U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceField Supervisor, FFWFO (07CAAN00-2016-F-0114) 4 from May 22- June 17, with mean of June 1 (Gabrielson and Spragens 2013)), field personnel will not be

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service INTRA-SERVICE BIOLOGICAL OPINION

For

2016 Surrogate Hen Pilot Study: Potential Reintroduction of

Steller’s Eiders to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta

To the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office

Prepared by: Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office

Anchorage, Alaska

May 11, 2016

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 2. Description of the Proposed Action .......................................................................................1

Project Overview ...........................................................................................................1 Minimization Measures .................................................................................................3 Action Area ....................................................................................................................5

3. Effect Determination for Polar Bears ...................................................................................5 4. Effect Determination for Spectacled Eiders .........................................................................6 5. Status of the Species .............................................................................................................7 6. Environmental Baseline .......................................................................................................13 7. Effects of the Action on Listed Species ...............................................................................18 8. Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................................21 9. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................21 10. Incidental Take Statement..................................................................................................22 11. Reasonable and Prudent Measures .....................................................................................23 12. Terms and Conditions ........................................................................................................23 13. Conservation Recommendations .......................................................................................24 14. Reinitiation Notice .............................................................................................................25 15. Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................26

List of Figures Figure 5.1 Male and female Steller’s eiders in breeding plumage. ........................................8

Figure 5.2 Steller’s eider distribution in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. ..............10

1. INTRODUCTION This document is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) final Biological Opinion (BO) on the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office’s (FFWFO) 2016 field research designed to develop methods for the potential reintroduction of Steller’s eiders to part of their former breeding range along the coastal fringe of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. This BO describes effects of the proposed research on spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri), Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders (Polysticta stelleri), polar bears (Ursus maritimus), and designated critical habitat pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Fieldwork associated with the proposed project is planned for the summer of 2016. We used information provided in FFWFO’s Field Plan and Operating Procedures (USFWS 2016), project-specific communications with Service personnel, other Service documents, and published and unpublished literature to develop this BO. A complete administrative record for this consultation can be made available at the Service’s Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states that Federal agencies must ensure that their activities are not likely to:

• Jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or • Result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

The Service has determined the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect threatened polar bears and spectacled eiders, or designated critical habitat for these species. The Service has also determined the proposed action may adversely affect threatened Steller’s eiders. Following review of the status and environmental baseline of listed Steller’s eiders, and analysis of potential effects of the proposed action to this species, the Service has concluded the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Steller’s eider designated critical habitat. If you have comments or concerns regarding this BO, please contact Douglass Cooper, Ecological Services Branch Chief, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office at (907) 271-1467.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Project Overview The primary objective of the proposed action is to develop methods for reintroduction of Steller’s eiders to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta), a former part of the species’ breeding range. Using the captive breeding population of Steller’s eiders at the Alaska Sea Life Center (ASLC), researchers will introduce captive-reared eggs to nests of surrogate duck species on the Y-K Delta. Proposed 2016 activities include:

Field Supervisor, FFWFO (07CAAN00-2016-F-0114) 2

1) In mid- to late May, a field crew would establish a field camp including two weatherports, a personal tent for each of the six crew members, a toilet tent, and a shower tent at the camp site on Kigigak Island. Additionally, the crew will erect solar panels near the ground and a small wind turbine elevated on a 30’ metal pole for power generation at the camp. Guy lines and the pole will be marked with high visibility flagging tape to minimize the chance of bird strikes. The camp site location has been used in previous years for spectacled eider studies on Kigigak Island (Gabrielson and Spragens 2013). Crew members will arrive by float plane to the Ninglick River, and transport gear via small boat and on foot to the campsite.

2) Researchers would locate common eider, northern pintail, and greater scaup nests, which

would be used as surrogate nests/hens for incubating captive-laid Steller’s eider eggs and rearing any resulting broods. Nest searches would be conducted by targeting appropriate habitat types and focusing on areas of highest nesting density for each surrogate species. Two to six individuals would walk abreast approximately 5 meters apart in appropriate habitat to flush laying and incubating female ducks. Tracks and waypoints will be downloaded into GIS at the end of the day and mapped in an effort to reduce disturbance to nesting birds by limiting the amount of overlap in habitat searched in sequential days.

3) Up to 275 Steller’s eider eggs laid by captive hens at the ASLC would be transported by road

to Anchorage, airplane to Bethel, and a second plane from Bethel to Kigigak Island. 4) Researchers would artificially incubate these eggs upon arrival at Kigigak Island for 8-14

days, and then place them in nests of surrogate species at appropriate egg development to maximize hatching rate.

5) Nests of surrogate hens incubating Steller’s eider eggs would be monitored for hatching and

survival. Half would be monitored via digital cameras placed 10-20 m from the nest and visited weekly to exchange data cards and batteries. Nests not monitored by cameras would also be visited weekly, with measures taken not to flush hens. If hens flush, eggs would be counted, aged, and covered before leaving the area.

6) Surrogate hens would be captured using a mist net or bow net 2 to 3 days prior to egg

hatching to attach VHF radio transmitters using the prong and glue attachment method. 7) After hatch, researchers would monitor surviving Steller’s eider ducklings (up to 275) using

radio telemetry at 3 days of age, and then every 7 days until the brood fledges or cannot be located. Two telemetry receiver antennas on 25-foot poles would be set up in different locations on the island to aid in detection. Guy wires will be marked with high visibility flagging to minimize the chance of bird strikes, and the crew will develop a system to raise and lower the antenna poles as needed rather than keep them up when not in use.

8) Researchers would attempt to capture all surviving Steller’s eider ducklings (up to 275) at

age 30-35 days to weigh, measure, band, collect biological samples (cloacal swabs and up to 2 mL blood), and implant subcutaneous radio transmitters in up to 45 ducklings. After capture, the brood will be relocated 1 to 3 kilometers away to separate them from the surrogate hen to discourage migration to inappropriate staging and wintering grounds.


9) Up to 45 fledglings would be monitored using weekly aerial telemetry flights from early or mid-July to late September, then monthly telemetry flights through March (when the eiders disperse from the area).

10) Researchers would collect data on wetland physical characteristics, water quality, and

invertebrate communities of up to 35 ponds on Kigigak Island 3 times during the field season: the first week of June, last of June or first of July, and mid-July. Habitat data from ponds on which broods are caught may also be collected.

Minimization Measures Disturbance We anticipate that researchers will occasionally encounter wild threatened eiders during proposed field activities at Kigigak Island. To minimize disturbance to wild birds as well as surrogate nests, the researchers will include several mitigation protocols. Similar protocols were developed for other ongoing research within spectacled and Steller’s eider critical habitat on the Y-K Delta and were based on Terms and Conditions required of researchers on the North Slope. They include: 1) Whenever an incubating hen is flushed, the researcher will cover the nest with down

(assuming the hen is that far along in nest preparation; see Bowman and Stehn 2003), log the GPS location of the nest, and then quickly depart the area. At the end of each field day, researchers will compile the locations of new eider nests, and share those data with all of the other personnel at the site (e.g., among the three different research crews) so that those nests can be avoided subsequently (see species-specific buffer stipulations, below).

2) During nest searching or monitoring, researchers will observe whether any avian predators (e.g., gulls or jaegers) seem to be following the researcher. To reduce the likelihood that the avian predator will find and depredate nests that are found by the crew, the researchers will pause for a reasonable amount of time (10-15 minutes) to allow the avian predator to move on, then resume nest searching and monitoring activities.

3) When possible, ponds with broods of spectacled eiders will be avoided. If a spectacled eider brood is in the same pond as a Steller’s eider brood targeted for capture, the Steller’s eider brood will be driven in the opposite direction of the spectacled eider brood to avoid capturing non-target species.

For spectacled eiders: 4) In most cases, field crew members will not approach within 20 meters of a previously-

discovered spectacled eider nest to reduce the probability of flushing the hen and thereby potentially rendering the nest more vulnerable to predation. Exceptions to this guideline include:

a) Around the immediate vicinity of camp—Given that the camp will be established early in

the spectacled eider nest initiation period (2013 initiation dates on Kigigak Island ranged


from May 22- June 17, with mean of June 1 (Gabrielson and Spragens 2013)), field personnel will not be required to maintain the 20-m buffer if a female eider chooses to nest in extremely close proximity to the camp. Despite the relaxation of the 20-meter buffer, however, i) camp tents, weatherports, outbuildings, and storage areas should be spatially consolidated to reduce the human footprint in potential eider nesting habitat, and ii) eiders nesting very close to camp (i.e., within the camp footprint) should be avoided as much as possible and not intentionally approached or flushed.

b) In the vicinity of the nests of potential surrogate hens—It may be possible that researchers find enough common eider nests so that those close to spectacled eider nests can be avoided without compromising sample size. However, fewer pintail and scaup nests may be available on Kigigak Island, and thus they may need to use all pintail and scaup nests found. The ability to periodically visit these nests is essential to the success of this project, and therefore they may, by necessity, have to approach within 20 m of a known spectacled eider nest. Efforts to reduce impacts to nesting eiders near such nests will include the following: 1) approaching the surrogate nest for mist net trapping from the side away from the nearby eider nest, 2) running the bow-trap net trigger line along the same general axis as the approach vector (i.e., away from the eider nest), 3) ensuring that the post-trigger sprint to the surrogate nest does not inadvertently flush the female eider (and if so, covering it immediately), 4) processing the captured hen at least 50 m from the eider nest (i.e., limit post-capture time at the surrogate nest to the minimum required for transferring the captured bird from the net to a bird bag, and floating and measuring the eggs).

For Steller’s eiders: For most field activities, we propose the same distance guidelines used for researchers working in Steller’s eider nesting habitat on the North Slope, specifically that:

5) In most cases, field crew members will not approach within 200 m of a known Steller’s eider

nest, and not within 100 m of such a nest when necessitated to gather data from a surrogate nest or brood. We note, however, that restrictions on the North Slope were put in place to protect Steller’s eiders in areas where researchers were often a) visiting the same plots on a daily basis, b) thoroughly searching at least half of each plot each day for all bird nests, and c) rope-dragging to find additional nests. Thus, the very restrictive protocols on the North Slope were designed to minimize or eliminate the cumulative impacts resulting from such intensive and long-term site-specific researcher presence.

At Kigigak Island, the frequency of researcher visitation to any particular site is lower; visits will not exceed five visits total per nest. Therefore, limited exceptions to the restrictions described in the previous paragraph will be allowed. Once egg-laying has been completed, researchers may visit up to two surrogate species nests located within a 100-m radius of a Steller’s eider nest. For most such nests, this will include up to five visits: three visits to check incubation status and replace eggs, one visit to capture and mark the surrogate hen, and one visit after hatch to collect any inviable eggs. With the exception of these specific provisions, all previously described protocols and precautions apply.


In addition: 6) Supervisors at FFWFO will be notified within 24 hours if a Steller’s eider nest is discovered

during the course of field work. Once advised as to the presence of a Steller’s nest, FFWFO staff will consult with the eider team leader, eider coordinator, and/or members of the recovery team to determine if the nest should be re-visited; if so, on what schedule; and if any biological materials (e.g., eggs, egg membranes, down, etc.) should be collected from the nest and, if so, when. The nest will not be visited by field crews again (e.g., for photographs, success monitoring, etc.) until FFWFO staff has gotten back in touch with the field crew.

7) If a Steller’s eider pair is observed, particularly if they are observed over multiple days in the

same vicinity, researchers will take efforts to avoid them. Eiders occasionally (but not invariably) nest near the areas where the pair loafs, preens, and bathes. Because disturbance during the pre- and early laying interval may disrupt the breeding effort, field crew members will not be permitted to intentionally approach such pairs (e.g., for photography) within 100 m. If the pair occurs en route to specific plots, nests, or blocks, researchers will also stay at least 100 m away from the pair as they pass through the area. If specific sites must be visited (e.g., for site-specific data collection) within 100 m of a pair, researchers will strive to prudently minimize the duration and magnitude of their work within that radius.

Action Area The action area includes all sampling locations associated with the proposed research on Kigigak Island (60°51’ N, 164°58’ W), roughly 177 kilometers (km) west of Bethel. The island (32.5 km2) is bounded by the Bering Sea and Ninglick River (Appendix 4 of Field Plan, Service 2016) and is part of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. If the activities at Kigigak Island are successful, aerial surveys will be conducted in the near-shore coastal zone of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Bristol Bay, and the north side of the Alaska Peninsula.

3. EFFECT DETERMINATION FOR POLAR BEAR

The Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28212). While it is possible that transient polar bears may occasionally occur on the Y-K Delta, their density is very low and encounters are expected to be infrequent. Furthermore, no sightings have been recorded on Kigigak Island in recent decades (Brian McCaffery, pers. comm.). Transient (non-denning) bears that enter the action area could be disturbed by the presence of humans. However, we expect disturbances would be minor and temporary because transient bears would be able to respond to human presence by departing the area. Due to a lack of preferred denning habitat, we would expect polar bears denning in or near the action area to be extremely unlikely. Because (1) the density of polar bears in the action area is very low, (2) encounters with polar bears are expected to be unlikely, (3) behavioral effects to transient bears would be minor and temporary, and (4) the very low probability of polar bears denning in the action area, we expect effects of the proposed action on polar bears would be insignificant. Therefore, we concur with


the FFWFO’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the polar bear. Although polar bear critical habitat was recently reinstated by the 9th Circuit Court, decisions regarding the Circuit Court’s order are currently pending, and the scope and description of a final critical habitat designation for polar bears are unresolved. Therefore, the Service has withheld an effects analysis for polar bear critical habitat at this time.

4. EFFECT DETERMINATION FOR SPECTACLED EIDERS

The Service listed spectacled eiders as threatened throughout their range on May 10, 1993. Spectacled eiders nest annually at Kigigak Island in relatively high numbers. A four to six person crew focused exclusively on finding spectacled eider nests found between 107 (2013) and 183 (2007) spectacled eider nests at Kigigak (Lake 2007, Gabrielson and Spragens 2013). For the currently proposed project, we expect fewer spectacled eiders nests to be encountered because less area will be searched and the species is not the focused target of nest searching; it is possible that tens of spectacled eider nests and broods will be encountered during this project. Spectacled eiders may be affected by human disturbance and may risk collisions with telemetry and power generation towers due to the proposed action; we examine these potential effects below. Disturbance.--- The action may result in disturbance of spectacled eiders through: 1) flushing a laying or incubating hen, possibly increasing the probability of nest abandonment or exposing eggs or young ducklings to inclement weather and predators; and, 2) displacing a hen during brood rearing, potentially exposing young to increased predation risk or reducing their foraging efficiency or feeding time. The results of published studies on the impacts of human disturbance to nesting waterfowl are variable on nest survival and rates of nest abandonment. Data from the Y-K Delta indicates that nest disturbance from human activity results in decreased spectacled eider nest survival rate (4percent reduction, Bowman and Stehn 2003; and 14 percent reduction, Grand and Flint 1997). Very low rates of desertion, 0.8 percent attributed to natural causes with an additional 0.7 percent as a result of human disturbance, were reported from studies of cackling geese and spectacled eiders on the Y-K Delta (Mickleson 1975). However, individual tolerance and behavioral response of spectacled eiders to disturbance likely varies and the effects of temporary and infrequent visits by researchers to field sites near listed eider nests are unknown. In addition to premature nest abandonment, predation is another mechanism through which human disturbance may affect nesting success or duckling survival. In a review of the effects of research on nest success of common eiders, Götmark (1992) found that 76 percent of studies that reported reduced nest success identified predation as the primary cause. While both avian and mammalian predators have been documented depredating nests after a hen has been flushed by humans, Götmark (1992) concluded that avian predators were most likely to depredate nests as a result of disturbance. Grand and Flint (1997) also suggested avian predators, particularly gulls, were more prevalent than mammalian predators on the Y-K Delta. Similar results were reported


from other studies in the same area where 85.9 percent and 78 percent of nest failures were attributed to avian predation (Mickelson 1975 and Vacca and Handel 1988, respectively). In addition to avian predators, arctic foxes occur on the Y-K Delta, and have been observed at the study area in some years (Gabrielson and Graff 2011). While studies suggest that human activity could reduce nest success due to increased nest abandonment and/or increase predation rates of eggs or ducklings, the proposed action includes measures that will minimize disturbance and the likelihood of adverse effects such that they are insignificant (Section 2 above). Given these measures, we expect that any disturbance to individual breeding spectacled eiders and their progeny by researchers is likely to be a temporary, one-time event, and we do not expect measurable loss of spectacled eider production or survival to result from the proposed action. Collision risk.—The researchers propose to erect a small 9.1-m tall wind turbine in camp for power generation. While this may pose a collision risk to spectacled eiders, the addition of high-visibility flagging to the pole and the guy wires will reduce that risk significantly. Additionally, the wind turbine will be located within the camp footprint, where there will be several tents, weatherports, and significant human activity that will deter eiders from approaching. Telemetry antennas will be erected at two different locations on the island after surrogate hens are marked with radio transmitters (about mid-way through the field season) and guy wires will be marked with high visibility flagging to minimize the chance of bird strikes. The crew will develop a system to raise and lower the antenna poles as needed rather than keep them up when not in use. Given these measures, we believe that the risk of a spectacled or Steller’s eider collision with these temporary structures is discountable. In summary, given the measures taken to minimize disturbance and collision risk to nesting and brood-rearing spectacled eiders, we believe that the effects of proposed action are likely to be minimal. Therefore, we concur with the FFWFO’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect spectacled eiders. Spectacled Eider Critical Habitat.—Critical habitat for spectacled eiders was designated in Norton Sound and Ledyard Bay molting areas, nesting areas on the Y-K Delta, and the wintering area southwest of St. Lawrence Island (66 CFR 9146 [February 6, 2001]); 38,991 square miles (100,987 sq km) were designated as critical habitat. The 12.5 square mile (32.5 sq km) action area is within designated critical habitat for nesting spectacled eiders. The field activities may result in trampling in vegetation in a limited area. However, given the size of the action area (12.5 square miles) in relation to designated critical habitat (38,991 square miles) for nesting spectacled eiders, and the temporary nature of the potential effects, we believe that effects are insignificant. Therefore, we concur with the FFWFO’s determination that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat.

5. STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

This section presents biological and ecological information relevant to the BO. Appropriate information on species’ life history, habitat and distribution, and other factors necessary for their survival is included as background for subsequent sections.


Steller’s Eider The Steller’s eider is a small sea duck with circumpolar distribution and the sole member of the genus Polysticta. Males are in breeding plumage (Figure 5.1) from early winter through mid-summer. Females are dark mottled brown with a white-bordered blue wing speculum (Figure 5.1). Juveniles are dark mottled brown until fall of their second year, when they acquire breeding plumage. Steller’s eiders are divided into Atlantic and Pacific populations; the Pacific population is further subdivided into the Russia-breeding and Alaska-breeding populations. The Alaska-breeding population of Steller’s eiders was listed as threatened on July 11, 1997 based on:

• Substantial contraction of the species’ breeding range on the Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP) and Y-K Delta;

o Steller’s eiders on the North Slope historically occurred east to the Canada border (Brooks 1915), but have not been observed on the eastern North Slope in recent decades (USFWS 2002).

• Reduced numbers breeding in Alaska; and • Resulting vulnerability of the remaining Alaska-breeding population to extirpation

(USFWS 1997).

Figure 5.1. Male and female Steller’s eiders in breeding plumage.

In Alaska, Steller’s eiders breed almost exclusively on the ACP and winter, along with the majority of the Russia-breeding population, in southwest Alaska (Figure 5.2). Periodic non-breeding of Steller’s eiders, coupled with low nesting and fledging success, has resulted in very low productivity on the ACP (Quakenbush et al. 2004).


The western Alaska subpopulation appears to have declined from historical records. Steller’s eiders were considered common by several observers in sites on the coastal fringe of the Y-K Delta in the 1920s (Murie 1924, Conover 1926, Brandt 1943) and the species was still present as a breeding bird in the 1950s and 1960s (Murie 1959; C. Dau, pers. comm.; J. King, pers. comm.). Limited observations hinder our ability to retrospectively estimate historical abundance (or distribution) of Steller’s eiders on the Y-K Delta. However, Kertell (1991) extrapolated abundance from extremely limited samples and estimated that up to 3,500 pairs may have occurred historically on the Y-K Delta, if densities in unsampled plots were comparable to those sampled. Since 1970 only 11 nests (Kertell 1991; Flint and Herzog 1999; B. Lake, pers. comm.) have been reported in a few locations, including the Kashunuk, Tutakoke, and Opaygarak rivers, and Kigigak Island (Quakenbush et al. 2002; B. Lake, pers. comm.). Despite considerable waterfowl survey and research effort, no nests were found from 1976-1994, and on average about one nest per year (but no more than two) was found from 1995 to 2005, with none found from 2006-2012, and one found in 2013 (Flint and Herzog 1999; Sowl, unpublished data). The current population size in western Alaska is likely at most a few tens of pairs. In 2001, the Service designated 2,830 square miles (7,330 square km) of critical habitat for the Alaska-breeding population of Steller’s eiders, including historical breeding areas on the Y-K Delta; molting and staging areas in the Kuskokwim Shoals and Seal Islands; molting wintering, and staging areas at Nelson Lagoon; and Izembek Lagoon (USFWS 2001). Life History Breeding – Steller’s eiders arrive in small flocks of breeding pairs on the ACP in early June. Nesting on the ACP is concentrated in tundra wetlands near Barrow, Alaska, and occurs at lower densities elsewhere on the ACP from Wainwright east to the Sagavanirktok River (Quakenbush et al. 2002). Long-term studies of Steller’s eider breeding ecology near Barrow indicate periodic non-breeding by the entire local population. From 1991-2010, Steller’s eiders nests were detected in 12 of 20 years (Safine 2011). Periodic non-breeding by Steller’s eiders near Barrow seems to correspond to fluctuations in lemming populations and risk of nest predation (Quakenbush et al. 2004). During years of peak abundance, lemmings are a primary food source for predators, including jaegers, owls, and foxes (Pitelka et al. 1955a, Pitelka et al. 1955b, MacLean et al. 1974, Larter 1998, Quakenbush et al. 2004). It is hypothesized that Steller’s eiders and other ground-nesting birds increase reproductive effort during lemming peaks because predators preferentially select (prey-switch) for hyper-abundant lemmings and nests are less likely to be depredated (Roselaar 1979, Summers 1986, Dhondt 1987, and Quakenbush et al. 2004). Furthermore, during high lemming abundance, Steller’s eider nest survival (the probability of at least one duckling hatching) has been reported as a function of distance from nests of jaegers and snowy owls (Quakenbush et al. 2004). These avian predators aggressively defend their nests against other predators and this defense likely indirectly imparts protection to Steller’s eiders nesting nearby. Steller’s eiders initiate nesting in the first half of June and nests are commonly located on the rims of polygons and troughs (Quakenbush et al. 2000, 2004). Mean clutch size at Barrow was


5.4 ± 1.6 SD (range = 1–8) over 5 nesting years between 1992 and 1999 (Quakenbush et al. 2004). Breeding males depart following onset of incubation by the female. Nest survival is affected by predation levels, and averaged 0.23 (±0.09, standard error [SE]) from 1991–2004 before fox control was implemented near Barrow and 0.47 (±0.08 SE) from 2005–2012 during years with fox control (USFWS, unpublished data). Steller’s eider nest failure has been attributed to depredation by jaegers (Stercorarius spp.), common ravens (Corvus corax), arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus), and in at least one instance, polar bears (Quakenbush et al. 1995, Rojek 2008, Safine 2011, Safine 2012). Hatching occurs from mid-July through early August, after which hens move their broods to adjacent ponds with emergent vegetation dominated by Carex spp. and Arctophila fulva (Quakenbush et al. 2000, Rojek 2006, 2007, and 2008). In these brood-rearing ponds, hens with ducklings feed on aquatic insect larvae and freshwater crustaceans. In general, broods remain within 0.7 km of their nests (Quakenbush et al. 2004); although, movements of up to 3.5 km from nests have been documented (Rojek 2006 and 2007). Large distance movements from hatch sites may be a response to drying of wetlands that would normally have been used for brood-rearing (Rojek 2006). Fledging occurs 32–37 days post hatch (Obritschkewitsch et al. 2001, Quakenbush et al. 2004, Rojek 2006 and 2007).

Figure 5.2. Steller’s eider distribution in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas.

Information on breeding site fidelity of Steller’s eiders is limited. However, ongoing research at Barrow has documented some cases of site fidelity in nesting Steller’s eiders. Since the mid-1990s, eight banded birds that nested near Barrow were recaptured in subsequent years again nesting near Barrow. Time between capture events ranged from 1 to 12 years and distance between nests ranged from 0.1 to 6.3 km (USFWS, unpublished data). Wing molt – Following departure from the breeding grounds, Steller’s eiders migrate to southwest Alaska where they undergo complete flightless molt for about 3 weeks. Preferred


molting areas are shallow with extensive eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds and intertidal mud and sand flats where Steller’s eiders forage on bivalve mollusks and amphipods (Petersen 1980, 1981; Metzner 1993). The Russia- and Alaska-breeding populations both molt in southwest Alaska, and banding studies found at least some individuals had a high degree of molting site fidelity in subsequent years (Flint et al. 2000). Primary molting areas include the north side of the Alaska Peninsula (Izembek Lagoon, Nelson Lagoon, Port Heiden, and Seal Islands; Gill et al. 1981, Petersen 1981, Metzner 1993) as well as the Kuskoskwim Shoals in northern Kuskokwim Bay (Martin et al. 2015). Larned (2005) also reported more than 2,000 eiders molting in lower Cook Inlet near the Douglas River Delta, and smaller numbers of molting Steller’s have been reported around islands in the Bering Sea, along the coast of Bristol Bay, and in smaller lagoons along the Alaska Peninsula (e.g., Dick and Dick 1971, Petersen and Sigman 1977, Wilk et al. 1986, Dau 1987, Petersen et al. 1991). Winter distribution – After molt, many Pacific-wintering Steller’s eiders disperse throughout the Aleutian Islands, Alaskan Peninsula, and western Gulf of Alaska including Kodiak Island and lower Cook Inlet (Figure 5.2; Larned 2000a, Martin et al. 2015), although thousands may remain in molting lagoons unless freezing conditions force departure (USFWS 2002). The Service estimates the Alaska-breeding population comprises only about 1 percent of the Pacific-wintering population of Steller’s eiders. Wintering Steller’s eiders usually occur in shallow waters (less than 10 m deep), within 400 m of shore or in shallow waters further offshore (USFWS 2002). However, Martin et al. (2015) reported substantial use of habitats greater than 10 m deep during mid-winter, although this use may reflect nocturnal rest periods or shifts in availability of food resources (Martin et al. 2015). Spring migration – During spring migration, thousands of Steller’s eiders stage in estuaries along the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula and, in particular, at Kuskokwim Shoals in late May (Figure 5.2, Larned 2007, Martin et al. 2015). Larned (1998) concluded that Steller’s eiders show strong site fidelity to specific areas1 during migration, where they congregate in large numbers to feed before continuing northward. Spring migration usually includes movements along the coast, although some Steller’s eiders may make straight line crossings of water bodies such as Bristol Bay (W. Larned, USFWS, pers. comm.). Despite numerous aerial surveys, Steller’s eiders have not been observed during migratory flights (W. Larned, pers. comm.). Steller’s eiders likely use spring leads for feeding and resting as they move northward, although there is little information on distribution or habitat use after departure from spring staging areas. Migration patterns relative to breeding origin – Information is limited on migratory movements of Steller’s eiders in relation to breeding origin, and it remains unclear where the Russia- and

1 Several areas receive consistent use by Steller’s eiders during spring migration, including Bechevin Bay, Morzhovoi Bay, Izembek Lagoon, Nelson Lagoon/Port Moller Complex, Cape Seniavin, Seal Islands, Port Heiden, Cinder River State Critical Habitat Area, Ugashik Bay, Egegik Bay, Kulukak Bay, Togiak Bay, Nanwak Bay, Kuskokwim Bay, Goodnews Bay, and the south side of Nunivak Island (Larned 1998, Larned 2000a, Larned 2000b, Larned et al. 1993).


Alaska-breeding populations converge and diverge during their molt and spring migrations. Martin et al. (2015) attached satellite transmitters to 14 Steller’s eiders near Barrow in 2000 and 2001. Despite the limited sample, there was disproportionately high use of Kuskokwim Shoals by Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders during wing molt compared to the Pacific population as a whole. However, Martin et al. (2015) did not find Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders to preferentially use specific wintering areas. A later study marked Steller’s eiders wintering near Kodiak Island, Alaska, and followed birds through the subsequent spring (n = 24) and fall molt (n = 16) migrations from 2004–2006 (Rosenberg et al. 2011). Most birds marked near Kodiak Island migrated to eastern arctic Russia prior to the nesting period and none were relocated on land or in nearshore waters north of the Yukon River Delta in Alaska (Rosenberg et al. 2011). Alaska-breeding population abundance and trends – Stehn and Platte (2009) evaluated Steller’s eider population and trends from three aerial surveys on the ACP:

• USFWS ACP survey o 1989–2006 (Mallek et al. 2007) o 2007–2008 (new ACP survey design; Larned et al. 2008, 2009)

• USFWS North Slope eider (NSE) survey o 1992–2006 (Larned et al. 2009) o 2007–2008 (NSE strata of new ACP survey; Larned et al. 2008, 2009) o Annual Barrow Triangle survey, 1999–2014 (ABR, Inc.; Obritschkewitsch and

Ritchie 2015) In 2007, the ACP and NSE surveys were combined under a single ACP survey design. Previously, surveys differed in spatial extent, timing, sampling intensity, and duration, and consequently, produced different estimates of population size and trend for Steller’s eiders. Most observations of Steller’s eider from both surveys occurred within the boundaries of the NSE survey. Following assessment of potential biases inherent in both surveys, Stehn and Platte (2009) identified a subset of the NSE survey data (1993–2008) that were determined to be “least confounded by changes in survey timing and observers.” Based on this subset, the average population index2 for Steller’s eiders on the ACP was 173 (90 percent CI 88–258) with an estimated growth rate of 1.011 (90 percent CI 0.857–1.193). Average population size of Steller’s eiders breeding on the ACP was estimated at 576 (292–859, 90 percent CI; Stehn and Platte 2009) assuming a detection probability of 30 percent3. Currently, this analysis provides the best available estimate of the Alaska-breeding Steller’s eider population size and growth rate for the ACP. Note that these estimates are based on relatively few actual observations of Steller’s eiders with none detected in some years. The annual Barrow Triangle survey provides more intensive coverage (50 percent, 1999–2004; 25–50 percent, 2005–2014) of the northern portion of the ACP. This survey has been conducted since 1999 over a 2,757 km2 area south of Barrow to compliment ground surveys closer to 2 Geographically extrapolated total Steller’s eiders derived from NSE survey counts. 3 Detection probability of 30 percent with a visibility correction factor of 3.33 was selected based on evaluation of estimates for similar species and habitats (Stehn and Platte 2009).


Barrow. Estimated Steller’s eider density for the annual Barrow Triangle survey area ranges from less than 0.01–0.03 birds/sq km in non-nesting years to 0.03–0.08 birds/sq km in nesting years. The estimated average population index for Steller’s eiders within the Barrow Triangle was 99.6 (90 percent CI 55.5–143.7; Stehn and Platte 2009) with an estimated growth rate of 0.934 (90 percent CI 0.686–1.272). If we assume the same 30 percent detection probability applied to NSE estimates, average population size of Steller’s eiders breeding in the Barrow Triangle area would be 332 (185–479, 90 percent CI). Steller’s Eider Recovery Criteria The Steller’s Eider Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) presents research and management priorities that are re-evaluated and adjusted periodically, with the objective of recovery so that protection under the ESA is no longer required. When the Alaska-breeding population was listed as threatened, factors causing the decline were unknown, although possible causes identified were increased predation, overhunting, ingestion of spent lead shot in wetlands, and habitat loss from development. Since listing, other potential threats have been identified, including exposure to other contaminants, disturbance caused during scientific research, and climate change, but causes of decline and obstacles to recovery remain poorly understood. To determine when a species is recovered, the Service uses criteria, such as historical abundance and distribution and future population modeling, to determine when the current population size is large and stable enough to not be at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. For Steller’s eiders, information on historical abundance is lacking, and demographic parameters needed for accurate population modeling are poorly understood. Therefore, the Recovery Plan for Steller’s Eiders (USFWS 2002) establishes interim recovery criteria based on extinction risk, with the assumption that numeric population goals will be developed as demographic parameters become better understood. Under the Recovery Plan, the Alaska-breeding population would be considered for delisting from threatened status if it has less than or equal to 1 percent probability of extinction in the next 100 years, and each of the northern and western subpopulations are stable or increasing and have less than or equal to 10 percent probability of extinction in 100 years. Furthermore, the Recovery Plan identified a primary consideration in listing the Alaska breeding population as threatened was the species’ near-extirpation as a breeding species from the Y-K Delta in western Alaska. The Recovery Plan specifies that the Y-K Delta subpopulation must survive or, if extirpated, must be re-established, for the Alaska-breeding population to be considered for delisting. The intent of this project is to address this recovery concern by evaluating methods for augmenting the Y-K Delta subpopulation through captive-rearing and release.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The environmental baseline provides an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species, their habitat, and ecosystem in the action area.


Status of listed eiders in the action area At present, breeding Steller’s eiders are considered very rare on the Y-K Delta. Historical data suggests that Steller’s eiders possibly nested on the Y-K Delta in significant numbers (Murie 1924; Conover 1926; Brandt 1943; Dufresne 1924; Murie 1959; USFWS 1997), and at least occasionally at other western Alaska sites (e.g., the Seward Peninsula, St. Lawrence Island, and possibly the eastern Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula; Murie 1959). However, only 11 nests have been found on the Y-K Delta since 1997 (Flint and Herzog 1999; Service, unpublished data; see section 4 above). The substantial contraction of the species’ breeding range on the Y-K Delta and on the ACP, and the increased risk of extirpation due to the reduced number of birds breeding in Alaska, led to the 1997 listing of the population as Threatened (Service 1997). Precise information about the historical distribution and abundance of Steller’s eiders on the Y-K Delta is unavailable, as no population surveys were conducted prior to the decline, and information is primarily limited to anecdotal observations and limited sampling efforts. Furthermore, the causes of the suspected decline are unknown. Several hypotheses regarding the causes of decline have been considered by the Steller’s Eider Recovery Team, and include: changes in community ecology, ingestion of spent lead shot, increased harvest, changes in the marine environment, and changes to breeding habitat. Most likely a combination of these factors influences population status and those factors that affect adult survival may be most influential on population growth rates. Below we describe each of the above potential factors in more detail, and we also consider resource development and scientific research activity in the action area. Community ecology In the 1970s and 1980s, when Steller’s eider observations on the Delta were infrequent, other waterfowl species nesting on the Y-K Delta’s central coast also experienced population declines, namely cackling Canada geese and spectacled eiders (Pacific Flyway Council 1999; Stehn et al. 1993). For example, peak counts of cackling Canada geese, which nest almost exclusively on the Y-K Delta, declined over 85 percent, from over 400,000 birds in the 1960s to less than 50,000 in the late 1970s (Pacific Flyway Council 1999). Spectacled eider numbers on the Y-K Delta declined by 96 percent from 1971 to 1992 (Stehn et al. 1993). These population changes may have affected eider nesting habitat and reproductive rates in a variety of ways, including: 1) decreasing the amount of alternate prey for nest predators, thus increasing predation on existing eider nests; 2) increasing harvest pressure on less desired waterfowl species, such as eiders; and/or 3) lowering pond productivity due to decreased input of nutrients (via goose feces) into wetlands, which could in turn affect invertebrate abundance and food availability for eider hens and ducklings. These hypotheses have not been tested. Predator abundance, whether related to waterfowl abundance or otherwise, may affect breeding success and adult survival of Steller’s eiders. Both avian and mammalian predators are known to have significant negative influence on the survival and productivity of ground nesting birds such as geese and eiders (Gotmark and Ahlund 1988; Anthony et al. 1991). The primary mammalian nest predator on the coastal zone of the Y-K Delta is arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), but red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and mink (Neovison vison) are present in some areas (B. McCaffery and J. Schmutz, pers. comm.). Arctic fox numbers fluctuate with varying microtine numbers (Krebs


1994, Angerbjorn et al. 1999), and can also be influenced by availability of marine mammal carcasses and food scavenged at villages (Anthony et al. 2000). Avian predators can cause partial to total nest failure. Taking of eggs by mew gulls (Larus canus), glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus), parasitic jaegers (Stercorarius parasiticus), and long-tailed jaegers (Stercorarius longicaudus) (Gabrielson 2012) may cause partial depredation of nests and result in fewer ducklings. Glaucous gull predation of juvenile (pre-fledging) waterfowl can be significant (Ahlund and Gotmark 1989, Bowman et al. 2004). When mew gulls were controlled at a site near the Kashunuk River, spectacled eider nest success increased sharply (Grand and Flint 1997). In addition, glaucous gull predation of juvenile (pre-fledging) waterfowl can be significant (Ahlund and Gotmark 1989, Bowman et al. 2004). Ingestion of spent lead shot and other contaminants For several decades, hunting of waterfowl and small game resulted in the deposition of lead shot into wetlands on the Y-K Delta, especially near villages. The use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl has been illegal since 1991 in Alaska, and the Service intensified efforts in 1998 to enforce prohibitions against the possession and use of lead shot for migratory bird hunting. Later, the Alaska Board of Game, at the request of regional advisory boards, passed more restrictive regulations that prohibit the use of lead shot for all bird and small game hunting on the Y-K Delta. There are indications that compliance with these regulations is improving as a result of outreach, education, and enforcement. In recent years, indices of lead shot use such as examination of spent shell casings, checking for illegal shot in stores, and checks of hunters have shown improvement (Service, unpublished data). However, permafrost under shallow water bodies on the Y-K Delta contributes to the persistence and availability of lead pellets for several years after their deposition (Flint and Schamber 2010). Ingestion of lead shot by Steller’s eiders could occur during the breeding season, particularly for breeding hens and young birds that forage in shallow tundra ponds (Flint et al. 1997). Steller’s eiders may continue to be vulnerable to lead poisoning during egg laying and incubation as they continue to forage throughout nesting. Ducklings could be exposed to lead pellets in ponds after they hatch and begin foraging in tundra ponds. The toxic effect of lead poisoning varies among individuals, but includes lethal and sublethal effects (Bellrose 1959, Eisler 1988). Observed geographic variation in spectacled eider survival on the Y-K Delta may be explained by variation in lead exposure (Grand et al. 1998, re-analysis by Anderson et al. 2000). Similar rates of exposure have been found in long-tailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis) on the Y-K Delta (Flint et al. 1997). The probability of lead exposure in spectacled eiders on the Y-K Delta is related to distance from villages and access routes to hunting areas, such as major rivers and sloughs (Petersen et al. 2012). Other contaminants, including petroleum hydrocarbons from local sources or globally distributed heavy metals, may also affect listed eiders. For example, spectacled eiders wintering near St. Lawrence Island exhibited high concentrations of metals as well as subtle biochemical changes (Trust et al. 2000). However, risk of contaminant exposure and potential affects to listed eiders in the action area are unknown.


Incidental harvest Waterfowl are an important subsistence resource to residents of the Y-K Delta. Hunting Steller’s eiders and gathering their eggs is closed throughout Alaska under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, although shooting and/or egg collecting may still occur in some areas of the state due to misidentification or lack of knowledge of the regulations. Vulnerability to shooting likely varies with proximity to village and navigable waterway, time of year, and species’ abundance. Currently some Steller’s eiders that breed in both Russia and Alaska migrate along the coast of the Y-K Delta and molt near the Kuskokwim Shoals in fall, and they also may use coastal areas of the Y-K Delta during spring migration. These molting and migrating birds may occasionally be shot incidentally during other subsistence activities. Changes in the marine environment Steller’s eiders spend the majority of their life cycle at sea and their populations and distribution may be strongly influenced by marine conditions (Lehikoinen et al. 2006, Descamps et al. 2010, Zipkin 2010). Marine conditions may be highly variable and fluctuate in cycles that vary in length, including broad-scale regime shifts and changes in ecosystem structure (Benson and Trites 2002). Through a retrospective analysis, Flint (2012) found correlations between sea duck population size and trends and the North Pacific Ocean regime shifts of 1977 and 1989. In this analysis, eiders were considered together as a group and showed evidence of population change related to marine regime shifts. Additionally, Frost et al. (2013) found evidence that survival rates of Pacific Steller’s eiders molting in southwest Alaska may be affected by marine conditions, specifically during a brief warming event in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation of 1997-1998 and a subsequent cooling trend. This climactic shift was less severe than regime shifts in 1977 and 1989, but is thought to have affected zooplankton bloom timing which in turn affected fish, seabird, and benthic communities (Napp and Hunt 2001, Benson and Trites 2002, Hamazaki et al. 2005, Grebmeier et al. 2006). Based on the correlative and retrospective nature of the above investigations, we cannot be certain that these marine changes are an important driver of Steller’s eider populations; however, they provide support for the importance of marine conditions on eider populations in general. Climate change and changes to breeding habitat The environmental baseline includes consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.


High latitude regions, such as Alaska’s North Slope and the Y-K Delta, are thought to be especially sensitive to effects of climate change (Quinlan et al. 2005, Schindler and Smol 2006, Smol et al. 2005). While climate change will likely affect individual organisms and communities, it is difficult to predict with certainty how these effects will manifest. Biological, climatological, and hydrologic components of the ecosystem are interlinked and operate on varied spatial, temporal, and organizational scales with feedback between components (Hinzman et al. 2005). There are a wide variety of changes occurring across the circumpolar Arctic. Arctic landscapes are dominated by freshwater wetlands (Quinlan et al. 2005), which listed eiders depend on for forage and brood rearing. As permafrost thaws, some water bodies are draining (Smith et al. 2005, Oechel et al. 1995), or drying due to increased evaporation and evapotranspiration during prolonged ice-free periods (Schindler and Smol 2006, and Smol and Douglas 2007). In addition, productivity of some lakes and ponds is increasing in correlation with elevated nutrient inputs from thawing soil (Quinlan et al. 2005, Smol et al. 2005, Hinzman et al. 2005, and Chapin et al. 1995) and other changes in water chemistry or temperature are altering algal and invertebrate communities, which form the basis of the Arctic food web (Smol et al. 2005, Quinlan et al. 2005). With reduced summer sea ice coverage, the frequency and magnitude of coastal storm surges has increased. During these events, coastal lakes and low lying wetlands are often breached, altering soil/water chemistry as well as floral and faunal communities (USGS 2006). When coupled with softer, semi-thawed permafrost, reductions in sea ice have significantly increased coastal erosion rates (USGS 2006), which may reduce available coastal tundra habitat over time. Changes in precipitation patterns, air and soil temperatures, and water chemistry are also affecting terrestrial communities (Hinzman et al. 2005, Prowse et al. 2006, Chapin et al. 1995), and the range of some boreal vegetation species is expanding northward (Callaghan et al. 2004). Climate-induced shifts in distributions of predators, parasites, and disease vectors may also have significant effects on listed and un-listed species. Climate change may also cause mismatched phenology among listed eider migration, development of tundra wetland invertebrate stocks, fluctuation of small mammal populations, and corresponding abundance of predators (Callaghan et al. 2004). More specifically, climate change is likely to impact, or may be currently affecting, waterfowl habitat on the Y-K Delta through increased storm surges, increased salinity in the intertidal zone, melting of permafrost, and vegetation change (Jorgensen and Ely 2001). General predicted responses of Y-K Delta habitats to climate change include minor shifts on the active tidal flats and major shifts on inactive tidal flats and abandoned flood plains. While the impacts of climate change are on-going and the ultimate effects on Steller’s eiders within the action area are unclear, species with small populations are more vulnerable to the impacts of environmental change (Crick 2004). Some species may adapt and thrive under changing environmental conditions, while others decline or suffer reduced biological fitness.


Resource development We are not aware of ongoing or pending resource development activities within the Y-K Delta’s central coast zone, with the exception of commercial fishing off the coast and in the larger rivers. Commercial shipping near Kuskokwim Shoals may increase if Donlin Mine (on the upper Kuskokwim River) is developed. The Kuskokwim River through Kuskokwim Bay and Dutch Harbor would be the sole transportation route for the mine. Expansions of the ports in Bethel and Dutch Harbor would be necessary as well as increased dredging at the port in Bethel. Mine related traffic would increase by 174 percent from baseline traffic on Kuskokwim and there would be increased risk of spills from ocean and river barges transporting sodium cyanide, mercury, and diesel fuel. Research Kigigak Island has been the site of a long-term monitoring study of spectacled eider breeding ecology for over two decades. Research has been conducted by the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in cooperation with other USFWS programs, other Federal agencies, and universities. The spectacled eider study will not continue in 2016; however, the refuge may return in future years to continue research on eiders or other waterfowl.

7. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT This section of the BO provides an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species and, where appropriate, critical habitat. Both direct effects (effects immediately attributable to the action) and indirect effects (effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur) are considered. Interrelated and interdependent effects of the action are also discussed. Beneficial Effects Beneficial effects are those effects of an action that are wholly positive, without any adverse effects, on a listed species or designated critical habitat. This project will benefit Steller’s eiders, in that it will provide FFWFO with information on effective methods for reintroduction of the species to parts of its former breeding range. The Recovery Plan for the Service (2002) includes Task H.4: Conduct experimental translocation of Steller’s eiders to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. A more comprehensive recovery task list based on the Recovery Plan is updated periodically by the Eider Recovery Team. It also includes a task related to this project: Task 1.6: Develop a plan for reintroduction, including establishing a known-geographic origin flock at the ASLC. In addition to providing information, beneficial effects would result if the field activities are successful and any of the 275 eggs survive to adulthood and eventually return to nest on the Y-K Delta, thereby increasing the number of Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders.


Direct effects Disturbance of naturally-occurring Steller’s eiders.— Only three confirmed Steller’s eider nests have been found on Kigigak Island in recent decades (in years 2002, 2004, and 2005); therefore, the probability of encountering breeding Steller’s eiders is low. Nonetheless, it is possible that one or more nests will be encountered, and the proposed action may result in disturbance in a similar way as described for spectacled eiders (see Section 4 above). Flushing of a nesting hen or displacement of a hen and young brood could increase the likelihood of nest abandonment or predation of eggs or ducklings. However, the researchers will follow stringent protocols that minimize disturbance to breeding Steller’s eiders, should they be encountered (see Section 2 above). Given these measures and the species’ rarity in the action area, we expect that any disturbance to individual Steller’s eiders by researchers is likely to be a temporary, one-time event, and we do not expect measurable loss of Steller’s eider production or survival to result from the proposed action. Harm.— Captive-origin eggs could be harmed through (1) accidental breakage during transport from ASLC to the field site, the artificial incubation process, transport to surrogate nests, or capture of surrogate hens for transmitter attachment; (2) reduced viability/hatching rates during the artificial incubation process from deficient incubator conditions; and/or (3) mortality due to nest abandonment or predation due to nest monitoring or hen capture. Steller’s eider ducklings may be harmed during capture, biological sampling, and transmitter implantation. We assume that any mortality of eggs or ducklings occurring after placing eggs in surrogate nests is natural mortality if it does not directly result from our actions (i.e., from additional monitoring, capture, or data collection). The intent of the proposed action is to test possible methods for reintroduction, and many of these methods have not been tried for threatened eiders, or even other bird species, in remote conditions similar to Kigigak Island. Protective measures will be taken to ensure the highest egg survival rate possible; for example, eggs will be packaged appropriately to minimize the chance of breakage and staff will accompany all eggs as they are transported to the field. Survival rate of eggs transported to the ASLC from nests at Barrow had an approximate survival rate of 90 to 100 percent (T. Hollmen, pers. comm.). Eggs that have been artificially incubated for 10 days in controlled conditions at the ASLC have approximate viability of 75 to 90 percent (T. Hollmen, pers. comm.). The expertise of the field crew and the stringent protocols outlined in the study plan will minimize egg mortality during nest monitoring and hen capture; however, based on estimates from eider studies in Barrow, we believe that up to two clutches (14 eggs) could be harmed from monitoring and capture activities. Assuming the lowest survival probabilities, we apply the above estimates to the 275 eggs used in the study: Breakage during transport from ASLC to field site 275*0.9 = 247 eggs Mortality during artificial incubation 247*0.75 = 185 eggs Breakage during transport from field site to the nest 185*0.9 = 166 eggs Effects of hen capture or monitoring 166 – 14 = 152 surviving eggs


Given the lack of field testing and quantitative data, as well as the unique challenges/variables due to the remote nature of the project, it is difficult to predict the loss of eggs; however, the available data suggests that we could expect no more than 123 Steller’s eider eggs to be harmed due to the proposed action (275 eggs at beginning of study – 152 surviving eggs = 123 eggs harmed). We can use 2016 results to more accurately estimate expected egg loss, should the project continue in future years. Examples of impacts that may occur to Steller’s eider ducklings due to capture, sampling, and marking include accidental breakage of toe nails, wings, and legs; mortality due to infection; or stress from transmitter implantation. Other studies capturing listed eider broods have resulted in a small number of mortalities; for example, 1 of 84 spectacled eider ducklings died as a result of capture at Kigigak in 2012 (Gabrielson 2012). Some small but unknown amount of mortality may occur during the transmitter attachment and sampling process. The experience of the crew, the precautions that they typically take during capture and marking, and the use of a veterinarian for transmitter attachment, should ensure that mortality due to these activities will be minimized to the extent possible. Likewise, the wide range of tolerances found in individual birds to this type of disturbance makes it difficult to predict whether adverse impacts would actually occur. Based on the above factors, and the fact that we do not have a reliable estimate of the number of introduced Steller’s eiders that will survive to 30 days after hatch (when they will be targeted for capture), injury or mortality of ducklings is difficult to estimate. However, based on expert opinion of the researchers, we expect mortality to not exceed 7 Steller’s eider ducklings. Additionally, we considered the potential impacts of this project to the captive population at the ASLC. The 275 eggs used for the proposed action are not necessary to maintain the health of the captive flock at the Center; any eggs required to maintain the flock will be kept and hatched there. Therefore, the proposed action will not affect continuing existence of the captive flock or its utility for implementing other recovery actions. Indirect Effects Disease and genetic risk to wild Steller’s eider population.— The Eider Recovery Team, the ASLC, and Service staff have considered the risk of introducing disease into the wild population from reintroduction activities. The ASLC has performed an extensive disease risk analysis that followed recommended guidelines for animal reintroduction provided by animal reintroduction and disease prevention experts. This analysis did not identify potential or significant disease transmission risk from the captive to wild population, thus the risk is considered low at this time. Additionally, ASLC staff follow a strict management plan to prevent, treat, and control disease in the captive population that includes biosecurity practices to minimize exposure to pathogens, health monitoring and disease screening, and treatment and response plans to address potential disease concerns (Service 2016). Similarly, the risk of loss of genetic diversity in the wild population from introduction of captive birds/eggs was considered. The current captive population originated from the ACP and contains comparable genetic diversity to the source population; therefore, we expect that releasing progeny from the captive population will not result in a decrease in genetic diversity of the natural population. Tools such as pedigree analyses and genetic and physiological fitness


monitoring are used at the ASLC to maintain genetic diversity of the captive flock (Service 2016). Interrelated and Interdependent Actions Interdependent actions are defined as “actions having no independent utility apart for the proposed action,” while interrelated actions are defined as “actions that are part of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their justification” (50 CFR §402.02). The Service has not identified any actions that are interrelated or interdependent to the proposed action. While the proposed action is part of the larger Steller’s eider recovery and reintroduction program (interrelated), any future actions conducted as part of the program will be consulted on separately. Critical Habitat The proposed action will occur within designated critical habitat for nesting Steller’s eiders. The field activities may result in trampling in vegetation in a limited area. However, given the size of the action area in relation to designated critical habitat for nesting Steller’s eiders, and the temporary nature of the potential effects, we believe that effects are insignificant.

8. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. When analyzing cumulative effects of a proposed action, it is important to define both the spatial (geographic), and temporal (time) boundaries. Within these boundaries, the types of actions that are reasonably foreseeable are considered. Additional scientific research is likely to occur in the action area. We anticipate that most research would involve a Federal action agency through funding or permitting of those activities. While there is the possibility future scientific research may occur in the action area that does not require consultation under the ESA, we have determined that such research is not reasonably certain to occur.

9. CONCLUSION Regulations (51 CFR 19958) that implement section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define “jeopardize the continued existence of” as “to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.”


In evaluating impacts of the proposed project to Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders, the Service identified direct adverse effects to captive-origin Steller’s eider eggs and ducklings. The proposed action is unlikely to adversely affect wild breeding Steller’s eiders through disturbance or through increased risk of disease or decreased genetic diversity. Using methods explained in the Effects of the Action section, the Service estimates incidental lethal take associated with harm of up to 123 captive-origin Steller’s eider eggs and 7 Steller’s eider ducklings due to the proposed action. After reviewing the current status of the Alaska-breeding Steller’s eider, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed Surrogate Hen Pilot Study and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders or adversely modify or destroy Steller’s eider designated critical habitat. We have reached this conclusion based on the following:

1) We do not anticipate much if any effect to wild Steller’s eiders because: breeding Steller’s eiders are rare in the action area and unlikely to be encountered, minimization measures will be implemented to minimize adverse effects due to disturbance, and any adverse effects should be offset by the net benefit of the research to recovery of the species;

2) The addition of captive-origin Steller’s eiders to the wild population is unlikely to increase wild individuals’ risk of disease or decrease the populations’ genetic diversity;

3) The progeny required to maintain the health of the captive flock at the ASLC will remain as a viable captive-breeding population; the 275 captive-origin eggs used for this study are in excess of those needed to maintain the captive flock. Therefore, the proposed action will not affect the continuing existence of the captive flock at the ASLC; and,

4) If any of the 275 introduced eggs survive to adulthood and eventually return to nest on the Y-K Delta, the number of wild Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders will increase.

5) Effects to critical habitat will be negligible and temporary in nature.

10. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action, is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement (ITS).


The measures described below are non-discretionary; describe the maximum take per year; and must be undertaken by FFWFO so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to an applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply. FFWFO has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If FFWFO (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require any applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the FFWFO or any applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)]. As described in Effects of the Action, the activities described and assessed in this BO may adversely affect Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders through direct mortality associated with harm of captive-origin eggs or ducklings. The Service authorizes the maximum, lethal incidental take of up to 123 Steller’s eider eggs and 7 Steller’s eider ducklings as a result of the proposed research. While the incidental take statement provided in this consultation satisfies the requirements of the ESA, it does not constitute an exemption from the prohibitions of take of listed migratory birds under the more restrictive provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, the Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668–668d), if such take is in compliance with the terms and conditions specified herein.

11. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES The Service believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of Steller’s eiders: 1. To minimize the likelihood that field methods will result in mortality of eggs and duckling

captive-origin Steller’s eiders, FFWFO shall ensure that only qualified individuals are permitted to work directly with Steller’s eiders and their eggs.

2. Impacts to Steller’s eider eggs due to research activities shall be minimized through the incorporation of appropriate special Terms and Conditions for each permitted activity.

12. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, FFWFO must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.


1. The following terms and conditions shall implement RPM 1.

a. Only qualified personnel with an appropriate level of experience/training shall be authorized to conduct scientific research and/or population census activities on Steller’s eiders. Experienced personnel, for the purposes of this term and condition, shall be those with at least one prior season of experience conducting such activities.

b. Only veterinarians, others trained/supervised by veterinarians, or those with extensive experience collecting blood samples from waterfowl, shall collect blood or other tissue samples from living Steller’s eiders.

c. Only veterinarians, or others trained/supervised by veterinarians, shall implant radio

transmitters in Steller’s eiders. 2. The following terms and conditions shall implement RPM 2.

a. During research activities, exposed eggs remaining in nests shall be immediately re-covered with down. In addition, eggs being handled shall be shielded from direct exposure to the breeze/wind (i.e., they will be protected from rapid cooling).

b. The protocol outlined in FWFFO’s Field Plan and Standard Operating Procedures

(USFWS 2016), which includes numerous measures to minimize mortality risk to Steller’s eider eggs and ducklings, shall be followed in its entirety.

The Service believes that no more than 123 captive-origin Steller’s eider eggs and 7 Steller’s eider ducklings will be incidentally, lethally taken during field activities as proposed. The RPMs, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measure provided. The Federal action agency must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the take and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measure. If Steller’s or spectacled eiders are encountered, injured, or killed as a result of permitted activities, please contact the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Anchorage, Alaska at (907) 271-1467 for instruction on the handling and disposal of the injured or dead bird.

13. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. No conservation recommendations have been developed for this project.


14. REINITIATION NOTICE This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the FFWFO’s 2016 Field Plan and Standard Operating Procedures (USFWS 2016). As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: 1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals effects of the action agency that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; 3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. FFWFO must also reinitiate consultation if it becomes evident that any activity that may impact directly or indirectly Steller’s or spectacled eiders resulting from the recovery permit may take place without separate consultation on that action. In addition if modifications are proposed for the activity then reinitiation will take place.

LITERATURE CITED Ahlund, M., & F. Götmark. 1989. Gull predation on eider ducklings Somateria mollossima:

effects of human disturbance. Biological Consservation 48:115-127. Anderson, D.R., K.P. Burnham, and W.L. Thompson. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems,

prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:912-923. Angerbjorn, A., M. Tannerfeldt, and S. Erlinge. 1999. Predator-prey relationships: arctic foxes

and lemmings. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:34-49. Anthony, R.M., P.L. Flint, and J.S. Sedinger. 1991. Arctic fox removal improves nest success

of black brant. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:176–184. Anthony, R.M, N.L. Barten, and P.E. Seiser. 2000. Foods of arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus)

during winter and spring in western Alaska. Journal of Mammology 81:820-828. Bellrose, F.C. 1959. Lead poisoning as a mortality factor in waterfowl populations. Bulletin of

the Illinois Natural History Survey 27. Benson A., and A. Trites. 2002. Ecological effects of regime shifts in the Bering Sea and

eastern North Pacific Ocean. Fish and Fisheries 3:95-113. Bowman, T.D., and R.A. Stehn. 2003. Impact of investigator disturbance on spectacled eiders

and cackling Canada geese nesting on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 22pp.

Bowman, T.D., R.A. Stehn and K.T. Scribner. 2004. Glaucous gull predation of goslings on the

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Condor 106:288-298. Brandt, H. 1943. Alaska bird trails. Bird Research Foundation, Cleveland, OH. 464 pp. Brooks, W. 1915. Notes on birds from east Siberia and Arctic Alaska. Bulletin of the Museum

of Comparative Zoology 59:359–413. Conover, H.B. 1926. Game birds of the Hooper Bay region, Alaska. Auk 43:162-180. Dau, C.P. 1987. Birds in nearshore waters of the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Murrelet 68:12–23. Descamps, S., N.G. Yoccoz, J. Gaillard, H. G. Gilchrist, K. E. Eirkstad, S. A. Hanssen, B.

Cazelles, M.R. Forbes, and J. Bety. 2010. Detecting population heterogeneity in effects of North American Oscillations on seabird body condition: get into the rhythm. Oikos 119:1526-1536.

Dhondt, A.A. 1987. Cycle of lemmings and geese: a comment on the hypothesis of Roselaar and Summers. Bird Study 34:151-154.

Dick, M.H., and L.S. Dick. 1971. The natural history of Cape Pierce and Nanvak Bay, Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Unpublished report. Bethel, Alaska. 77 pp. Eisler, R. 1988. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 134 pp.

Callaghan, T.V., L.O. Björn, Y. Chernov, T. Chapain, T.R. Christensen, B. Huntley, R.A. Ims, M. Johansson, D. Jolly, S. Jonasson, N. Matveyeva, N. Panikov, W. Oechel, G. Shaver, J. Elster, H. Henttonen, K. Laine, K. Taulavuori, E. Taulavuori, and C. Zöckler. 2004. Biodiversity, distributions and adaptations of Arctic species in the context of

environmental change. Ambio 33:404–417. Chapin, F.S, G.R. Shaver, A.E. Giblin, K.J. Nadelhoffer, and J.A. Laundre. 1995. Responses of Arctic tundra to experimental and observed changes in climate. Ecology 76:694–711. Flint, P.L., and J.B. Grand. 1997. Survival of spectacled eider adult females and ducklings

during brood rearing. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:217–221. Flint, P.L, M.R. Petersen, and J. Grand. 1997. Exposure of spectacled eiders and other diving

ducks to lead in western Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:439-443. Flint, P.L., J.B. Grand, J.A. Morse, and T.F. Fondell. 2000. Late summer survival of adult

female and juvenile spectacled eiders on the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Waterbirds 23:292–297.

Flint, P.L., and J.L. Schamber. 2010. Long-term persistence of spent lead shot in tundra

wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:148–151. Flint, P. L., and M. P. Herzog. 1999. Breeding status of Steller’s eiders, Polysticta stelleri, on

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113: 306-308. Flint, P.L. 2012. Changes in size and trends of North American sea duck populations associated

with North Pacific oceanic regime shifts. Marine Biology 160: 59-65. Frost, C., T. Hollmén, and J. Reynolds. 2013. Trends in annual survival of Steller’s eiders

molting at Izembek Lagoon on the Alaska Peninsula, 1993 – 2006. Arctic 66:173-178. Gabrielson, M. 2012. Monitoring of nesting spectacled eiders on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta

National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bethel, Alaska.

Gabrielson, M., and K. Spragens. 2013. Monitoring of nesting spectacled eiders on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bethel, Alaska.

Götmark, F. 1992. The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. Pp. 63-104 in D. M.

Power editor. Current Ornithology Vol. 9. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.

Gill, R.E., M.R. Petersen, and P.D. Jorgensen. 1981. Birds of Northcentral Alaska Peninsula,

1978-80. Arctic 34:286-306. Götmark F., and M. Ählund. 1984. Do field observers attract nest predators and influence

nesting success of common eiders? Journal of Wildlife Management 48:381-387. Grand, J.B., and P.L. Flint. 1997. Productivity of nesting spectacled eiders on the Lower

Kashunuk River, Alaska. The Condor 99:926–932. Grand, J.B., P.L. Flint, and M.R. Petersen. 1998. Effect of lead poisoning on spectacled eiders

survival rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1103–1109. Grebmeier, J.M., J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, E.V. Farley, E.C. Carmack, L.W. Cooper, K.E.

Frey, J.H. Helle, F.A. McLaughlin, S.L. McNutt. 2006. A major ecosystem shift in the northern Bering Sea. Science 311:1461-1464.

Hamazaki, T., L. Fair, L. Watson, E. Brennan. 2005. Analyses of Bering Sea bottom-trawl

surveys in Norton Sound: absence of regime shift effect on epifauna and demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:1597-1602.

Hinzman, L.D., N.D. Bettez, W.R. Bolton, F.S. Chpin, M.B. Dyurgerov, C.L. Fastie, B. Griffith,

R.D. Hollister, A. Hope, H.P. Huntington, A.M. Jensen, G.J. Jia, T. Jorgenson, D.L. Kane, D.R. Klien, G. Kofinas, A.H. Lynch, A.H. Lloyd, A.D. McGuire, F.E. Nelson, W.C. Oechel, T.E. Osterkamp, C.H. Racine, V.E. Romanovsky, R.S. Stone, D.A. Stow, M. Strum, C.E. Tweedie, G.L. Vourlitis, M.D. Walker, D.A. Walker, P.J. Webber, J.M. Welker, K.S. Winklet, K. Yoshikawa. 2005. Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Climatic Change 72:251–298.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and

III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

Kertell, K. 1991. Disappearance of the Steller’s eider from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta,

Alaska. Arctic 44:177-187. Krebs, C.J. 1996. Population cycles revisited. Journal of Mammalogy 77:8-24.

Lake, B.C. 2007. Nesting Ecology of Spectacled and Common Eiders on Kigigak Island, Yukon Delta NWR, Alaska, 2007. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Bethel, Alaska. 18 pp.

Larned, W.W. 1998. Steller’s eider spring migration surveys, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska. Larned, W.W. 2000. Aerial surveys of Steller’s eiders and other water birds and marine mammals in southwest Alaska areas proposed for navigation improvements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska. Larned, W. 2005. Winter distribution and abundance of Steller’s eiders in Cook Inlet, 2004-

2005. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 44pp. Larned, W. 2007. Steller’s eider spring migration surveys southwest Alaska, 2007.

Unpublished report, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 23 pp. Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2008. Waterfowl breeding population survey Arctic

Coastal Plain, Alaska, 2007. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 42 pp.

Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2009. Waterfowl breeding population survey Arctic

Coastal Plain, Alaska 2008. Unpubublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 42 pp.

Larter, N.C. 1998. Collared lemming abundance diet and morphometrics on Banks Island, 1993-

1996. Manuscript report, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development. Government of the Northwest Territories, Inuvik, N.W.T. 21pp.

Lehikoinen, A., M. Kilpi, and M. Ost. 2006. Winter climate affects subsequent breeding

success of common eiders. Global Change Biology 12:1355-1365. MacLean, S.F. Jr., Fitzgerald, B.M., and Pitelka, F.A. 1974. Population cycles in arctic

lemmings: winter reproduction and predation by weasels. Arctic and Alpine Research 6:1-12.

Murie, O.J. 1924. Report on investigations of birds and mammals of the Hooper Bay section of Alaska during the spring and summer of 1924. Unpublished report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey, Washington, DC. 109 pp. Murie, O.J., and V.B. Scheffer. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula, with notes on the invertebrates and fishes collected in the Aleutians, 1936-38. North American Fauna No. 61. 406 pp.

Napp, J.M., and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 2001. Anomalous conditions in the south-eastern Bering Sea 1997: linkages among climate, weather, ocean and biology. Fisheries Oceanography 10:61-68.

Mallek, E.J., R. Platte, and R. Stehn. 2007. Aerial breeding pair surveys of the Arctic Coastal

Plain, Alaska, 2007. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 25 pp.

Metzner, K.A. 1993. Ecological strategies of wintering Steller’s eiders on Izembeck Lagoon

and Cold Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 193 pp.

Martin, P.D., D.C. Douglas, T. Obritschkewitsch, and S. Torrence. 2015. Distribution and

movements of Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders in the non-breeding period. The Condor – Ornithological Applications. 117: 341-353.

Mickelson, P.G. 1975. Breeding biology of Cackling Geese and associated species on the

Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 45:6-33. Obritschkewitsch, T., P. Martin, and R. Suydam. 2001. Breeding biology of Steller’s eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 1999–2000. Northern Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Technical Report NAES–TR–01–04, Fairbanks, Alaska. 113 pp. Obritschkewitsch, T. and R.J. Ritche. 2015. Steller’s eider surveys near Barrow, Alaska, 2014.

Prepared for the U.S. BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks Alaska. January.

Oechel, W.C., G.L. Vourlitis, S.J. Hastings, and S.A. Bochkarev. 1995. Change in Arctic CO2 flux over two decades: effects of climate change at Barrow, Alaska. Ecological

Adaptations 5:846–855. Pacific Flyway Council. 1999. Pacific Flyway management plan for the cackling Canada goose.

Cackling Canada Goose Subcommittee, Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Portland, Oregon. Unpublished Report. 36 pp. + appendices.

Petersen, M.R., D. Robertson, R. Platte, S. McCloskey, P.L. Flint, and J.A. Schmutz. 2012.

Lead exposure of spectacled eiders on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Unpublished final report, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska. 33 pp.

Petersen, M. 1980. Observations of wing-feather molt and summer feeding ecology of Steller’s

eiders at Nelson Lagoon, Alaska. Wildfowl 31:99-106. Petersen, M.R. 1981. Populations, feeding ecology and molt of Steller’s eiders. Condor 83:256-262.

Petersen, M.R. and M.J. Sigman. 1977. Field studies at Cape Pierce, Alaska 1976. Pages 633– 693 in Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Annual Reports of Principal Investigators, Vol. 4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Boulder, Colorado. Petersen, M.R., D.N. Weir, and M.H. Dick. 1991. Birds of the Kilbuck and Ahklun Mountain Region, Alaska. North American Fauna No. 76. 158 pp. Pitelka, F.A., Q. Tomich, and G.W. Treichel. 1955a. Breeding behavior of jaegers and owls

near Barrow, Alaska. The Condor 57:3-18. Pitelka, F. A., Q. Tomich, and G.W. Treichel. 1955b. Ecological relations of jaegers and owls

as lemming predators near Barrow, Alaska. Ecological Monographs 25: 85-117. Prowse, T.D., F.J. Wrona, J.D. Reist, J.E. Hobbie, L.M.J. Lévesque, and W.F. Vincent. 2006. General features of the Arctic relevant to climate change in freshwater ecosystems.

Ambio 35:330–338. Quakenbush, L.T., R. Suydam, and T. Obritschkewitsch. 2000. Habitat use by Steller’s eiders during the breeding season near Barrow, Alaska, 1991–1996. Unpublished report, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. Quakenbush, L.T., R.H. Day, B.A. Anderson, F.A. Pitelka, and B.J. McCaffery. 2002.

Historical and present breeding season distribution of Steller’s eiders in Alaska. Western Birds 33:99-120.

Quakenbush, L., R. Suydam, T. Obritschkewitsch, and M. Deering. 2004. Breeding biology of

Steller‘s eiders (Polysticta stelleri) near Barrow, Alaska, 1991–1999. Arctic 57:166–182. Quakenbush, L.T., R.S. Suydam, K.M. Fluetsch, and C.L. Donaldson. 1995. Breeding biology

of Steller’s eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1994. Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. Technical Report NAES-TR-95-03. 53 pp.

Quinlan, R., M.V. Douglas, and J.P. Smol. 2005. Food web changes in arctic ecosystems

related to climate warming. Global Change Biology 11:1381–1386. Rojek, N.A. 2006. Breeding biology of Steller’s eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2005.

Technical report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. 53 pp. Rojek, N.A. 2007. Breeding biology of Steller’s eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2006.

Technical report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. 53 pp. Rojek, N.A. 2008. Breeding biology of Steller’s eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2007.

Technical report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. 45 pp.

Roselaar, C.S. 1979. Fluctuaties in aantallen Krombedstrandlopers Calidris ferruginea. Watervogles 4:202-210.

Rosenberg, D.A., M.J. Petrula, D. Zwiefelhofer, T. Holmen, D.D. Hill, and J.L. Schamber. 2011. Seasonal movements and distribution of Pacific Steller’s eiders (Polysticta

stelleri). Final report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska. 44 pp.

Safine, D.E. 2011. Breeding ecology of Steller’s and spectacled eiders nesting near Barrow,

Alaska, 2008–2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. Technical Report. 66 pp.

Safine, D.E., 2012. Breeding ecology of Steller’s and spectacled eiders nesting near Barrow,

Alaska, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. Technical Report. 57 pp.

Safine, D.E. 2015. Breeding ecology of Steller’s and spectacled eiders nesting near Barrow,

Alaska, 2013-2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. Technical Report. 51 pp.

Schindler, D.W., and J.P. Smol. 2006. Cumulative effects of climate warming and other human activities on freshwaters of arctic and subarctic North America. Ambio 35:160-168. Smith, L.C., Y. Sheng, G.M. MacDonald, and L.D. Hinzman. 2005. Disappearing Arctic lakes. Science 308:1429. Smol, J.P., and M.S.V. Douglas. 2007. Crossing the final ecological threshold in high Arctic ponds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:12395-12397. Smol, J.P., A.P. Wolfe, H.J.B. Birks, M.S.V. Douglas, V.J. Jones, A. Korhola, R. Pienitzi, K. Rühland, S. Sorvari, D. Antoniades, S.J. Brooks, M.A. Fallu, M. Hughes, B.E. Keatley,

T.E. Laing, N. Michelutti, L. Nazarova, M. Nyman, A.M. Patterson, B. Perren, R. Quinlan, M. Rautio, E. Saulier–Talbot, S. Siitonen, N. Solovieva, and J. Weckström. 2005. Climate–driven regime shifts in the biological communities of arctic lakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102:4397-4402.

Stehn, R., and R. Platte. 2009. Steller’s eider distribution, abundance, and trend on the Arctic

Coastal Plain, Alaska, 1989-2008. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 36 pp.

Stehn, R., C. Dau, B. Conant, and W. Butler. 1993. Decline of spectacled eiders nesting in

western Alaska. Arctic 46: 264-277. Summers, R.W. 1986. Breeding production of dark-bellied brant geese Branta bernicla

bernicla in relation to lemming cycles. Bird Study 33:105-108.

Trust, K., K.T. Rummel, A.M. Scheuhammer, I.L. Brisbin, Jr., and M.G. Hooper. 2000. Contaminant exposure and biomarker responses in spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri) from St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 38:107-113. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

threatened status for the Alaska-breeding population of the Steller’s eider. Final rule. Published 11 July 1997 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 62(112):31748–31757.

USFWS. 2002. Steller’s Eider Recovery Plan. Fairbanks, Alaska. 27 pp. USFWS. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determination of critical

habitat for the Alaska-breeding population of the Steller's eider. Final rule. Published 2 February 2001 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 66(23):8849–8884.

USFWS. 2016. 2016 Surrogate hen pilot study: potential reintroduction of Steller’s eiders to

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Unpublished study plan and standard operating procedures. Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska.

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Biological response to ecological change along the

Arctic Coastal Plain. Progress report, August 2006, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, United States Geological Survey. 10 pp.

Vacca, M.M., and C.M. Handel. 1988. Factors influencing predation associated with visits to

artificial goose nests. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:215-223. Wilk, R.J., K.I. Wilk, R.C. Kuntz, II. 1986. Abundance, age composition and observations of emperor geese in Cinder lagoon, Alaska Peninsula, 17 September-10 October 1986. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, King Salmon, Alaska. 41 pp. Zipkin, E., B. Gardner, A. Gilbert, A. O’Connell, J. Royle, and E. Silverman. 2010. Distribution

patterns of wintering sea ducks in relation to the North Atlantic Oscillation and local environmental characteristics. Oecologia 163:893-902.

Documents

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceField Supervisor, FFWFO (07CAAN00-2016-F-0114) 4 from May 22- June 17, with mean of June 1 (Gabrielson and Spragens 2013)), field personnel will not be