area)

Source: Planning Solutions, Inc. (2018)

The Henderson Field Airport is designated by the International Air Transport Association as airport code PMDY. A PMDY is a fully-certified airport maintained according to the standards specified in the FAA’s Title 14 CFR, Part 139. Henderson Field Airport has a 7,900 ft. (2,407 m.) runway capable of handling almost any type of aircraft. Midway is used as a required emergency landing site for extended twin-engine operations (ETOPS) flights across the Pacific Ocean. Vessels accessing the island by water do so via a harbor and docking pier. Marine traffic is infrequent but includes a resupply barge or transport vessel approximately six times a year and annual National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research vessels that make MANWR a stop while voyaging to the more remote NWHI. Vegetation communities of Sand Island include Ironwood tree forests, mixed woodland, shrubs and vines, herbaceous and grassy, wetlands, beach strands, and barren areas (Figure 6).

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 17

Figure 6. Map of Vegetative Cover on Sand Island, MANWR

Source: Kelly Goodale, Service (2018)

EASTERN ISLAND Eastern Island lies nearly a mile to the east of Sand Island. It is uninhabited today but was occupied during World War II. Like Sand Island, Eastern Island is naturally composed of coral sand and enhanced with man-made fill. A large part of Eastern Island is an abandoned three-runway airfield, and the rest is mainly open fields, roads, and sand beaches (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Rats were eradicated from Midway Atoll in 1995 and house mice are not present on Eastern Island. Since 2003, a focused invasive plant management program is effectively reducing the nonnative plant populations like Verbesina on Eastern Island thereby allowing native species to thrive (Duncan 2013). A population of critically endangered Laysan ducks were translocated to the island in 2005 (Reynolds and Klavitter 2006). The only human activities on Eastern Island currently are: (i) bird surveys; (ii) vegetation restoration and; (iii) guzzler maintenance for the Laysan duck.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 18

Figure 7. Overgrown Airfield Runways on Eastern Island, MANWR

Source: http://footenotes.net/Pages/Midway.htm

Figure 8. Roads and Infrastructure on Eastern Island, MANWR

Source: Google Earth (2016)

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 19

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY/ADVERSE MODIFICATION ANALYSES

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis of this biological opinion relies on four components: (1) status of the species, which evaluates the range-wide condition of Laysan duck, the factors responsible for that condition, and the survival and recovery needs of this species; (2) the environmental baseline, which evaluates the current condition of Laysan duck in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and recovery of the species; (3) the effects of the action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on Laysan duck; and (4) cumulative effects; which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the action area on Laysan duck.

In accordance with the policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the current status of Laysan duck, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of Laysan duck in the wild.

The jeopardy analysis in this biological opinion places an emphasis on consideration of the range-wide survival and recovery needs of Laysan duck and the role of the action area in the survival and recovery of the species as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the jeopardy determination

STATUS AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE OF THE SPECIES

STATUS OF THE SPECIES Laysan Duck Anas laysanensis The Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis) was listed as an endangered species in 1967 (Service 1967), pursuant to the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. A revised recovery plan for the Laysan duck was published in 2009 (Service 2009). A species five-year review was completed in 2007 and 2014. Critical habitat has not been designated for the Laysan duck.

Species Description The Laysan duck, also called the Laysan teal, is a medium-sized 15 inches (in.) - 17 in. (38.1 centimeters (cm.) - 43.2 cm. in length) bird in the waterfowl family (Anseriformes: Tribe Anatini). It is dark brown with a prominent white eye-ring, and white feathering on the head and neck that can become more prominent with age (Service 2009, p. 4). Male plumage is darker in color, with higher levels of iridescence and gloss. Leg and feet coloring are orange, and are usually brighter in male birds. The average wing length for male birds is 8 in. (203.7 millimeters (mm.)) and 7.6 in. (192.3 mm.) for females (Moulton & Marshall 1996, p. 2). The bill is olive- green with black blotches in males, and females have slightly shorter bills with black mottling. Males are heavier than females in the non-breeding season, but females become heavier than

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 20

males during pre-breeding and egg laying stages (Moulton & Weller 1984, p. 111). Chicks are small, dark and rufous in color, with a broad bill (Marshall 1989, p. 165).

Life History and Habitat Description The Laysan is largely nocturnal and sedentary (Moulton and Weller 1984, p. 112). Having evolved with avian rather than mammalian predators, Laysan ducks are more likely to walk than fly, and freeze rather than flush, when startled (Moulton and Marshall 1996, p. 7). The Laysan duck is a relatively long-lived species, averaging 12 years old in the wild, with a relatively low reproductive rate and average of three eggs per nest on Laysan Island (Moulton & Weller, 1984, p. 108, 110). They exhibit a noisy quacking call to establish territory, but may also serve as an early warning to the presence of predators in a nesting area (Moulton & Weller, 1984, p. 111). Similar to other waterfowl, Laysan ducks molt all of their feathers at the same time, rendering them incapable of flight (Moulton and Weller 1984, p. 111) and thus more vulnerable to predators while molting. On Laysan, molting typically occurs in early June for males and in July and August for females (Moulton and Marshall 1996, p. 15). On MANWR, males start molting in June and for females with broods may extend into October (Service 2018, p. 3-65). Males begin to molt when females are incubating their nests, and do not share incubation responsibilities with females (Marshall 1989, p. 41). In captive pairs, there was an increase in the distance between males and females following egg laying, and the pair bond weakens during incubation (p. 41). When ducks are molting, they are wary and will hide upon approach, unlike their non-molting period (Marshall 1989, p. 154). Females incubating nests appear to feed less frequently, and only for short periods when they do leave their nests (p. 153). During Spring and Summer when molting and incubation are occurring, birds may be difficult to census or detect (p. 154). During Fall and Winter when birds are courting and pairing is when they would be the most visible, and unwary of humans approaching (p. 155). Radio tracking data revealed that vegetative cover is essential for ducks during daylight hours, and the home range estimates of males and females differ in the types of habitat utilized on Laysan Island (Reynolds 2004, p. 188-189). Additionally, brooding females shifted their core habitat areas to include freshwater seeps (p. 188), which may be essential to duckling survival.

The survival of Laysan ducklings is density dependent, suggesting that the adult female abundance in the overall population was a negative predictor for duckling survival (Seavy et al. 2009, p. 416). Pre-fledging chicks on Laysan Island are most active during the day, in contrast to adults which are predominantly nocturnal (Marshall 1989, p. 120). Captive-born ducks are able to fly at 46-52 days old, and were observed to mostly fly during the evenings (p. 51). Chick survival may be linked to food availability. Low brine fly abundance on Laysan Island has been linked with low lake levels, as was the case in 1987. In 1987 fewer chicks were observed, and none survived to adulthood (p. 121). Chicks may be less adaptive, compared to adults, in their ability to utilize alternative food sources in the wild. It is also possible that the low recruitment levels were due to nest failure, as female ducks may have been stressed due to lack of brine flies (p. 179). Following hatching, males do not assist in care for the chicks, but have occasionally been seen in the company of a brood female (Moulton and Weller 1984, p. 116, Warner 1963, p. 19).

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 21

Habitat requirements of the Laysan duck include vegetative cover, an invertebrate prey base, a source of fresh water, and protection from mammalian predators (Service 2009, p. 3-4). On Laysan and Midway, ducks use all available habitats: upland vegetation, ephemeral wetlands, freshwater seeps, mudflats, the hyper-saline lake and coastal areas. Laysan duck nests occur on the ground, deep within the base of vegetation, especially the bunchgrass Eragrostis, and sometimes Cyperus or Heliotropium (Moulton and Weller 1984, pp 110-111). On Laysan Island, the breeding season is from the spring through summer months (April – September) (Moulton and Weller 1984, p. 109; Moulton and Marshall 1996, p. 9). Duckling activities are concentrated near sources of fresh water with nearby food and cover. Primary food items of the Laysan duck are: adults, larvae, and pupae of the dipteran brine fly Neoscatella sexnotata from within and around the lake on Laysan Island; larvae and pupae of the noctuid moth Agrostis dislocata from under the low vegetation found in the uplands; and occasionally brine shrimp (Moulton and Marshall 1996, p. 5). On Midway Atoll ducks have been observed feeding primarily on insects, including introduced cockroaches.

Warner (1963, p. 19) noted that in contrast to other closely related duck species, the Laysan duck has a reduced capacity to repel water and lack the oily sheen often associated with duck feathers. On nights when sudden downpours appeared, ducks quickly became drenched, and it took several hours to dry out completely (p. 19). This may decrease the survival likelihood for individuals that are blown out to sea.

Historic and Current Distribution The fossil record shows that historically, Laysan ducks occurred throughout the Hawaiian Islands, with bones discovered on Lisianski, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii Island (James and Olson 1991 p. 629, Cooper et al. 1996 p. 484). The species likely became extinct in the main Hawaiian Islands from a combination of predation by non-native species and habitat degradation. The Laysan duck and the Hawaiian duck “koloa” (Anas wyvilliana) share physical characteristics similar to the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), but genetic evidence suggests that they arose from different lineages (Marshall 1992, p. 243). Genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA suggest that the Laysan duck groups most closely to the New Zealand grey duck (Anas superciliosa superciliosa) and Australian black duck (Anas superciliosa rogersi), while the koloa is genetically similar to the North American mottled duck (Anas fulvigula) (p. 244). The Laysan duck was extirpated across the Hawaiian archipelago with an extant population persisting only on the island of Laysan (Moulton and Marshall 1996, p. 1). In 1911, an expedition to Laysan Island determined the population to be 11 individuals (Dill and Bryan 1912, p. 23 and 28), likely the result of poaching activities and introduced rabbit and guinea pig populations. Following removal of the rabbit and guinea pig populations in 1923, the population began to increase, and in 1976 the population was estimated at 287 individuals (Service 2009, p. 24). A failed translocation to Southeast Island of Pearl and Hermes Atoll in 1967-68 was likely the result of low founding population size and unfavorable habitat (Reynolds et al. 2008, p. 167). To reduce the risk of extinction, a second population was established via translocation of wild birds from Laysan Island to Midway Atoll in October 2004 (20 birds) and October 2005 (22 birds) (Service 2007, p. 6; Walter and Reynolds 2013, p. 574). A third population was established on Kure Atoll via translocation of 28 wild birds from Midway Atoll in September 2014. The Laysan duck is currently limited to Laysan Island, MANWR (Figure 9), and Kure Atoll within the remote PMNM.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 22

Figure 9. Map of Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

Current Population Demographics Counts of the Laysan duck have often fluctuated on Laysan Island, partly due to differing count methodologies, human disturbance, season and time of day when counts were made, and weather conditions (Marshall 1992, Moulton and Marshall 1996). In 2010, the population estimate on Laysan island was over 400, based on a count of just under 400 birds, while fewer than 250 birds were counted in 2011 (Reynolds et. al. 2014). Laysan Ducks were translocated to Midway in 2004 and 2005 and were doing well until 2011 (Reynolds et al. 2011; Reynolds et al. 2014, Reynolds et al. 2017). Since then, a tsunami in 2011 and a wide-spread outbreak of botulism in 2013 have impacted the Midway population. In 2014, 28 hatch-year Laysan ducks were translocated to Kure Atoll from Midway (USGS 2014).

On Laysan, the 2012 population abundance estimate was 339 (95 percent Confidence Interval (CI) = 265-413) (Reynolds et al. 2014, pg. 96). This represents a population decline of 42 percent between 2010 and 2012 following consecutive storms and the 2011 Japanese Tohoku earthquake-generated tsunami (Reynolds et al. 2014, p. 98). 2012 was the last year of seasonal data collection for the Laysan duck on Laysan Island as the year-round crew occupation ended (C. Rehkepmer, C. Service Marine Monuments of the Pacific, 2017, in litt.). In 2016, the highest number of Laysan ducks counted was 145 individuals during eight lake surveys conducted between May 2 and August 14 on Laysan (Ronco et al. 2016, p. 2). The highest number of ducklings counted during that period was 11 (Ronco et al. 2016, p. 2).

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 23

In 2015, Reynolds estimated there were between 314 and 435 Laysan ducks (95% CI for population estimate) on MANWR (Reynolds et al. 2017, p. 66). The point estimate was 375 individuals (Reynolds et al. 2017, p. 69). This estimate of Laysan ducks at MANWR is approximately 50% of the global population. The model was then used to estimate the population of Laysan ducks on MANWR using survey data from March 2017 to March 2018 that included numbers from the non-breeding season (October-February). Using a maximum count of 372 ducks, the model returned a population estimate of 600 ducks with a range of 526-685 (95% CI) individuals (K. Goodale, in litt.). The most recent count of Laysan ducks on Kure was 37-40 individuals in 2016 (C. Vanderlip, 2016, in litt.).

Threats Small population size and extremely limited distribution make the species highly vulnerable to demographic fluctuation and chance environmental occurrences, such as droughts, severe storms, and epizootics, predators, and invasive species. Habitat degradation and loss with PMNM may be intensified by increased storm severity and sea level rise associated with global climate change.

A 42% decline in the population of Laysan ducks was observed between 2010 and 2012, likely the result of a combination of storms and a tsunami generated by a magnitude 9.1 earthquake off Japan in 2011 (Reynolds et al. 2014, p. 96). Following the earthquake and resulting tsunami in March, no ducklings were observed on Laysan Island in 2011 (p. 96). Population numbers prior to the tsunami were estimated at 536-637 individuals, compared to 265-413 individuals after the 2011 tsunami inundation (p. 98). The increased frequency of storm events expected as a result of climate change could have implications for survival, as nine chicks died during a heavy rainstorm in 1979, likely due to exposure as a result of separation from females (Moulton and Weller 1984, p. 111).

Disease outbreaks continue to be a threat, particularly in large populations with communal water sources utilized by Laysan ducks. In 1993 an outbreak of Echinuria spp. nematodes sickened the duck population on Laysan Island, and resulted in 13 documented fatalities (Work et al. 2004, p. 111). The intermediate host for Echinuria spp. is the water flea (Daphnia spp.), which has been documented in the lake on Laysan Island (p. 113). The In 2008 an outbreak of botulism type C occurred in the population at MANWR. In 2007, prior to the botulism outbreak, the population of Laysan ducks in the MANWR was estimated at 200 individuals. The carcasses of 181 Laysan ducks were collected in from August-October 2008 (Work et al. 2010, p. 501). A botulism type C epidemic was confirmed after mouse protection assays, histological analysis, and necropsies of collected bird specimens (p. 501-503). The catchment pond at MANWR was suspected as the source of the outbreak, and its subsequent draining and dredging revealed the decomposing carcasses of multiple birds (p. 503). During the outbreak at Midway, bird carcasses were not discovered until an estimated 2-3 weeks following the onset of mortality. Prior to the botulism outbreak in 2008, only a single case of botulism was detected in a male Laysan duck in 2007 at MANWR, and the source of infection remains unresolved (p. 503).

Egg predation by the Laysan finch (Telespiza cantans) has been reported in the population at Laysan Island (Moulton & Weller 1984, p. 111), as well as predation upon eggs by a curlew (Numenius tahitiensis) (Marshall 1989, p. 13). Predation of eggs and adult birds from small

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 24

mammals such as rats (Rattus spp.) and mice (Mus musculus) is also of concern, as they are both documented predators of seabirds and seabird eggs at MANWR (Service 2017). Additionally, the harassment of Laysan ducks from heterospecific birds has been documented on multiple occasions, including harassment from a frigate bird (Fregata minor palmerstoni) on Laysan Island (Dill and Bryan 1912, p. 20, Marshall 1989, p. 180) an albatross attack at MANWR resulting in a death (Reynolds et al. 2008, p. 165), and a series of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) attacks at MANWR that resulted in the death of ten individuals (Reynolds et al. 2015, p. 4). Laysan ducks in captivity at the Smithsonian Institution’s Conservation and Research Center in Fort Royal, Virginia were sequestered by sex following the death of a female duck as a result of forced copulations (Marshall 1989, p. 23). Sharks may also be a potential predator of this species. Though it is not thought to be a regular occurrence, there have been reports of Laysan ducks entering the ocean. In one case a duck was flushed approximately 50 yards offshore and disappeared underwater, presumably predated upon by a shark (Warner 1963, p. 14). This would be of particular concern during periods when sharks appear in abundance offshore, such as during albatross chick fledging season.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human activities have caused a 1℃ increase in temperature above pre-industrial levels, and if the current rate of warming remains constant, we could reach an increase of 1.5℃ by the year 2030 (IPCC 2018, summary for policymakers, A1, p.6). The size and intensity of large scale storms are expected to increase in coming years, and recent data demonstrates category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased at a rate of 25-30% per ℃ increase in global warming (Holland and Bruyere 2014, pg. 625). A global warming of 1.5℃ is expected to shift the range of many marine species to higher latitudes, and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (IPCC 2018, B.4.3, p. 11)

Among the many effects of climate change that are of particular concern for the Laysan duck, is habitat loss due to sea level rise. Laysan Island has an average elevation of 12.8 ft. (3.9 m.) (p. 2). The low lying islands home to all wild populations of Laysan duck within the PMNM are at risk of becoming inundated, or disappearing completely as sea levels begin to rise. Sand Island within the MANWR has a mean elevation of 10.5 ft. (3.2 m.), Eastern Island has a mean of 8.5 ft. (2.6 m.), and Spit Island has a mean elevation of 4.9 ft. (1.5 m.) (Storlazzi et al. 2015, p. 2). Wave heights along these remote island shorelines will become larger due to rising sea levels, and wave-driven run-up will also increase with sea-level rise (p. 2). When passive sea level rise alone is the only factor considered (6.6 ft. (2.0 m.)), less than 19% of Sand Island, Eastern Island, and Laysan Island become inundated, but Spit Island becomes fully inundated. A dynamic flood model that includes wave run-up scenarios, paints a grim picture for all islands that were modeled. The model predicts that Sand, Eastern, and Laysan Islands will experience flooding that impact up to 90% of island area (p. 3), particularly during winter months (December- February) (p. 4). The dynamic model predicts that portions of the islands could be washed over several times per year as a result of storm events, and birds that exhibit breeding site fidelity are at a greater risk than birds that can adapt to different habitats on the island. The inundation of up to 90% of the islands, even if only occurring a couple of times per year, has the potential to salinize already limited freshwater resources on these low-lying islands (p. 6-7). For Laysan Island, when including lake levels rising with groundwater combined with 6.6 ft. (2.0 m.) of sea level rise, the expected loss of Laysan duck habitat is expected to decrease by 76.1 ac. (30.8 ha.) (p. 62). Within the MANWR the amount of habitat utilized by the Laysan duck is expected to

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 25

decrease by 90.5 ac. (36.8 ha.), under sea level rise of 6.6 ft. (2.0 m.) (Reynolds et al. 2012, p. 34). The Laysan ducks recovery potential remains limited by combination of small population sizes, extremely limited species range, inhabiting low elevation atolls subject to impacts of climate change, which extremely limits current habitat availability that will remain finite without further translocation efforts.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

In an analysis of Laysan duck population sizes on MANWR, Reynolds et al. (2017, p. 66) used 8 years of monitoring data to estimate population size and test the validity of an index to accurately monitor the abundance of this species. The analysis, fitted 587 Laysan ducks with unique markers from 2004 to 2015 and recorded 21,309 re-sightings until March 2016. Researchers conducted standardized survey counts from 2007–2015. Then, a modified Lincoln-Petersen mark-re-sight estimator and statistical (ANCOVA) models were developed to test the relationship between survey counts and population abundance. Results showed strong, positive correlations between the seasonal maximum counts and population estimates. The statistical models supported the use of standardized bi-monthly counts of unmarked birds as a valid index to monitor population trends among years and within a season at MANWR. In 2015, Reynolds estimated there were between 314 and 435 Laysan ducks (95% CI for population estimate) on MANWR. The point estimate was 375 individuals (Reynolds et al. 2017, p. 66). This estimate of Laysan ducks at MANWR is approximately 50% of the global population. The model was then used to estimate the population of Laysan ducks on MANWR using survey data from March 2017 to March 2018 that included numbers from the non-breeding season (October-February). Using a maximum count of 372 ducks, the model returned a population estimate of 600 ducks with a range of 526-685 (95% CI) individuals (K. Goodale, in litt.).

Laysan ducks fly between Sand and Eastern Islands at MANWR (Figure 9). From November 2008 to October 2009, all Laysan ducks at MANWR were captured and banded, a total of 300- 345 individuals (Reynolds et al. 2011, p. 9). A total of 66% of tagged ducks were re-sighted on both Sand and Eastern Islands during visual surveys, while 12% were seen only on Eastern Island and not on Sand Island (p. 18). The distance between Sand and Spit Islands is 3,127 ft. (0.59 mi.). Laysan ducks at MANWR have the ability to fly short distances over open water, and a majority portion of the population spends time on both Sand and Eastern Islands.

The mean fecundity on Midway Atoll adult females was 2.85 (+/- 3.1 SD), compared to 0.40 (+/- 0.17 SD) on Laysan Island (Reynolds et al. 2013, p. 1099). The average number of eggs hatched was higher at Midway Atoll 2.95 (+/- 2.34 SD) compared to Laysan Island 1.27 (+/- 1.66 SD). The average number of eggs produced per nest (6.8 +/- 1.13 eggs) (Reynolds et al. 2013, p. 1099), reproduce multiple times in a calendar year (Walters and Reynolds 2013, p. 576), age of first breeding is one year, and 82% of fledglings survive to its first year (Reynolds et al. 2013, p. 1097). Reynolds et al. (2014) modeled the estimated carrying capacity for the Laysan duck and determined the capacity to be 833 (+/- 210) individuals for Midway Atoll, and 598 (+/- 76) individuals for Laysan Island (p. 1099). These marked differences between sites demonstrate that the Laysan duck life history traits display a high level of plasticity, as observed in the Midway population when an abundance of resources is available (Walters and Reynolds 2013).

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 26

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Exposure Analysis Approach The Service has developed an analysis framework for section 7 consultations that incorporates the general structure, primary concepts, and nomenclature of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ecological risk assessment framework (Service 2005). Factors causing adverse effects are called “stressors” and beneficial effects are called benefits. In this approach, the Service determines the resources that will be exposed to the proposed action’s stressors and benefits by evaluating the location, timing, duration, frequency, and intensity of potential exposure to each stressor and benefit, and identifying the physical, chemical, and biotic features that will be directly and indirectly exposed. Then the causal relationships between sources of stressors and benefits and the response of listed resources are analyzed. The exposure analysis also estimates future changes in the abundance or distribution of listed species expected to result from exposure to stressors and benefits.

The proposed action involves the following stressors within the action area: • Aerial and Hand Broadcast of Brodifacoum; and • Capture, Handling, Transport, and Captive Care of Laysan Ducks.

The proposed action involves the following benefit within the action area: • Species and Habitat Protection/Enhancement.

Aerial and Hand Broadcast of Rodenticide on Laysan Ducks The proposed action involves the aerial and hand broadcasting of brodifiacoum, which is a rodenticide, throughout Sand Island at MANWR. The aerial and hand broadcasting of brodifacoum is likely to result in the primary and secondary poisoning of Laysan ducks and accidental trampling of Laysan duck eggs and/or ducklings by hand broadcast applicators or ground crew. Laysan ducks are anticipated to be injured or killed due to primary and/or secondary poisoning or being accidentally trampled by applicators or ground crew. Brodifacoum is considered to be highly toxic to birds (Eason et al. 2002, p. 37). Feeding trials with non-toxic bait pellets conducted on MANWR indicated that Laysan ducks are highly likely to consume bait pellets used for the proposed action (SWCA 2017, p. 9). Invertebrates are known to feed on bait pellets, and although generally not negatively affected by anticoagulant rodenticides (Booth et al. 2003, p. 13, and Hoare and Hare 2006, p. 162), may accumulate brodifacoum. Laysan ducks are present at MANWR year round and invertebrates are part of its diet. Thus, ducks present on Sand Island during the aerial and hand broadcasting of the bait pellets or when pellets are still available, or released too soon before residue levels are considered safe are likely to consume brodifacoum directly via pellets or indirectly through invertebrate prey items. Sub-lethal effects due to ingestion of brodifacoum may include lethargy, subcutaneous, intramuscular, and internal hemorrhaging, piloerection, diarrhea, bloody diarrhea, and anorexia (Service 2018b, p. 5-4). Based upon the ED analysis in the BA, ingestion of brodifacoum bait pellets by Laysan ducks will result in mortality. The mortality of a female duck with eggs or chick due to primary or secondary poisoning of brodifacoum will result in the indirect effects of duckling or egg mortality.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 27

Personnel will hand broadcast bait pellets in certain areas of Sand Island in July/August, which is the Laysan duck breeding season. Laysan duck nests occur on the ground, deep within the base of vegetation, especially bunchgrasses. Applicators/personnel may trample unseen Laysan duck nests and accidentally crush eggs or ducklings resulting in mortality of eggs and/or injury or mortality of ducklings.

Capture, Handling, Transport, and Captive Care of Laysan Ducks To reduce the exposure of Laysan ducks to brodifacoum the proposed project involves: capturing as many Laysan ducks (estimated population of 600 adults at MANWR) on Sand Island prior to the bait application; transporting captured ducks from Sand to Eastern Island; on Eastern Island, place 200 ducks in captivity and wing clip and release the remaining ducks; hold ducks on Eastern Island (estimated to be up to 13-15 months post bait application) until brodifacoum pellets have degraded and brodifacoum residues have a reached a biologically safe level as described in the BA (Section 5.1.3.3); and administer a botulism vaccine to all captured Laysan ducks. Any ducks not captured and showing signs of exposure to brodifacoum will be captured and treated with the antidote Vitamin K.

Capture, handling, transporting, and avian care will be conducted by qualified, specially-trained personnel (Service 2018b) and implement methods and protocols that have been used on Laysan ducks or other duck species. Translocations of Laysan ducks occurred in 2004, 2005, and 2014 with no occurrences of injury or mortality. Based upon previous Laysan duck translocations it is unlikely injuries will occur to ducklings, juveniles, or adults during capture, handling, and transport. However, capturing of Laysan ducks will begin in February, prior to the breeding season (when detectability is highest) to catch as many ducks as possible. If ducks are captured after eggs are laid, the female may not continue incubation. Disrupted incubation may result in the mortality of eggs. Information is not available regarding long-term captive care of Laysan ducks but there is a potential for injuries to occur (e.g., foot and leg injuries due to flooring, sickness, starvation due to food aggression) (Fair et al. 2010, p. 120). Mortality is possible but not anticipated to be high due to the amount of Laysan ducks being kept in captive care (200) and the remaining population as flightless on Eastern Island for an extended amount of time. Mortality may occur due to illness, complications from an injury, starvation due to food aggression behavior, or botulism. Eastern Island has a carrying capacity of 102 Laysan ducks based upon current conditions. Additional infrastructure (e.g., installation of 8 water guzzlers, construction of 11 shade structures) will be added to Eastern Island to support the transported Laysan ducks. To reduce the impacts from botulism, three existing seep ponds on Eastern will be filled with sand or covered with shade cloth to prevent ducks from accessing the water to reduce conditions that foster botulism outbreaks. Also, captured ducks will be administered a botulism vaccine.

Species and Habitat Protection/Enhancement The purpose of the project is to eradicate house mice from Sand Island by delivering a lethal dose of rodenticide (brodifacoum) to every rodent. Over 70% of the total global population of Laysan albatross breeds at MANWR, with the majority nesting on Sand Island. MANWR hosts a translocated population of Laysan ducks, which is one of three populations. Mice at MANWR are known to predate upon Laysan albatross and the seeds of Eragrostis variabilis, an important grass providing cover for Laysan ducks. The benefits of this project is the protection of seabirds

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 28

and Laysan duck habitat. Removing mice will reduce predation on the Laysan albatross and potentially other ground nesting birds and allow recruitment of native grasses useful for Laysan ducks as shelter, nesting, and foraging habitat (VanderWerf 2012, p. 3).

Summary of Impacts of Proposed Action Results of impacts of the proposed action have been analyzed in the BA (Service 2018b), anticipated impacts are described in Table 3 below. If all 600 adults are captured the maximum anticipated take in the form of injury is 390 adults. The maximum anticipated take in the form of mortality is 198 adults. Additional take estimates in the form of injury are 155 sub adults and 125 ducklings. Additional take estimates in the form of mortality are 135 sub adults, 60 ducklings, and 140 eggs.

Table 3. Estimated range of injury and mortality for each Laysan duck age class from the Proposed Action Estimated Range of Laysan Duck Injury and Mortality Adults Sub adults Ducklings Eggs Max Max Max Max Max. Project Phase Injury Mortality Injury Mortality Injury Mortality Mortality Min Max Min Max Range Range Range Range Range 0 30 0 6 1 5 5 10 10 20 Capture 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0 30 0 6 Translocation 5 5 10 10 20 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0 30 0 6 2 5 5 0 0 NA Handling 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0 120 0 60 3 30 30 75 10 80 Captivity 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 30 120 30 60 Aerial and 60 60 30 30 20 Hand- 5.0% 20.0% 5.0% 10.0% Broadcast4 6 60 6 60 5 50 30 N/A N/A N/A Release 1.0% 10.0% 1.0% 10.0% Totals/Ranges 36 390 36 198 155 135 125 60 140 Total % 6.0% 65.0% 6.0% 33.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Includes the number of ducks that may be injured or killed during capture operations and possible breakage of eggs. 2 This only includes the number of ducks that may be injured/killed during flight feather clipping and botulism vaccination procedures. 3 Includes ducks that may be injured/killed from being kept in aviaries and for ducks being held on Eastern Island (due to crowding and aggression around food or water guzzlers, botulism, etc.) and any natural mortality on Eastern Island. On Eastern Island, it will be hard to discriminate between natural mortality and mortality due to the operation. 4 Includes the number of ducks that may be injured/killed from bait being available on the ground from the aerial drop and from disturbance from hand-broadcasting operations. 5 Includes ducks that could molt on Eastern Island and fly back to Sand Island before the environment is considered safe for release along with other ducks that are released and could be affected by any remaining brodifacoum residues. Total population size of adult ducks: 600

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 29

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future non-Federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area subject to consultation. Future federal actions will be subject to the consultation requirements established in section 7 of the Act and, therefore, are not considered cumulative for the proposed action. The Service is unaware of any foreseeable actions within the action area.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that reproductive efforts at MANWR will be reduced for two breeding seasons for Laysan ducks kept in captive care since sexes will be kept separate. Therefore, up to 12% (60% of the 200 ducks in captive care will be adults) of the entire population of Laysan ducks will not be reproducing for two breeding seasons. In addition, it is anticipated that the project may result in the mortality of up to 140 eggs during capture, translocation, captive care, loss of female parent to primary and secondary poisoning of brodifacoum, and accidental trampling by ground crew/applicators. The proposed project is not expected to appreciably reduce Laysan duck reproduction due to a relatively small portion of the population being impacted on a temporary basis and the anticipation of reproduction rebounding once captive ducks are released due to the fecundity (see Environmental Baseline Section) of Laysan ducks.

The maximum anticipated take due to the proposed project in the form of mortality is up to 198 adults. This take represents 20% of the total population (979) of Laysan ducks. Additional take estimates in the form of mortality are 135 sub adults, 60 ducklings, and 140 eggs. The proposed project is not anticipated to appreciably reduce the overall long-term total population of Laysan ducks since the number of Laysan ducks on Midway is anticipated to return to or near current levels based upon the fecundity of the species (see Environmental Baseline Section). In addition, the implementation of the Laysan Duck Protection and Mitigation Strategy (Service 2018b) will minimize injury and/or mortality to Laysan ducks and eradication of mice from MANWR will likely allow recruitment of native grasses useful for Laysan ducks as shelter, nesting, and foraging habitat (VanderWerf 2012, p. 3). The Laysan ducks recovery potential remains limited by combination of small population sizes, extremely limited range, inhabiting low elevation atolls subject to impacts of climate change, which extremely limits current habitat availability that will remain finite without further translocation efforts.

After reviewing the current status of Laysan ducks, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the Midway Seabird Protection Project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Laysan ducks because it is not anticipated to appreciably reduce the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of Laysan duck. No critical habitat has been designated for this species, therefore, none will be affected.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 30

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by Refuges and Monuments in order for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, Refuges and Monuments must report the progress of the action and its impact on the listed species to the Service as specified in this incidental take statement and reporting requirements below [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)].

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated

Based on the analysis presented in this biological opinion, the Service anticipates the following incidental take may occur in the form of harm (injury), mortality, and capture as a result of the proposed action as described in the Biological Opinion.

Up to 198 adult Laysan ducks, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of mortality as a result of capture, translocation, handling, captive care, or primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum.

Up to 390 adult Laysan ducks, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of harm (injury) as a result of capture, translocation, handling, captive care, or primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum.

Up to 135 sub adult Laysan ducks, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of mortality as a result of capture, translocation, handling, captive care, or primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum.

Up to 155 sub adult Laysan ducks, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of harm (injury) as a result of capture, translocation, handling, captive care, or primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum.

Up to 60 Laysan ducklings, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of mortality as a result of capture, translocation, handling, captive care, primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum, and accidental trampling by ground crew/applicators.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 31

Up to 125 Laysan ducklings, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of harm (injury) as a result of capture, translocation, handling, captive care, primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum, and accidental trampling by ground crew/applicators.

Up to 140 Laysan duck eggs, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of mortality as a result of capture, translocation, captive care, loss of female parent to primary and secondary poisoning due to brodifacoum, and accidental trampling by ground crew/applicators.

Up to 600 Laysan ducks, over the 22-month project term, may be incidentally taken in the form of capture.

Effect of the Take

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the Laysan duck. No critical habitat has been designated for these species so there is no destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of Laysan ducks:

1. Refuges and Monuments will minimize the potential for injury and mortality of Laysan ducks due capture, handling, transporting, captive care, and from implementation of efforts to eradicate mice from Sand Island.

Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, Refuges and Monuments must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measure described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

1. The following terms and conditions implement the reasonable and prudent measure to minimize the potential for injury and mortality of Laysan ducks.

1.1 Refuges and Monuments will ensure that personnel used for the capture, transport, handling, and captive care of Laysan ducks have the following qualifications: Veterinarian – Licensed with avian experience.

Aviculturist - Waterfowl experience. - Egg incubation experience.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 32

Capture Specialists & Protection Team Members - Previous avian experience. - Must be supervised. Supervised individuals may conduct activities pursuant to this Opinion only under the direct, on-site supervision of the Veterinarian and/or Aviculturist. “On-site supervision” is defined as having the authorized individual at a distance close enough to enable the authorized individual to immediately assist a supervised individual, as needed, while the supervised individual is conducting an authorized activity. The Service recommends that each supervised individual receive pre-instructions and/or training before attempting to conduct an authorized activity.

1.2 The Service will be notified by telephone and email within 24 hours upon the discovery of an injured or dead Laysan duck at MANWR. Refuge and Monuments will provide the Service a written notification (Avian Injury/Mortality Form, Appendix B of the Opinion), summarizing the event, within 30 days. Refuge and Monuments will follow protocols in Appendix D (Service 2018b) regarding finding injured, sick, or dead Laysan ducks.

1.3 Refuges and Monuments will submit annual reports. The first report will be submitted by November 30th, two months after the end of the first Laysan duck breeding season following the issuance of this biological opinion and continue annually throughout the life of the project. Annual reports will summarize results from surveys and monitoring (as described in Appendix B (Service 2018b)), and levels of take of Laysan duck expressed in terms of the number of individuals that were taken in the form of harm (injury), mortality, and capture.

1.4 The depository designated to receive specimens of Laysan ducks that are found is the B.P. Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817 (telephone: 808/847-3511). If the B.P. Bishop Museum does not wish to accession the specimens, contact the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement in Honolulu, Hawaii (telephone: 808/861-8525; fax: 808/861-8515) for instructions on disposition.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs all Federal agencies to use their authority to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The recommendations provided here relate only to the proposed action and do not necessarily represent complete fulfillment of the agency’s 7(a)(1) responsibility for the species.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 33

The Service recommends Refuges and Monuments undertake the following conservation recommendation:

• Work with partners to translocate Laysan ducks to higher elevation islands within its historic range to address climate change issues.

• Look into translocating Laysan ducks to Lisianski and if possible, work with partners to translocate ducks.

• Fund research to study botulism conditions and management at MANWR and Kure Atoll, particularly in regards to herbicide use.

• Eradicate Indian fleabane (Pluchea indica) on Laysan Island which is overtaking wetland habitat.

• Enhance Laysan duck habitat (cover and forage) on MANWR and Laysan Island.

• Provide funding for taxidermy for Laysan ducks that die and provide specimens to appropriate agencies/organizations with proper permits for outreach and education.

REINITIATION – CLOSING STATEMENT

This concludes formal consultation on this action. As required in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operation causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

We appreciate your efforts to conserve protected species. If you have any questions concerning this biological opinion, please contact Leila Nagatani of the Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office at (808) 792-9400. When referring to this project, please include this reference number: 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 34

LITERATURE CITED

Birdlife International. 2016. Anas laysanensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species:e.T22680203A92849158 [cited Feb 22 2018]. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22680203A92849158.en.

Blackburn, T.M., P. Cassey, R.P. Duncan, K.L. Evans, and Gaston. K.J. 2004. "Avian extinction and mammalian introductions on oceanic islands." Science 305:1955-1958.

Booth, L.H., P. Fisher, V. Heppelthwaite, and C.T. Eason. 2003. Toxicity and residues of brodifacoum in snails and earthworms. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, 13 pp.

Cooper, A., Rhymer, J., James, H.F., Olson, S.L., McIntosh, C.E., Sorenson, M.D. & Fleischer, R.C. (1996). Ancient DNA and island endemics. Nature 381, 484.

Dill, H.R., and W.A. Bryan. 1912. Report of an expedition to Laysan Island in 1911. U.S. Department Agricultural Biological Survey Bulletin 42.

DuhrSchultz, M., B. Flanders, G. Howald, E.N. Flint, D. Norwood, R. Taylor, and S.A. Hunter. In Press. "Interim Control of House Mice Preying on Adult Albatrosses at Midway Atoll Prior to an Eradication Attempt."

Duncan, C. 2013. Successful Habitat Restoration at Eastern Island, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. March 30, 2013. TechLine Invasive Plant News 2018. https://www.techlinenews.com/articles/2013/3/13/successful-habitat-restoration-at-eastern- island-midway-atoll-national-wildlife-refuge-us-fish-and-wildlife-service-verbesina- eradication-project.

Duncan, R.P. and T.M. Blackburn. 2007. Causes of Extinction in Island Birds. Animal Conservation 10:149-150.

Eason, C.T., E.C. Murphy, G.R.G. Wright, and E.B. Spurr. 2002. Assessment of Risks of Brodifacoum to Non-target Birds and Mammals in New Zealand. Ecotoxicology 11: 35-48.

Fair, J.M., E. Paul, J. Jones, A.B. Clark, C. Davie, and G. Kaiser. 2010. Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research. The Ornithological Council, Washington, D.C., 215 pp.

Hoare, J.M. and K.M. Hare. 2006. The impact of brodifacoum on non-target wildlife: gaps in knowledge. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30(2): 157-167.

Holland, G. & Bruyère, C.L. Clim Dyn (2014) 42: 617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013- 1713-0.

Horak, K., P. Fisher, and B. Hopkins. 2018. Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 35

Target and Nontarget Organisms. USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 2091. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/2091.

IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.

Island Conservation. 2017. Feasibility Report: House Mouse Eradication on Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 69 pp.

Keitt, B., R. Griffiths, S. Boudjelas, K. Broome, S. Cranwell, J. Millett, W. Pitt, and A. Samaniego-Herrera. 2015. "Best practice guidelines for rat eradication on tropical islands." Biological Conservation 185:17-26. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.014.

Klavitter, J. L. 2004. Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Wildlife Assessment for Henderson Field Airport Operations. Honolulu, HI: Service Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. 32 pp.

Marshall, A. P. 1992. Censusing Laysan Ducks Anas laysanensis: a lesson in the pitfalls of estimating threatened species populations. Bird Conservation International 2: 239-251.

Marshall, A.P. 1989. The Behavior of Laysan ducks (Anas laysanensis) in captivity and on Laysan Island. Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University. 204 pp.

Mineau, P. 2018. A review of Midway Island’s mouse eradication mitigation plans. Report prepared for Island Conservation, 20 pp.

Moulton, D.W., and A.P. Marshall. 1996. Laysan Duck (Anas laysanensis), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by P. G. Rodewald. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.705.

Moulton, D.W., and M.W. Weller. 1984. "Biology and conservation of the Laysan Duck (Anas laysanensis)." Condor 86:105-117.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. Informal Consultation on the Midway Seabird Protection Project, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (Consultation Number, PIR-2018- 10471). Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI. 17pp.

Olson, S.L. & James, H.F. (1991). Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from the Hawaiian Islands: part I, non-Passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 45, 1–88.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 36

Rauzon, M.J. 2001. Isles of Refuge: Wildlife and History of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. University of Hawai‘i Press: Honolulu, HI. 200 pp.

Reynolds, M.H., K. Courtot, and J. Hatfield. 2017. How many Laysan Teal (Anas Laysanensis) are on Midway Atoll? Methods for monitoring abundance after reintroduction. Wildfowl 67:60-71.

Reynolds M.H., Nash, and Courtot. 2015. Peregrine Falcon Predation on Laysan Teal and Laysan Finches on Remote Hawaiian Atolls. Hawai'i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-065 University of Hawai'i at Hilo. 13 pp.

Reynolds, M.H., Courtot, K.N., Brinck, K.W., Rehkemper, C.L., and Hatfield, J.S. 2014. Long- term monitoring of endangered Laysan ducks: index validation and population estimates 1998– 2012. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 6(1):92–101; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/032014-JFWM-017.

Reynolds, M.H., E. Weiser, I. Jamieson, and J.S. Hatfield. 2013. Demographic Variation, Reintroduction, and Persistence of an Island Duck (Anas laysanensis). Journal of Wildlife Management 77(6): 1094-1103.

Reynolds, M.H., Brinck, K.W., and Laniawe, L. 2011. Population estimates and monitoring guidelines for endangered Laysan Teal, Anas Laysanensis, at Midway Atoll: Pilot study results 2008-2010. Hawai'i Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSU-021. University of Hawai'i at Hilo. 67 pp., incl. 4 figures, 5 tables, & 3 appendices.

Reynolds, M. H.; Seavy, N. E.; Vekasy, M. S.; Klavitter, J. L.; Laniawe, L. P. 2008. Translocation and early post-release demography of endangered Laysan Teal. Animal Conservation 11(2): 160-168.

Reynolds, M. H.; Crampton, L. H.; Vekasy, M. S. 2007. Laysan Teal Aoginas laysanensis nesting phenology and site characteristics on Laysan Island. Wildfowl 57: 54-67.

Reynolds, M. and J. Klavitter. 2006. “Translocation of wild Laysan duck Anas laysanensis to establish a population at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, United States and US Pacific Possession.” Conservation Evidence 3:6-8.

Reynolds, M.H. 2004. Habitat use and home range of the Laysan Teal on Laysan Island, Hawaii. Waterbirds 27: 183-192.

Reynolds, M., and K. Kozar. 2000. Laysan duck (Anan laysanensis) population status and translocation feasibility report. Service unpublished report: Honolulu, HI. 88 pp.

Ronco, H., M. Smith, and M. Chauvin. 2016. The Hawaiian monk seal on Laysan Island, 2016. Draft report to the Service, Honolulu, HI.

Seavy, N.E., M.H. Reynolds, W.A. Link, and J.S. Hatfield. 2009. Post-catastrophe population

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 37

dynamics and density dependence of an endemic island duck. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 414−418.

Service. 2009. Revised Recovery Plan for the Laysan Duck (Anas laysanensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region Portland, OR, 127 pp.

---. 2017. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Midway Seabird Protection Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report: Portland, Oregon.

---. 2018. Midway Seabird Protection Project. Draft Environmental Assessment. Sand Island, Midway Atoll, Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Prepared by Hamer Environmental L.P. and Planning Solutions, Inc. March 2018. 198 pp.

---. 2018 b. Midway Seabird Protection Project. Biological Assessment. Sand Island, Midway Atoll, Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. November 2018. 182 pp. with appendices.

---. 1982. The Laysan Duck Recovery Plan (B. Giezentanner et al., eds.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region Portland, OR

---. 2008. Papahanaumokuakea Monument Management Plan. Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and Battle of Midway National Memorial, Jan 27 2015 [cited Mar 21 2015]. Available from https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Midway_Atoll/what_we_do/planning.html.

---. 1967. Native fish and wildlife: Endangered species status. Federal Register 32: 4001.

Storlazzi, C.D, Elias, Berkowitz. 2015. Many Atolls May be Uninhabitable Within Decades Due to Climate Change. Scientific Report 5, Article number 14546 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14546.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Endangered species permit TE-003483-29, 2014 report. Unpublished report to the Service. 17 pp.

VanderWerf, E.A. 2012. Hawaiian Bird Conservation Action Plan. Pacific Rim Conservation, Honolulu, HI.

Wanless, Ross M, Andrea Angel, Richard J Cuthbert, Geoff M Hilton, and Peter G Ryan. 2007. "Can predation by invasive mice drive seabird extinctions?" Biology Letters 3 (3):241- 244. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0120.

Walters, J.R., and M.H. Reynolds. 2013. "Experimental reintroduction reveals novel life-history variation in Laysan Ducks (Anas laysanensis)." The Auk 130 (4):573-579.

Warner, R. 1963. Recent History and Ecology of the Laysan Duck. Condor 65(1).

Work, T.M., J.L. Klavitter, M.H. Reynolds, and D. Blehert. 2010. "Avian botulism: a case study

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 38

in translocated endangered Laysan Ducks (Anas laysanensis) on Midway Atoll." Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46:499-506.

Work, T. M.; Meteryer, C. U.; Cole, R. A. 2004. Mortality in Laysan ducks (Anas laysanensis) by emaciation complicated by Echinuria uncinata on Laysan Island, Hawaii, 1993. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 40(1): 110-114.

IN LITT.

Goodale, K. 2018. Correspondence on population of Laysan ducks at Midway K. Goodale, Service biologist Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, to Service, Ecological Services, Honolulu, HI.

Rehkemper, C. 2017. E-mail from C. Rehkemper, Service Marine Monuments of the Pacific, to Annie Marshall, Service, Ecological Services, Honolulu, HI.

Vanderlip, C. 2016. E-mails from C. Vanderlip, Kure Biological Field Station Supervisor, DOFAW, to Annie Marshall, Service, Ecological Services, Honolulu, HI.

APPENDIX A

Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determination for the Green Sea Turtle, Popolo, and Loulu

This Appendix is in response to your request for our concurrence with your determination that the proposed Midway Seabird Protection Project at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Central North Pacific Distinct Population Segment and the endangered plants popolo (Solanum nelsonii) and loulu (Pritchardia remota). The findings and recommendations in this consultation are based on information provided in: (1) the November 9, 2018, Biological Assessment (BA) for your proposed project; (2) email and verbal communication between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marine National Monuments of the Pacific staff and our office; (3) peer reviewed articles and reports; and (4) other information available to us. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in our office. This response is in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Project Description The project description and action area are the same as described for the formal consultation.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following measures identified in your BA will be implemented as the project site to avoid and minimize effects to the green sea turtle, popolo, and loulu. The following measures are considered part of the project description:

• Maintain a 100 ft. (30.5 m) buffer from basking sea turtles. This buffer will apply to all aspects of the project and for the entire duration of project activities. • During aerial bait broadcast, helicopters would fly over sea turtle basking areas but avoid hovering over or near them. Specialists will be on site that can monitor sea turtles throughout the bait drop for disturbance and exposure risk and provide recommendations to the project manager based on those observations. • Extreme care will be exercised during all phases of the project (Table 2.1 of the BA) to minimize trampling or damaging popolo and loulu. Prior to the project’s field work, refuge staff will be briefed on the locations of popolo and loulu populations in the action area, will be provided photo(s) and identifying description(s) of popolo and loulu, and will take precautions to avoid, divert and/or limit human disturbance in areas with known popolo and loulu populations.

Analysis of Effects The green sea turtle occurs at Midway Atoll NWR. By incorporating the above avoidance and minimization measures for green sea turtles and the biology and nature of the species, it is not likely to consume the bait and, therefore, impacts are discountable. Because effects from the action are discountable, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the green sea turtle.

Midway Seabird Protection Project - 01EPIF00-2019-F-0049 2

Popolo and loulu occur within the project area. By incorporating the above avoidance and minimization measures for popolo and loulu, it is not probable that plants will be trampled by project personnel and, therefore, impacts are discountable. Because effects from the action are discountable, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect popolo and loulu.

Conclusion Based upon the above, we concur that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the green sea turtle, popolo, and loulu. Unless the project description changes, or new information reveals that the action may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered, or a new species or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the proposed action, no further action pursuant to section 7 of the ESA is necessary.

APPENDIX B

Avian Injury / Mortality Form

Report Date:

Species (common name):

Date Found:

Time Found:

Age:

Bands:

Found by:

Documented by:

GPS Coordinates:

Location Found (including closest structure & distance to structure):

Condition of Specimen (include a description of general condition, as well as any visible injuries):

Probable Cause of Injury or Mortality and Supportive Evidence (attach photos and map, next page):

Action Taken (include notifications, reporting dates and times):

Additional Comments: