sign in sign up
<<
Home , Black noddy, Bonin petrel, Chenopodium oahuense, French Frigate Shoals, Gardner Pinnacles, Hawaii (island)

French Shoals (Kānemilohaʻi) 2012-2017 Action Plan

Hawaiian National Wildlife Refuge

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

Draft 1Sept2011

1 SUMMARY

French Frigate Shoals (Kānemilohaʻi, FFS) is an located about halfway up the Hawaiian Island Chain, part of the National Wildlife Reserve, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Reef Ecosystem Reserve, and Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.

FFS populations form a critical part in the survival of many of the species in the Monument by: (1) providing a safety net community which may more stabie than other parts of the Hawaiian chain, (2) providing the best and most easily monitored population, with the longest and most detailed monitoring dataset in the Monument, and perhaps the Pacific Islands, and (3) providing an unparalleled opportunity for education and outreach for both conservation professionals and the general public.

The purpose of this document is to providing continuity in guidance through changes in staff and agency composition, and to provide an overall vision to guide effective management within the atoll. Following the guidance in this plan should lead to more effective management by providing clear goals and actions, minimizing duplication of effort and re-inventing the wheel, and identifying priorities when resources are limited. As a working document, this plan should be updated as new information becomes available, and as conditions and priorities change.

The mission and goals for management are presented first. Biological goals and priorities are then presented. Conservation actions, baseline data and special projects are included for each species, habitat, for maintenance of biological diversity and for biological functions. Protection of Resources, reducing threats, managing human uses, education and outreach, staffing, infrastructure, interagency coordination, and safety are also covered. Appendices include a species list, Species Action Plans, and Habitat Action Plans. A draft Interagency Cooperative Management Agreement is attached, which could be used to assist in implementing this plan effectively. Emphasis is placed on setting specific goals and schedules, in order to guide actions toward meaningful, effective actions over the long term.

Highest priority actions include fixing the septic system which empties into the ocean; providing on-site maintenance staff; soliciting and supporting graduate student/returning volunteer research to fulfill PMNM monitoring research needs; planning for long-term fiduciary needs; and facilitating interagency cooperative management.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ...... 2 Introduction ...... 6 (Kānemilohaʻi) Location and Description ...... 7 Mission ...... 9 Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (Co-Trustees) ...... 9 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge (state of Hawaiʻi) ...... 10 Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife refuge (USFWS) ...... 11 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Ecosystem Reserve (NOAA) ...... 11 Mission at French Frigate Shoals/Kānemilohaʻi ...... 11 Biological Goals & Priorities (PMNM action 3.2 conserving wildlife and habitats) ...... 12 Species (PMNM ACTION 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and 3.2.2 Migratory ) ...... 12 Conservation ...... 12 Baseline Data ...... 15 Special projects ...... 16 Habitats (PMNM 3.2.3 Habitat Management and Conservation) ...... 16 Conservation ...... 16 Baseline data ...... 17 Special projects ...... 18 Biological diversity ...... 20 Conservation ...... 20 Baseline data ...... 22 Special projects ...... 22 Biological functions ...... 22 Protection of Resources ...... 24 Reducing (PMNM Action 3.3.1 Marine Debris) ...... 24 Reducing the Impact of Alien Species (PMNM Action 3.3.2 Alien Species) ...... 24 Reducing Negative Impacts of Boat and Plane Operation (3.3.3 Maritime Transportation and Aviation Action Plan) ...... 25 Permitting (PMNM Action 3.4.1 Permitting) ...... 25 Law Enforcement (PMNM Action 3.4.2 Enforcement) ...... 26 Limitations on Use (PMNM Action 3.4 Managing Human Use) ...... 27 Education and Outreach (PMNM Action 3.1 understanding and interpreting) 30 Scientific Community ...... 30 Targeted populations ...... 30 (PMNM Action 3.5.3 Native Hawaiian Community Involvement), Local, and Classroom Involvment (PMNM Action 3.5.2 Constituency Building and Outreach) ...... 30

3 Undergraduate And Graduate Students, Conservation Professionals, And Agency Staff 31 General public (PMNM Action 3.5.2 Constituency Building and Outreach) .... 32 Staffing Goals & Priorities ...... 33 Permanent Staff ...... 33 Seasonal Staff ...... 36 Volunteers ...... 37 Facilities Goals & Priorities ...... 39 Power, Water, and Septic ...... 41 Structures and Equipment ...... 41 communication ...... 43 Transportation of Personnel and Supplies ...... 44 Biological Monitoring Supplies ...... 45 Small Boating Operations ...... 47 Interagency Coordination (Action 3.5 coordinating conservation and management activities, 3.5.1 Agency Coordination, and action 3.6.3 Coordinated Field Operations) ...... 48 Interagency Training ...... 48 Interagency Agreements for Services...... 49 Interagency Operations and Staffing ...... 49 Safety Goals & Priorities (PMNM Action 3.3.4 Emergency Response and Natural Resource Damage Assessment) ...... 52 Funding and Development of a Business Plan ...... 53 Appendix A: Species, Habitats and Communities in French Frigate Shoals ..... 54 Species ...... 54 Appendix B: Species Action Pl Appendix B: Species Action Plans ...... 56 ...... 56 Black-footed ...... 59 Blue-Gray Noddy (Grey Noddy) ...... 61 ...... 66 ...... 67 Bulwer’s Petrel ...... 68 Christmas Shearwater ...... 70 Gray-backed (also known as Specktacled Tern) ...... 72 Great ...... 74 Hawaiian ...... 76 Hawaiian Monk Seals ...... 80 Jacks (Species Group) ...... 86 Albatross ...... 87 Lobsters ...... 90 ...... 92

4 RED-FOOTED BOOBY ...... 94 Red-Tailed Tropicbird ...... 97 Sharks (Species Group) ...... 99 Shorebirds (Species Group) ...... 101 Tristram’s Storm-Petrel ...... 102 Wedge tailed shearwater ...... 106 ...... 108 Appendix C: Habitat Action Plans ...... 111 Sand Islands ...... 111 Vegetated Islands ...... 112 Basaltic Islands ...... 118 Shallow Coral Reef AND Sand-Bottom (<5 Fathoms)...... 119 Deep water coral reef and sand bottom (>5 fathoms) ...... 121 Draft Interagency Management Agreement ...... 122

5 INTRODUCTION

This document outlines the mission, purposes, goals, priorities, and actions planned for French Frigate Shoals (Kānemilohaʻi) over the next 10 years. The purpose of this document is to guide planning and implementation for most effective management, particularly to provide continuity of purpose and direction through changes in staff, and coordination of the efforts of multiple agencies.

Effective management is challenged at the atoll by high personnel turnover in the managing agencies, challenges of multi-agency coordination, and minimal long- term planning specific to the atoll. The purpose of this document is to providing continuity in guidance through changes in staff and agency composition, and to provide an overall vision to guide effective management within the atoll. Following the guidance in this plan should lead to more effective management by providing clear goals and actions, minimizing duplication of effort and re-inventing the wheel, and identifying priorities when resources are limited.

The mission, purposes and goals outlined in this document are expected to remain the same for the life of this document. Missions and actions expected to receive only minor revisions, if at all. This is a working document, however, and should be reviewed on a bi-annual basis. Changes in resources available for implementation, identification of new critical issues or challenges, gains in assets, or significant gains in knowledge about our natural resources, for example, should be updated as needed to make this document an effective guide for our management efforts within the atoll.

French Frigate Shoals falls within concurrent and/or adjacent jurisdiction and/or management of the following entities and agencies:

 Paphānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), U.S. & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and advised by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA));  Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge (State of Hawaiʻi),  Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), and  Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystems Reserve (NOAA).

6 FRENCH FRIGATE SHOALS (KĀNEMILOHAʻI) LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

French Frigate Shoals (FFS), or Kānemilohaʻi, is a shallow-water marine atoll system located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, about one-third of the way from to (Figure 1). The atoll is the largest atoll in the Hawaiian Island chain. It includes approximately 230,000 acres of coral reef habitat, and about 67 acres of emergent land. FFS may house the highest coral reef species diversity in Papahānaumokuākea Monument. Although not having the highest terrestrial diversity nor the highest terrestrial production, FFS populations form a critical part in the survival of many of the species here by: (1) providing a safety net community which may more stabie than other parts of the Hawaiian chain, (2) providing the best and most easily monitored population, with the longest and most detailed monitoring dataset in the Monument, and perhaps the Pacific Islands, and (3) providing an unparalleled opportunity for education and outreach for both conservation professionals and the general public.

There are 9 to 14 islands in FFS, all of which change over decadal time periods. The two vegetated emergent islands, Tern and East Islands, are the most permanent of the islands, and both have been significantly modified by human activity. 5 emergent sandy islands include Shark, Trig, Gin, Little Gin, and Disappearing Islands. There are 2-7 ephemeral islands in the atoll (including Round, Mullet, Gin Spit 1, Gin Spit 2, and Little Gin Spit, and occasionally 1 or 2 unnamed smaller ephemeral spits). is the only basaltic island in the atoll, and provides a landmark specific to FFS (Cover). All islands except Tern and East have remained wilderness, with little direct impact from humans, although they are occasionally visited for wildlife monitoring purposes.

Although not part of the current planning unit, nearby banks, particularly Brooks Bank, St. Rogatien Bank, , and should be considered for inclusion with FFS as a management unit. These banks are critical feeding grounds for Hawaiian monk seals, as well as species reproducing at FFS. FFS could provide the infrastructural support for a management team to work on conservation and monitoring needs for the banks, and the increase in personnel and funding would provide greater funding stability. We request that inclusion of nearby banks in FFS management planning and management area be formally considered no later than Dec 2012.

7

Figure 1. Map of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (above), and French Frigate Shoals (Kānemilohaʻi) (below).

8 MISSION

We have included a summary of the mission or purpose of each entity (Papahānaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystems Reserve. In addition, we have included a section on the purpose and mission specific to Kānemilohaʻi.

PAPAHĀNAUMOKUĀKEA MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT (CO-TRUSTEES)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (Monument) in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands comprises one of the largest protected areas in the world. The Monument, a vast, remote, and largely uninhabited marine region, encompasses an area of approximately 139,793 square (362,061 square kilometers) of Pacific Ocean in the northwestern extent of the Hawaiian Archipelago. French Frigate Shoals (FFS) is in the central portion of the Monument, about one-third of the way from Honolulu to Midway Atoll (Figure 1). Co-Trustees, including the State of Hawaiʻi (Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and advised by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)

The purpose of the monument is to protect the resources of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, the Midway National Wildlife Refuge, the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and the National Memorial, including the reef ecosystem of coral, fish, birds, marine mammals, and other flora and fauna including the endangered Hawaiian , the threatened green sea turtle, and the endangered leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles; resources having great cultural significance to Native Hawaiians and a connection to early worthy of protection and understanding; and objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the (Presidential Proclamation 8031).

The December 2006 Memorandum of Agreement for Promoting Coordinated Management of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument identified the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, and Governor of Hawai‘i as Co-Trustees for the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. The agreement provided for the inclusion of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs into the Monument management process to assure the perpetuation of Hawaiian cultural resources in the Monument, including the customary and traditional rights and practices of Native Hawaiians exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes under the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i, Article XII, Section 7.

9 NORTHWESTERN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS MARINE REFUGE (STATE OF HAWAIʻI)

The purposes of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge, as established by the State of Hawaiʻi (HAR §13-60) is as follows:

(1) To establish a marine refuge in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands for the longterm conservation and protection of the unique coral reef ecosystems and the related marine resources and species, to ensure their conservation and natural character for present and future generations; (2) To manage, preserve, protect, and conserve the unique resources in the marine refuge, using the best available science and a precautionary management approach to resource protection to minimize risks of possible adverse effects on the regional ecosystem, its or its indigenous wildlife in this area, especially where data is limited; (3) To implement an entry permit program for the area that will cause no harm to the refuge resources and be consistent with the management programs in the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve for this area, that preserves the area by limiting entries and restricting access to specific areas; (4) To support, promote, and coordinate appropriate scientific research and assessment, and long-term monitoring of the refuge resources, and the impacts or threats thereto from human and other activities, to help better understand, protect, manage and conserve consistent with applicable law; (5) To allow Native Hawaiian cultural, subsistence, and religious practices, and identification and coordination of Native Hawaiian interests, that are consistent with applicable law and the long-term conservation and protection of the resources of the marine refuge; (6) To coordinate management and process permit review among the department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Ocean Service, and other entities, as appropriate, to provide comprehensive conservation of the coral reef ecosystem and related marine resources and species throughout the area, consistent with applicable authorities and management principles, including cleanup and prevention of marine debris, restoration or remediation of degraded or injured resources, enforcement and surveillance, management of potential tourism, recreational, and commercial activities and actions needed to ensure they do not degrade the resources or diminish the natural character of the marine refuge; and (7) To be consistent with federal law where federal law is applicable.

The State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) is the administrator of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge.

10 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (USFWS)

The Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge includes all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, except Midway Atoll. It was established by Executive Order 1019 in 1909. The Refuge was given its current name in 1940 (President Proclamation 2416). This area was set aside for as a “preserve and breeding ground for The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National native .” The Secretary of the Monument mission at Kānemilohaʻi is to Interior and the President of the provide comprehensive, strong, and lasting United States in 1974 considered protection for coral reef and terrestrial all of the refuge’s emergent lands ecosystems, species and habitats; related except to be marine resources and species; resources of ecologically appropriate for inclusion into the National cultural significance to Native Hawaiians Wilderness Preservation System, and early Polynesian culture; and objects of although formal designation has historic and scientific interest. not been completed. USFWS is the administrator of the Refuge.

NORTHWESTERN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM RESERVE (NOAA)

The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve (‘Reserve’) was established by Executive Order 13178 to to ensure the comprehensive, strong, and lasting protection of the coral reef ecosystem and related marine resources and species (resources) of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA is the administrator of the Reserve.

MISSION AT FRENCH FRIGATE SHOALS/KĀNEMILOHAʻI

In summary, our mission at French Frigate Shoals is to provide comprehensive, strong, and lasting protection for coral reef and terrestrial ecosystems, species and habitats; related marine resources and species; resources of cultural significance to Native Hawaiians and early Polynesian culture; and objects of historic and scientific interest. Concurrent with this mission, we will provide opportunities for research, education, outreach, and recreation, as long as these activities do not interfere or conflict with our primary mission.

11 BIOLOGICAL GOALS & PRIORITIES (PMNM ACTION 3.2 CONSERVING WILDLIFE AND HABITATS)

In order to facilitate identification of biological goals, priorities and actions, we have divided biological needs by categories of interest/management (e.g., species and habitats), and by type of management activity (e.g., collection of baseline data, and research needs). Many alternative means of organization would be equally valid; this method is used solely as an organizational tool, and does not attempt to represent a management paradigm, or limit scientific or management approaches.

We have divided goals and priorities into the following categories of biological interest/management:

 Species  Habitats  Biological Diversity  Biological Functions  System Health

We have divided management activities into the following categories:

 Conservation  Baseline Data  Special Projects  Other Management

SPECIES (PMNM ACTION 3.2.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND 3.2.2 MIGRATORY BIRDS)

CONSERVATION

Most current monitoring and conservation actions are designed to protect individual species. Conservation of individual species is a laudable and critical part of our Mission; however it is but one part of an effective means to conservation of the species, as species depend on habitats, conspecifics, prey and predators, ecosystem functions and systems, rather than existing in a separate space. Our efforts in this section, then are but one part of the overall conservation efforts at FFS.

A species list is included in Appendix A. Species Action Plans are included in Appendix B. All native species in FFS are considered protected under the enabling

12 legislation and regulations of the Refuge, Reserve, and/or Monument. Non-native species are considered unprotected, unless specifically designated by law (e.g., a vagrant endangered bird).

Conservation actions should be designed to preserve the level of biological diversity appropriate for a given system, and should be designed to protect all native species whenever feasible. Given realistic constraints on time and resources, however, conservation efforts for species will be prioritized in the following order:

1. Species whose continued survival depends on PMNM or Hawaiian resources or populations (with highest priority to those whose continued survival depends on FFS resources or populations) 2. Species whose continued survival depends on U.S. Pacific Island (USPI) resources or populations 3. Species who have 50% or greater of the world’s population is located within PMNM 4. Species who have 50% or greater of the world’s population is located within USPI 5. Species who have 50% or greater of the U.S. population located within PMNM 6. Species who have 50% or greater of the U.S. population located within USPI 7. Indicator and keystone species 8. Species who depend on habitats of restricted geographic or ecological distribution

A list of priority terrestrial vertebrate species in included in Table 1. Although invertebrate and marine species are not included in this table, conservation actions will be prioritized in the same way. Note that while conservation priority and monitoring priority are generally the same, monitoring priority may be higher (e.g., for sooty as an indicator species).

Table 1. Conservation priorities for terrestrial vertebrate species in FFS.

Common Name Scientific Name Priority Status Monachus 95% global pop 1 schauinslandi in PMNM >95% global pop Hawaiian green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 1 in PMNM >95% global pop Diomedea immutabilis 1 in PMNM black-footed albatross Diomedea nigripes 1 >95% global pop

13 Common Name Scientific Name Priority Status in PMNM >50% of global Oceanodroma pop and entire Tristram's stormpetrel 1 tristrami U.S. pop breeds in USPI ~50% of global gray-backed tern Sterna lunata 1 pop in PMNM Pterodroma >50% of global 1 hyplodeuca pop in USPI >50% of global Bulwer's petrel Bulweria bulwerii 1 pop in USPI ~30% global Christmas shearwater Puffinus nativitatis 1 pop in PMNM ~50% global pop in PMNM, red-tailed tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda 3 entire U.S. pop in USPI >50% of U.S pop brown noddy stolidus 5 in PMNM >50% of U.S pop white tern Gygis alba 5 in PMNM Entire U.S. pop in black noddy Anous minutus 6 USPI 6 Entire U.S. pop in Fregata minor USPI 6 Entire U.S. pop in blue-gray noddy Procelsterna cerulean USPI 6 Entire U.S. pop in wedgetailed shearwater Puffinus pacificus USPI 6 >50% of U.S. pop brown booby Sula leucogaster in USPI 6 >50% of U.S. pop masked booby Sula dactylatra in USPI 6 >50% of U.S. pop red-footed booby Sula sula in USPI Sterna fuscata 7 Indicator Species

CONSERVATION GOALS

For each priority species, we should set specific conservation goals, no later than December 2011. Conservation goals should set specific goals for FFS

14 populations, breeding populations, reproductive effort, reproductive success, threats, and habitats, and may include other pertinent goals. Where insufficient information is available to set goals, we should specify a splan of action with schedule to obtain needed information and set goals in a timely manner, no later than December 2011.

Conservation goals for species will be listed in the species descriptions in Appendix A, and updated as they are completed. Conservation goals should be based on past levels, current and likely future threats, and ability to carry out those goals. Unfeasible goals or approaches are unproductive. Instead, if an ideal goal cannot be reached, feasible goals will be indicated, with the reasoning for why they are the best approach to conservation of a species.

Decisions on implementing species-specific conservation actions should always consider, and when possible, benefit species diversity (including non-seabird species). For example, creation of shrub nesting habitat for is and excellent opportunity to improve appropriate native vegetation, in addition to creating the architecture needed for seabird reproduction.

Management actions needed for conservation for one species may sometimes conflict with another. In these cases, priority will generally follow the conservation priority assigned to the species; however, management actions with negatively impact another species should be carefully weighed to determine if the negatively impacted species can bear the burden of the management action. Costs and benefits overall to the species, habitats, and ecosystems involved should be weighed in such decisions.

BASELINE DATA

Baseline data should be collected on all native species, whenever feasible. Baseline data includes: estimate of population in FFS, estimate of breeding population in FFS, estimate of reproductive effort, and estimate of reproductive success. From this data, we should at least biannually review the current status and trends of each species, and determine if management action or change in priorities is warranted.

Collection of baseline data on species does not eclipse the need for monitoring habitats, functions and ecosystems, as species cannot survive without the support of a functioning habitat and ecosystem.

In complex habitats, such as coral reef communities, baseline data focused on each individual species may not be possible. In these cases, species sampling should

15 be designed to provide baseline data for keystone, representative, and indicator species.

SPECIAL PROJECTS

For the purposes of this document, ‘special projects’ include any research or investigations above baseline data. Special projects, as used here, is not limited to outside research project, and in fact may or may not include research by any outside entities.

The first priority for special projects for species includes those which will supply us with the information we need to understand the current status, causes of past and future trends; demonstrate the effectiveness or improve monitoring, protection, or conservation methods; reduce negative impacts; or investigate other management and conservation needs toward our Mission and strategies.

HABITATS (PMNM 3.2.3 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION)

CONSERVATION

For the purposes of this document, we have defined the following habitats at FFS:

 Vegetated Island  Basalt Island  Shallow coral reef and sand-bottomed waters (≤ 5 fathoms)  Deep coral reef and sand-bottomed waters (>5 fathoms)

We acknowledge that there are many other ways we could define habitats at FFS; this classification system is for the purposes of planning research, management and protection efforts only.

Deep water pelagics are excluded from this discussion as lying geographically out of the current planning area. In the future, if the geographic area including nearby feeding grounds for seabirds and seals (e.g., Brooks Bank) are included under this plan, deep water pelagic habitat should be re-inserted, and given full weight of consideration for conservation and other management activities.

16 All native habitats in FFS are considered protected under the enabling legislation and regulations of the Refuge, Reserve, and/or Monument. Non-native species are considered unprotected, unless specifically designated by law (e.g., a vagrant endangered bird). Conservation actions should be designed to preserve the level of habitat diversity appropriate for a given system, and should be designed to protect all native species whenever feasible.

By December 2011, we should designate conservation goals for each habitat type in FFS. Conservation goals should be based on past levels, current and likely future threats, and ability to carry out those goals. Unfeasible goals or approaches are unproductive. Instead, if an ideal goal cannot be reached, feasible goals will be indicated, with the reasoning for why they are the best approach to conservation of a species.

All of the habitats at FFS are considered critical. Management actions needed for conservation for one habitat may sometimes conflict with another; however. Management actions with negatively impact another habitat should be very carefully weighed to determine if the negatively impacted species can bear the burden of the management action. Costs and benefits overall to the species, habitats, and ecosystems involved should be weighed in such decisions.

BASELINE DATA

Baseline data for habitats includes population status and trends (health), species composition and diversity, physical properties and modifiers (niches), native versus nonnative species interaction, as well as characterization and trends in intra- and inter-habitat functions.

Characterization and quantification of non-reef habitats has been severely lacking at FFS. First time baseline data should be collected for each habitat type, with particular focus to trends in distribution, species composition and diversity, and functions. Most of this work will be within the capabilities of existing resources; however, special resources will need to be devoted to work on basaltic islands (La Perouse) and deep water habitats in and near FFS. Both of these habitats is virtually uncharacterized, and we certainly do not have sufficient baseline monitoring to recognize any changes in status for these habitats.

By December 2011, we should have collected and described baseline data for sand and vegetated islands, reviewed literature and sought expert advice on coral reef baseline monitoring needs, and developed a plan for implementation in 2012 to

17 begin collecting baseline data for basaltic islands, shallow coral reefs, shallow sand- bottomed waters, and deep waters.

SPECIAL PROJECTS

The first priority for special projects for habitats includes those which will supply us with the information we need to understand the current status, causes of past and future trends; demonstrate the effectiveness or improve monitoring, protection, or conservation methods; reduce negative impacts; or investigate other management and conservation needs toward our Mission and strategies.

SHALLOW AND DEEP WATER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES:

A high priority in the Monument (and elsewhere) is protection and conservation of the critically endangered monk seal, which although breeding on sandy islands in the atoll, feeds in shallow to deep waters in the atoll and surrounding area. (Hawaiian monk seals are known to forage throughout the island chain, and although not the usual, it is not exceptional for individual seals to travel between Laysan and Midway, Laysan to French Frigate Shoals, or French Frigate Shoals to , for example.) Both Hawaiian monk seals and the Hawaiian green sea turtles are excellent illustrations of the interdependence of organisms, habitats, and processes of the entire area, rather than organisms and habitats existing in isolation.

In order to adequately address the needs of Hawaiian monk seals (and Hawaiian green sea turtles) we must address conservation and management needs across habitats and geographic areas. In addition to successfully assisting survival of the world’s population of roughly 800 Hawaiian monk seals, we need to understand both the causes and effects of their decline, as a representative of top predators in the ecosystem. It is highly unlikely that those factors effecting monk seal decline are not effecting other parts of the system toward unbalance – The monk seal is serving as a serious early warning that the ecosystem as a whole is adjusting to stressors we do not understand, in ways we do not currently understand.

Hawaiian monk seals’ most serious issue is, in a nutshell, insufficient replacement of senescing individuals by juvenile recruitment. Particularly in the past 10 years at FFS, pup and juvenile survival to the 4th year has been virtually nill. The reasons for poor pup survival are small birth weight, short weaning time, and high shark predation levels. The reasons for poor juvenile survival appear to be insufficient prey. Three of these factors (small birth weight, early weaning, and

18 insufficient juvenile seal prey) are indicators of either a poor prey base, and increased competitor base, or both. These in turn represent a system that is out of balance, and has failed to reconcile itself within the 10 years that this area has been closed to fishing following overharvest of lobster and bottom fish throughout the Monument, as late as the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Failure for a remote area to restock within 10 years – a very short period of time to reach stable conditions, particularly in the world’s most remote island chain – is not surprising considering the remote location and excessive impact of historic and modern take in the area (Schultz et al. 2011). It does, however, indicate that active management to conserve and restore this area is needed, not only for the Hawaiian monk seal, but to mitigate historic and modern anthropogenic impacts. Without a healthy coral reef and sandy bottom communities, we will likely lose many more species than just the Hawaiian monk seal. That said, the likely negative impact of changing climate conditions is predicted to effect the northern islands most strongly, with less effect in FFS (Schultz et al. 2011) making this area possibly increasingly important as a refuge during climate change.

Our information on the bottom fish, cephalopod and crustacean community was gathered in the past by the fishing community. Since lobster fishing ceased in 2000, we have not monitored the sandy bottom communities in this area (although there has been work by the agencies tracking changes in the coral reef community). Reduced pelagic primary reproduction in deeper ocean waters with global temperatures and stratification undoubtedly have had some negative effect; without monitoring, however, we are unable to assess such limitations.

In this case, conservation must follow research and monitoring. In order to develop appropriate conservation measures for shallow and deep water benthic communities, including but certainly not limited to the critically endangered Hawaiian monk seal, we need special studies to identify: (1) changes in shark, jacks, bivalve, cephalopod, congid, and lobster populations (in addition to seabirds, seals, turtles, and coral reef), (2) establish basic where needed to identify prey, predators, commensals, and habitat needs, (3) assess baseline information to assess indications of ecosystem health and/or problems, with the goal to protect ecosystem integrity and achieve long-term sustainability, (4) develop appropriate conservation and protection goals, and (5) carry out those goals while continuing to monitor and assess effectiveness of conservation and protection measures. These special studies are of highest priority, as they are critical for Hawaiian monk seal survival as well as ecosystem integrity.

19 Another special studies need, partially overlapping with the above, is to better understand the types, timing, and quantification of interactions between habitats, both in terms of materials and functions. A high priority, then, is to identify, characterize and quantify inter-habitat functions. A research plan for this special project should We need special studies to identify trends in be completed no later than Dec keystone species: shark, jacks, bivalve, 2011. Funding and staffing should cephalopod, congid, and lobster populations be sought and secured during (in addition to seabirds, seals, turtles, and 2012. coral reef). These special studies have highest priority, not only for the survival of critically Habitat specific special endangered Hawaiian monk seals, but to project needs are included in the conserve and protect ecosystem integrity. Habitat Action Plans (Appendix C).

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

For the purposes of this plan, we will define biological diversity as the number of species and habitats that are healthy enough to maintain themselves given current trends. We recognize that there are many other means to quantify biological diversity, and those should be included in analyses and management decisions.

FFS has been claimed as housing the greatest coral reef diversity in the Monument (e.g., PMNM Management Plan). FFS also has considerable, albeit not the highest number or greatest diversity in seabird species reproducing in the atoll. A high or terrestrial invertebrate diversity is not likely given the spatial limitations at FFS, and deep water species diversity is probably better managed on a Monument-wide basis. Habitat diversity is discussed in the Habitat Section above. Our discussions of species diversity in this section, then, will focus on coral reef diversity (including , , and other species using coral reef habitats) as well as seabird biodiversity, with a minor emphasis on plant and shorebird diversity.

CONSERVATION

Coral Reefs

Coral reef biological diversity depends on clean water, a sufficient reproductive base, commensals, and an appropriate temperature regime in an physically protected area. Diversity also depends on ecosystem intactness, including a lack of removal of key coral reef functional groups (i.e. predatory and

20 herbivorous fish removal due to overfishing). Proximity to larval source populations, reef age, frequency of natural physical disturbances, and small-scale habitat complexity are good measures of coral health.

Our conservation efforts to maintain and/or improve conservation of coral reef biological diversity in FFS should focus on maintaining clean water conditions and an appropriately diverse reproductive base, support of commensals, and protection of key coral reef functional groups, as indicated from the results of long- term monitoring.

Sand Bottom Communities

Sand-bottom communities, shallow or deep, have not been inventoried at FFS. A high priority for conserving the biological diversity of sand-bottom communities is a quantified inventory, followed by long-term monitoring to identify changes in composition or function over time. Fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, congids, as well as other macroinvertebrates should be included in inventory and monitoring of sand-bottomed communities.

Terrestrial Communities

Seabird species living and reproducing at FFS current includes 18 species: BLNO, BFAL, BGNO, BOPE, BRBO, BRNO, BUPE, CHSH, GRAT, GRFR, LAAL, MABO, RFBO, RTTR, SOTE, TRSP, WTSH, and WHTE. This diversity should be maintained within the atoll, without loss of any of these species, although shifts within the atoll (between islands) is expected to occur. Species diversity should be monitored, and any threat which seems likely to result in a loss of seabird species diversity should be addressed immediately.

Seabird diversity at FFS should be maintained with a balance in needs for particular species. Whenever possible, species-specific conservation actions should also benefit species diversity, often without great modification to the action. For example, increasing shrub habitat can be a wonderful opportunity to increase plant species diversity, as well as supporting increased nesting habitat for other shrub- nesting, ground-nesting and burrow nesting birds. If a choice must be made, however, between conserving high priority species and lower priority species, the higher priority species must be supported first due to their limited distribution and/or conservation status.

Native plant, terrestrial invertebrate, and migratory shorebird diversity will be conserved and/or enhanced whenever feasible, particularly when conditions can be improved concurrent with other activities. Because FFS has limited native plant,

21 invertebrate or shorebird diversity, and because the atoll is not critical for the diversity of any of these groups, this is a lower conservation priority.

BASELINE DATA

Baseline information needs on biodiversity for each habitat type are listed in their respective Action Plans (Appendix C). Baseline information on species diversity should be compiled for the entire atoll at least every two years. Negative trends in diversity should be addressed through appropriate management action in a timely manner.

In addition, species diversity should be evaluated for each habitat type (sand islands, vegetated islands, basaltic islands, shallow coral reef, shallow sand- bottomed reef, and deep waters) at least every two years. Trend analyses should include both seasonal and interannual changes. Negative trends in diversity within each habitat should be addressed through appropriate management action in a timely manner.

SPECIAL PROJECTS

Special projects on atoll-wide biodiversity have not been defined at this time. Special projects on biodiversity within a given habitat will be included in its Action Plan (Appendix C).

BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

There is very little to no information on biological functions within FFS, or its role in the larger regional ecological context. Although we have some vague notion of the importance of niche creation, predator-prey relations, nutrient processing, geomorphological processes, population sinks and sources, and inter- and intra- trophic level interactions, we have no specific information or characterization of biological functions within FFS.

CONSERVATION

We desperately need additional work in identifying, characterizing and quantifying biological functions within the atoll. It is very possible that we unwittingly interfere or have negative impact on critical biological functions in our ignorance of the system functions as a whole. This information is needed before we can monitor or protect these functions.

22 Development of a means of obtaining baseline information on ecological functions at FFS must receive highest priority. When baseline information is available, we must then identify how best to protect these functions, and identify any conflict of our own management or other actions which may be detrimental to critical functions. Baseline information on ecological functions should be available by the end of 2012; identification of threats, means to reduce impacts, and to conserve biological function should be accomplished during 2013. The resulting information should be formulated into conservation, protection, baseline monitoring and special project needs, and begin implementation in 2014.

BASELINE DATA

Development of a means of obtaining baseline information on ecological functions at FFS must receive highest priority. The purpose of biological function baseline information is to: (1) identify significant biological functions within FFS, as well as the functions FFS provides to the larger ecological system, (2) characterize and quantify these functions, (3) identify significant factors upon which these functions depend, and those which depend on these functions, (4) identify threats to these biological functions, and (5) identify means to reduce impact and conserve significant biological functions. A plan to meet the baseline and special project needs for these purposes should be developed no later than December 2011, and implemented in 2012.

Baseline information on biological functions in the atoll should be reviewed at the beginning of 2013, and every two years thereafter. Any negative trends should be addressed through appropriate management actions.

SPECIAL PROJECTS

It is highly likely that there is a relationship between diversity and function of coral reefs with their neighboring sand-bottom communities, and vice versa. Similarly, it is intuitive that terrestrial and marine diversity are related through a number of functions and species. It is important to conservation of biological diversity, therefore that we explore the relationship between these habitats, and explore what functions may exist that are critical to the diversity of either or both habitats.

A plan to meet baseline and special project needs for managing biological diversity should be developed no later than December 2011, and implemented in 2012. See Baseline Data section above.

23 PROTECTION OF RESOURCES

Activities to protect significant resources at Kānemilohaʻi reducing marine debris, reducing the impact of alien species, reducing negative impacts of boat and plane operation, permitting, law enforcement, and limiting use.

REDUCING MARINE DEBRIS (PMNM ACTION 3.3.1 MARINE DEBRIS)

Marine debris creating a serious entanglement or other hazard is picked up immediately, anywhere it occurs in FFS. Other marine debris is picked up monthly on Tern Island, and seasonally from outer islands. An annual pickup in June targets any remaining marine debris on any islands.

Large commercial fishing debris (large pieces of netting, fishing line, other fishing gear) is stored on Tern Island for an annual pick-up by NOAA’s Marine Debris program. All other debris is tallied each month, and either recycled or placed in regular trash, as appropriate.

No disposal or discharge of any kind of material is allowed in waters in or near FFS.

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF ALIEN SPECIES (PMNM ACTION 3.3.2 ALIEN SPECIES)

Tern Island is not part of the area protected by quarantine; however, all vessels entering the Monument under permit are required to pass a hull and bilge inspection before entering the Monument, to reduce the likelihood of introduction of alien rodents.

All visitors should be aware of the devastating impact that introductions of alien species could have on the FFS system, however unintentional. All visitors should ensure that they are not carrying seeds or other plant matter on their clothes, paying particular attention to socks and shoes, buckets, and other storage containers. No live should be brought into FFS without express permission, and only after close visual inspection the plants, soil, and containers, to ensure that pest species are not being brought in with the plants.

Finally, shallow anchoring areas of vessels traveling to FFS from Honolulu should periodically be surveyed for invasive algae. Monitoring for invasives in this area is particularly important for early warning on any infestation, in order to effective control in unintentional invasion.

24

REDUCING NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF BOAT AND PLANE OPERATION (3.3.3 MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AND AVIATION ACTION PLAN)

All permitted vessels are required to have a hull and ballast inspection before entering the Monument. All vessels operating in FFS must follow pertinent safety and limitations in use requirements. See section on Limitations on Use.

We currently have no alien species inspection requirements for aircraft; however, it would take only one plane with a rodent to infest Tern Island, and possibly ruin the entire site for hundreds of thousands nesting seabirds. We should impose a rodent inspection policy for any entering aircraft.

Due to high airstrike incidents in summer months, when sooty terns are on Tern Island in high numbers, aircraft are not allowed at Tern between the arrival of the sooties (roughly the end of March) and their departure (roughly mid- September). Airstrikes create both a wildlife and a human safety hazard. In addition, when flights are allowed, personnel on Tern Island haze birds from the runway before any landing or takeoff. Additional requirements and protocol relted to aircraft on Tern are included in the annual risk assessment, aircraft protocol, and operations manual.

The runway itself takes up about 30% of Tern Island’s surface, and so is the single largest limitation on seabird breeding populations in the atoll. Because Tern houses the vast majority of the atoll’s seabird population, the total population could be boosted by 20-30%, creating a much larger buffer of success for these populations, particularly the seven seabird species who depend on Monument resources for species success. Sea turtles and seals would not significantly benefit, as they do not utilize internal areas of the island. FWS should seriously consider decommissioning the runway for use as seabird nesting habitat, an activity more in line with the Mission and activities of the Monument and Refuge than trying to serve as an emergency airport, which we have neither the resources nor expertise to maintain.

PERMITTING (PMNM ACTION 3.4.1 PERMITTING)

Entrance to the Monument is limited to permitted parties and actions. Review of permits takes place on a regular basis. The process and criteria for permit review are included elsewhere.

25 FFS provides a special opportunity for researchers, educators and the public to visit and enjoy wildlife and resources within the Monument. Like all places within the Monument, however, there are needs and conditions specific to FFS which most visitors will not be aware of, and require that permits address these special needs and conditions.

Personnel visiting FFS must abide by existing rules and operations as outlined in regular and special permit conditions, as well as FFS specific operations protocol, safety procedures, and wildlife protocol. All visitors must abide by small boating operations safety, aviation safety, and avoiding wildlife disturbance at all times. Activities are not allowed within 150ʻ of any seal or turtle, within 300ʻ of any seal mom and pup, within the visual field of any seal, within certain areas off-limits due to high burrow density (on Tern and East), or on La Perouse, unless specified in a permit. Although human safety absolutely comes first, wildlife needs come second, and generally before research or educational needs. If wildlife will be disturbed by a given action, it should not be permitted unless the benefit of the action outweighs the cost of the disturbance.

Personnel planning to stay on Tern Island will require cost-share or other agreement with FWS in order to cover food, supply, and maintenance costs at Tern Island. In general, there are more agency staff staying on-island in the summer months (hence less availability of space for others), and fewer in winter (greater availability of space for others). While facilities at Tern are fairly convenient, with running water, electricity, and usually slow internet service, these resources are also inherently limited. Water use is restricted, and visitors should expect to be limited to one fresh-water shower per week. Electricity during sunny days is virtually unlimited, but battery supplies are limited on cloudy days and nights. Fuel is limited to delivery approximately twice per year. Any visitor planning to have additional electrical or fuel needs, or high fresh water needs, should receive approval prior to arrival on Tern.

LAW ENFORCEMENT (PMNM ACTION 3.4.2 ENFORCEMENT)

Law enforcement in the Monument is currently implemented by the United States Coast Guard (USCG). Due to the geographic remoteness of the atoll, immediate response on law enforcement issues is not a realistic expectation at FFS. Emphasis must instead be placed upon prevention (public outreach), and maintaining presence/reporting.

Because law enforcement cannot be on-site for any significant period of time, maintaining a presence at FFS is extremely important for the protection of

26 resources. Year-round presence probably is the single most important factor in protecting resources at FFS. FWS maintains a presence – both physical and in the public eye – at FFS year-round. This presence is extremely important in reducing the threat of , unauthorized fishing and other resource extraction activities, simply by deterring unauthorized visitation and resource extraction. Were there no agency personnel on-site at all time (and this known by the public), the atoll would undoubtedly be visited much more frequently, resulting in increased rate of introduction of nuisance species – including the devastating possibility of rodents – as well as the uncontrolled consequences of such introductions. The result has been seen historically at Laysan Islands, and recently at , to name just two of many examples. A year-round presence should therefore be maintained at FFS in perpetuity, as the single greatest protection for terrestrial and marine resources we can feasibly offer.

Entrance to the FFS and the immediate surrounding waters is restricted to those with a valid permit. If any vessel not under permit (or of unknown origin) is observed at FFS or surrounding waters, staff should attempt to contact the vessel by radio, to determine if an emergency exists. If an emergency exists, staff should respond appropriately, either providing first response themselves (if response is within safe limitations of current capabilities) and/or reporting the emergency to the USCG. Staff may assist vessels in distress if such assistance can be safely and feasibly offered within resource and staff limitations at the atoll.

Any non-authorized, non-emergency vessel at FFS or the surrounding waters should be documented and reported to the USCG immediately. No enforcement action of any kind should be attempted by any non-USCG personnel.

LIMITATIONS ON USE (PMNM ACTION 3.4 MANAGING HUMAN USE)

Although visitors to FFS have the best of intentions, often with strong scientific validity, the limited and fragile natural resources here could easily be ʻloved to death.ʻ Too many visitors, small impacts at the wrong time of year, or impacts caused by visitors not understanding the consequences of their actions, may cause irreparable harm to FFS resources. The cumulative impact of disturbances can have much larger and more long-term effects. While access is limited to those with valid permit for specifically permitted activities, this section is intended to guide future management of approved activities to limit their negative impact on signficant natural and cultural resources.

Limitations on use may include both limitations on type of use, limitations on amount of use, limitations on use of certain locations, and temporal limitations (e.g.,

27 by season). Limitations on use should be imposed any time activities would cause irreparable or significant harm, or when cumulative impacts from such use would cause irreparable or significant harm, to a protected resource, including but not limited to cultural resources, marine or terrestrial species, habitats, ecological functions, communities, or ecosystems.

Visiting Outer Islands: Because each island is different, and because terrestrial wildlife are at incredibly high densities within FFS (even in comparison to other islands in the Monument), permitees are not allowed to visit outer islands (non-Tern islands) in FFS without the express permission of the Manager for a given date. For example, even if a permitee is authorized to visit Shark Island until the Manager has given permission for the visit for the specific day they are visiting. This usually requires communication with the Manager within 48 hours of the visit. The reason for this requirement is to avoid too many visitors to an island in a given amount of time (e.g., if the shark team and bird teams are also visiting the island that day), to avoid conflict between activities (e.g., if a bird or seal count is being conducted, the count would be invalidated by the presence of other visitors), and to avoid inadvertent destruction of resources on that island (e.g., crushing of cryptic burrows).

Generally, visitors will not be allowed to land on or pass near (within 200 m) of any outer island without a FFS staff member physically with them. There are too many easily disturbed species, and too many island-specific details to relay this information to someone not intimately familiar with the atoll. Visitors should arrange for a FFS staff member to attend them during all outer-island activities. Visitors should also be aware that outer-island activities may have to be timed to avoid conflict with visitation limits to each island (e.g., if Gin Island has been visited once that week, another party may not be allowed to land until the following week). FFS staff may not always be available without notice; again, good communication with FFS staff is key to visiting outer islands at FFS.

Limitations on Boating: All vessels must report by VHF Radio Channel 16 when approaching line-of-site of any part of FFS, and must continue hailing at least every 30 minutes until contact with Tern Island is reached. (Positive contact by radio or email within 24 hours of first approach may be allowed in lieu of immediate radio contact.) Those approaching without radio contact will be considered suspect of unpermitted activities.

No more than three small boats (<30ʻ) and two large boats (>30ʻ) will be permitted to operate within FFS at one time. Only one vessel may approach, land, or anchor within 200 m of an island at a time, without prior approval. No approach

28 within 200 m is allowed without prior approval of the Manager, in order to minimize wildlife disturbance, adhere to visitation limits, and avoid conflicts with other projects and activities. High speed travel (>5 knots) is not allowed in the Tern Island channel, or within 200 m of any reef visible from the surface, or within 200 m of any island.

All boats must have an operator with more than one year of experience operating on open water and around coral reef, and with at least 80 hours as a small boat operator on open water within the last year, or be in the immediate company such an operator (who may be in the same or an adjacent boat within 100 m), and under that operator’s guidance. All boats must adhere to USCG safety regulations, as applies.

Not all vessels are appropriate for travel within FFS; many places are not passable with deep-bottomed boats, and boats with excessively loud or dirty engines will not be allowed to operate in the atoll. Reef is irregular and difficult to navigate without experience. Visitors should not assume that agency small boats will be available for their use; such use will be limited to trips with agency personnel on board, when vessels are available, and only for activities with prior approval.

The Manager and/or the NMFS lead reserves authority to cancel any boating or aviation operations that do not appear to be safely operated, do not have appropriate safety gear, where operators do not have sufficient knowledge or experience, if conditions are inappropriate, if wildlife disturbance is observed or reasonably suspected, or other valid human or wildlife safety reasons. The Manager and/or the NMFS lead will give one warning for unsafe and/or disturbing boating or landing activity; continued or second incidents will be reported to the Superintendent, and when appropriate, to the USCG.

29 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (PMNM ACTION 3.1 UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETING)

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

A natural history account of French Frigate Shoals was published in the Atoll Bulletin in 1971. Since that time, few scientific articles have focused on the species, habitats or functions at the atoll. This type of information is necessary – published information on FFS resources, processes, or research needs -- to interest or motivate the scientific community to include the atoll in additional investigations, modeling exercises, or other studies benefitting FFS resources.

An updated natural history account, and reports of scientific investigations and monitoring at FFS, as well as pertinent findings on basic biology and management studies, need to be published in a timely manner in scientific literature, as well as networking with experts and the scientific community. We should submit a update of Amerson’s 1971 natural history account for publication NLT June 2013. If appropriate information is available, we should also aim to submit at least two scientific journal articles no later than December 2013, and participate in at least one scientific conference per year.

TARGETED POPULATIONS

Native Hawaiians (PMNM Action 3.5.3 Native Hawaiian Community Involvement), Local, and Classroom Involvment (PMNM Action 3.5.2 Constituency Building and Outreach)

In order to enhance Native Hawaiian community involvement in the Monument, and to increase our constituency building and outreach, we should hire staff and/or volunteers from the Native Hawaiian community and/or locals whenever feasible, if applicants are otherwise fully qualified.

FWS staff and volunteers at FFS began working with classrooms in the winter of the 2010/2011 school year. An E&O volunteer was brought on in Spring 2011, working out of Honolulu, to develop an E&O curriculum aimed at upper elementary/middle school classrooms, to solicit additional classroom involvement, and to work with teachers to encourage inclusion of Monument resources and issues in their curriculum. This coordinator will be working with classrooms on a summer marine debris program, as well as establishing specific

30 lesson plans for the next school year. This E&O program should be continued, supported with staff and volunteer time, and expanded when feasible.

By December 2012, we should formulate a plan to better encourage Native Hawaiian community, locals and classrooms, as part of the larger Education and Outreach (E&O) Plan. This plan should then be implemented in 2013.

Undergraduate And Graduate Students, Conservation Professionals, And Agency Staff

FFS provides a unique opportunity to encourage young scientific professionals to continue their education in conservation and related fields, to support graduate students in studies which enhance PMNM goals, and provide conservation professionals and agency staff with career building opportunities through field research and publication. Students may provide baseline monitoring and special studies to enhance their own skillsets, as well as to provide PMNM with quality data and analyses which would otherwise be too costly to fund through a contracted research team. Graduate students are of particular benefit to PMNM, both by providing an opportunity to invest in conservation professionals who have a demonstrated longevity in the field, but also because they will provide multiple years of experience devoted specifically to PMNM research and monitoring needs. In the same way, PMNM research needs are an excellent opportunity to build the skills, experience, and career opportunity for agency staff and other conservation professionals, at a cost savings to PMNM, while maintaining agency control over projects designed to answer PMNM research objectives.

Whenever feasible, volunteer opportunities should be provided to undergraduate and graduate students in conservation and related fields. In particular, FFS staff should actively seek opportunities for graduate students to fill PMNM research and monitoring objectives. Toward this end, staff should develop a positive relationship with appropriate graduate student programs in order to recruit, facilitate and retain quality graduate students for FFS projects. Outside funding should be sought, when appropriate, to support these studies.

Agency staff should also be encouraged to increase their scientific skillset through appropriate research and reporting activities, including but not limited to publication in scientific journals and participation in scientific conferences. Agency staff should be encouraged to fill PMNM research and monitoring needs, whenever feasible and possible given other position duties.

31 GENERAL PUBLIC (PMNM ACTION 3.5.2 CONSTITUENCY BUILDING AND OUTREACH)

Most public outreach efforts are currently at the Monument level, rather than specific to FFS. FFS public outreach is limited to postings of photographs on the FWS Flickr website. This relationship is expected to continue; however, additional effort for FFS public outreach would be appropriate. One means of public outreach which would be particularly appropriate at FFS would be installment of a crittercam on Tern Island, with appropriate internet/satellite and web support.

By December 2012, we should formulate a plan to better encourage Native Hawaiian community, locals and classrooms, as part of the larger Education and Outreach (E&O) Plan. Funding should be sought to install and maintain a web-based critter cam at FFS. This plan should then be implemented in 2013.

32 STAFFING GOALS & PRIORITIES

PERMANENT STAFF

Staff included in the FWS PMNM organizational chart for French Frigate Shoals include a GS11 logistician, a GS9 Refuge Manager, a GS7/9 Assistant Manager, and two GS05/07 Biological Technicians. The GS11/12 Logistician provides critical support for FFS operations from the Honolulu office. At the present time, there is an Assistant Manager and no Refuge Manager, and no biological technicians. There are plans, however to rotate the current Assistant to the Refuge Manager position, and hire a new Assistant Manager. There are no plans to fill the biological technician vacancies. Staff training requirements are covered elsewhere.

It is ctitical that the field personnel include those with terrestrial focus, as well as those with marine focus, in order to provide the proper field-based knowledge and advise for management, as well as to identify special project needs. Although the majority of FWS work is currently focused on seabirds, a professional knowledge base focused solely on seabirds will result in underachieving management and research, which will not serve seabirds nor the rest of the ecosystem. In the future, hiring practices should attempt to balance the professional knowledge, experience, and interests of field staff.

Employee retention is the single greatest challenge to FFS management. Refuge Managers usually last 2 years or less, with Assistant Managers most often serving a year as Assistant and a year as Manager. Every employee turnover results in gaps in skills and knowledge, lost time due to training new employees, stress for the remaining single employee on Tern, as well as lost data, shifts in protocol, and lack of continuity in management direction. While permanent staff do cost a significant amount of the budget, it is long term employees that provide the motivation, organization, and energy to accomplish meaningful management. Retaining quality, qualified employees is not only a federal mandate, it is an effective way to boost efficiency and effectiveness of operations.

There are several steps we should take to increase employee retention at FFS. The Refuge Manager position is responsible for all activities at FFS, including but not limited to supervision and training of a qualified biological team; coordination with on-site agency staff, independent researchers and visitors; overall responsibility for planning, training, coordinating and executing boating, aviation, and monitoring safety, including all aspects of aviation safety and runway maintenance, and multiple boat operations in an open-water environment over the largest atoll in the Hawaiian islands; creating research designs, evaluating protocol,

33 providing program-wide direction as well as daily supervision, recording, analyses, and reporting of multiple datasets, including both species, habitat and ecosystems- wide responsibilities; planning and logistics for all operations on Tern, including permit review at the Monument level, as well as long- and short-term planning for complex facilities; daily and long-term repair and maintenance of two large structures and 11 small structures, 3-5 small boats, 2 tractors, numerous portable engines or pumps, 2 large diesel generators, electrical, plumbing, septic, fresh water, internet, satellite, and other systems; and development, planning and implementation of education and outreach activities appropriate to our mission and goals.

With this level and scope of responsibility, we should convert the Refuge Manager position from a GS09 to a GS09/11 position, commensurate with the duties and level of responsibility, or consider changing the position to a GS11/12 position, and have it function as a true Refuge Manager position for the HI NWR. Such a shift could fill a critical gap in investigator-level biological expertise and oversight for Laysan Island, as well as providing more consistent oversight of biological activities across the Refuge. The original paperwork to make the position a GS09/11 rank was started in 2007, and incomplete as of Spring 2011. We should complete the conversion of this position by December 2011, or convert it to a GS11/12 position with greater responsibilities as Refuge Manager for the entire HI NWR.

A person can be hired as the Assistant Manager within a month of completing their Bachelors degree, and have no on-the-job experience which would give them the skills and confidence to lead multi-agency teams in a remote environment, with all that entails. The job description for the Assistant Manager position should be modified so that a person with little or no supervisory experience, emergency medical training or experience, open water experience, boating safety oversight experience, aviation management experience, or experience as a Principal Investigator to take over the duties and responsibilities as Acting Manager. An Assistant Manager with no seabird monitoring or bird banding experience will not be able make good judgment calls on questions of protocol, or provide the supervision and training that new volunteers will need. They are not going to be able to advise on safe boating operations in FFS. It is unsafe and unfair to put an inexperienced person in that position. As an alternative to re-writing the Assistant Manager qualifications and ranking, persons with entry level of qualifications and experience could be hired as a Biological Technician, and when experienced enough, move to the Assistant Manager position.

Similarly, bringing in someone from an office position (or Midway) with little time on a remote island camp setting is an excellent career and moral builder, but

34 probably not appropriate to place that person at the head of all biological, operational and safety operations at a remote field station.

Rather than having an inexperienced Assistant Manager or other personnel take on the responsibility for heading all operations – and all emergency response, coordination and oversight – it would be more prudent to allow an experienced NMFS crew leader or experienced Laysan Biological Technician to serve as Acting Manager, until which time the Assistant Manager has the experience, skills and training to take on the Manager’s responsibilities. Allowing these personnel to serve as Acting Manager for the duration of the Manager’s break would also increase teamwork, and allow us to benefit from their varied expertise and perspectives.

For both Manager and Assistant Manager positions, consideration should be given that an individual who thrives in a remote field camp is probably not the same as an individual who thrives and does well in . The skills, interests, and personality required for running a remote location are not the same skills, interest and personality that will do well shuffling papers and attending meetings full-time.

Because these are largely field positions, because costs of living are very high in Honolulu, and for reasons listed above, it is unreasonable to require the Assistant Manager and Refuge Manager to pay for housing in Honolulu. The options would be to pay for year-round housing when they would be absent 9 months of the year, or pay for a hotel, which would be more than GS7 or GS9 make in salary. Temporary housing (in the bunkhouse, or other quarters secured for the purpose) should be provided, or alternatively, they should be allowed (once trained) to work through telecommunications, so that they can reside for their few months ‘in town’ near family and friends, in a less expensive location than Honolulu.

Additional permanent staffing should be considered. Addition of a maintenance position would save the Monument many thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in reduced repair and replacement costs. Hiring a maintenance position would provide more reliability than hoping for a qualified volunteer. A serious discussion considering the pros and cons of hiring a maintenance position, as well as an investigation into possible funding alternatives (e.g., soft funding and hiring through the Research Corporation of University of Hawaii) should be completed by December 2011.

A permanent year-round staff to handle seal and turtle needs may be desirable, depending on NOAA’s specific goals and objectives for these species. At present, seal and turtle teams are present only in summer months. If a full-time staff was hired for seal and turtle needs, that person could also server as Acting

35 Manager, in the Refuge Manager’s absence. If a full-time seal/turtle staff is not available, the Refuge Manager and any Acting Managers need to receive training to handle emergency needs for these species, in case of need for emergency response (or tagging) during Fall, Winter and Spring seasons.

Finally but not least in importance, a shift from dependence on volunteers to do most of the biological monitoring work would allow for greater continuity, and a higher level of professionalism. Hiring the Biological Technicians would provide continuity of personnel between seasons, which is not possible with volunteers. Finally, paying someone for performing biological work is perhaps more fair than relying on people who are willing to do the work for free. A serious discussion considering the pros and cons of hiring Biological Technicians, as well as an investigation into possible funding alternatives (e.g., soft funding and hiring through the Research Corporation of University of Hawaii) should be completed by December 2012.

SEASONAL STAFF

Seasonal staff at FFS currently includes the NMFS seal crew, and the NOAA/FWS turtle crew. The seal crew is generally composed of a crew leader and 2-4 crew members. They generally arrive around May and stay until August. The turtle crew is jointly sponsored by NOAA and FWS, and is composed of two people, who alternate staying on East and Tern Islands. These staffing levels are determined by the respective agencies, and appear to be effective in monitoring, except that a year-round staff member to handle seal and turtle needs is desired.

Staff needs which are currently not being met, but should be met at FFS, include seasonal staff addressing habitat, geomorphology/climate, coral reef/marine areas of expertise. Seasonal but regular staff in these areas – or full- time staff which supply expertise in multiple areas – should be considered in order to meet the full breadth of PMNM mission and actions. A multi-agency approach to staffing would provide the most efficient and feasible means of providing staff toward this end, as specialized staff could then rotate between islands and . A serious discussion considering the pros and cons of hiring a full time seal/turtle person, a winter seasonal seal/turtle person, training the Refuge Manager and Acting Managers in seal/turtle response, and/or bringing on other seasonal expertise on a regular basis, should be weighed in cost/benefit analyses, and a decision on proper implementation by December 2011. This plan should be implemented by December 2012.

36 VOLUNTEERS

FWS relies primarily on volunteers to run the biological monitoring and conservation program at FFS. While one FWS staff is always on-island to provide oversight, training, administration, logistics and maintenance support, there is then virtually no time for that staff member to them perform the biological monitoring or conservation activities. Due to staff limitations, the program is by default run almost entirely by volunteers.

Volunteer appointments are scheduled based on available transportation. Volunteers should also be drawn from targeted populations (see below) whenever feasible, if they are equally qualified. Whenever possible, volunteer crews should be picked to provide the best personal mix (since chronic low-level stress is inherent in a remote environment), as well as the best scientific and other skillset needed for the work to be accomplished. This will generally be 4-6 biological volunteers and a maintenance volunteer in the winter, and 2-3 biological volunteers and a maintenance in the summer; however, the number of volunteers should be chosen based on the amount of work needed during a given season, so may be higher or lower than this.

Volunteers with appropriate training and experience, such as MOCC, banding experience, or wilderness medical experience, should receive preference, as should target populations – but always with group diversity and dynamics in mind, as the well being of the group as a whole is paramount in such an isolated environment. A group of less skilled but happy individuals working as a team will accomplish more than an estranged group of experts. Good mental and physical health, as well as a willingness to accept the level of risk possible in this remote location without the possibility of immediate evacuation, are critical requirements for volunteering on Tern.

Because the cost of volunteers is basically limited to food, the number of volunteers on Tern for a given season should be based on the workload and special skills/knowledge needed, balanced with the quality of available volunteers. Volunteers who have little field experience may require a long training period, and a good deal of supervision – in fact, minimizing supervision of untrained volunteers can pose a safety hazard to both wildlife and the volunteer. More experience volunteers, particularly those with specialized experience in the work needed, are much more productive, provide a safer working environment, and can be used at Tern where the supervisor’s time is by definition limited.

37 Because FWS depends almost entirely upon volunteers to run the conservation and monitoring programs at FFS, and because volunteers provide at least six months of free labor – and how many of us are really willing to work for free for six months? -- we should be particularly diligent about recognizing and rewarding their contributions. Volunteers should provide their personal and/or professional goals before starting their volunteer time at Tern, and the Manager should use these goals to assist in ensuring the volunteer both contributes and gains from their experience on Tern. One way to work toward this goal is to have each volunteer develop, implement and report on a special project which falls within that volunteer’s interests. The outcome may vary – perhaps the project is repairing a structure on Tern, another may be a short-term scientific study, while yet another may prepare educational materials – but should always contribute to FWS and/or PMNM mission and goals, as well as benefit the volunteer.

Whenever feasible and appropriate, volunteers should be encouraged to meet with Honolulu staff after returning from Tern Island, to provide a summary of their activities on Tern, and to provide feedback for improving the program. This time can also be used for Honolulu staff to verbally and/or through other means (e.g., certificates of appreciation) share their support and thanks for the volunteer’s contributions.

For these reasons, retention of high quality, skilled and motivated volunteers through multiple seasons is desirable. These volunteers also reduce the enormous cost of bringing in outside researchers to conduct needed special studies, greatly reducing both cost and bureaucracy, as well as directly accomplishing our conservation and monitoring goals. Use of these volunteers (e.g., graduate students) can also serve to meet our targeted population goals. Finally, returning volunteers provide continuity in monitoring methods, and a safety net of expertise and experience in the event the single FWS staff member is incapacitated or needed to be evacuated, as has occurred in the past. If possible, returning volunteers’ travel to Honolulu should be purchased, as an incentive to keep these high quality volunteers. The payoff in terms of work accomplished, reduced disturbance to wildlife, maximum productivity, increased safety, and increase in quality of scientific data will more than balance the cost of airfare for a well-trained volunteer.

Returning volunteers – particularly those with more than two seasons of experience – should be considered as authors on scientific papers or other publications which they have contributed significantly to. If not already part of a formal educational program (such as an undergraduate, graduate, or postdoc program), agency staff should discuss and support participation is an appropriate program, as applies.

38 FACILITIES GOALS & PRIORITIES

The basis for maintaining the infrastructure at Tern Island, as elsewhere, is funding. If we do not have the money to maintain facilities, then our goals are not feasible. Our current funding level is roughly $225,000 per year. It is unlikely that this funding level will increase substantially in the next 10 years, particularly if soft money alternatives are not included. We must, therefore, plan to operate within this level of funding.

The average annual cost for operations, when deferred maintenance costs are considered, totals a little more than $761,000 per year – Nearly three times our annual budget. A summary of the annual costs for maintaining and operating at Tern Island without any deferred maintenance costs is included in Table 1. Even without deferred maintenance costs, our annual costs are estimated at $418,000 per year, just to maintain what we currently have. Rather than continue to let corrosion determine what infrastructure remains standing, and hoping for $500,000 in deferred maintenance costs when we know that Region 1’s entire deferred maintenance is already needed and obligated to Midway operations, we should instead plan what we can afford at FFS.

To begin, we should plan operations within ~$225,000 per year. Second, we should identify those facilities that are required for operations at FFS, rather than preferred. Food, power, water, septic, boats, a tractor (or Bobcat), a stable living structure (barracks), biological monitoring supplies, boat hoist and dock, and ship transportation are critical for operations at FFS, as is ship transportation. Although not considered in the table, communications is also a critical asset for operation at the field station. Support of this infrastructure is our highest priority, and if maintenance funds are available, these should be maintained first.

Maintenance of the seawall, and warehouse are second priority. These items are needed in the long run to maintain operations at FFS, but could be put off for some period of time.

Outbuildings, boat ramp, and runway are third priority. These assets increase the quality of life at Tern, but are not required for operations. Maintenance of the outbuildings and boat ramp are beyond the scope of the current budget. Maintaining these assets at this time will require funds that we do not have, and cannot responsibly budget as higher than critical assets such as food, transportation, and biological monitoring supplies. We therefore recommend no longer maintaining these assets, and instead invest in those assets that are critical to operations in the atoll.

39 Table 1. Cost projection by year and for 10 years, to maintain current facilities, excluding any deferred maintenance costs. Options which are within expected levels of funding are highlighted.

W/O Annual 2 Annual W/O runway, 2 ships/year, Annual, with Project 10 Annual Annual Runway or W/O ships/year, not main formal year Cost Cost (As Is, W/o Barracks Runway, 2 not maint barracks, no seawall Facility/Item ($K) in $K) Runway Maint ships/year barracks safeboat repair

Barracks 1666.7 166.7 166.7 54.7 166.7 54.7 54.7 166.7 Boats 286.0 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 Boathouse 50.5 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Warehouse 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Water System 6.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Electrical System 15.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Biological Monitoring 274.2 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 Seawall 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 700.0 Runway & Flights 452.4 45.2 45.2 45.2 Outbuildings 10.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Boatramp, hoist & dock 66.0 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Tractors 35.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Septic System 11.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Ship transportation 613.4 61.3 61.3 61.3 40.9 40.9 40.9 61.3 Food 260.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Misc Supplies & Expenses 288.4 28.8 30.4 19.3 28.4 17.2 17.2 28.8 Overhead 606.8 60.7 54.1 35.7 50.8 32.3 32.3 60.7 Total $4,652 $465 $415 $273 $389 $248 $248 1164.7 Cost Biol Monitor/Total 5.59% 5.59% 6.26% 9.51% 6.68% 10.50% 10.50% 2.23%

40 POWER, WATER, AND SEPTIC

Current power infrastructure includes two large diesel generators, a suite of solar panels, a DC inverter/controller system and battery bank, and an AC inverter/controller system and battery bank. Redundant AC-DC systems, and the diesel generators, allow for continued operations when one of the systems fail.

The current water system includes catchment on the roof of the barracks and old tennis courts, a cistern and pump, five 14,400 gallon water tanks, water purification system and plumbing to the barracks. There is minimal plumbing to the warehouse and boat dock. The water purification system includes a UV treatment system, sand filtration, 5 and 25 micron paper filters, and charcoal filter. At hand systems (Britta and Pūr) are also used after faucet for drinking water.

The septic system is currently composed of two septic tanks, including one located by the barracks, and one located behind the water tanks. There is no drainfield; rather the second septic tank empties into the ocean. The original drainfield was eroded with the shoreline, and has been gone for more than a decade at least. The septic system was built for a much larger number of people than currently utilize the island, so it rarely discharges from the septic tank. When it does, however, particularly during storm events, human waste is discharged directly into the atoll, and forms a long dark plume down the south side of the island, extending westward past the island. Replacement of the drain field (and sludging of the tanks) will require work to be performed during winter, as the tank is located in the middle of turtle reproductive habitat, but otherwise should not present any unusual problems. Replacement of the drain field and maintenance of the septic tanks is the number one, highest maintenance priority for FFS.

Although current expertise provides minimal maintenance of these systems, parts and maintenance are not available above the minimal level. Parts are ordered largely when something breaks, and there is insufficient knowledge and experience in facilities maintenance to provide long-term specialized maintenance and repair that is needed.

STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT

Structures on Tern Island include a runway, two large structures (the barracks and warehouse), 11 small structures (storage sheds, propane shed, boat sheds, tractor sheds, and water tanks).

41 Equipment on Tern includes the two large generators mentioned in the section on Power, portable generators and pumps, hand-tools, 3-5 small boats, and two tractors.

The runway conditions have been described as ‘dismal’ by some, and ‘fair’ by others. afe landings have been called into question; however, use of the runway is not required for operations on Tern.

The warehouse is in excellent condition, having been refurbished in 2009. The barracks is in fair condition, although it is deteriorating due to a leaking and water-holding roof. Repair of the roof every 10 years will need to be paid for on contract, or a full-time maintenance person with adequate skills brought on to address roof resurfacing on regular basis. Likewise, the walls of the barracks leak moderately to heavily, so are adding to the rate of deterioration of the floors. The barracks walls could be replaced by a single maintenance person with adequate materials, since they are of removable panel design. Otherwise, we will need to find funding to replace the barracks walls within 5 years, or face complete deterioration of the barracks floor and all that entails.

All of the smaller structures are in various shapes of disrepair, from fair to poor condition. The smaller structures are not mission-essential, however. While their repair or replacement would be convenient, they are not the highest priority.

The liners in the water tanks began failing in Fall 2010, and need to be replaced. Only one replacement liner is on island; purchase of five additional liners should be accomplished early in FY2012, before water tank failure precludes staffing on Tern.

All of these structures are subject to heavy corrosion and UV breakdown, and all require constant maintenance. Although current expertise provides minimal maintenance of these systems, parts and maintenance are not available above the minimal level. Parts are ordered largely when something breaks, and there is insufficient knowledge and experience in facilities maintenance to provide long- term specialized maintenance and repair that is needed. There currently is no funding planned for regular replacement or larger repairs for any structures or equipment on Tern Island.

In Spring 2011, a maintenance volunteer with unusually high and diverse skill levels was brought on for three months. During that time, he repaired unsafe porches, stopped leaks in the barracks and warehouse that had occurred for years, repaired outboard engines, and improved existing facilities, e.g., built a shadehouse for native plant propagation. During this time, the single volunteer saved FWS

42 hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs, replacement parts, and years of contracting for outside services. The cost of replacing the leaking roof alone would have been more than $100K. We cannot depend on getting this quality of volunteer all the time, however, or even on a regular basis. (This particular gentleman lost approximately $150,000 in income volunteering for three months.) The benefit far outweighs the cost of a full-time employee, and if we are to have facilities on Tern, they need to be maintained. A serious discussion considering the pros and cons of hiring a maintenance position, as well as an investigation into possible funding alternatives (e.g., soft funding and hiring through the Research Corporation of University of Hawaii) should be completed by December 2011.

COMMUNICATION

Communications at FFS include HF/SSB radio, VHF radio, permanently mounted satellite phone, a portable satellite phone, and sporatic internet service. The HF/SSB radio works, but rarely do we get adequate reception to depend on this means of communication for emergencies. We often can hear the Laysan field camp on SSB radio, but they can hear us. We can neither hear nor be heard on a regular basis with Honolulu.

VHF radio communication works well in the atoll, with the caveat that the atoll is sufficiently wide to make VHF communication sporatic from one end of the atoll to the other. VHF reception is good to excellent within a given half of the atoll. Installation of a VHF repeater (replacing one which fell into disrepair in 2004) would eliminate gaps in VHF reception at FFS.

A permanently mounted satellite phone in the barracks provides the most dependable single sources of communication with the outside world, although any means (including the satellite phone) is not always dependable. The satellite phone works consistently, although sometimes with very scratchy reception, about 95% of the time.

Internet is provided by a satellite dish installed and maintained by NOAA for the remote turtle cam on East Island. Internet service for email, research, and other uses is secondary to transmission of turtle cam images, and is dependent upon the Principal Investigator’s good will toward FWS field camps. Although service is sporatic and at times unavailable, slow internet is available a majority of the time.

Internet service provides critical information on storms, and hurricane warnings, and provides personnel with necessary contact with friends, families and research. Discussion on interagency support for continue and/or improved internet service need to begin in seriousness in 2011, with a plan made

43 and approved by June 2012. This plan should be implemented in 2012, in order to ensure continued use of internet service, particularly for emergency and research use.

TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONNEL AND SUPPLIES

There are two primary options for transportation of personnel and supplies to FFS: planes and ships. A cost-benefit comparison of plane versus ship use for this purpose is summarized below, from the 2010 FFS Annual Report, emphasizing the benefits of ship transportation over limited benefit/cost for flights.

Kahana cost est. PAC flight cost est. Cost per trip $18,000 $8,000 Weight limitation Virtually none 720 lbs, combined passenger and cargo weight Passenger 6-8, depending on 4 limitation other passenger load Cost per pound, $3.60/lb for 5,000+ $11.10/lb for 390 lbs max average load lb load Cost per passenger $150 each $1833/each for two 165 lb passengers Time 3 days (one way). 4 to 4 ½ hours (one way) Scheduling March, June and September to March, but December. schedules vary wildly; Somewhat weather extremely weather dependent. dependent. Safety Concerns Low level of Moderate level of inherent inherent human risk. risk. Aver 2.8 birds killed No loss of wildlife. per March and November flight. Crew Long-term dedicated Pilots have higher captain and crew personnel turnover rate. excited about Current pilots at best journey; helpful and ambivalent about trip, and supportive of FWS unwilling to participate in mission and wildlife. emergency situations. Not particularly interested in the FWS mission or wildlife. (Previous pilots have been more supportive.)

44 Because flights are expensive, limited in personnel and weight, entail increased risk to humans, include killing migratory birds within the Refuge, and requires repaving the runway which we cannot afford, we recommend decommissioning the runway, and restoring a mixed shrub-open habitat that is expected to increase the atoll’s population of species using these habitats by 20- 30%. Although keeping and repaving the runway would provide a possible landing spot in case of aviation emergencies, that is not a mission or priority for FWS, HI NWR or PMNM. Use of Tern Island as an official emergency landing strip is not a use which has been authorized or approved; such a decision would need to go through appropriate permitting process, and may be an expense we cannot afford.

We therefore recommend using ships for transportation of personnel and supplies to FFS whenever possible. There are several options available: use of ships contracted to go to FFS; use of ships contracted to go farther down the island chain, with a stopover at FFS; use of volunteer supplied ships; use of ships permitted for other activities, but willing to provide these services. It may be possible that NOAA could provide regular shipping of personnel and supplies at no additional cost, and FWS provide housing to NOAA in trade. This scenario would save FWS hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs spent to get to Tern and Laysan; it is discussed in greater detail in the section on Interagency Coordination.

Ship use should be minimized both for cost and to minimize impacts. With proper planning, two trips a year – similar to that used at Laysan Island – should be ample to meet regular supply needs. At present, this may best be met with December and June stops of the contracted ship, the Kahana, bound for Midway.

Emergency evacuations should be handled by the agency responsible for emergency evacuations, and with appropriate expertise and equipment – the U.S. Coast Guard. If the Monument Superintendent felt additional evacuation potential was necessary, i.e., in addition to that supplied by the USCG, we could develop a contingency agreement for emergency evacuation of personnel from Tern and/or Laysan, to be used only when needed. Its likely, though, that the USCG has greater experience and more appropriate equipment for responding to emergency evacuation needs than a private contractor, however.

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING SUPPLIES

Conservation and monitoring are the primary mission for the Monument, as well as FWS as an agency. Adequate support of biological monitoring – including the funding needed for the minimum equipment needed – must be allocated, even if that means giving up extra flights, reducing the food budget, or reducing some of the

45 operational costs in Honolulu.1 However the budget is allocated, sufficient funding for biological monitoring supplies at the field station should be one of the highest priorities.

We request the funding level identified in the table below be allocated for FFS biological monitoring supplies in the future, with increases based on cost-of- living increases (or similar index). This funding should be allocated separately from maintenance and household living supplies.

10 year Annual cost Cost Small Supplies 100000 10000 Bird Bands 60000 6000 2 Burrow Cams 30000 3000 Auditory Equipment 20000 2000 Electronic Scales 4000 400 Binoculars 2000 200 Dissecting Scope 6000 600 Computers and Software 30000 3000 Unforeseen 22200 2220 Total $274,200 $27,420

1 Tern Island currently has annual supply budget of $20K, of which more than $6,000 goes to bird bands, and an estimated $10K goes to maintenance and other supplies. The remaining $4K per year is expected to cover all other biological monitoring supplies, from 50 m tapes, to replacement scales and bird bags, banding pliers and spreaders, cameras, binoculars, and other small equipment. These funds are also supposed to cover bigger ticket items, e.g., burrow cams, acoustic equipment, electronic scales, a dissecting scope, functioning computers, software, and the specialized nets used for capturing birds, turtles and seals. Clearly carrying out our primary conservation and monitoring mission is not possible within the scope of the current supply budget.

For example, we have one burrow cam (when two are needed), and it only functions part of the time, but we have no funds for repair or replacement. We have no audio recording equipment to monitoring nocturnal seabirds. The Refuge Manager (and soon Assistant Manager) must purchase and use their own computers, because the only laptop available for Tern – one generously donated by the Permits Manager because he had another one, not because resources were allowed for this purpose – has to be used as the primary Refuge computer, linking the scanner, internet router, and server. We cannot perform any analyses with data at present, unless we can do so with Excel – we do not have the funds to purchase banding pliers, little loan database software.

46 SMALL BOATING OPERATIONS

Small boating operations will be most effective in terms of safety and cost by coordinated efforts of all those involved in regular boating operations within the atoll. Interagency cooperation, sharing of resources, and cross-training of staff could reduce the number of small boats needed at FFS from 5-8 to 3-4, simply by eliminating the need for within-agency redundancy in back-up vessels. Cross- training of agency staff would increase safety and team work. Use of the same engine type whenever possible (e.g., two 50 hp Honda outboards) would minimize downtime spent waiting for parts, increase staff ability to fix engines on-site, and minimize stock parts needed. These changes can be implemented through a Cooperative Management Agreement for FFS. (See section on Interagency Coordination, and the attached draft agreement.)

A budget for maintenance of three small boats and one SAFEboat (or similar boat with offloading capacity) is included in the following table.

Total/10 Item Cost Unit years Cost/Year whaler boat replacement 15000 each 45000 4500 engine replacement 4500 year 45000 4500 safety equipment 300 year 3000 300 maint & repair parts 300 year 3000 300 safeboat replacement 80000 each 80000 8000 boat hoist 5000 year 50000 5000 trailers 15000 each 60000 6000 Total boating budget $286,000 $28,600

Small boat use should be limited in French Frigate Shoals, to minimize impact and avoid conflicts between activities. Details are included in the section on Limitations on Use.

47 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION (ACTION 3.5 COORDINATING CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, 3.5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION, AND ACTION 3.6.3 COORDINATED FIELD OPERATIONS)

Coordination in field camp could be greatly improved by use of existing agency expertise between partners, and support of such cooperative efforts from the Co-Trustee adminstration and leadership. For example, NOAA has particular expertise and staffing in boating operations and research vessels, as well as seal management. Coordination and cross-training of FWS staff by NOAA personnel, and coordination of boating operations, could greatly minimize cost of boating operations to both FWS and NOAA.

It would be most effective to have all agencies with regular activities at FFS review and contribute suggestions for improvements to the French Frigate Shoals (Kānemilohaʻi) Operations Manual, and Emergency Action Plan, and to adhere to these protocols as feasible during their operations in the atoll.

On a separate but related topic, either the Refuge Manage or Acting Manager positions could be a NMFS position, which would provide better interagency coordination/communication, as well as significantly increase the breadth of knowledge at FFS for more effective ecosystems management. This would eliminate the need for a second FWS manager, while still providing a safe break for the Refuge Manager. As an alternative or short-term measure, the NMFS crew leader also serve as Acting Manager for all or part of the summer months, eliminating the need for two full-time managers at Tern, reducing cost for FWS and increasing interagency cooperation. The Assistant Manager position could then be based in Honolulu, providing full-time logistics support that is sorely needed.

INTERAGENCY TRAINING

FWS staff provide presence at the atoll year-round; if properly trained and equiped, they could provide more effective winter response to seal needs, to meet NMFS management goals. Similarly, disturbance to wildlife on outer islands could be minimized by training NMFS staff to conduct bird and turtle surveys.

FWS and NMFS field crews share responsibility for each other’s safety, and serve as first responder for each other’s teams. Their training should be shared, likewise, so that emergency response and safety protocol are uniform. These crews should therefore share: (1) pre-field work training classes, and (2) regular field safety training. Coordination of pre-field training must take place in Honolulu;

48 scheduling for combined regular field safety training should be planned before field work, and conducted throughout the regular field seasons.

INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES

FWS also maintains permanent facilities at Tern Island; an interagency agreement for provision of housing for NMFS staff at Tern in exchange for NOAA ship transport of supplies would proof cost-effective for both agencies, not to mention the reduction of paperwork and staff time currently used to calculate, track, and process contracts for these services.

In addition, small boating operations costs can be minimized by agreement to share small boating resources. If FWS and NMFS operations are kept seperate at FFS, the minimum small boating requirements are 5-7 small vessels, as follows:

 FWS maintaining 3 small boats (ideally with 2 in the field, with one rotated to Honolulu for repair), F  NMFS maintaining 3 small boats (ideally with two in the field, with one rotated to Honolulu for repair), and  FWS maintaining RIB or similar type larger boat capable of off-loading supplies from a vessel at sea.

If FWS and NMFS combined boating operations (e.g., could operate each other’s boats), the FFS fleet could be reduced to 4 vessels, as follows:

 3 small boats (2 in the field, with 1 more rotated to Honolulu for maintenance/repair)  1 RIB or similar type larger boat for off-loading

INTERAGENCY OPERATIONS AND STAFFING

Most effective management of resources at FFS, in terms of effectiveness of management by having appropriate staff and expertise on-site, sharing of resources and equipment, and minimizing redundancy in costs and operations, could be facilitated by a true interagency partnership at French Frigate Shoals. True interagency partnerships operate successfully in many other venues.

A draft Cooperative Management Agreement for French Frigate Shoals is attached. Implementation of this agreement is expected to save hundreds of thousands of dollars through elimination of duplicated effort and equipment, and by reducing staff time spent on developing and tracking agreements each year. Implementation of the agreement should also reduce impacts to wildlife, by

49 reducing duplicated efforts/visits to outer island. It will also increase the effectiveness of wildlife conservation and monitoring by providing more uniform monitoring and management year-round, providing quicker and more effective response in ‘off-seasons,’ and increase employee retention (and hence staff knowledge and experience) through increased job satisfaction.

As mentioned under Interagency Cooperation, interagency coordination/communication and a significant increase in breadth of knowledge at FFS could be effected by converting the existing Manager or Assistant Manager position to a NMFS position. This would eliminate the need for a second FWS manager, while still providing a safe break for the Refuge Manager. It would greatly enhance the breadth, ease, and effectiveness of interagency work at FFS, resulting in significantly enhance ecosystems-level management. As an interim measure, the NMFS crew leader could serve as Acting Manager for all or part of the summer months, eliminating the need for two full-time managers at Tern, reducing cost for FWS and increasing interagency cooperation. The Assistant Manager position could then be based in Honolulu, providing full-time logistics support that is sorely needed.

Staff needs which are currently not being met, but should be met at FFS, include seasonal staff addressing habitat, geomorphology/climate, coral reef/marine areas of expertise. Seasonal but regular staff in these areas – or full- time staff which supply expertise in multiple areas – should be considered in order to meet the full breadth of PMNM mission and actions. A multi-agency approach to staffing would provide the most efficient and feasible means of providing staff toward this end, as specialized staff could then rotate between islands and atolls. Again, splitting the Manager and Assistant Manager position between FWS and NMFS would contribute significantly to this need.

If FFS are housed at an independent location, FWS and NMFS will split the cost of rent, electricity, overhead, office supplies and related costs equally, following an approved not-to-exceed budget. Each agency could supply their staff with computers, office supplies, cell phones, etc., or these needs could be met with a pooled source of funding through interagency agreement.

SUPERVISION

At present, each agency provides direct supervision for their teams at FFS. The lead FWS staff serves as Refuge Manager, and overall lead for FFS. The FWS Assistant Manager serves as Acting Manager in the Manager’s absence. The NMFS seal team leader serves as the de facto NMFS supervisor at FFS.

50 If the Manager and Acting Manager positions were filled with FWS and NMFS staff, then supervision of all crews would fall under one supervisor while at FFS. This would enhance safety by requiring all personnel to attend weekly safety training, for example, and would put all FFS staff on the same page for emergency protocol and response. It would allow much better integration of both terrestrial and marine perspectives, resulting in more effective ecosystems management. It would also balance costs and presence in at FFS. Finally, freeing the Manager or Acting Manager positions from FWS payroll would allow those funds to go to a full- time logistics position in Honolulu, which is sorely needed. As mentioned above, an interim measure, the NMFS crew leader could serve as Acting Manager during the summer months.

51 SAFETY GOALS & PRIORITIES (PMNM ACTION 3.3.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT)

Safety is the highest priority at FFS. The Refuge Manager screens all volunteers for physical and mental needs, and ensures that all volunteers understand the inherent risk of life at a remote atoll before coming out to the field. (This should also be a requirement before hiring staff.)

We currently performing a formal safety self-audit once a year, as well as on- going informal safety audits throughout the year. A formal safety audit is performed at irregular intervals, roughly every 3-5 years. Emergency response at FFS is covered in depth in the PMNM COOP Plan and FFS Emergency Action Plan. Also see section on Transportation of Personnel and Supplies.

Safety training is required on a weekly basis at FFS, with all FWS personnel participating on a regular basis. (NMFS staff currently do not participate in weekly safety training with FWS staff.) Weekly safety training covers pertinent topics such as first aid, small boat repair, marine navigation, CPR and use of an AED, dive signals, evacuation of spinal injuries, and stay-in-place emergency protocol.

Disregard for human or wildlife safety will not be tolerated. All persons within the atoll must act with reasonable prudence for their own and others’ safety, as well as the safety of wildlife, at all times. The Refuge Manager will give one warning to an individual acting unsafely (for humans or wildlife) for a minor or moderate violation, e.g, deliberately or unnecessarily flushing wildlife, or taking unnecessary risks while boating, or swimming alone. Upon second minor or moderate violation, or first offense of a major violation (an action with life- threatening consequences, flagrant disregard for safety rules or concerns, or flagrant disruption to wildlife), the individual will be removed from FFS as soon as transport is possible. Legal or administrative action may be pursued for violations, when applicable.

52 FUNDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BUSINESS PLAN

Current and recent past levels of FWS funding at FFS have been about $200- $250,000 per year. While this funding level has been allocated to Tern operations, it is not based on FFS needs or analyses of projected future fiduciary needs. We recommend that the cost of implemented needed actions be assessed for FFS, compared with expected interagency funding, and that a realistic business plan – for the atoll as a whole – be formulated and implemented for effective management at FFS.

Development of the business plan should include a thorough evaluation of creative alternatives (e.g., trading transportation for housing costs, use of seasonal or contract employees), and non-traditional funding sources (e.g., grant opportunities). Evaluation of altenatives should then lead to decision making on collaborative actions, priorities for implementation, and understanding what additional funding is needed for critical tasks.

Development of the business plan should be conducted in 2011, with a first draft presented no later than December 2011. Further discussion (particularly between NOAA and FWS for implementing interagency management to minimize redundancy) should lead to substantial revisions in the assessment and financial plan. A final financial plan is a high priority, and should be completed by Dec 2012.

53 APPENDIX A: SPECIES, HABITATS AND COMMUNITIES IN FRENCH FRIGATE SHOALS

This appendix includes a list of common species, habitats and communities found in French Frigate Shoals. This list does not include rare species, vagrants or occurrences.. The species list currently includes only terrestrial vertebrate species, but should be updated with marine species, particularly those associated with coral reefs and shallow water systems in the atoll, as well as both terrestrial and marine invertebrates. The list of habitats and communities is general in nature.

SPECIES Common Name Hawaiian Scientific Name Alpha Code Name Seabirds black noddy noio Anous minutus BLNO black-footed ka‘upu Diomedea nigripes BFAL albatross blue-gray noddy Procelsterna cerulean BGNO Bonin petrel Pterodroma hyplodeuca BOPE brown booby ‘ā (‘ā uliuli) Sula leucogaster BRBO brown noddy noio kōhā Anous stolidus BRNO Bulwer's petrel ‘ou Bulweria bulwerii BUPE Christmas Puffinus nativitatis CHSH shearwater gray-backed tern pākalakala Sterna lunata GRAT great frigatebird ‘iwa Fregata minor GRFR Laysan albatross mōlī Diomedea immutabilis LAAL ‘ā (‘ā Sula dactylatra MABO masked booby maka’ele) ‘ā Sula sula RFBO (‘ā wāwae red-footed booby ‘ula) red-tailed tropicbird koa’e ula Phaethon rubricauda RTTR sooty tern ‘ewa‘ewa Sterna fuscata SOTE Tristram's TRSP stormpetrel wedgetailed ua’u kani Puffinus pacificus WTSH shearwater white tern manu o Kū Gygis alba WHTE

Shorebirds Bristle-thighed kioea, kiowea Numenius tahitiensis BTCU Curlew

54 Common Name Hawaiian Scientific Name Alpha Code Name Pacific Golden Plover kolea Pluvialis fulva PGPL Ruddy Turnstone ‘akekeke Arenaria interpres RUTU Sanderling hunakai Calidris alba SAND wandering tattler ‘ūlili Heteroscelus incanus WATA

Hawaiian monk ‘īlio holo i ka Monachus schauinslandi HMS seal uaua

Hawaiian green sea honu Chelonia mydas HGST turtle

Common Plant Species alena alena Boerhavia repens BORE goosefoot ‘āweoweo oahuense CHOA beach morning glory pōhuehue Ipomoea pes-caprae IPPE Pacific island thintail Lepturus repens LERE beach naupaka naupaka Scaevola sericea SCSE kahakai nohu nohu Tribulus cistoides TRCI ironwood Casuarina equisetifolia CAEQ nettle-leaved Chenopodium murale CHMU goosefoot tree niu Cocus nucifera CONU indian goosegrass, Eleusine indica ELIN wiregrass fourspike heliotrope nena haole Heliotropium HEPR procumbens cheeseweed Malva parviflora MAPA common purslane ‘ihi Portulaca oleracea POOL sow thistle pualele Sonchus oleraceus SOOL salt marsh sand Spergularia marina SPMA spurry whorled dropseed Sporobolus pyramidatus SPPY tree heliotrope Tournefortia argentea TOAR

55 APPENDIX B: SPECIES ACTION PL APPENDIX B: SPECIES ACTION PLANS

BLACK NODDY

Species Name: Black Noddy, noio, Anous minutus.

Population Est Worldwide: Est. 1-1.5 million breeding birds; est. 3-4.5 million total (Fefer et al. 1984).

U.S. Population: Hawaiian archipelago population estimated at 10,000–20,000 breeding pairs: Midway Atoll estimated 2,000–6,000 breeding pairs, Nihoa I. estimated 1,000–5,000 breeding pairs, Laysan I. estimated 1,500–2,500 breeding pairs, and Tern I., French Frigate Shoals, estimated at >2,300 breeding pairs (Harrison et al. 1984, Harrison 1990, Gauger 1999).

Cited Conservation Needs: Species needs continued protection from poaching (Henshaw 1901, Fefer et al. 1984); protection from predatory mammals and other exotic species (Gauger 1999, Fefer et al. 1984); protection from agricultural runoff, oil spills, marine debris, and other dumped waste (Harrison et al. 1984, Fefer et al. 1984); protection from heavy metal accumulation (Burger and Gochfeld 1991); protection of habitat, including foraging habitat, is needed (Garnett 1984, Harrison 1990). Species can adapt and habituate to human presence (Garnett 1984).

Cited Biological Research Needs: “Priorities for future research include the following: (1) Survey known or suspected nesting islands, census the populations, and identify threats. (2) Research monitoring methods to improve the detection of population stress at an early stage. (3) Establish long-term population studies of marked individuals in several locations, to determine demographic characteristics (adult and juvenile survival rates, recruitment, age at first breeding, number of broods/year, breeding success), and ascertain factors important in population regulation. (4) Conduct widespread banding studies to determine the amount and pattern of movement between colonies, to assess the importance of natal and breeding dispersal. (5) Conduct telemetry or banding studies to determine where birds go during the nonbreeding season in populations that migrate or disperse, and identify threats there. (6) Conduct feeding-ecology studies in several locations, to determine the relationship between food supply and phenology. (7) Conduct genetic and morphological analyses, to define and ranges (particularly in the Hawaiian Is.), and determine the taxonomic relationship of this species with the ” (Gauger 1999). (7) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011.

56 FFS Current Population: The minimum number of BLNO breeding pairs, based on the single highest MIC count for total nests, has been fairly stable at Tern Island between 1995 and 1997, with an average of 2,350 pairs each year, based on a seven year cycle.2 Average reproductive effort and success appear to remain fairly stable since 1997 (average 7,368 total nests per year; average 4,456 egg nests per year; average 59% egg survival).

FFS Target population: 7 year average minimum breeding pairs between 2,000 and 2,500 for atoll (based on a 7 year average minimum breeding pairs of 2000 to 2500 on Tern Island between 1994-2010). Egg and chick survival appear stable within these parameters, and appears to drop above this threshold.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Protect against predatory mammals. (2) Maintain shrub habitat for nesting. (3) Minimize disturbance, particularly of egg nests. (4) Establish target population levels no later than December 2011. (5) Increase public awareness and support for this species.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Continued monitoring of using MICs and outer island surveys. Assess effectiveness and utility of continuing reproductive plots, and if continued, improve methods for increased uniformity, replicability, and data utility, and determine most effective monitoring frequency. Adult counts have been included in MICs since 2011, and should be continued. (2) Develop and implement time-of-day study to identify best time of day to observe maximum number of individuals on Tern, and implement through MIC protocol. (3) Reproductive plot data should be analyzed NLT Dec 2011, including but not limited to nest success, and level of MIC detectability. MIC, plot data, and basic biology analyses results should be published NLT Dec 2012. (4) Initiate methods to determine and track relay rates of BLNO.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Evaluate the importance of the Tern Island BLNO population and research/monitoring to the U.S. and global populations. (2) Perform background literature on BLNO to fully understand their role in the FFS system; if needed, design and implement additional studies to understand their role in FFS. (3) Investigate foraging areas for FFS population. (4) Investigate stated species biological research needs.

References:

2 BLNO breeding appears to fluctuate widely between years, with a repeated cycle about every seven years. Before 1995, the BLNO breeding population increased each year. Since that time, the minimum number of breeding pairs fluctuates from 1,662 to 9,857 within a seven year cycle. Seven year cycle annual averages remain consistent (r2 = 0.94) since 1995.

57 Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Lead, mercury and cadmium in feathers of tropical terns in Puerto Rico (West Indies) and Australia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 21:311-315.

Fefer, S. I., C. S. Harrison, M. B. Naughton, and R. J. Shallenberger. 1984. Synopsis of results of recent seabird research in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Pages 9-76 IN Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Vol. 1 (Grigg, R. W. and K. Y. Tanoue, Eds.) Univ. Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu.

Garnett, M. C. 1984. Conservation of seabirds in the South Pacific region: a review. Pages 547-558 IN Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. (Croxall, J. P., P. G. H. Evans, and R. W. Schreiber, Eds.) Int. Council Bird Pres. Tech. Publ. No. 2, Cambridge, UK.

Gauger, Vanessa H. 1999. Black Noddy (Anous minutus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/412

Harrison, C. S. 1990. Seabirds of Hawaii: natural history and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.

Harrison, C. S., M. B. Naughton, and S. I. Fefer. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Hawaiian archipelago and Johnston Atoll. Pages 513-526 IN Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. (Croxall, J. P., P. G. H. Evans, and R. W. Schreiber, Eds.) Int. Council Bird Pres. Tech. Publ. No. 2, Cambridge, UK.

Henshaw, H. W. 1901. On the habits and haunts of the noio or Hawaiian Noddy Tern. Ibis 8:196-200.

58 BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS

Species Name: Black-footed Albatross, kaʻupu, Phoebastria nigripes

Population est. worldwide: The world breeding population of black-footed was estimated to be 61,000 pairs in 2005 (Arata et al. 2009).

US Population: The U.S. population of black-footed albatross exists entirely in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and includes more than 95 percent of the world’s population (Arata et al. 2009). The majority of individuals breed on Laysan and Midway (about 21,000 pairs each), followed by Pearl and Hermes (6,000 pairs) and French Frigate Shoals (4,000 pairs).

Cited Conservation needs: Protect from aircraft collisions, habitat degradation, pesticides, contaminants, toxins, oil pollution, plastic ingestion, and fisheries interactions (Whittow 2008).

Cited Biological Research Needs : Behavior, physiology, foraging ecology, and distribution are fairly well studied. Largest shortcoming in our knowledge of this species is population demography and projection, especially with regard to fishery by-catch rates, chronic contaminant effects, and influence of changing climate on foraging habitat, prey distribution, and availability of breeding habitat (Whittow 2008).

FFS Population: The BFAL population has been slowly but steadily increasing on Tern Island, and FFS as a whole, since the mid-1990s. At present, about 2,500 BFAL breeding pairs utilize Tern Island for nesting each year. The total population of BFAL utilizing FFS is estimate very roughly as about 15,000 individuals; however, additional quantitative analysis is needed to increase accuracy of this number. 1,845 BFAL chicks were banded in 2010. Overall reproductive success is generally between 60-85%.

FFS Target Population: The BFAL population, given current parameters, is expected to rise by about 1% each year over the next 50 years per Arata et al. (2009); however, an unlimited increase in BFAL given the limited land base at Tern Island may not be desirable. The target population for Tern Island is 2,700 minimum breeding pairs if there is a runway, or 4,700 pairs with no runway. The target population for FFS is 4,400 minimum breeding pairs if there is a runway, or 6,400 breeding pairs without a runway. (Target populations based on density of 5 year average for 2005-2010, plus 10%. Resulting target densities are 0.07 pairs/m2 available habitat for BFAL, and 0.1 pairs/m2 available habitat for all albatross.)

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Protect and maintain habitat for nesting. (3) Minimize disturbance by reducing monitoring

59 to an adequate but not excessive number of individuals and nests. (4) Continued protection from inadvertent fishing mortalities. (5) Discontinue flights to Tern Island to reduce albatross deaths associated with air strikes. (6) Monitor changes in forage distribution and condition over time, and implement protective or other management measures when appropriate. (7) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011. (8) Increase public awareness and support for this species.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Monitor population and reproduction using established PMNM-wide albatross monitoring protocol. (2) Reproductive plot data, including but not limited to lineage and age structure, should be analyzed NLT June 2012; analyses results should be published NLT June 2013. (3) Establish regular quantitative monitor populations on outer islands in FFS. Investigate and report on the species inter-island movements, particularly with regard to adaptations which may provide insight into the species ability to adapt to changing sea level rise. Monitor plastic loads in chicks and adults. (4) Continue tracking foraging patterns at least every 5 years, both breeding and non-breeding, along with forage composition and conditions, in order to identify any changes in foraging pattern which may require protection or management measures. (5) New information on this species should be published in a timely manner.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate any significant change in population level, reproductive effort or success. (2) Perform additional monitoring of factors affecting chick survival, for comparison with Laysan albatross results. (3) Secure resources, analyze and report lineage study to determine reproductive success and behavior of individuals and through generations. (4) To the extent resources allow, investigate cited biological research needs.

References:

Arata JA, Sievert PR, and Naughton MB. 2009. Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923-2005. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5181. Awkerman, Jill A., David J. Anderson and G. Causey Whittow. 2008. Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/065

60 BLUE-GRAY NODDY (GREY NODDY)

Species Name: Procelsterna cerulea

Population Est Worldwide: World-wide estimate was 100,000 breeding pairs in the 1990’s, but inaccessible nesting locations and make accuracy of this estimate questionable.

U.S. Population: 100% of the U.S. Population (approx. 3,600 breeding pairs in the 1990’s) is located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, its northern-most distribution.

Cited Conservation Needs: State species of concern.

Cited Biological Research Needs: This species breeds singly or in small, loose colonies so that they are difficult to study and assess. Inventory and monitoring to assess current population and trends are needed.

FFS Population: Est. between 10 and 50 breeding pairs each year located on La Perouse, based on casual observation in 2010 and 2011. Amerson (1971:116) reports a population of 6 blue-gray noddies on La Perouse Pinnacle. Better assessment of population needed.

FFS Conservation Needs: Unknown, other than protection of their nesting areas. We must first ascertain their baseline population at FFS and the Monument as a whole, and with global population estimates and conservation status, determine the significance of the FFS and Monument populations, and determine conservation needs.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Our highest priority need at FFS for blue-gray noddies is to establish baseline population. Although an on-island thorough survey of La Perouse is desirable and needed, this means is too disruptive for regular use; therefore, assessment of blue-gray noddies and other species on La Perouse Pinnacles is needed using photographic assessment from boat-based surveys. Although this method will not resolve absolute numbers, they have been demonstrated sufficient for relative numbers and identification of gross trends. Baseline surveys should be scheduled and recorded similar to other outer-island surveys, i.e., at least monthly and not more than weekly, with information recorded in the same spreadsheet, so that total atoll population trends can be identified.

Amerson (1971) reports that these noddies have egg-nests in May-May, and chicks in May-July, and that adults are gone for roughly 5 months of the year, but this is

61 based on observation of a single chick in 1967 at La Perouse Pinnacles. We need to confirm the timing of blue-gray noddy events, as a basis for more in-depth studies.

FFS Special Project Needs: A one-time on-the-ground survey of La Perouse Pinnacle is needed in order to determine the population of blue-gray noddies, as well as other species there. See Project Needs for La Perouse.

Additional special project needs will undoubtedly arise; however, we know so little about this species, it is difficult to know what to ask. We need a researcher to devote some time to assessing this species on a global and local scale in order to understand at all its conservation and research needs.

References:

Amerson AB. 1971. The Natural History of French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin No. 150.

62 BONIN PETREL

Species Name: Bonin Petrel, Pterodroma hypoleuca. (No known Hawaiian name.)

Population Est Worldwide: Worldwide population unknown.

U.S. Population: The entire U.S. population resides in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Total breeding population in the Hawaiian archipelago is estimated between 230,000 and 359,000, assuming that the breeding populations other than Midway Atoll have remained stable since 1984 (Fefer et al. 1984, Harrison et al. 1984, Seto 1995). The recent event in the winter of 2011 likely drastically reduced the breeding population on Midway and Laysan; the extent of this reduction is unknown, as this species has not been monitored since the mid-1990s at Midway, and the early 1980ʻs at Laysan.

Cited Conservation Needs: Cited conservation needs include species protection from predatory mammals; protection of habitat, including foraging habitat (Olson and James 1982); protection from marine debris (Sileo et al. 1990); protection from collision with stationary/moving structures or objects (Grant et al. 1983, Warham 1990); protection from drift net fishery operations (Ogi et al. 1993).

Cited Biological Research Needs: Priorities for future research include researching demographics and population biology of species: annual recruitment, survivorship, lifetime reproductive performance, foraging locations, non-breeding range, etc. Less intrusive and accurate methods of estimating population sizes, such as acoustics monitoring, are needed for species (Seto and Donna 1984).

FFS Population: BOPE have been poorly studied at FFS.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Protect burrow habitat; increase artificial nesting habitat; explore best artificial nesting habitat. Address nesting needs at both Tern and East Islands within FFS. (3) Determine limiting factors to BOPE populations within FFS, and address these to increase adult population and reproduction on both Tern and East Islands. (4) Perform literature search, analyze data from Midway, Laysan and Tern, and determine best target population for Tern no later than December 2011. (5) Increase public awareness and support for this species.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Explore, develop and implement adult monitoring on Tern and East Islands. Investigate accurate and less invasive methods, such as acoustics monitoring, for monitoring breeding populations on Tern and East Islands. (2) Improve reproductive effort and success monitoring on Tern, and implement on

63 East Island. Address monitoring needs for small population, explore alternative monitoring methods, ensure accuracy and replicability. (3) Develop and implement method to assess and monitor breeding population on La Perouse Pinnacle, track changes, and assess importance to FFS population.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate habitat needs of species and explore creation of artificial habitat as a means of increasing reproductive success. Monitor differences in reproductive success with temperature, vegetation, box versus burrow, and other critical factors. Explore ways to address these needs and limitations. Use results to make conservation actions more effective. (2) Investigate forage and foraging area of breeding and non-breeding birds. (3) Investigate life history and basic biology as needed to identify limiting factors to population. (4) Investigate plastic load impacts to this species. (5) Information on this species’ basic biology, management alternatives, and other pertinent information should be published in a timely manner. In particular, age structure, age at maturity, and similar basic demographic and natural history information is needed in order to assess population trends, and identify effective management possibilities. (6) To the extent resources allow, investigate cited biological research needs. (7) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly).

References:

Fefer, S., C. Harrison, M. B. Naughton, and R. J. Shallenberger. 1984. Synopsis of results of recent seabird research conducted in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the second symposium on resource investigtions in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands Vol. 1.

Grant, G. S., J. Warham, T. N. Pettit, and G. C. Whittow. 1983. Reproductive behavior and vocalizations of the Bonin petrel. Wilson Bull. 95:522-539.

Harrison, C. S., M. B. Naughton, and S. I. Fefer. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. in Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. (Croxall, J. P., P. G. H. Evans, and R. W. Schreiber, Eds.) ICBP Tech. Bull. no. 2.

Ogi, H., A. Yatsu, H. Hatanaka, and A. Nitta. 1993. The mortality of seabirds by driftnet fisheries in the North Pacific. North Pacific Fish. Comm. Bull. 53(III):499- 512.

Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. no. 365.

64 Seto, N. 1995. Bonin Petrel (Pterodroma hypoleuca) population study, a preliminary report, Sand Island, Midway Atoll. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midway Atoll.

Seto, Nanette W. and Donna O’Daniel. 1999. Bonin Petrel (Pterodroma hypoleuca), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/385

Sileo, L., P. R. Sievert, M. D. Samuel, and S. I. Fefer. 1990. Prevalence and characteristics of plastic ingested by Hawaiian seabirds. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris. NOAA Tech. Memo.

Warham, J. 1990. The Petrels: Their ecology and breeding systems. Academic Press, London.

65 BROWN BOOBY

Species Name: Sula leucogaster

Population Est Worldwide: 20,000-30,000 pairs (Schreiber 2002).

U.S. Population: Unknown.

Cited Conservation Needs: Reduce predators, contaminants, fishing gear, and degradation of habitat.

Cited Biological Research Needs: None for Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

FFS Population: Est. 50-250 breeding pairs per year. BRBO breed only on La Perouse, although they occasionally roost elsewhere. BRBO breed on sand islands elsewhere, so there is no physical limitation for them using the sand islands for breeding; Hartzell noted, however, that masked boobies would defend their territory against a landing BRBO on Gin Island (2011, personal communication). They are also particularly susceptible to human disturbance, so frequent the less visited islands (the Gins and Disappearing) more often. Amerson reported the La Perouse BRBO population as 100 breeding birds and 20 non-breeding birds (116); this is probably the general magnitude of the current population.

FFS Conservation Needs: Because they are common and numerous in many other parts of the world, BRBO have no special conservation needs at FFS.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Population trends for BRBO should be tracked, as part of overall baseline monitoring in the atoll. Bird surveys on La Perouse should be sufficient for this purpose.

FFS Special Project Needs: There are currently no special project needs for BRBO.

References:

Amerson AB. 1971. The Natural History of French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin No. 150.

Schreiber EA and Norton RL. 2002. Brown booby (Sula leucogaster), The Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/649.

66 BROWN NODDY

Species Name: Anous stolidus

Population Est Worldwide: Pantropical. Global population probably over 500,000 birds.

U.S. Population: Over 95% of the U.S. population breeds in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, with the largest colonies reportedly Nihoa (25-35,000 pairs) and Ka’ula (15-25,000 pairs).

Cited Conservation Needs: Control egg collection and hunting. Reduce predators, contaminants. Protect nesting and roosting sites.

Cited Biological Research Needs: Better population estimates are needed, particularly locally.

FFS Population: BRNOs have increased in number since the 1960’s at FFS, from a reported 10,000 population to over 14,000 in 2010. BRNOs did not breed on Tern in the 1960’s; after a hiatus of no monitoring, the BRNO population at Tern Island has grown fairly steadily since the early 1980’s. 2010 population estimated at 7,008 minimum breeding pairs in the atoll, including 6720 min breeding pairs on Tern Island, 288 on outer islands, not including La Perouse. Amerson (1971: 277) reports over 5,000 BRNOs were observed on East Island in June 1968; we observed only 600-700 BRNO on East Island in 2011.

FFS Target Population: Maintain current population (10,000 population, or at least 5,000 breeding pairs atoll-wide).

FFS Conservation Needs: Protection of breeding areas.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Continue BRNO mean incubation counts. If breeding population appears to decrease over a period of five years, initiate reproductive plot monitoring.

FFS Special Project Needs: No special project needs at this time.

References:

Amerson AB. 1971. The Natural History of French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin No. 150.

Chardine JW and Morris RD. 1996. Brown noddy (Anous stolidus). Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/220.

67 BULWER’S PETREL

Species Name: Bulweria bulwerii

Population Est Worldwide: Widespread, probably over 1,000,000 birds worldwide (del Hoyo et al. 1992, cited in Megysi and O’Daniel 1997)

U.S. Population: Entire U.S. population of BUPE exists in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The 1990’s population estimate was between 1,700-3,500 breeding pairs.

Cited Conservation Needs: Protect habitat; reduce introduced predators, contaminants and habitat loss.

Cited Biological Research Needs: Population estimates need to be updated.

FFS Population: Since the early 1990’s, between 4 and 60 breeding pairs have been observed on Tern Island. (Although BUPE are known to breed on East Island, their numbers are necessarily limited there due to overlap with turtle nesting activities.)

FFS Target Population: In order to allow continued research on BUPE at Tern, and to provide a larger protected population from the vulgarities of conditions at other islands, we intend to increase the BUPE population substantially at Tern Island. In 2009-2011, virtually every artificial nesting site has been occupied; we therefore infer that number of desirable nesting sites is a limiting factor on Tern, and not forage. Our target population is therefore set at a level which would allow much stronger statistical analyses of research data, while not increasing the overall seabird population by any significant number or density. The target population for Tern Island is therefore >200 breeding pairs. We do not encourage BUPE breeding at East Island, because of the unavoidable destruction of nests by the increased turtle nesting on that island, concurrent with BUPE nesting.

FFS Conservation Needs: Protect forage and nesting grounds. Increase BUPE nest boxes to 250 artificial nests by 2013.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Although the population of BUPE at FFS is small, this species is not regularly monitored on other islands, so monitoring at FFS is critical to identifying trends and impacts to this species. Although there are wide fluctuations between years, it appears over the last five years that more than 50 pairs regularly breed on Tern Island, allowing for the first time the opportunity for statistically valid monitoring.

68 (1) Establish adult monitoring, using appropriate means (e.g., acoustic or night- vision methods); (2) Establish regular (e.g., bi-weekly) reproductive effort and success monitoring, focusing on artificial nest box monitoring, but including estimates for burrows as well; (3) Track lineages, foraging areas, importance of plastic ingestion, chick growth and success in order to determine site fidelity and factors affecting nest success, e.g. impact of lineage, foraging area, nest site, etc. on this species success.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Work with others to establish Monument-wide population assessment; (2) Develop and test the effect of various artificial nest effects; (3) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly).

References:

69 CHRISTMAS SHEARWATER

Species Name: Christmas Shearwater, Puffinus nativitatis. (No Hawaiian name known.)

Population est. worldwide: Estimated 9,000 breeding pairs, based on surveys conducted between 1975 and the mid-1990s, with an additional study on Midway Island in 1997 (as cited in Seto 2001).

US Population: Although no recent surveys have been done, the total breeding population in the Hawaiian Islands is estimated at approximately 2,500–3,300 pairs, based on information from the 1980ʻs and 1990’s. The largest breeding populations were recorded on Laysan (1,500 - 2,000 pairs), Lisianski (400 - 600 pairs), Nihoa (200 - 250 pairs), and Midway Atoll (200 pairs) (Seto 2001). The population on Laysan may have been decimated by a tsunami in 2011; however, the level of damage is not known because the population is not currently monitored.

Cited Conservation needs: Need protection from ingestion of plastics and contaminants/toxics, collisions with stationary/moving structure or objects, fishing nets, degradation of habitat, direct human/research impacts. (Seto 2001).

Cited Biological Research needs: “Intensive, long-term banding studies are essential for acquiring data on annual recruitment, differential survivorship, and lifetime reproductive performance. . . .However, seabird demographic studies, which are usually long-term, are threatened by lack of resources (personnel and money). There is no other existing or planned long-term population study for other Christmas Shearwater populations” (Seto 2001).

“Population estimates of major breeding colonies are not current. An accurate and current worldwide population estimate is needed to monitor the stability of the Christmas Shearwater population in the Pacific. As with many seabirds, information on feeding grounds and nonbreeding range of the Christmas Shearwater is generally lacking but key to successful management of this species. In particular, the indirect impact of the growing tuna fishing industry on Christmas Shearwater foraging success is unknown and warrants investigation. Minimal information is known on Christmas Shearwater molt sequence and timing.” (Seto 2001).

FFS Population: Minimum number of breeding pairs on Tern Island has varied between 9 and 49 per year, but is generally in the mid-20s to mid-30s. The species is very limited in reproductive habitat on Tern, due to limitations in healthy shrubs. It is unknown if there are other limiting factors for this species’ success in FFS.

70 FFS Target Population: Recognizing the impact of inherent interannual variability outside our control, our target population for CHSH is a five year running average of >200 breeding pairs. This target will not be possible until increased shrub habitat, or effective artificial habitat, has been created.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Healthy shrub habitat appears to be a limiting factor for CHSH at FFS; it is therefore imperative to increase healthy shrub habitat substantially. See recommendations for Vegetated Island Habitat. (2) Investigate the possible use of artificial shade habitat, and deploy as appropriate until natural habitat can be successfully increased.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Monitor population level, reproductive effort, and reproductive success through low-disturbance reproductive monitoring plots. Investigate any significant change in population level, reproductive effort or success. MICs are not a useful tool for monitoring CHSH due to their sensitivity to disturbance, the level of disturbance to other species required to monitor CHSH, and the effectiveness of CHSH cryptic coloration. (3) Information from plot data, basic biology, and management should be published in a timely manner.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Document anthropogenic disturbances. (2) Investigate limiting factors for CHSH on Tern and East Islands. (3) Through a background literature search and discussion with experts, determine the contribution of the FFS CHSH population to the U.S. and global populations, as well as the contribution of monitoring here. With consideration for monitoring and conservation efforts on Midway and Laysan Islands, establish both target population levels and appropriate conservation actions for this species. (4) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly).

References:

Seto, Nanette W. 2001. Christmas Shearwater (Puffinus nativitatis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/561

71

GRAY-BACKED TERN (ALSO KNOWN AS SPECKTACLED TERN)

Species Name: Onychoprion lunata or lunatus (formerly Sterna lunata)

Population Est Worldwide: Unknown, but possibly on the order of 70,000 breeding pairs. Population estimates are badly out of date.

U.S. Population: 100% of the U.S. population resides in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and other Pacific Islands. Population unknown. Most recent estimates from 1970’s-1990’s, totally 36,000 breeding pairs in the NWHI.

Cited Conservation Needs: Reduce predators, fisheries, human disturbance, hunting/collecting, contaminants, and degradation of habitat.

Cited Biological Research Needs: Basic biology, life history, foraging.

FFS Population: The annual breeding population on Tern Island is generally between 300 and 400 min breeding pairs (with a low of 126 and a high of 511 pairs in a given year), with another 6-20 pairs on East Island.

FFS Target Population: Maintain or increase current population, with a review of target population in five years (2015), after review of reproductive plot information.

FFS Conservation Needs: GRAT are limited to reproducing in areas marginal to SOTE; any increase in population is therefore dependent on acceptable habitat being available without competition from SOTE. In addition, GRAT chicks are highly susceptible to GRFR predation, which is artificially elevated on Tern Island due to poor GRAT nesting habitat (with little cover as is provided under natural conditions by high density Lepturus) and elevated GRFR numbers. It is imperative to find a management solution, then, to increase GRAT populations to mitigate depressed numbers resulting from these anthropogenically-derived changes. Experimental use of artificial cover for GRAT chicks, and greatly increasing outplantings of Lepturus in areas not used by SOTE but acceptable to GRATs (e.g., along seawalls) are but two options; others should be explored.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: The status of this species is poorly understood, and the species is not regularly monitored in any other location; monitoring at Tern is therefore critical. (1) Continue MICs and reproductive plots.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly). (2) Establish mean and range of incubation period. (3) Establish relay rates for GRAT. (4) Experiment with artificial

72 cover and outplantings to increase chick success. (5) Experiment with artificial, natural, and structural changes to increase GRAT:SOTE reproductive areas.

References:

73 GREAT FRIGATEBIRD

Species Name: Fregata minor

Population Est Worldwide: Probably fewer than 500,000 individuals worldwide; total breeding pairs 54,000 to 68,000 (Gauger Metz and Schreiber 2002).

U.S. Population: Estimated Northwestern Hawaiian population in 1984 was 63,550 total individuals, including 8-10,000 breeding pairs.

Cited Conservation Needs: Reduce human predation, degradation of habitat. Appears to be declining throughout its range, but lack of accurate data makes conclusions difficult (Gauger Metz and Schreiber 2002).

Cited Biological Research Needs: More accurate population numbers and trends needed to determine other needs.

FFS Population: In the 1960’s GRFR breed only on Whale-Skate Island, with an estimated population of 1,400 birds (Amerson 1971: 219). GRFR currently nest on Tern and East Islands (requiring shrubs for nesting), with the vast majority concentrated on Tern. The GRFR population at FFS has remained remarkably stable over the last 30 years, fluctuating between 400 and 850 min breeding pairs on Tern. In 2010, there were 848 min breeding pairs on Tern Island, and 37 min breeding pairs on East Island.

FFS Target Population: Increased GRFR juveniles and females result in greater (and probably artificially inflated and concentrated) predation pressure on other, higher priority species. The target population for GRFR at Tern Island is therefore 400-600 min breeding pairs, with a total FFS target population of 430-660 min breeding pairs.

FFS Conservation Needs: GRFR are a widespread and common species, with no particular conservation needs at FFS. Due to the needs of higher priority species, and given the artificial inflation of GRFR nesting concentrations at Tern, increases in the FFS GRFR population is not desired.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Continue MICs and outer island surveys to monitor population and reproductive trends. Reproductive plots are not warranted (see Cittta et al. 2006), except as needed for special projects.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Establish level of reproductive success, mean incubation period, and other basic biological information needs for GRFR. (2)

74 Consider experimental methods of limiting GRFR population expansion without taking birds or nests, and without negative effect on higher priority species.

References:

Amerson AB. 1971. The Natural History of French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin No. 150.

Citta J, Reynolds MH and Seavy NE. 2006. Seabird monitoring assessment for Hawaiʻi and the Pacific Islands. Technical Report HCSU-007. Hawaiʻi Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo.

Gauger Metz V and Shreiber EA. 2002. Great frigatebird (Fregata minor). Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/681.

75 HAWAIIAN GREEN SEA TURTLE

Species Name: Chelonia mydas

Population Est Worldwide: Green sea turtle populations outside of Hawaii are considered endangered.

U.S. Population: The Hawaiian green sea turtle is considered a separate population, and is the only non-declining population of the species in the world; other than the Hawaiian population, the species would be listed as Endangered (HGST Recovery Plan (NMFS and FWS 1998). The HGST population has been increasing steadily since the 1980’s, probably due to a concurrent decrease in fisheries-related take, an increase in (invasive algae) forage, and effective protection of nesting areas in the Northwestern Hawaiian Island. 100% of the HGST population resides in Hawaii; 90% of these nest at French Frigate Shoals. Estimated between 1,000 and 1,500 female nesting turtles for 2011 for HGST, with 900 to 1,300 at FFS.

Cited Conservation Needs: 1) Stop the direct harvest of green sea turtles and eggs, through education and law enforcement actions. 2) Eliminate the threat of fibropapillomas to green turtle populations. 3) Reduce incidental harvest of green turtles by commercial and artisanal fisheries. 4) Support conservation and biologically viable management of green turtle populations in countries that share U.S. green turtle stocks. 5) Eliminate adverse effects of development on green turtle nesting and foraging habitats. 6) Control non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings, e.g., mongoose, feral cats, and pigs, in the Hawaiian population. Cited Biological Research Needs: 1) Determine population size and status through regular nesting beach and in-water censuses. 2) Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis. 3) Identify and protect primary nesting and foraging areas for the species.

FFS Population: More than 90% of all Hawaiian green sea turtles nest at French Frigate Shoals; of these, at least half nest on East Island (Balaz, personal communication. An absolute population estimate is difficult, but there were about a 100 nesting turtles on East Island in the 1970’s; 200-300 in the 1980’s; 300-500 in the 1990’s; and 300-600 in the 2000’s. A record-breaking 880 nesting turtles observed on East Island in the 2011 nesting season; total FFS nesting female population for the year is estimated between 900 and 1,300.

76

FFS Target Population: The recovery plan goal for HGST is over 5,000 nesting females per year. If FFS continues to represent 90% of the nesting turtles, the target population for FFS would be >4,500 nesting females per year (16 times the 2010 population, or 5 times the 2011 population).

FFS Conservation Needs: Continued protection of turtle nesting areas, particularly on East Island, where the vast majority of Hawaiian green sea turtles nest. Preservation of turtle nesting will be the highest management priority for East Island, along with protection of seal pupping.

Year-round presence at FFS is critical to ensure protection of HMS outhaul and pupping areas, as well as fishing/foraging areas. Year-round presence is also required for quick response to entrapments, entanglements, grounded vessels, spilled contaminants or other immediate response needs. Daily entrapment walks on Tern Island around all seawalls and the runway is also needed for the protection of individual HGST that become entrapped behind the seawall, on the runway, or in the colony (where they cause a great deal of destruction and potentially harm themselves). Any HGST that is found entrapped will be released unharmed to a beach as soon as possible.

In addition, turtles that are found entrapped at any time will be released, if they can be safely captured and freed, as soon as possible. Entrapments will be recorded per SOP. If free release cannot be effected safely, the incident will be reported asap to the HGST primary investigator (George Balaz).

To the extent feasible, turtle hatchlings that are entrapped under rubble (which would not exist on a natural ) for more than two days following nest emergence on Tern Island will be dug up and released, per SOP.

77 Turtle nesting on Tern Island has been taking an increasing portion of the island, disturbing high priority seabird species nesting habitat (both shrubs and burrows), and significantly increasing erosion of the south shoreline of the island. For these reasons, turtle nesting on Tern Island will be limited to the currently used areas, and further expansion of turtle nesting into the main body of the island will be discouraged through the use of turtle- and seal-safe fencing (e.g., plastic piping or wooden fence).

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Annual nesting season monitoring is carried out by NMFS/FWS under the direction of PI George Balaz. Annual nesting season monitoring has been conducted annually since the 1970s, and should be continued in perpetuity.

The number of turtles on open-access beaches on Tern Island will be recorded on a daily basis, in order to follow intra- and inter-annual trends. This number provides a relative density of basking turtles using the atoll. The number of basking turtles is also recorded during any outer-island visit. All records of basking turtle observation should include the date, time, and place.

Any unusual turtle observation should also be recorded and reported asap to the HGST PI.

FFS Special Project Needs: The carrying capacity for East Island has been reported as orders of magnitude above current use (Tiwari et al. 2010); however, during the 2011 nesting season, turtle nests were dense enough that hundreds of turtle nests were dug up by later nesting turtles, on the order of hundreds of nests ruined by later turtles. Although there was a small portion of the island (roughly 1/8) still not dug up by turtles, it was clear that the reported carrying capacity for the island is really unfeasible in terms of real nest use. Increasing nesting by 5 to 16 times the current use (to reach target levels) does not seem realistic at all, given current densities and rate of unearthing of previous nests.

Although an estimate of the number of hatchlings lost by later nesters was included in the Tiwari et al. (2010) calculations, this rate does not appear to accurately representative of current (and higher density) conditions apparent during the 2011 field season. The parameters used to determine carrying capacity at East Island – such as the actual area available for nesting, the area actually dug up by a nesting turtle (versus the size of the nest), the area dug up during non-nesting activities, and the estimate of eggs ruined by later nesters – need to be re-evaluated given current conditions, and based on evidence from higher density nesting years such as 2011. The target population for FFS must be revised, if this carrying capacity is smaller

78 than the grossly-defined 4,500 nesting females/year estimate designed as a general guideline for all green sea turtle populations world-.

Other special project needs will be determined and led by the HGST PI.

References:

Dutton PH, Balazs GH, LeRoux RA, Murakawa SKK, Zarate P, Martinez LS. 2008. Composition of Hawaiian green turtle foraging aggregations: mtDNA evidence for a distinct regional population. Endangered Species Research 5:37-44.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

Tiwari M, Balazs GH, and Hargrove S. 2010. Estimating carrying capacity at the green turtle nesting beach of East Island, French Frigate Shoals. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 419:389-294.

Van Houtan KS, Hartgrove SK, and Balazs GH. 2010. Land use, macroalgae, and a tumor-forming disease in marine turtles. Plos one 5:9.

79 HAWAIIAN MONK SEALS

Species Name: Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi, ʻīlio o ke kai)

Population Est Worldwide: 1100 individuals (endemic to Hawaiʻi)

U.S. Population: 1100 individuals (endemic to Hawaiʻi), about 950 individuals in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands

Cited Conservation Needs: 1. Improve the survivorship of females, particularly juveniles, in sub-populations of the NWHI. To do this requires the following:  maintaining and enhancing existing protection and conservation of habitat and prey base;  targeting research to better understand the factors that result in poor juvenile survival;  intervening where appropriate to ensure higher survival of juvenile and adult females;  continuing actions to protect females from individual and multiple male aggression and to prevent excessive shark predation; and  continuing actions to remove marine debris and reduce mortality of seals due to entanglement.

2. Maintain the extensive field presence during the breeding season in the NWHI. Field presence is critical not just to the monitoring and research efforts, but also to carry out the active management and conservation of Hawaiian monk seal subpopulations in these areas.

3. Ensure the continued natural growth of the Hawaiian monk seal in the MHI by reducing threats including interactions with recreational fisheries, disturbance of mother-pup pairs, disturbance of hauled out seals, and exposure to human and domestic diseases. This should be accomplished with coordination of all federal, state, local and non-government parties, volunteer networks, and increased outreach and education in order to develop a culture of co-existence between humans and seals in the MHI.

4. Reduce the probability of the introduction of infectious diseases into the Hawaiian monk seal population.

Recommended Short-Term Actions: 1. Investigate and mitigate factors affecting food limitation 2. Prevent entanglements of monk seals 3. Reduce shark predation on monk seals 4. Minimize exposure and spread of infectious disease 5. Conserve Hawaiian monk seal habitat

80 6. Reduce Hawaiian monk seal interactions with fisheries 7. Reduce male aggression towards pups/immature seals and females 8. Reduce the likelihood and impact of human disturbance 9. Investigate and develop response to biotoxin impacts 10. Reduce impacts from compromised and grounded vessels 11. Reduce the impact of contaminants

Essential Long-term Actions 1. Continue population monitoring and research 2. Create a MHI HMS Management Plan 3. Implement the Recovery Program for the Hawaiian monk seal

Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Population: less than 200 (20% total population, but decreasing).

FFS Target Population: For the species as a whole, 2,900 individuals is the target population (2007: IX 1). The short-term FFS target population goals for HMS are: Over 200 by 2013; over 225 by 2015; over 250 by 2017; over 300 by 2020. Long- term target population for FFS is a 5 year running average of >300 HMS.

Because pup and juvenile survival is more accurately and easily monitored, and because estoration of a healthy age class structure for FFS HMS survival is critical, FFS target populations for FFS HMS pup survival to J4 is: 10% of pups reaching J4 age in 2013, 15% in 2015; 20% by 2017. Increased pup survival is assumed to be best influence through increase of diet, although decrease in pup loss through reduced shark predation will also be critical.

FFS Conservation Needs: Those conservation actions which apply at FFS include:

1. Mitigate factors affecting food limitation 2. Prevent entanglements of monk seals 3. Reduce shark predation on monk seals 4. Minimize exposure and spread of infectious disease 5. Conserve Hawaiian monk seal habitat 6. Reduce male aggression towards pups/immature seals and females 7. Reduce the likelihood and impact of human disturbance 8. Reduce impacts from compromised and grounded vessels 9. Reduce the impact of contaminants

The highest priority for HMS conservation at FFS is to increase prey base, identifying and mitigating food limitations for seals. Additional narrative included

81 under monitoring and special projects; however, this item is the single most critical factor in conservation of this species.

Long-term seal efforts led by NMFS, addressing entanglement, continued presence during breeding season, reduction of shark predation, reducing male aggression, monitoring and assisting in research should continue as long as needed for Hawaiian monk seal recovery. Actions should be determined before each season, but crews should have sufficient experience and latitude of authority to adapt methods for most effective management given current field conditions.

Year-round presence at FFS is critical to ensure protection of HMS outhaul and pupping areas, as well as fishing/foraging areas. Year-round presence is also required for quick response to entrapments, entanglements, grounded vessels, spilled contaminants or other immediate response needs.

Daily entrapment walks on Tern Island around all seawalls and the runway is also needed for the protection of individual HMS that become entrapped behind the seawall, on the runway, or in the colony (where they cause a great deal of destruction and potentially harm themselves). Any HGST that is found entrapped will be released unharmed to a beach as soon as possible.

In addition, seals that are found entrapped or entangled at any time will be released, if they can be safely captured and freed, as soon as possible. Entrapments will be recorded per SOP. If free release cannot be effected safely, the incident will be reported asap to the NMFS HMS contacts.

FFS Baseline Monitoring:

Continued presence and monitoring by NMFS HMS teams at FFS during the HMS breeding season should be continued in perpetuity, in order to monitor trends, problems and assets for HMS conservation and protection.

Highest priority should be given to initiating and maintaining adequate monitoring of FFS prey and predator populations/communities, identifying and mitigating factors affecting food limitation. Prey monitoring may begin with mid-sized benthic invertebrates, particularly lobsters and cephalopods, but should also include eels, flatfish and other bottom and coral reef fishes important to HMS diet, currently and in the past. In the end, monitoring and understanding overall ecosystem health will be critical to understanding limitations to HMS population health. Regular and consistent monitoring of the FFS ecosystems (including both terrestrial and marine components) is both a goal and responsibility of NOAA and FWS.

82 The number of seals on open-access beaches on Tern Island will be recorded on a daily basis, in order to follow intra- and inter-annual trends. This number provides a relative density of basking turtles using the atoll. The number of basking turtles is also recorded during any outer-island visit. All records of basking turtle observation should include the date, time, and place.

Non-breeding season seal observations are currently carried out by FWS staff, in the guidance of the NMFS seal team. Regular monitoring (e.g., weekly) provides necessary baseline information on the quantity, distribution, behavior, and population dynamics of HMS at FFS. Regular monitoring also provides quick identification of problems. Consideration should be given to providing year-round seal expertise at FFS.

Any unusual seal observation should also be recorded and reported asap to the NMFS seal team.

FFS Special Project Needs: Those special projects/investigations which apply at FFS include:

1. Investigate factors affecting food limitation 2. Investigate and develop response to biotoxin impacts 3. Continue population monitoring and research

Highest priority should be given to initiating and maintaining adequate monitoring of FFS prey and predator populations/communities, identifying and mitigating factors affecting food limitation. Long-term efforts should be based on establishing a new ecosystem balance, with a return of mid-sized benthic prey items such as lobster and octopus for seals, sharks and other top predators; in order to restore this balance, we must first understand the current status, past conditions, and determine a plan of action to restore ecosystem balance in this area. Initial prey recruitment efforts should focus on FFS and prey availability for younger seals; eventually, however, prey monitoring and recruitment should include all areas between and including Gardner Pinnacles and Mokumanamana, as the foraging grounds for FFS seals. Due to the dire state of the FFS HMS population, initial efforts must result in an increased prey base for HMS, even if this does not initially result in ecosystem balance, although long term harm must be avoided.

Special projects should also include exploration of methods to increase foraging success and/or foraging habitat, e.g., incorporation of bottom-fish FADs, such as 1m plates, cinder blocks, marine debris, or other appropriate and available material at appropriate depths and locations. Explore more extreme management options as

83 species numbers drop to a critical level (e.g., 100 individuals at FFS, or 500 individuals total HMS population), e.g., if it is determined that translocation of pups or juveniles from FFS to the Main Hawaiian Islands, support of those efforts.

Because of the available infrastructure at FFS but not elsewhere in the Monument, FFS should also be utilized for additional study or management testing options, such as testing pen-based experimental methods, and in particular winter camps. FFS is the ideal location for testing more aggressive management, such as but not necessarily including hazing of adult females from undesirable pupping locations, or moving mother-pup pairs.

References:

Baker JD, Becker BL, Wurth TA, Johanos TC, Littnan CL, Henderson JR. p.c. Review of translocation as a tool for conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal. Draft.

Baker JD, Harting AL, Wurth TA, Johanos TC. 2011. Dramatic shifts in Hawaiian monk seal distribution predicted from divergent regional trends. Marine Mammal Science 27(1):78-93.

Gobush KS. 2010. Shark Predation on Hawaiian monk seals: Workshop II & post- workshop developments, November 5-6, 2008. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- PIFSC-21.

Harting AL, ed. 2010. Shark predation on Hawaiian monk seals workshop, Honolulu, Hawaii, January 8-9, 2008.

Iverson SJ, Stewart BS, Yochem PK. 2010. Report on validation and calibration of fatty acid signatures in blubber as indicators of prey in Hawaiian monk seal diet. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-10-05.

Kenyon KW and Rice DW. 1959. Life History of the Hawaiian Monk Seal. Pacific Science XIII, p. 215-252.

Longenecker K. 2010. Fishes in the Hawaiian monk seal dit, based on regurgitate samples collected in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Marine Mammal Science 26(2):420-429.

Piché J, Iverson SJ, Parrish FA, and Dollar R. 2010. Characterization of forage fish and invertebrates in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands using fatty acid signatures: species and ecological groups. Marine Ecology Progress Series 418:1-15.

84 Schultz JK, Marshall AJ, and Pfunder M. 2010. Genome-wide loss of diversity in the critically endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Diversity 2:863-880.

Schultz JK, Baker JD, Toonen RJ, Harting AL, and Bowen BW. 2010. Range-wide genetic connectivity of the Hawaiian monk seal and implications for translocation. Conservation Biology.

Schultz JK, O’Malley JM, Kehn EE, Polovina JJ, Parrish FA, and Kosaki RK. 2011. Tempering expectations of recovery for previously exploited populations in a fully protected marine reserve. Journal of Marine Biology 2011: Article 749131.

85 JACKS (SPECIES GROUP)

Species Name: Caranx sp., ulua, trevally.

Population Est Worldwide: n/a

U.S. Population: n/a

Cited Conservation Needs: Species of least concern; however, dwindling numbers in the Main Hawaiian Islands.

Cited Biological Research Needs: Keystone and indicator species; apex predator. Important indicator species for ecosystem health in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, valued for its retention of apex predators that have been fished out in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Has been cited as potentially important competitor with Hawaiian monk seals, particularly juveniles.

FFS Population: Unknown.

FFS Conservation Needs: No current needs; however, reduction (or increase) in ulua populations may be a critical indicator in changes to ecosystem balance and health in the atoll.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Quantitative assessment of current population and distribution; long-term monitoring of population as indicator of ecosystem health.

FFS Special Project Needs: Determine if ulua competition is an important contributor to Hawaiian monk seal decline, and if so, assess if ulua control or increase in prey base would be a more effective management option.

References:

Schultz JK, O’Malley JM, Kehn EE, Polovina JJ, Parrish FA, and Kosaki RK. 2011. Tempering expectations of recovery for previously exploited populations in a fully protected marine reserve. Journal of Marine Biology 2011: Article 749131.

86 LAYSAN ALBATROSS

Species Name: Laysan Albatross, Moli, Phoebastria immutabilis

Population est. worldwide: Worldwide population is estimated at 630,000 breeding pairs (Arata et al. 2009).

US Population: Over 99% of the U.S. population of Laysan albatross breed in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, although a small population has started breeding off the West Coast of the Americas. The Northwestern Hawaiian population constitutes more than 99% of the global population of this species. Midway Island has the majority of breeders (est 408,000 pairs in 2005), followed by Laysan Island (est 141,000 pairs), Lisianski (26,500 pairs), Pearl and Hermes (7,000 pairs) and French Frigate Shoals (3,000 pairs).

Cited Conservation needs: Protect from military and aircraft interactions, Aircraft collisions and habitat degradation and alterations, introduced species, pesticides, contaminants, and toxins, oil pollution, and fisheries interactions. (Whittow 2009).

Cited Biological Research needs : “The largest shortcoming in our knowledge of this species is population demography and projection. Population growth will be sensitive to changes in adult and juvenile survival rates, which have not yet been estimated. Survival at either stage could be reduced by fishery bycatch. Additional information on temporal and spatial overlap between fisheries and bird distributions could help identify seasons, locations, or fisheries with potentially high bycatch rates. Chronic contaminant effects might also influence adult survival and/or reproduction. Increasing contaminant levels within Laysan foraging habitat encourage additional efforts to identify any such effects.

“Changing climate is expected to impact Laysan foraging habitat and prey distribution. The associated rise in sea level would reduce available breeding habitat as nesting area decreases on the low-elevation islands. As additional information becomes available, models of projected climate change effects can be improved” (Whittow 2009).

FFS Population: LAAL populations on Tern Island fluctuate greatly between years, so that populations are somewhat obscured by interannual variation. It appears, however, that the LAAL breeding population has been increasing on Tern since the early 1980s, from a population of 1,000 breeding pairs per year in the late 1980’s, to about 2,350 pairs each year since 2005. There has been no significant increase in breeding pairs since 2005. This may reflect a serious and steady decline in LAAL breeding success over time at Tern since this parameter was first reported in 1991,

87 from 70+% in the early 1990’s, to an average of around 55% in the last decade. Because LAAL are a long-lived, late-reproducing species, the drop in breeding success may only just be observable in significant changes in breeding population. This change in reproductive success may be indicative of a problem in breeding conditions at Tern, or may simply indicate the population is reaching capacity.

FFS Target Population: The LAAL population, given current parameters, is expected to rise erratically over the next 50 years per Arata et al. (2009); however, an unlimited increase in LAAL given the limited land base at Tern Island may not be desirable. The target population for Tern Island is a five-year running average of 2,400 minimum breeding pairs if there is a runway, or 3,800 pairs with no runway. The target population for FFS is a five-year running average of 3,200 minimum breeding pairs if there is a runway, or 4,600 breeding pairs without a runway. (Target populations based on density of 5 year average for 2005-2010, plus 10%. Resulting target densities are 0.05 pairs/m2 available habitat for LAAL, and 0.1 pairs/m2 available habitat for all albatross. Five year running averages are used for LAAL targets because of the relatively high degree of interannual variability exhibited by LAAL.)

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Investigate factors potentially affecting LAAL reproductive success, and determine if reduction in this parameter is indicative of diminished nesting quality, or simply a response to reaching population capacity. Implement appropriate action(s), if any, based on the results. (3) Maintain and improve shrub habitat for nesting. (4) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011. (5) Increase public awareness and support for this species.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Monitor population and reproduction using established PMNM-wide albatross monitoring protocol. (2) Reproductive plot data, including but not limited to lineage and age structure, should be analyzed NLT June 2012; analyses results should be published NLT June 2013. (3) Monitor plastic loads in chicks and adults. (4) Continue tracking foraging patterns at least every 5 years, both breeding and non-breeding, along with forage composition and conditions, in order to identify any changes in foraging pattern which may require protection or management measures. (5) New information on this species should be published in a timely manner.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate any significant change in population level, reproductive effort or success. (2) Perform additional monitoring of factors affecting chick survival, including options for appropriate management. (3) Further investigate the impacts of plastic loads on chicks versus adults. (4) Secure resources, analyze and report lineage study to determine reproductive success and behavior of individuals and through generations. (5) To the extent resources allow, investigate cited biological research needs. (6) New information on this species should be published in a timely manner.

88 References:

Arata JA, Sievert PR, and Naughton MB. 2009. Status assessment of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923-2005. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5181. Awkerman, Jill, David Anderson and G. Causey Whittow. 2009. Laysan Albatross (Phoebastriaimmutabilis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/066

89 LOBSTERS

Species Name: Several species are included in this group, including primarily the Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus) and scaly slipper lobster (Scyllarides squammosus), but also the green spiny lobster (P. penicillatus, and the ridgeback slipper lobster (S. haanii).

Population Est Worldwide: The Hawaiian spiny lobster is endemic to Hawaii. Other lobster species present occur in other parts of the Pacific. Global populations unknown.

U.S. Population: See Population Est. Worldwide.

Cited Conservation Needs: Fishing severely depleted lobster populations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The fishery was closed in 2000, but lobster populations have not rebounded substantially since that time, probably poor recruitment which was the cause of fisheries closure. Because the populations have not rebounded since 2000, we need to actively manage to increase recruitment. “Results from larval tows and local studies suggest that long-term differences in lobster densities between banks in the NWHI are caused by differences in the amount of relief provided by the benthic habitat on the banks… Puerulus settlement appeared seasonal at the ends of the Hawaiian Archipelago; the greatest settlement occurred during the summer at and during the winter at while at French Frigate Shoals, more centrally located, settlement appeared more uniformly throughout the year….Trapping surveys mapped the spatial distribution of the spiny lobster in the NWHI and indicated that the highest catch rates ranged from depths of 55 to 73 m in the southeast portion of the NWHI to 19 to 54 m in the northwest portion of the Hawaiian Archipelago.” (PFSC/NMFS n.d.) Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Population: Unknown, but most likely severely reduced from fishing between 1970-1999.

FFS Conservation Needs: Population assessment and management, including assessment of reasonable conservation goals, exploration of effective means of restoration, and restoration of lobster populations at FFS.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Monitoring of lobster species at FFS has been limited to studies preceding commercial fisheries in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Baseline monitoring is needed to establish current status of these species at FFS, and long- term monitoring to identify changes and trends.

FFS Special Project Needs: Lobster densities have not recovered in the NWHI following the cessation of fishing in 2000. Insufficient recruitment could be due to

90 the loss of larger females, or due to poor recruitment, perhaps due to a reduction in conspecifics which serve as cues to benthic settlement in desired habitat ( (80, cited in Schultz et al. 2011). We therefore need to determine at FFS: (1) current population levels and trends, (2) composition of population (particularly proportion of larger females), (3) identification/status of conspecifics, (4) status of prey availability for lobster species, (5) assess specific roles and relationships (e.g., functional roles of lobsters at FFS, and effect of changes on overall system, as well as effect of change in prey and predators on lobster populations), (6) assess reasonable conservation goals, and (7) exploration of effective management methods.

Review of the results of lobster studies conducted by Dr. Craig MacDonald (University of Hawai’i) at FFS in the early 1980’s should contribute significantly to our understanding, and should be given high priority. MacDonald’s work focused on establishing the life history, growth and production of lobsters at FFS, and included a study of HMS predation on lobster. The results from the 1978 study of diet should also be reviewed (lost citation). These studies should provide some pre- fisheries baseline from which to consider restoration of ecosystem health, and lobster target populations in particular.

Management options to consider include but are not limited to: increase and stabilize lobster populations in the atoll may include increasing recruitment; stocking; managing conspecifics, habitat, prey or predators. Because of the importance of lobster as prey for critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals, as well as tiger sharks and other top predators, management options should be explored and implemented, as appropriate, before long-term trend information is available.

References:

Pacific Fisheries Science Center/National Marine Fisheries Service. n.d. Lobster fishery. http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/hi/dar/Pages/hi_fish_5.php

Schultz JK, O’Malley JM, Kehn EE, Polovina JJ, Parrish FA, and Kosaki RK. 2011. Tempering expectations of recovery for previously exploited populations in a fully protected marine reserve. Journal of Marine Biology, Article 749131.

91 MASKED BOOBY

Species Name: Masked Booby, ʻā makaʻele, Sula dactylatra

Population est. worldwide: Pantropical. Population is estimated at several hundred-thousand birds (USFWS 2005). S. dactylatra breeds throughout the world’s tropical oceans and is locally abundant near hundreds of oceanic islands (Grace and Anderson 2009).

U.S. population: Breeding populations are found in the Hawaiian Islands and the Dry Tortugas, Florida. The Hawai’i population is estimated at 7000+ birds. The population in Florida has not been quantified (Grace and Anderson 2009).

Cited Conservation Needs: S. dactylatra currently has an IUCN Red List Category status of Species of Least Concern (LC), indicating that there are no known urgent conservation needs (IUCN online 2010). Primary threats to S. dacylatra populations include introduced predators, invasive plants and resultant loss of nesting habitat, human disturbance to nesting areas, and overfishing of food sources (USFWS 2005).

Cited Biological Research Needs: Continue long-term banding and demographic studies to determine dispersal patterns and demographics (USFWS 2005). Model the effects of overfishing on predatory fish, prey fish and seabirds including S. dacylatra (USFWS 2005). Understand the effects of ENSO events on food availability for S. dactylatra (Schreiber and Schreiber 1984). Research survival and dispersal of S. dactylatra following fledging, including species-wide trends and sources of variation in survivorship (Grace and Anderson 2009). Establish baseline levels of PCBs and heavy metals in S. dactylatra tissue to compare to future levels as ocean pollution increases (Schrieber et al. 1996).

FFS Population: The MABO population on Tern Island has increased steadily and dramatically since the late 1980’s; however, the overall atoll population has remained fairly stable over this same period of time. The increase in population at Tern Island occurred with the gradual decline and dissappearance of Whale and Skate Islands in the atoll. The overall FFS population has remained between 250 and 350 breeding pairs over the past 30 years. MABOs, along with BFAL and BRNO, make adaptive shifts between islands in the face of geomorphological and weather changes (e.g., loss of Whale and Skate Islands, and following storm events). These adaptive shifts may be an important factor in MABO population success in FFS and elsewhere.

FFS Target Population: Maintain current FFS population (5 year running average 300 minimum breeding pairs). FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Protect against predatory mammals. (2) Maintain open habitat for nesting. (3) Minimize disturbance, particularly of egg nests.

92

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Continued monitoring of population levels, reproductive effort, and reproductive success on Tern Island using MICs and reproductive plots, and implement on East Island. (2) Develop and implement time- of-day study to identify best time of day to observe maximum number of individuals, and implement through MIC protocol. (3) Establish regular quantitative monitor populations on outer islands in FFS. Investigate and report on the species inter- island movements, particularly with regard to adaptations which may provide insight into the species ability to adapt to changing sea level rise. (4) Monitor plastic loads in chicks and adults. (5) Reproductive plot data should be analyzed NLT Dec 2011, including but not limited to nest success, and level of MIC detectability. MIC, plot data, and basic biology analyses results should be published NLT Dec 2012. (6) Information from MICs, plot data, basic biology, and management should be published in a timely manner. (7) Track lineages, foraging areas, importance of plastic ingestion, chick growth and success in order to determine site fidelity and factors affecting nest success, e.g. impact of lineage, foraging area, nest site, etc. on this species success.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly). (2) Experiment with temporary markings and auxiliary tagging to determine least-disturbance, maximum-accuracy monitoring methods. (3) Investigate basic biology of masked boobies, as well as cited biological research needs and methods improvement, to the extent feasible. (4) Utilize masked booby as a model species in climate change adaptability investigations, as appliable and feasible.

References: Grace, J and DJ Anderson. 2009. Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/073)

Harrison, CS 1990. Seabirds of Hawaii: Natural History and Conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.

IUCN Red List of Threatened (online). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. (Accessed May 24, 2010).

Schreiber, RW and EA Schreiber. 1984. Central Pacific seabirds and El Niño Southern Oscillation: 1982 to 1983 perspectives. Science 225: 713-716.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Regional seabird conservation plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region. Portland, (OR): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

93 RED-FOOTED BOOBY

Species Name: Red-footed Booby, ʻā wāwae, Sula sula

Population est. worldwide: Pantropical: The worldwide population is estimated at less than 300,000 breeding pairs, with the majority residing in the eastern Pacific (USFWS 2005).

U.S. population: Breeding population only in Hawai‘i, estimated between 7,000 and 10,500 breeding pairs (USFWS 2005).

Cited Conservation Needs: Primary threats to S. sula populations include introduced predators, and invasive plants and resultant loss of nesting habitat and materials (USFWS 2005). Introduced big-headed ants (Pheidole megacephala) at Kure may threaten native vegetation and potentially reducing nesting habitat (USFWS 2005). There is concern that S. sula populations are declining in many parts of their range because of human interference and predation/poaching. Coastal development activities continue to destroy nesting areas. Nesting areas need protection from predation and development, although most S. sula nesting habitat is currently protected in Hawai’i (Schrieber et al. 1996).

Cited Biological Research Needs: Continue long-term banding and demographic studies to determine dispersal patterns and demographics (USFWS 2005). Continue population and distribution surveys (USFWS 2005). Model the effects of overfishing on predatory fish, prey fish and seabirds including S. sula. Understand the effects of ENSO events on food availability for S. sula (Schreiber and Schreiber 1984). Establish baseline levels of PCBs and heavy metals in S. sula tissue to compare to future levels as ocean pollution increases (Schrieber et al. 1996).

FFS Population: The RFBO population has been increasing dramatically over the past three decades on Tern Island, from a minimum 691 breeding pairs in 1986, to 2,457 in 2010. RFBOs nest more densely within their breeding habitats (shrubs) than any other seabird species in the atoll. Their reproductive success rate as remained fairly stable, fluctuating regularly between 35 and 50%.

FFS Target Population: An unlimited increase in the red-footed booby population is not desired both for RFBO health concerns, as well as their limiting or detrimental impact on shrub health and regeneration, and consequent negative impacts to higher priority species. The target population for FFS red-footed boobies is therefore temporarily set at 1,500 pairs, until which time as sufficient information on the impact of this species is better understood.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Protect against predatory mammals. (2) Maintain healthy shrub habitat for nesting. (3) Minimize disturbance, particularly of parents

94 on egg nests. (4) Minimizing RFBO population growth will be limited to passive means (not encouraging RFBO growth, e.g., designing artificial habitats for higher priority species that are disadvantageous to RFBO nesting), unless a means of restricting RFBO growth is found which is determined to have limited negative impact on other species.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Continued monitoring of population levels, reproductive effort, and reproductive success on Tern Island using MICs and reproductive plots. (2) Develop and implement time-of-day study to identify best time of day to observe maximum number of individuals, and implement through MIC protocol. (3) Establish regular quantitative monitor populations on East Island. (4) Monitor plastic loads in chicks and adults. (5) Reproductive plot data should be analyzed NLT Dec 2011, including but not limited to nest success, and level of MIC detectability. MIC, plot data, and basic biology analyses results should be published NLT Dec 2012. (6) Information from MICs, plot data, basic biology, and management should be published in a timely manner. (7) Monitor migration rates between East Island, Tern Island, and other areas.

FFS Special project needs: (1) Investigate the competitive dynamics of colonial bush habitats particularly with Great (Fregata minor), including theft of nesting materials/ entire nests and chick predation. (2) Include assessment of any significant increase in RFBO impacts with human disturbance. (3) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly). (4) Evaluate utility and effectiveness of reproductive plot methods and data, and adjust accordingly. (5) Quantify negative effects of RFBO on shrub habitat; use this information to adjust RFBO target populations in light of higher priority species needs. (6) Investigate methods to control RFBO populations for possible use to increase higher priority species, and predict quantitative and qualitative effects.

References:

Harrison, CS. 1990. Seabirds of Hawaii: Natural History and Conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.

Schreiber, RW and EA Schreiber. 1984. Central Pacific seabirds and El Niño Southern Oscillation: 1982 to 1983 perspectives. Science 225: 713-716.

Schreiber, EA, RW Schreiber and GA Schenk. 1996. Red-footed Booby (Sula sula), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/241

95 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Regional seabird conservation plan, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region. Portland, (OR): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

96 RED-TAILED TROPICBIRD

Species Name: Red-Tailed Tropicbird, koaʻe ʻula, Phaethon rubricauda

Population est. worldwide: The worldwide breeding population is estimated at 30-40,000 pairs, with about 12-14,000 pairs in the Pacific. Total Pacific population is estimated at 86,500 individuals. (Schreiber and Schreiber 2009)

US Population: The Hawaiian population assumed to be stable at between 9,000 and 12,000 breeding pairs, with the largest populations occurring on Midway Atoll and Laysan, although population estimates are dated (Schreiber and Schreiber 2009).

Cited Conservation needs: Protect from human disturbance at nest sites, habitat degradation, pesticides, pollution, and human predation. (Schreiber and Schreiber 2009).

Cited Biological Research needs: “Few data on the worldwide population size of the red-tailed tropicbird, making conservation and management difficult to address. Surveys of many of the Pacific islands where this species nests are badly needed.

“It remains to be shown that the slow growth of seabird young (including tropicbirds), and the related suite of life history characteristics, are driven (evolutionarily) by time or energy constraints -- as proposed by Ashmole (1963) and Lack (1968). Energetic studies would help elucidate this question.

“As overfishing and ocean pollution become more pressing problems, data are needed on where Red-tailed Tropicbirds feed at sea; areas of concentration, if such exist, should be protected. These data are also needed to understand the energy budgets of tropicbirds. Satellite transmitters would reveal much about such movements of this species -- an excellent candidate species for studies using satellite transmitters.” (Schreiber and Schreiber 2009).

FFS Population: The reproductive population on Tern increased from around 500 minimum breeding pairs in the late 1980’s, peaked at about 1,000 pairs in the 1990’s, and has been declined since that time to about 600 breeding pairs. This trend may be to a decline in reproductive success, from an average of 46% in the 1990’s, to 19% in the 2000’s.

FFS Target Population: 800-1,000 minimum breeding pairs.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Maintain shrub habitat for nesting. (3) Monitor population level, reproductive effort, and reproductive success through mean incubation counts and reproductive monitoring

97 plots. (4) Investigate the fluctuations in breeding population, and determine if declining numbers are due to a ‘natural’ pattern for RTTR, or due to decreased reproductive success at Tern Island. (5) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011. (6) Investigate reasons for decreased nesting success at Tern Island, and address through appropriate management actions. (7) Increase public awareness and support for this species. (8) Information from MICs, plot data, basic biology, and management should be published in a timely manner.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Continued monitoring of population levels, reproductive effort, and reproductive success on Tern Island using MICs and reproductive plots. (2) Develop and implement time-of-day study to identify best time of day to observe maximum number of individuals, and implement through MIC protocol. (3) Establish regular quantitative monitor populations on East Island. (4) Monitor plastic loads in chicks and adults. (5) Develop and implement method to assess and monitor breeding population on La Perouse Pinnacle, track changes, and assess importance to FFS population. (6) Reproductive plot data should be analyzed NLT Dec 2011, including but not limited to nest success, and level of MIC detectability. MIC, plot data, and basic biology analyses results should be published NLT Dec 2012. (7) Information from MICs, plot data, basic biology, and management should be published in a timely manner. (8) Monitor migration rates between Tern Island, East Island, La Perousse, and other locations. FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate any significant change in population level, reproductive effort or success. (2) Investigate adult foraging habitats and chick growth, and how these may be affected by climate change; determine if changes in adult foraging is affecting reduced reproductive success. (4) Establish lineage study to determine differences in reproductive success over multiple generations. (5) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly). (6) Investigate use of temporary markers to improve monitoring effectiveness while reducing disturbance. (7) lineages, foraging areas, importance of plastic ingestion, chick growth and success in order to determine site fidelity and factors affecting nest success, e.g. impact of lineage, foraging area, nest site, etc. on this species success.

References:

Schreiber, B. A. and R. W. Schreiber. 2009. Red-tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon rubricauda), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/043

98 SHARKS (SPECIES GROUP)

Species Name: numerous (species group). Important members include Galapagos (Carcharhinus galapagensis), white-tipped reef (Triaenodon obesus), gray reef (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos), and tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) at FFS. Sandbar, black-tip and scalloped hammerhead form a minor component.

Population Est Worldwide: Abundant, wide distribution, except for tiger sharks, which are considered low risk/near-threatened.

U.S. Population: Abundant, wide distribution.

Cited Conservation Needs: Apex predators, including sharks, have been greatly reduced in the Main Hawaiian Islands; sharks are considered a highly valued, apex predator, focal and keystone species in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands ecosystem.

Cited Biological Research Needs: na

FFS Population: 300-1100 individuals Galapagos sharks; other shark species populations unknown. Galapagos, white-tipped reef sharks, and tiger sharks are found throughout the atoll, although most Galapagos remain outside the atoll, and tiger sharks are more often found in deeper waters. Grey sharks are also found at FFS, although in smaller numbers. Great white sharks occasionally visit FFS, but are not resident there.

FFS Target Populations: Target populations need to be set for FFS, based on current and past densities.

FFS Conservation Needs: It is very possible that the shallow water use of Galapagos and tiger sharks – and the increase in shark predation on Hawaiian monk seals by sharks – may be due to reduction in prey items in the deeper water areas surrounding FFS. Status, trends, and distribution of shark prey items, particularly for Galapagos and tiger sharks, should be investigated and restored to pre-1980 levels or an assessed appropriate level. For example, a 1978 study found that lobsters appeared to be a major component of tiger shark diet at FFS, a unique situation in the atoll; reduction of lobsters in the 1980’s and 1990s at FFS may have forced this species into less desirable forage in marginal habitat. Additional conservation measures may be needed, but depend on a better understanding of FFS populations.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Regular baseline population health, densities, and trends monitoring of sharks, particularly Galapagos and tiger sharks, is needed at

99 FFS. Because sharks are potentially a critical competitor with Hawaiian monk seals, particularly juveniles, they should be monitored throughout the FFS foraging range (from Gardner Pinnacles to Mokumanamana), and not just in FFS. (2) Regularly monitor shark foraging areas, in order to track changes over time. (3) Quantify shark predation attempts and successes on Hawaiian monk seals, albatross chicks, and Hawaiian green sea turtles. Determine the importance of these components, and changes over time.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Monitor shark trends in conjunction with enhancement of bottomfish and reef communities, particularly their prey components. (2) Determine changes in shark diet at FFS from the 1970’s to present; utilize this information to refine conservation and research needs and actions.

References:

Dale JJ, Stankus AM, Burns MS, and Meyer CG. 2011. The shark assemblage at French Frigate Shoals Atoll, Hawai’i: Species composition, abundance and habitat use. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16962.

Jorgenson SJ, Reeb CA, Chapple TK, Anderson S, Perle C, Sommeran SRV, Fritz-Cope C, Brown AC, Klimley AP, Block BA. 2009. Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

100 SHOREBIRDS (SPECIES GROUP)

Species Name: Bristle-thighed curlew (kioea, Numenius tahitiensis), Pacific golden plover (kolea, Pluvialis fulva), ruddy turnstone (ʻakekeke, Arenaria interpres), sanderling (hunakai, Calidris alba), and wandering tattler (ʻūlili, Heteroscelus incanus)

Population Est Worldwide: na

U.S. Population: na

Cited Conservation Needs: protected under the MBTA

Cited Biological Research Needs: na

FFS Population: 30 to 600 shorebirds are present in the atoll at any one time; all FFS shorebirds are migratory.

FFS Target Populations: Because all shorebird species are migratory at FFS, and present for only a relative short period of time (per individual), target populations are not currently appropriate.

FFS Conservation Needs: Protect migrants from disturbance; fresh water should be available on Tern Island for migrants. Report any die-offs or unusual occurrences to USGS personnel (Thierry Werk).

FFS Baseline Monitoring: Monitor migrants on a monthly basis to identify any substantial changes in migrant population.

FFS Special Project Needs: None at this time.

References:

101 TRISTRAM’S STORM-PETREL

Species Name: Tristram’s Storm-petrel (formerly Sooty Storm-petrel), Oceanodroma tristrami.

Population est. worldwide: “Difficult to survey; on the order of 50,000+ breeding individuals (Slotterback 2002, in NatureServe 2010)”. Slotterback reports that ‘current data scant, but population seems to be larger in than Hawaiian Islands;” however, this information is based on surveys from the mid-1980’s, and many of the Japanese populations have been decimated by rats, with subsequent efforts at re-introduction. In addition, information on high level of chick mortality due to plastic ingestion suggests global populations have probably declined substantially since surveys in the 1980s. NatureServe (2010) ranks this species as globally vulnerable because “although relatively abundant breeds at relatively few sites in the Hawaiian and Japanese archipelagos; declining at some sites, vulnerable to introduced mammalian predators”.

U.S Population: Hawaiian Archipelago breeding colonies on Laysan Island in the id- 1990s was 700 breeding pairs (McClelland et al. 2008); however, the 2011 tsunami decimated this population. The extent of this damage is unknown, since the population has not been monitored in about a decade. The Nihoa population was estimate at 2000-3000 breeding pairs (Harrison et al. 1984), French Frigate Shoals, 150-300 breeding pairs (McClelland et al. 2008), and Pearl and Hermes Reef, 1,343(Wegmann and Kropidlowski 2002, in Slotterback 2002), with possible recolonization on Midway Atoll following extirpation by rats (Baker et al. 1997, in Slotterback 2002). TRSP populations have probably declined substantially since the time of these surveys, due to high chick mortality from plastic ingestion (Rapp et al., i.p.).

Cited Conservation Needs: Determine population size, status, and trends in Hawaiʻi; continue protection and management of existing wildlife sanctuaries and refuges (Mitchell et al. 2005). This species is “likely susceptible to marine pollution, especially ingestion of plastics” (NatureServe 2010). Decrease reproductive attempt failure due to burrow collapse (McClelland, personal communication).

Cited Biological Research Needs: (1) Design a reliable monitoring program (Citta et al. 2006); (2) Research basic life history traits, demography and factors limiting populations (Mitchell et al. 2005); (3) Develop a more reliable population census method as “it is possible that the population of breeding age birds at colonies is larger than burrow surveys alone would indicate” (McClelland et al. 2008); (4) Taxonomic work to aid in the understanding of subspecies limits; (5) Diet studies, particularly over a wide geographic area and throughout the year. (6) Biology at sea has been little studied for this species. (Slotterback 2002)

102 FFS Population: McClelland et al. (2008) reported that TRSP were extirpated from several island in French Frigate Shoals due to human activity. Recolonization of Tern Island began in 1993 and East Island no later than 1985. High rates of burrow collapse or exposure from the increasing number of Hawaiian green sea turtles may make East Island a population sink, however. Recent monitoring has been limited to Tern Island, although this species is still known to nest on East Island, and is suspected to nest of La Perouse Pinnacle. Tern Island data suggests a positive trend in number of nesting attempts (from 16 in 1998 to 93 attempts in 2010), as well as a slight increase reproductive success (from 34.6% in 2006 to 49.8% in 2011. The TRSP population on Tern Island appears to be limited by quality nesting habitat and chick survival. Quantitative trends are difficult to assess due to variability in monitoring methods and level of effort. In addition, due to the cryptic nature of burrows, and nocturnal nest attendance estimates of adult population attending the colony have not been obtained at this location. Minimum breeding pairs on Tern was 103 pairs in 2010.

FFS Target Population: 240 min breeding pairs by 2017. Given trends between 1998 and 2010, the TRSP population on Tern should increase to between 300 and 800 min breeding pairs by 2017; however, the availability of nesting habitat and chick survival are limiting factors. The FFS target population is based on proposed increase in artificial nesting habitat and protection of existing burrow habitat to include 200 artificial nests and an estimated 100 total potential TRSP burrows (subtracting those used by WTSH), for a total target population of 240 minimum breeding pairs (based on a 80% occupancy rate). Target population values should be re-evaluated annually, as appropriate, as greater information and understanding of TRSP is gained. Further nesting on East Island is not encouraged until we can determine if this area is acting as a population sink.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Decrease human disturbance, particularly by burrow collapse. Maintain ʻno entryʻ zone in high burrow density areas (No Zone and TRSP areas on Tern Island, and non-beach portions of Sectors 8 and 9 on East Island), except for essential monitoring. (3) Increase available nesting habitat, and increase artificial nesting habitat. Target values are 200 artificial nests available by 2013. (4) Investigate and implement better artificial nesting habitat. Develop artificial nesting habitat that mimics temperature, humidity, and invertebrate infestation levels of natural burrows, to increase breeding habitat and increase reproductive success. (5) Quantitatively assess the effects of temperature, vegetation, disturbance and other factors on reproductive success, as well as identifying limiting factors on reproductive efforts on Tern and East Islands. Implement appropriate management actions to maximize TRSP reproduction. (6) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011. (7) Construct a boardwalk or similar structure to decrease foot traffic in colony but still allow for monitoring. (8) Increase public awareness and support for this species. (9) Determine if East Island is acting as a population sink for TRSP, and implement appropriate management measures accordingly.

103

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Monitor reproductive effort, and reproductive success through reproductive monitoring plots. (2) Explore, develop and implement adult monitoring on Tern and East Islands. Investigate accurate and less invasive methods, such as acoustics monitoring, for monitoring breeding populations on Tern and East Islands. (3) Develop and implement method to assess and monitor breeding population on La Perouse Pinnacle, track changes, and assess importance to FFS population. (4) Information from MICs, plot data, basic biology, and management should be published in a timely manner.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate habitat needs of species and explore creation of artificial habitat as a means of increasing reproductive success. Monitor differences in reproductive success with temperature, vegetation, box versus burrow, and other critical factors. Explore ways to address these needs and limitations. Use results to make conservation actions more effective. (2) Investigate forage and foraging area of breeding and non-breeding birds. (3) Investigate life history and basic biology as needed to identify limiting factors to population. (4) Investigate plastic load impacts to this species. (5) Information on this species’ basic biology, management alternatives, and other pertinent information should be published in a timely manner. (6) To the extent resources allow, investigate cited biological research needs. (7) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly).

References:

Mitchell, C, C Ogura, DW Meadows, A Kane, L Strommer, S Fretz, D Leonard, and A McClung. (2005). Species of Greatest Conservation Need: Tristram’s Storm-petrel in Hawaii’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Department of Land and Natural Resources. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 722 pp.

McClelland G.T.W. Jones, I.L., Lavers, J.L, and Sato, F. (2008). Breeding Biology of Tristram’s Storm-petrel Oceanodroma tristrami at French Frigate Shoals and Laysan Island, Northwest Hawaiian Islands. Marine Ornithology 36: 175–181

NatureServe. (2010). Comprehensive Report Oceanodroma Tristrami on NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: May 24, 2011 ).

Rapp D, Youngren S, and Hartzell P. Work in progress. Plastic loads across seabird species at Tern Island, French Frigate Shoals, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu.

104 Slotterback, John W. (2002). Tristram's Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma tristrami), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/673b

105 WEDGE TAILED SHEARWATER

Species Name: Wedge Tailed Shearwater, uaʻu kani, Puffinus pacificus.

Population est worldwide: Worldwide population estimated at over one million pairs. This species nests in the Hawaiian Islands, off the west coast of , on Johnston Atoll and Christmas Island, on islands in the west and south Pacific, off the eastern and western coasts of Australia, and in the . (Hawaii Conservation Plan)

U.S. Population: There is an estimated 270,000 pairs in the Hawaiian Islands, with most found in the NWHI, specifically on Laysan (125,000 –175,000 pairs), Nihoa (30,000 – 40,000 pairs), and Lisianski (10,000 – 30,000 pairs), Midway, and FFS. Cited Conservation Needs: Predator-free areas for nesting.

Cited Biological Research Needs: “There is a great need for satellite tracking of the migratory movements of individual birds and insight into the control and physiology of migration in this species; There is a dearth of information on the immature stage; Many details of breeding need to be filled in—for example, sex ratios and hatchling dimensions; The diameter of the olfactory bulb of the brain is 30% that of the cerebral hemisphere—high compared with most species of birds, but about average for (Bang and Cobb 1968). The role of olfaction in the biology of this species remains to be elucidated; (6) There is a paucity of information on the Indian Ocean population.” (Whittow 1997)

FFS Population: Although extensive chick banding has taken place on Tern Island, very little information has been gathered on adult population, reproductive effort or reproductive success of this species. The number of chicks banded each year has remained fairly stable since the 1990ʻs, between 300-500 chicks per year; if methods have remained the same, this may represent annual fledging population of very roughly 2,000 birds per year. Estimates of minimum breeding pairs has fluctuated between 500 and 1,000; however, both consistency of method and accuracy are questionable. Minimum breeding pairs has only been estimated for six of the past 30 years.

FFS Target Population: Because of the stability and reproductive success of WTSH in other locations, as well as WTSH negative impact on higher priority species at FFS, maintenance of high numbers of WTSH is not desired. In addition, the WTSH community on Tern and East Islands has not been quantified accurately. The target population at FFS is therefore temporarily set at 500 minimum breeding pairs, not to exceed 1,000 breeding pairs.

106 FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Minimize disturbance, particularly through burrow collapse. (3) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011.

FFS Baseline Monitoring: (1) Quantitatively assess the population at FFS. Establish regular reproductive monitoring plots which can be used to estimate reproductive effort and success, and to identify any significant changes in population or reproduction. (2) Explore, develop and implement adult monitoring on Tern and East Islands. Investigate accurate and less invasive methods, such as acoustics monitoring, for monitoring breeding populations on Tern and East Islands. (3) Determine the magnitude and importance of the FFS population to this species, and assign conservation measures and target population accordingly. (4) Determine the magnitude and importance of WTSH migration between Tern, East, other islands in the Monument, and the MHI.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate any significant change in population level, reproductive effort or success. (2) To the extent resources allow, investigate cited biological resource needs. (3) Assess the extent to which FFS WTSH are separate from the MHI WTSH; Amerson 1971’s band numbers between islands suggests there is some, but little, mixing of the two groups. Study may require molecular work. (4) Quantify the impact of WTSH on other burrowing species. (5) Utilize WTSH as an example of native but ‘destructive’ species on higher priority species in investigations of biodiversity, management methods and effects.

References:

NatureServe. (2010). Comprehensive Report Puffinus pacificus on NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: May 24, 2011).

Whittow, G. Causey. 1997. Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/305

107 WHITE TERN

Species Name: White Tern, manu o Kū, Gygis alba.

Population Est Worldwide: Worldwide population unknown.

U.S. Population: The entire U.S. population resides within Hawaii. The White Tern population in Northwestern Hawaiian Islands was estimated at 80,700 individuals in 1984: 50,840 (63%) nonbreeders and 29,860 (37%) breeders (Fefer et al., cited in Niethammer and Patrick 1998). Species presents a degree of difficulty to census accurately due their extended breeding season (year round), cryptic coloration of eggs and chicks, and inaccessibility of some nesting sites (Harrison et al. 1984).

Cited Conservation Needs: Species needs continued protection from human poaching; protection from human disturbance; protection from predatory mammals; protection from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), oil spills, and marine debris (Marks and Hendricks 1989, Johnston 1973, Wong et al. 1974). Degraded habitat is an important limiting factor, including degradation of foraging habitat. Species will utilize nesting habitat created by humans (e.g. buildings) and will habituate to human activity (Niethammer and Patrick 1998).

Cited Biological Research Needs: (1) Survey known or suspected nesting islands, survey the populations, and identify threats. (2) Research species relationship between breeding and the marine environment. (3) Research species biology when at sea. (4) Genetic studies need to be conducted for species to clarify systematics and investigate gene flow between breeding colonies. (5) Research reproductive biology of species. (6) Investigate and establish baseline data for contaminant loads (Niethammer and Patrick 1998).

FFS Population: The minimum number of breeding WHTE on Tern Island appears to be fairly stable, at least until 2006, with about 40-70 breeding pairs utilizing the island at any one time. Unfortunately, there was a break in monitoring of WHTE between 2006 and 2011, when monitoring was resumed. Reproductive effort has inclined steeply over the last three decades (from under 100 attempts per year in the late 1980ʻs to over 200 attempts per year in the 2000’s), concurrent with a steep decline in reproductive success (from an average of about 36% in the late 1980ʻs, to about 10% in the 2000’s).

FFS Target Populations: The WHTE population at Tern Island should be sufficient to allow statistically significant monitoring, as well as providing a refuge population for this species. In 1990-1994, the WHTE population averaged about 900 min breeding pairs; the target population is therefore set at 900 breeding pairs.

108 FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Quarantine against predatory mammals. (2) Maintain and improve shrub habitat for nesting. (3) Investigate reasons for increased reproductive effort and decreased reproductive success, as well as means for successfully ameliorating this decline. Implement appropriate management actions. (4) Assess and improve both natural shrub and artificial nesting habitat for this species. (5) Assess and address human disturbance to reproductive success. (6) Establish target population goals for FFS no later than December 2011.

FFS Baseline Monitoring Needs: (1) Monitor population level, reproductive effort, and reproductive success through mean incubation counts and reproductive monitoring plots, including assessment of differences between artificial and natural habitats, on Tern and East Islands. (2) Develop and implement method to assess and monitor breeding population on La Perouse Pinnacle, track changes, and assess importance to FFS population. (3) Monitor and assess the magnitude and importance of inter-island migration for WHTE as a species.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) Investigate habitat needs and explore creation of artificial habitat as a means of increasing reproductive success. (2) Investigate differences in parental investment, chick behavior, and lineage differences in nest success. (3) Investigate contaminate loads in species. (4) To the extent resources allow, investigate cited biological resource needs. (5) Establish most effective reproductive plot monitoring frequency (e.g., biweekly, weekly). (6) Monitor and assess the importance of FFS population to the species as a whole.

References:

Fefer, S. I., C. S. Harrison, M. B. Naughton, and R. J. Shallenberger. 1984. Synopsis of results of recent seabird research conducted in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Pages 9-76 in Resource investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Proc. Res. Inv. NWHI. UNIHI-SEAGRANT-MR-84-01.

Harrison, C. S., M. B. Naughton, and S. I. Fefer. 1984. The status and conservation of seabirds in the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. Pages 513-526 in Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. (Croxall, J. P., P. G. H. Evans, and R. W. Schreiber, Eds.) ICBP Tech. Publ. no. 2, Cambridge, UK.

Johnston, D. W. 1973. Polychlorinated biphenyls in sea birds from , South Atlantic Ocean. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10:368-371.

Niethammer, Kenneth R. and Laura B. Patrick. 1998. White Tern (Gygis alba), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;

109 Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/371

Marks, J. S. and P. Hendricks. 1989. On the flushing behavior of incubating White Terns. Condor 91:997-998.

Wong, C. S., D. R. Green, and W. J. Cretney. 1974. Quantitative tar and plastic waste distributions in the Pacific Ocean. Nature 247:30-32.

110 APPENDIX C: HABITAT ACTION PLANS

SAND ISLANDS

Worldwide Distribution: Small tropical vegetated islands occur throughout the tropical Pacific; however, there are very few rodent-free small tropical vegetated islands.

Worldwide Conservation Status:

U.S. Distribution:

Cited Conservation Needs:

Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Distribution:

FFS Conservation Needs:

FFS Baseline Monitoring Needs:

Biodiversity: Baseline data for terrestrial species diversity on sand islands can be accomplished with and regular seabird, shorebird, seal and turtle counts, at least monthly and preferably at least bi-weekly. (Frequent counts allow for identifying egg failure, for example.) Trends in terrestrial diversity for sand islands should be evaluated at least every two years. Trend analyses should include both seasonal and interannual changes. Negative trends in diversity should be addressed through appropriate management action in a timely manner.

FFS Special Project Needs:

References:

111 VEGETATED ISLANDS

Vegetated island habitats include:

 shoreline/beach habitat (including berm)  shrub habitat  under shrub/shade habitat  open ground surface habitat  burrowing habitat  artificial/structural habitat

Worldwide Distribution: Small tropical vegetated islands occur throughout the tropical Pacific; however, there are very few rodent-free small tropical vegetated islands

Worldwide Conservation Status: The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands represent the only geographic area with numerous rodent-free tropical vegetated islands with seabird, seal and turtle habitat protected for wildlife use.

U.S. Distribution: Tern represents about 98% of the vegetated habitat between Laysan Island and Nihoa Island, a distance of over 800 miles. Tern Island provides the most significant seabird nesting and seal pupping habitat in this area; it provides refuge in the event of sea level rise (e.g. Krause et al. 2011), thus serving as a critical and unique buffer for 18 seabird species and Hawaiian monk seals in the central Hawaiian Island chain in the face of climate change. Tern Island, currently about 13.4 hectares in area, currently less than 25% in shrubs (the limiting habitat for many seabird species), but has the potential to provide three times that amount.

East Island includes about 50% of the global Hawaiian green sea turtle nesting, and must be preserved as the primary sea turtle nesting area. While East Island also provides some vegetation, shrub habitat is limited to less than 200 m2. Open vegetation is largely disturbed during the sea turtle nesting season. As such, East Island may serve as a sink for burrowing species whose reproductive period overlaps with that of the Hawaiian green sea turtle (WTSH, TRSP, and BUPE).

Cited Conservation Needs:

HMC-3: Protect and restore beach strand and crest habitats over the life of the plan.

HMC-4: Within 10 years, restore and maintain coastal mixed grasses and shrubs on all the coralline islands and atolls of the Monument using best available historical information about the original indigenous ecosystem.

112 Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Distribution: Vegetated islands in FFS currently include Tern and East Islands. Vegetated islands pre-European contact included Whale, Skate, and East Islands.

FFS Conservation Needs: (1) Protect and enhance Tern Island habitat to provide a refugia for other island’s birds, particularly during storm events effecting other islands (e.g. Kure, Midway, and Laysan), and as a relatively protected environment in the event of sea level rise.

(2) Shrub and Shade Habitat: Shrubs provide nesting habitat for shrub-nesting and shade-nesting species, as well as increasing nest survival of burrowing species, through increased structural integrity and protection from crushing. A drastic reduction in shrub habitat on Tern has already been identified (Hartzell, personal communication), from approximately 88% vegetative cover in shrubs in 1986 and 1997, to about 25% in 2010. Native plant propagation and outplantings should be used to re-establish shrub habitat to 1980s-19980’s levels, with a target of >87% shrub habitat (62% total island) available on Tern Island within 10 years (by 2021). Native shrubs are preferred; however, habitat function is more important than sole use of natives, so if nonnatives are needed to meet habitat goals, they should be used, with the potential for long-term replacement by native species, if feasible. (Because vegetated habitat is extremely limited, and in light of current climate change, use of non-natives may be expedient until sufficient methods research has been conducted to sufficiently replace shrub habitat with natives.) Decommissioning and replanting of the Tern Island runway would greatly facilitate meeting this goal, and would significantly contribute to providing a buffer in light of climate change for shrub-dependent species. In the interim, artificial habitats should be used to provide interim functional support for species benefitting from shrub habitat (e.g., shrub, ground, and burrowing birds); see details in Special Project Needs (above) and Species Action Plans.

(3) Protect Tern and East Island beaches from disturbance in order to increase these areas as seal pupping ground.

(4) Protect high burrow density areas on Tern and East Islands through minimized use (e.g., No Zone and TRSP Zone).

(5) Develop human traffic patterns to minimize disturbance to colony (e.g., marked trails, minimize traffic through colony, use of protected pathways for monitoring activities.

113 (6) Utilize Tern Island as a experimental and methods development center (as a non-wilderness area), with seabird and seal monitoring and protection as the highest priorities.

(7) Reduce the number of invasives, percent invasive cover, and increase native diversity and cover on East Island, to the extent appropriate.

(8) Protect all islands for seabird, seal and turtle use, minimizing human disturbance in all areas, particularly those used for seal pupping.

(9) Manage East Island with Hawaiian green sea turtle nesting and seal pupping as its highest priorities.

(10) Actively increase the quality and quantity of nesting habitat for priority seabird species and seals on Tern Island (additionally benefitting non-nesting seabird species and native plants). Minimize destruction of seabird and/or seal habitat by nesting turtles and human activities on Tern Island.

(11) Actively research terrestrial factors which significantly affect seabird and seal reproductive success (e.g., effect of disturbance level and type, vegetation type and quantity, inter- and intra-species competition, predation).

Note: Trig Island was reported as having vegetation in the 1920ʻs, as well as the 1960ʻs (Amerson 1971:5, 21-22). Amerson reports Trig had 6.5 acres of vegetation, including a healthy stand of Tournefortia shrubs. It is likely that shrubs have appeared and disappeared on Trig through natural processes. Although artificial reintroduction of shrubs on Tern is tempting in light of the low number of shrubs on Tern, we will allow the unaltered processes to continue as part of our Wilderness management strategy.

FFS Baseline Monitoring Needs: In addition to seal, turtle and seabird monitoring, vegetated island monitoring should include vegetation/habitat monitoring per the Vegetation Monitoring SOP. For 2009-2012, this will include quarterly monitoring, in order to quantitatively assess seasonal changes. After 2012, vegetation monitoring may be resumed on an annual basis (in January), unless additional information is needed to assess seasonal changes, or is otherwise needed. The current status of vegetation and habitat on the island, and a description of vegetation and habitat trends through time, will be included in the annual report.

Monitor status and trends in distribution, native versus nonnative species interaction, health, species composition and diversity, physical properties and modifiers (niches), as well as characterization and trends in intra- and inter-habitat functions.

114 Monitoring terrestrial species diversity on vegetated islands can be accomplished by no less than monthly counts by species on each outer island, and regular seabird, shorebird, and plant monitoring on East and Tern Islands. Trends in terrestrial species diversity, seabird diversity, and plant diversity for the atoll as a whole should be evaluated at least every two years. Trend analyses should include both seasonal and interannual changes. Negative trends in diversity should be addressed through appropriate management action in a timely manner.

A visual record of vegetation will also be created by quarterly photographs taken from each 100 meter marker: (1) facing the from north meter marker, (2) facing north (across the runway) from the south meter marker, and (3) facing the south shore from the south meter marker.

Erosional monitoring will be conducted by photographic record on a monthly basis (from each corner of the island) for at least 5 years (2010-2015), in order to assess intra-annual variation, and on an annual basis thereafter. Erosion will be assessed from both vegetation transect data, as well as qualitative trends from photographic records. Annual erosion (in meters and percent of island) will be reported each year, along with a summary of erosional trends. The annual report will also include a summary of any actions taken to mitigate erosion on Tern.

FFS Special Project Needs: (1) A qualified shoreline geomorphologist and/or engineer with experience in oceanic shoreline modifications, should assess the morphological trends at Tern Island, both before and after modification into a rectangular man-made island. Using this information, we should develop a plan to construct and/or modify artificial reef or other sustainable means which utilizes the natural processes and dynamics in the atoll to create a more stable and/or self- enlarging island at Tern. For example, creation of artificial reef in semi-circles off of the northeast and southeast corners of the island to increase deposition on the south, east and north sides of the island. (2) Special studies to determine best planting methods and species for creation and maintenance of shrub habitat on Tern. (3) Assessment of feasible native vegetation management on East, with respect for priority of turtle nesting on that island. (4) Assessment of burrowing colony on East, to determine best management action or mitigation on that island. (5) Development of more effective artificial nest materials for all priority species where an increase in nesting habitat is desired, and/or where use of artificial nests would decrease the disturbance level for required monitoring. Artificial nesting should address multiple species and/or habitats (e.g., creation of shrub, shade, and burrow habitat) whenever feasible and effective. (6) Develop and deploy temporary habitat materials (e.g., shade shelters) for interim use until vegetation can be grown to create effective habitat. (7) Develop better monitoring and analytic tools for

115 assessing the utility of natural and artificial habitats for seabirds and seals. (8) Explore, and if appropriate, deploy artificial materials to decrease seal pup mortality. (9) Monitor and assess the relationships between terrestrial and marine habitat, both quantitatively and qualitatively, on vegetated islands.

(10) Quantifying the importance of shrub and shade habitat on seabird species: Species effected by the quality and quantity of shrub habitat include shrub-nesting species (RFBO, GRFR, BLNO, WHTE), shade-nesting species (BRNO, CHSH, LAAL, RTTR, and SOTE), and burrowing species (BOPE, TRSP, WTSH). The level of effect of increased or decreased shrub habitat on these species should be quantified. We need also determine whether shrub habitat limitations have been a limiting factor for each of these species, and if so, monitor whether an increase in shrub habitat has an actual positive effect. Overall changes in productivity and species diversity should also be monitored.

(12) Artificial shrub, shade and burrowing habitats: We need to develop, implement, and monitor the success of various types and modifications of shrub, shade and burrowing habitats. Different models should be developed and tested for known critical factors (maximum temperature, fluctuations in temperature, ant/insect infestations, use by non-target species, minimizing disturbance, cost of materials, and ease of monitoring). Two or more best scoring models for each type (shrub, shade, and burrowing) should be implemented and tracked to determine whether one or more models serve better than the others. These should then be used to increase available habitat to an appropriate level until native shrub habitat is available at target values.

(13) Investigate the effect of increased RFBO populations on shrubs. Schreiber and Schrieber (2009) report “Intraspecific competition is becoming more important on Johnston as the population is increasing and fights ensue over sites; lack of suitable nest sites (shade under bushes or trees) may soon halt the annual rise in number of nests — 1984: 600 nests, 2003: 3,900 nests (Schreiber 1992, 2003). Additionally, the tree-nesting red-footed booby population is increasing on the Atoll and their density of nesting, use of tree branches for nest material, and deposition kill the trees and bushes that tropicbirds depend on for successful nesting. On Aldabra, possible competition for nest sites among red-tails and white-tails (Diamond 1975).” Schreiber, B. A. and R. W. Schreiber. 2009. Red-tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon rubricauda), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/043

116 (14) Quantify the effect of more or less shrub habitat on species diversity and overall productivity.

References: Vegetation Monitoring SOP; Photo Points SOP.

Krause CM, Reynolds MH, Courtot KN, and Hartzell P. 2011. Habitat change analysis and sea level rise assessment for nesting seabirds at French Frigate Shoals. Presented at the 2011 Hawaiian Conservation Conference, Honolulu.

Protection Needs: Protection of shrub and burrowing habitat is critical for burrowing species, who are perhaps the most severely disrupted by human monitoring activities, and most limited in terms of habitat in FFS. Burrowing habitat is limited to vegetated islands, and to some extent, the basaltic La Perouse. Burrows are crushed by humans when monitoring burrowing species, as well as when humans are monitoring other species, performing maintenance or other activities. Crushed burrows may cost a breeding pair a full season’s reproductive efforts, so serious effort must be made to protect areas with high burrow density. (1) Protect high burrow density areas (e.g., No Zone and TRSP Zone) from all traffic, except as required for monitoring and protection of burrowing seabirds, to assess effectiveness of protection, safety, or other essential needs. These areas should not be entered for ‘regular’ duties except essential duties, and should be exempted from island-wide monitoring (e.g., shorebird surveys, MICs, etc.) (2) Protect all nesting habitats from unnecessary visitation; limit human access to required monitoring, protection and management duties. (3) Retain and enhance existing shrub and native habitat, particularly high quality habitat. (4) Plan short and long-term erosion mitigation actions which will be effective given natural processes: (a) native shoreline outplantings (e.g., beach naupaka, hala, coconut trees, native morning glory); (b) limiting turtle nesting in mauka portions of tern; (c) consider and if appropriate employ use of artificial reef or other structures to increase sand deposition on Tern; (d) experiment with the use of sandbags and reused materials (e.g, old equipment free of affluents) to minimize erosion and/or increase deposition at target areas on Tern Island (e.g., northeast seawall, southeast corner, south shoreline particularly between 450 and 700 meter markers).

Note: Although visible anthropogenic material remains on East Island are unsightly, they do not appear to have any negative effect on seabird, turtle, seal or plant use or reproduction on the island. Costly removal is therefore not warranted, in light of other, more pressing management needs. Visible anthropogenic material remains on East should be removed as is practically feasible when attending to other duties, or when they pose an entrapment or other hazard. A full-scale removal of these remains is not otherwise warranted, given other priorities.

117 BASALTIC ISLANDS

Baseline data for species diversity at La Perouse is currently lacking. Steep sides on this pinnacle do not allow easy access, and the height of La Perouse does not allow for visual surveys on the ledges where birds nest. By December 2011, we need to have a plan on how to monitor species diversity on La Perouse, and implement this plan in 2012.

TO BE COMPLETED IN 2012.

Worldwide Distribution:

Worldwide Conservation Status:

U.S. Distribution:

Cited Conservation Needs:

HMC-5: Within 10 years, restore and maintain coastal mixed grasses and shrublands on basalt islands in the Monument.

Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Distribution:

FFS Conservation Needs:

FFS Baseline Monitoring Needs:

FFS Special Project Needs:

References:

118 SHALLOW CORAL REEF AND SAND-BOTTOM (<5 FATHOMS)

TO BE COMPLETED IN 2012.

Worldwide Distribution:

Worldwide Conservation Status:

U.S. Distribution:

Cited Conservation Needs:

Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Distribution:

FFS Conservation Needs:

HMC-1: Within 15 years, develop and implement a strategy for restoring the health and biological diversity of the shallow reefs and shoals where anthropogenic disturbances are known to have changed the ecosystem, using best available information about predisturbance conditions.

FFS Baseline Monitoring Needs:

FFS Special Project Needs:

References:

Conservation Goals (from Schultz et al. 2011):

1. maintenance of food-web dynamics and intricacies, 2. investigation of ecosystem function and energy flow, including research at and across all trophic levels to quantify productivity and address redundancy, 3. assessment of capacity for resilience against potential anthropogenic disturbances, such as climate change, pollution, or .

4. Conservation measures must also the protected, non-anthropogenically disturbed status of the marine environments of the FFS and the PMNM, 2) monitoring of key coral reef functional groups (stony corals, invertebrate and vertebrate grazers, corallivores and fish predators) and mitigating abnormalities, 3) monitoring for and removing marine invasive species, and 4) monitoring and mitigating coral and other invertebrate diseases and bleaching.

119

Monitoring Goals(from Schultz et al. 2011):

1. long-term monitoring of multiple species to detect shifting population trends, 2. research on inter-specific interactions to determine how systems shift over time after a perturbation, 3. research on metapopulation dynamics to establish baseline levels of recruitment, connectivity and spatial/temporal shifts in abundance.

SCUBA operations required! Need a FFS Dive Safety Officer (DSO) also trained in chamber operation, a two-man recompression chamber, an air compressor, and 20 tanks! Deep water reef priorities will be similar to shallow reefs, with somewhat increased priority on describing rare and/or undescribed marine species.

120 DEEP WATER CORAL REEF AND SAND BOTTOM (>5 FATHOMS)

TO BE COMPLETED IN 2012.

Worldwide Distribution:

Worldwide Conservation Status:

U.S. Distribution:

Cited Conservation Needs:

Cited Biological Research Needs:

FFS Distribution:

FFS Conservation Needs:

FFS Baseline Monitoring Needs:

FFS Special Project Needs:

References:

Conservation and monitoring goals are the same for deep water coral reef and sand bottoms as for shallow water, but the means by which those efforts are carried out in deeper water requires such different logistic needs as to warrant separate consideration for Action Plan level specifics.

SCUBA operations required! Need a FFS Dive Safety Officer (DSO) also trained in chamber operation, a two-man recompression chamber, an air compressor, and 20 tanks! Deep water reef priorities will be similar to shallow reefs, with somewhat increased priority on describing rare and/or undescribed marine species.

121 DRAFT INTERAGENCY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

DRAFT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between NOAA and FWS Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

Purpose of this Cooperative Agreement:  Reduce unnecessary paperwork, redundancy, and bureaucracy, and costs associated with these to both agencies;  Make most efficient use of resources and specialization among agencies and staff;  Maximize safety by ensuring trained personnel and working equipment available;  Maximize scientific excellence by ensuring staff are trained in appropriate areas and using staff/agency specialization and knowledge year-round;  Maximize partnership effectiveness, and streamline inter-partner cost-sharing, staffing, transportation, safety, housing, food and other field-work associated costs and actions;  To provide the best research, monitoring, conservation, protection and management of resources at FFS to the best abilities available, regardless of agency affiliation, including year-round trained safety, monitoring and response staff;  To provide seasonal maintenance staff; and  To facilitate deployment, management and logistics of personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, and other details related to the operations at French Frigate Shoals, for the purposes stated here.

Terms of the Cooperative Agreement:  NMFS provides 3 boats on-island year-round, switching boats for service at least 1/year. Boats 15-20’ long with 2x30-50 hp or 1x90 hp outboards  NMFS provides transportation on NOAA ships, as otherwise scheduled, usu April and august, for supply transport to and from Tern in April and august; and personnel transport from Tern in April, and to Tern in august (opposite of seal crew).  FWS provides food, lodging, and maintenance support at Tern island field station  NMFS and FWS provide their respective crews with necessary field equipment and supplies, as well support for these  NMFS and FWS each provide half the annual salary, benefits, training and related costs for a full-time manager (GS9-11) and asst manager (GS9-7), each to remain on Tern for 6-9 months of the year.  FWS provide a seasonal (6 month) maintenance staff position in the summer.  NMFS provides all gasoline for island; FWS provides all diesel and propane.

122  NOAA provides all costs associated with transport on NOAA ships (est one trip in ~ April, one trip in ~August).  FWS provides all costs associated with transport on Kahana (est one stop in ~March, one trip in ~ September).  FWS provides all ordinary costs associated with infrastructure on Tern, exclusive of boats and NMFS-field activity costs.  This agreement may be modified at any time by written consent of both parties.  The original agreement will be for 18 months, and may be extended for up to five years at any time by written consent of both parties.

General Schedule

March: Major supply delivery on Kahana; Arrive some or all of summer FWS crew; Depart some or all winter FWS crew

~April: supply delivery on NOAA vessel; arrive summer NMFS crew; depart rest of winter FWS crew

August: supply delivery on NOAA vessel; depart some or all of NMFS and/or FWS crew; arrive some or all of winter crew

September: major supply delivery on Kahana; arrive remaining Winter crew; depart remainder of summer NMFS and/or FWS crew

123