6114 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 1.2105(c)(1) to require any auction

applicant that makes or receives a

communication of bids or bidding

strategies prohibited by § 1.2105(c)(1) to

report promptly such a communication

to the Commission. The Commission

also proposes to amend § 1.2105(c)(1) to

reflect a recent clarification that the rule

prohibits an auction applicant from

discussing another applicant’s bids or

bidding strategies even if the first

applicant does not discuss its own bids

or bidding strategies. See Western PCS

BTA 1 Corporation, Memorandum

Opinion and Order at paragraphs 7

through 9, FCC 99–385 (released

December 13, 1999). Lastly, the

Commission seeks comment regarding

whether other changes to § 1.2105(c)(1)

may be warranted at this time.

2. The proposed rules are not major

rules for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866. As required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FCC

certifies that the proposed rules will not

have a significant impact on small

business entities. The NPRM contains

proposed information collection(s)

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It

has been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under the PRA. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites OMB, the general public, and

other Federal agencies to comment on

the information collection(s) contained

in the NPRM, as required by the PRA.

Public and agency comments are due

April 10, 2000. OMB notification of

action is due April 10, 2000. Comments

should address: (a) whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

3. Parties who chose to file comments

or reply comments on the NPRM using

the Commission’s ECFS system, should

include their full name, postal service

mailing address, and the applicable

docket or rulemaking number on the

transmittal screen. Parties may also

submit an electronic comment by

Internet e-mail. To obtain filing

instructions for e-mail comments,

commenters should send an e-mail to

ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the

following words in the body of the

message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply. Parties

who choose to file by paper should also

submit their comments on diskette. A

3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible format using Microsoft Word

for Windows or compatible software

Diskettes should be submitted to:

Richard Arsenault, Federal

Communications Commission, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th

Street, SW., Room 4–A234, Washington,

DC 20554. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter and

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the commenter’s name,

proceeding (including the docket

number in this case—WT Docket No.

97–82), type of pleading (comments or

reply comments), date of submission,

and the name of the electronic file on

the diskette. The label should also

include the following phrase ‘‘Disk

Copy—Not an Original.’’ Each diskette

should contain only one party’s

pleadings, preferably in a single

electronic file. In addition, commenters

must send diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036.

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX.

Title: Amendment of Part 1 of the

Commission’s Rules—Competitive

Bidding Procedures

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit;

not-for-profit institutions; and/or state,

local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time Per Response: 8

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 200 hours

Total Annual Costs: $40,000.

Needs and Uses: Section 1.2105(c)(1)

of the Commission’s rules provides that

‘‘all [auction] applicants are prohibited

from cooperating, collaborating,

discussing or disclosing in any manner

the substance of their bids or bidding

strategies. . . .’’ 47 CFR 1.2105(c)(1).

The Commission’s experience enforcing

§ 1.2105(c)(1) over the past five years,

however, indicates that, on occasion,

some auction applicants engage in

communications prohibited by the rule.

In the NPRM, we seek comment on

amending § 1.2105(c) to require anyone

who makes or receives a communication

of bids or bidding strategies prohibited

under § 1.2105(c)(1) to report promptly

such a communication to the

Commission. This amendment is

intended to deter parties from engaging

in prohibited conduct and thereby

enhance the competitiveness and

fairness of our spectrum auctions. The

information reported to the FCC would

facilitate the Commission’s monitoring

and investigation of unlawful activity

during Commission spectrum auctions.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–2766 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF92

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Designation of

Critical Habitat for the Spectacled

Eider

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

designate critical habitat for the

spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), a

threatened species listed pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). Proposed designation of

critical habitat for the spectacled eider

includes areas on Alaska’s North Slope

and adjacent marine waters; the YukonKuskokwim Delta (Y–K Delta) and

adjacent marine waters; and Norton

Sound, Ledyard Bay, and the Bering Sea

between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew

Islands. These areas total 193,054 square

kilometers (km2) (74,539 square miles

(mi2)) or 19,305,400 hectares (ha)

(47,704,500 acres).

If this proposal is made final, Federal

agencies proposing actions that may

affect the areas designated as critical

habitat must consult with us on the

effects of the proposed actions, pursuant

to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Section 4

of the Act requires us to consider

economic and other impacts of

specifying any particular area as critical

habitat. We solicit data and comments

from the public on all aspects of this

proposal, including data on the

economic and other impacts of the

designation. We may revise this

proposal to incorporate or address new

information received during the

comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments from

all interested parties until May 8, 2000.

Public hearing requests must be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6115

received in writing at the address below

by March 24, 2000. We will publish the

dates and locations of any public

hearings in the Federal Register and

appropriate local newspapers at least 15

days prior to the first hearing.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments and

other materials on this proposal to Ann

G. Rappoport, Field Supervisor,

Anchorage Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 605 West 4th Avenue,

Room G–61, Anchorage, AK 99501. The

complete file for this rule is available for

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann

G. Rappoport, Field Supervisor, at the

above address (telephone 907/271–2787

or toll-free 800/272–4174; facsimile 907/

271–2786).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Description

The spectacled eider is a large sea

duck, 52–56 centimeters long (20–22

inches). Sea ducks, waterfowl that

spend at least part of their lives at sea,

are a subgroup of the subfamily

Anatinae, family Anatidae. The

spectacled eider is one of three species

in the genus Somateria found in the

United States. The species was first

described by Brandt in 1847 as Fuligula

fischeri, then later placed in the genera

Lampronetta and Arctonetta, and finally

under Somateria (American

Ornithologist’s Union 1983). Within

each subfamily, taxonomists group the

waterfowl species into tribes, but while

Delacour and Mayr (1945) originally

placed the eiders (Tribe Somaterini) in

a separate tribe from other sea ducks

(Tribe Mergini), Johnsgard (1960) and

others have grouped them together

under Tribe Mergini.

In the winter and spring, adult males

are in breeding plumage with a black

chest, white back, and pale green head

with a long sloping forehead and blackrimmed white spectacle-like patches

around the eyes. During the late summer

and fall, males are mottled brown.

Females and juveniles are mottled

brown year-round with pale brown eye

patches. Spectacled eiders are diving

ducks that spend most of the year in

marine waters where they primarily

feed on bottom-dwelling molluscs and

crustaceans.

Geographic Range

In the United States, spectacled eiders

historically nested discontinuously from

the Nushagak Peninsula of southwestern

Alaska north to Barrow and east nearly

to the Canadian border. Today two

breeding populations remain in Alaska.

The remainder of the species breeds in

Arctic Russia. This entire species,

including the Arctic Russian

population, is listed under the Act as

threatened wherever it occurs.

On the Y–K Delta, spectacled eiders

breed mostly within 15 kilometers (km)

(9.3 miles (mi)) of the coast from Kigigak

Island north to Kokechik Bay (Service

1996), with smaller numbers nesting

south of Kigigak Island to Kwigillingok

and north of Kokechik Bay to the mouth

of Uwik Slough. The coastal fringe of

the Y–K Delta is the only subarctic

breeding habitat where spectacled

eiders occur at high density (3.0–6.8

birds/km2 (Service 1996). Nesting on the

Y–K Delta is restricted to areas

dominated by low wet-sedge and grass

marshes with numerous small shallow

water bodies. Nests are rarely more than

190 meters (m) (680 feet (ft)) from water

and are usually within a few meters of

a pond or lake.

On Alaska’s North Slope, nearly all

spectacled eiders breed north of 70°

latitude between Icy Cape and the

Shaviovik River. Within this region,

most spectacled eiders occur between

Cape Simpson and the Sagavanirktok

River (Service 1996). Spectacled eiders

on the North Slope occur at low

densities (0.03–0.79 birds/km2, Larned

and Balogh 1997) within about 80 km

(50 mi) of the coast. During pre-nesting

and early nesting, they occur most

commonly on large shallow productive

thaw lakes generally with convoluted

shorelines or small islands (Larned and

Balogh 1997). Such shallow water

bodies with emergent vegetation and

low islands or ridges appear to be

important as eider nesting and broodrearing habitat on the arctic coastal

plain (Derksen et al. 1981, Warnock and

Troy 1992, Andersen et al. 1998).

Within the United States, spectacled

eiders molt in Norton Sound and

Ledyard Bay. There, they congregate in

large, dense flocks that are particularly

susceptible to disturbance and

contamination. For several weeks

during the molting period (late July

through October), each bird is flightless.

However, there is no time in which all

birds are simultaneously flightless

(Petersen et al. 1999).

Norton Sound is located along the

western coast of Alaska between the Y–

K Delta and the Seward Peninsula. It is

the principal molting and staging area

for females nesting on the Y–K Delta

(Petersen et al. 1999), probably the most

imperiled of the three breeding

populations. Some Y–K Delta male

spectacled eiders, presumably subadult

males, also molt in Norton Sound

(Petersen et al. 1999). As many as 4,030

spectacled eiders have been observed in

Norton Sound at one time (Larned et al.

1995a). Spectacled eiders molted in the

same portion of eastern Norton Sound

each year from 1993 to 1997. Charles

Lean (Alaska Department of Fish and

Game (ADFG), Nome, pers. comm. 1999)

reported seeing large flocks in this same

area in August and September from

1982 to 1990, suggesting that this area

has a history of consistent use by

molting spectacled eiders. Spectacled

eiders arrive in eastern Norton Sound at

the end of July and depart in midOctober (Petersen et al. 1999). Although

overall benthic biomass (quantity of

organisms living on the sea floor) in this

area is thought to be lower than in other

parts of Norton Sound, the abundance of

large gastropods (e.g., snails, which are

presumably a spectacled eider food

item) is higher in this area than

elsewhere (Springer and Pirtle 1997).

Ledyard Bay is one of the primary

molting grounds for female spectacled

eiders breeding on the North Slope, and

most female birds molting here are from

the North Slope (Petersen et al. 1999).

Satellite telemetry data suggest that

male spectacled eiders from the North

Slope appear to molt and stage in equal

numbers in Ledyard Bay and the two

primary molting areas in Russia,

Mechigmenskiy Bay and the IndigirkaKolyma Delta (Petersen et al. 1999).

Aerial surveys in September 1995 found

33,192 spectacled eiders using Ledyard

Bay. Most were concentrated in a 37-km

(23-mi) diameter circle with their

distribution centered 67 km (42 mi)

southwest of Point Lay and 41 km (25

mi) offshore (Larned et al. 1995b).

During winter, spectacled eiders

congregate in exceedingly large and

dense flocks in openings in the pack ice

in the central Bering Sea between St.

Lawrence and St. Matthew Islands

(Larned et al. 1995c). Spectacled eiders

from all three known breeding

populations use this wintering area

(Service 1999); no other wintering areas

are currently known. Larned and

Tiplady (1999) estimated the entire

wintering population, and perhaps the

worldwide population, of spectacled

eiders at 374,792 birds (95 percent

Confidence Interval = 371,278–378,305).

Because nearly all individuals of this

species may spend each winter

occupying an area of ocean less than 50

km (31 mi) in diameter, they may be

particularly vulnerable to chance events

during this time.

Population Status

Between the 1970s and 1990s,

spectacled eiders on the Y–K Delta

declined by 96 percent, from 48,000

pairs to fewer than 2,500 pairs in 1992

6116 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(Stehn et al. 1993). Based upon surveys

conducted during the past few years, the

Y–K Delta breeding population is

estimated to be about 4,000 pairs.

The breeding population on the North

Slope is currently the largest breeding

population of spectacled eiders in North

America. The most recent population

estimate, uncorrected for aerial

detection bias, is 9,488 (± 1,814 birds)

(Larned et al. 1999). However, because

this breeding area is so much larger than

that on the Y–K Delta, the density of

spectacled eiders on the North Slope is

markedly lower than on the Y–K Delta;

0.03–0.79 vs. 3.0–6.8 birds/km2,

respectively (Larned and Balogh 1997,

Service 1996). North Slope eiders have

no clear population trend (Larned et al.

1999).

We do not know the size of the

nonbreeding segment of any population.

Presumably, nonbreeding birds remain

at sea year round until they attempt to

breed at age two or three. We do not

know which areas at sea are important

to nonbreeding spectacled eiders.

Previous Federal Action

On December 10, 1990, we received a

petition from James G. King, dated

December 1, 1990, to list the spectacled

eider as an endangered species and to

designate critical habitat on the Yukon

Delta National Wildlife Refuge

(YDNWR) and the National Petroleum

Reserve-Alaska (NPR–A). We convened

a workshop on February 6 and 7, 1991,

to review existing information and

develop priorities and recommendations

for future studies of both spectacled and

Steller’s eiders. We published a 90-day

finding on April 25, 1991, that the

petition had presented substantial

information indicating that the

requested action may be warranted (56

FR 19073).

On February 12, 1992, a 12-month

finding was signed, determining that

listing was warranted. On May 8, 1992,

we published a proposed rule to list the

spectacled eider as a threatened species

throughout its range (57 FR 19852).

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that,

to the maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time a species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. We proposed that it was not

prudent to designate critical habitat for

the spectacled eider because there was

no demonstrable benefit that could be

shown at that time (50 CFR 424.12). We

solicited comments from all interested

parties during an extended comment

period (160 days). This extended

comment period was intended to

accommodate foreign scientists, whose

comments may not have been received

during the normal 90-day period, and

Alaskan Natives, who spend substantial

portions of each year away from their

homes engaged in subsistence activities.

We particularly sought comments

concerning threats to spectacled eiders,

their distribution and range, whether

critical habitat should be designated,

and activities that might impact

spectacled eiders. Notice of the

proposed rule was sent to appropriate

State agencies, Alaska Native regional

corporations, borough and local

governments, Federal agencies, foreign

countries, scientific organizations, and

other interested parties with a request

for information that might contribute to

the development of a final rule.

After a review of all comments

received in response to the proposed

rule, we published the final rule to list

the spectacled eider as threatened

without critical habitat on May 10, 1993

(58 FR 27474). Only 5 of the 24

comments received specifically

addressed critical habitat designation.

Of these, one supported and four

opposed the ‘‘not prudent’’

determination. Those that opposed the

‘‘not prudent’’ finding recommended

that critical habitat be designated, at

least for nesting areas. They also felt

that we should have considered and

provided information on possible

marine critical habitat. In our final rule

to list the spectacled eider as

threatened, we maintained that

designation of critical habitat was not

prudent because no demonstrable

overall benefit could be shown at that

time (50 CFR 424.12).

We initiated recovery planning for the

spectacled eider in 1993. The

Spectacled Eider Recovery Team was

formed, consisting of seven members

and four consultants with a variety of

expertise in spectacled eider biology,

conservation biology, population

biology, marine ecology, Native Alaskan

culture, and wildlife management. The

Recovery Team and its consultants

developed the Spectacled Eider

Recovery Plan, which we approved on

August 12, 1996. The Recovery Plan

established the recovery criteria that

must be met prior to the delisting of

spectacled eiders. The plan also

identified the actions that are needed to

assist in the recovery of spectacled

eiders. Additionally, since this species

was listed as threatened, new

information has become available

concerning the spectacled eiders’

wintering habitat, and we also now have

a better delineation of its breeding

habitat.

On March 10, 1999, the Southwest

Center for Biological Diversity and the

Christians Caring for Creation filed a

lawsuit in Federal District Court in the

Northern District of California against

the Secretary of the Department of the

Interior for failure to designate critical

habitat for five species in California and

two in Alaska. These species include

the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis

lateralis euryxanthus), the zayante

band-winged grasshopper

(Trimerotropis infantilis), the Morro

shoulderband snail (Helmintholglypta

walkeriana), the arroyo southwestern

toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus),

the San Bernardino kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys merriami parvus), the

spectacled eider, and the Steller’s eider

(Polysticta stelleri). Subsequently, the

Federal Government entered into a

settlement agreement with the plaintiffs

whereby we agreed to readdress the

prudency of designating critical habitat

for spectacled eiders. If, upon

consideration of existing data and

public comments we determine that

designating critical habitat is prudent,

we agreed to submit a proposed rule to

the Federal Register for publication by

February 1, 2000, and a final rule by

December 1, 2000. If we determine that

designation of critical habitat is not

prudent, we have agreed to submit a

notice of this finding to the Federal

Register for publication by August 1,

2000.

In the last few years, a series of court

decisions have overturned Service

determinations regarding a variety of

species that designation of critical

habitat would not be prudent (e.g.,

Natural Resources Defense Council v.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 113 F.

3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation

Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp.

2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the

standards applied in those judicial

opinions and the availability of new

information concerning the species’

recovery and habitat needs, we

recognized the value in reexamining the

question of whether critical habitat for

the spectacled eider would be prudent.

Due to the vast and remote nature of

this species’ distribution, we are making

our initial critical habitat delineations

with the best available scientific and

commercial information available, but

we also recognize that we do not have

complete information on the

distribution of this species at all times

of the year. Thus, if additional

information becomes available on the

biology and distribution of the species,

we may reevaluate our critical habitat

designation, including proposing

additional critical habitat or proposing

deletion or boundary refinement of

existing critical habitat.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6117

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as (i) the specific areas within

the geographic area occupied by a

species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management consideration or

protection, and (ii) specific areas

outside the geographic area occupied by

a species at the time it is listed, upon

determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ is defined in

section 3(3) of the Act as all methods

and procedures that are necessary to

bring an endangered or threatened

species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that

we base critical habitat proposals upon

the best scientific and commercial data

available, after taking into consideration

the economic impact, and any other

relevant impact, of specifying any

particular area as critical habitat. We

may exclude any area from critical

habitat designation if the benefits of

such exclusion outweigh the benefits of

including such area as part of the

critical habitat, provided the exclusion

will not result in the extinction of the

species (section 4(b)(2) of the Act).

Critical habitat receives protection

under section 7 of the Act with regard

to actions carried out, funded, or

authorized by Federal agencies. Section

7 requires conferences on Federal

actions that are likely to result in the

adverse modification or destruction of

proposed critical habitat. Once

finalized, Federal agencies must ensure

that any action they carry out, fund, or

authorize will not result in destruction

or adverse modification of the critical

habitat. Aside from the added protection

that may be provided under section 7,

the Act does not provide other forms of

legal protection to lands designated as

critical habitat. Because consultation

under section 7 of the Act does not

apply to activities on private or other

non-Federal lands that do not involve a

Federal action, critical habitat

designation has no regulatory

implications for actions conducted on

non-Federal lands that lack a Federal

nexus.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to consult with us to

ensure that any action authorized,

funded, or carried out is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

threatened or endangered species, or

result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat.

‘‘Jeopardize the continued existence’’ (of

a species) is defined as an appreciable

reduction in the likelihood of survival

and recovery of a listed species.

‘‘Destruction or adverse modification’’

(of critical habitat) is defined as a direct

or indirect alteration that appreciably

diminishes the value of critical habitat

for the survival and recovery of the

listed species for which critical habitat

was designated. Thus, the definitions of

‘‘jeopardy’’ to the species and ‘‘adverse

modification’’ of critical habitat are

nearly identical (50 CFR 402.02).

Therefore, a critical habitat designation

for habitat currently occupied by this

species would not be likely to change

the section 7 consultation outcome

because an action that destroys or

adversely modifies such critical habitat

would also be likely to result in

jeopardy to the species.

Designating critical habitat does not,

in itself, lead to recovery of a listed

species. Designation does not create a

management plan, establish numerical

population goals, prescribe specific

management actions (inside or outside

of critical habitat), set aside areas as

preserves, or directly affect areas not

designated as critical habitat. Specific

management recommendations for

critical habitat are most appropriately

addressed in section 7 consultations for

specific projects, or through recovery

planning.

Designation of critical habitat can

help focus conservation activities for a

listed species by identifying areas, both

occupied and unoccupied, that contain

or could contain the habitat features

(primary constituent elements described

below) that are essential for the

conservation of that species.

Designation of critical habitat alerts the

public as well as land-managing

agencies to the importance of these

areas.

Prudency Finding

In the absence of a finding that critical

habitat would increase threats to a

species, if critical habitat designation

would provide any benefits, then a

prudent finding is warranted. In the

case of this species, designation of

critical habitat may provide some

benefits. While a critical habitat

designation for habitat currently

occupied by this species would not be

likely to change the section 7

consultation outcome because an action

that destroys or adversely modifies such

critical habitat would also be likely to

result in jeopardy to the species, there

may be instances where section 7

consultation would be triggered only if

critical habitat is designated. Examples

could include unoccupied habitat or

occupied habitat that may become

unoccupied in the future. Raising the

profile of the lands and waters within

our proposed critical habitat boundary

may also be beneficial to the species

because it may increase the degree to

which Federal agencies fulfill their

responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) of

the Act (to use their authorities to carry

out programs for the conservation of

listed species). Designating critical

habitat may also provide some

educational or informational benefits.

We do not have specific evidence of

taking, vandalism, collection, or trade in

this species that might be exacerbated

by the publication of critical habitat

maps and further dissemination of

locational information. Consequently,

consistent with applicable regulations

(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case

law, we do not expect that the

identification of critical habitat will

increase the degree of threat to this

species of taking or other human

activity. Therefore, we propose that

critical habitat is prudent for the

spectacled eider.

After reviewing the best scientific and

commercial data available, we propose

to withdraw the previous finding that

designation of critical habitat for the

spectacled eider is not prudent, and we

propose to designate critical habitat on

the Y–K Delta and adjacent marine

waters, on the North Slope of Alaska

and adjacent marine waters, in eastern

Norton Sound and Ledyard Bay, and in

the Bering Sea between St. Lawrence

and St. Matthew Islands.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR

424.12, when we determined which

areas to propose as critical habitat, we

considered those physical and

biological features that are essential to

the conservation of the species (primary

constituent elements) and that may

require special management

considerations or protection. These

include, but are not limited to, the

following: space for individual and

population growth, and for normal

behavior; food, water, air, light,

minerals or other nutritional or

physiological requirements; cover or

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,

or rearing of offspring, germination, or

seed dispersal; and habitats that are

protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic

geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

6118 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Selection of Areas for the Critical

Habitat Designation

Areas meeting the definition of

critical habitat for spectacled eiders are

those areas that contain or could contain

the primary constituent elements and

that may require special management

considerations or protection.

Section 3(5)(C) of the Act generally

requires that not all areas that can be

occupied by a species be designated as

critical habitat. Therefore, not all areas

containing the primary constituent

elements are necessarily essential to the

conservation of the species. However,

unless we have information to support

designating only a subset of that habitat,

we may designate all or most of the

areas occupied by the species.

Geographic areas that contain one or

more of the primary constituent

elements, but that are not included

within critical habitat boundaries, may

still be important to a species’

conservation and may be considered

under other parts of the Act or other

conservation laws and regulations, such

as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean

Water Act, and Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act.

As required by the Act and

regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR

424.12), we used the best scientific

information available to determine areas

that are essential for the survival and

recovery of the species. This

information included data from radio

telemetry, satellite telemetry, satellite

imagery, aerial surveys, ground plot

surveys, ground-based biological

investigations, and site-specific species

information. We have reviewed

available information that pertains to

the habitat requirements and

preferences of this species. We have

reviewed the approach of the

appropriate local, State, Native, and

Federal agencies in managing for the

conservation of spectacled eiders and

have reviewed the recovery tasks

outlined in the Spectacled Eider

Recovery Plan. We will initiate public

meetings in representative communities

adjacent to and within the areas

proposed as critical habitat. We

anticipate that these meetings and

comments received through the public

review process will provide us with

additional information to use in our

decision making process, and in

assessing the potential economic impact

of designating critical habitat for the

species.

The regulations for designating

critical habitat require that designations

include areas outside the geographical

area presently occupied by the species

only when a designation limited to its

current range would be inadequate to

ensure the conservation of the species

(50 CFR 424.12 (e)). The regulations

further specify that critical habitat

cannot be designated within foreign

countries or in other areas outside of

United States jurisdiction (50 CFR

424.12(h)).

In summary, the proposed critical

habitat areas described below constitute

our best assessment of the areas needed

for the species’ conservation using the

best available scientific and commercial

data available. We put forward this

proposal acknowledging that we have

incomplete information regarding

breeding ground habitat preferences,

distribution of preferred breeding

ground habitats, migration corridors,

offshore staging areas, marine habitats

used by nonbreeding birds during the

breeding season, the extent of the

Ledyard Bay molting area, marine diet,

and distribution of preferred prey items

at sea. As new information accrues, we

may reevaluate which areas warrant

critical habitat designation.

Proposed Critical Habitat

The approximate area of proposed

critical habitat by land ownership is

shown in Table 1. Proposed critical

habitat includes spectacled eider habitat

throughout the species’ range in the

United States. Lands proposed are

under private, State, Native, and Federal

ownership. Lands proposed as critical

habitat have been divided into eight

Critical Habitat Units, which are part of

larger areas described below.

TABLE 1.—HECTARES OF LAND AND MARINE WATERS PROPOSED AS CRITICAL HABITAT, WHICH ARE OCCUPIED BY THE

SPECTACLED EIDER, SUMMARIZED BY PRIVATE, STATE, FEDERAL AND NATIVE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

[Hectare figures and percentages are preliminary estimates only. Hectare figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Subsequent information

gathering and analysis may result in substantial changes to the data in this table.]

Location

Federal State Native Private non-native

Total

Hectares Percent Hectares Percent Hectares Percent Hectares Percent

Y–K Delta

(land) .......... 225,200 48.8 0.0 0.0 234,300 50.7 2,300 0.5 461,800

Y–K Delta (marine) ............ 1,496,400 88.6 192,100 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,688,500

North Slope

(land) .......... 2,467,300 76.3 472,100 14.6 291,000 9.0 3,200 0.1 3,233,600

North Slope

(marine) ...... 2,170,500 83.2 438,300 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,608,800

Norton Sound

(marine) ...... 1,491,200 85.2 259,000 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,750,200

Ledyard Bay

(marine) ...... 2,043,000 94.2 125,800 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,168,800

Wintering Area

(marine) ...... 7,290,200 98.6 103,500 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7,393,700

Total .... 17,183,800 89.0 1,590,800 8.2 525,300 2.7 5,500 <.1 19,305,400

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta

The Y–K Delta areas proposed as

critical habitat comprise 75 townships

and adjacent marine waters within 40

km (25 mi) of the coast, for a combined

area of 21,503 km2 (8,302 mi2) or

2,150,300 ha (5,313,500 acres). The

known primary constituent elements of

spectacled eider critical habitat on the

Y–K Delta include open water, low wet

sedge, grass marsh, dwarf shrub/

graminoid (consisting of grasses and

sedges) meadow, high and intermediate

graminoid meadow, mixed high

graminoid meadow/dwarf shrub

uplands, and areas adjacent to open

water, low wet sedge and grass marsh

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6119

habitats. The habitat also includes all

marine waters, its associated aquatic

flora and fauna in the water column,

and the underlying benthic community

(the organisms living on the sea floor).

The Y–K Delta breeding population

declined 96 percent between the 1970s

and 1992 (Stehn et al. 1993). To what

extent the breeding range of the birds

has been constricted is unknown.

Therefore, we have included as

proposed critical habitat, with few

exceptions, all townships within which

observations of spectacled eiders were

made during annual aerial surveys of

breeding waterfowl from 1993 to 1999.

We also included a few adjacent

townships that shared physiographic

characteristics of those townships

containing eiders. These surveys were

designed primarily to detect changes in

goose populations, and may not have

been designed optimally for

documenting eider distribution; some

townships were inadequately surveyed

for the presence of eiders. Transect

spacing throughout the survey area

ranged from 1 to 16 miles.

Approximately 60 percent of the

townships included in our proposed

critical habitat for the Y–K Delta fall

within the YDNWR boundaries. The

remaining 40 percent is primarily

Native-owned land, but is not

considered under the Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act to be a

reservation. Lastly, we have also

included marine waters within 40 km

(25 mi) of those areas we have proposed

on land.

We excluded townships near Uwik

Slough on the northern edge of the

Yukon River Delta. Although a few eider

sightings have been made there during

the past 7 years, habitat preference

analysis indicates these areas are less

favored by the species (as eiders

occurred there in much lower densities

than we would have expected had the

birds been randomly distributed across

the coastal zone). We therefore believe

that this portion of the Y–K Delta is not

essential for the species’ conservation.

The spectacled eider recovery plan

sets forth several recovery goals that, if

met, would allow us to consider

delisting the species. An example

recovery goal is that three annual

surveys indicate at least 10,000 breeding

pairs are present on a breeding area. The

Y–K Delta breeding population of

spectacled eiders cannot reasonably be

expected to reach established recovery

goals (Service 1996) in the absence of

the area on the Y–K Delta within which

the current remnant population occurs.

Indeed, adverse modification of this

habitat would probably result in the loss

of this population, which would

represent a loss of a significant portion

of the species’ range, thus precluding

eventual recovery of the species.

Therefore, we believe that the entire

area under consideration meets the

definition of critical habitat as being

essential to the conservation of the

species.

At least a portion of the spectacled

eiders breeding on the Y–K Delta

migrate south along the coast from

somewhere north of Cape Romanzoff

(Brian McCaffery, YDNWR, pers. comm.

1998). Little else is known of Y–K Delta

spectacled eider spring migration routes

or habitat use. Aerial surveys off the

coast of the Y–K Delta suggest use of the

area by spectacled eiders, primarily

adult males, during late June and early

July (Dau 1987). Satellite telemetry

confirms the use of these offshore

waters by post-breeding spectacled

eiders (Petersen et al. 1999). Therefore,

we believe that marine waters within 40

km (25 mi) of the proposed Y–K Delta

terrestrial critical habitat areas are

essential to the conservation of the

species.

North Slope

The 402 proposed townships and

proposed marine areas on the North

Slope total approximately 58,424 km2

(22,558 mi2) or 5,842,400 ha (14,436,800

acres) in area. The primary constituent

elements within this area include all

deep water bodies, all water bodies that

are part of basin wetland complexes; all

permanently flooded wetlands and

water bodies containing either Carex

aquatilis, Arctophila fulva, or both; all

habitat immediately adjacent to these

habitat types; and all marine waters, the

associated marine aquatic flora and

fauna in the water column, and the

underlying marine benthic community.

Unlike on the Y–K Delta, we have no

evidence that a population decline has

occurred on the North Slope due to our

complete lack of historical data. The

North Slope contains the largest

breeding population of spectacled eiders

in North America. Therefore, this

geographic area is essential to the

conservation of the species. Absent

trend information, it is impossible to

know how much land on the North

Slope is essential for conservation of the

species. Erring in favor of conservation

of the species, we believe that, with

eight exceptions, those townships in

which spectacled eider observations

were made during annual systematic

aerial surveys of breeding eiders from

1992 to 1998 are essential to the species’

conservation. We also chose to include

as critical habitat several townships that

were near to and within the same

physiographic strata as townships with

spectacled eiders observations. We

believe that the entire area under

consideration meets the definition of

critical habitat as being essential to the

conservation of the species.

We have excluded from this group

eight townships at which eiders that we

considered to be outliers were observed

(one observation at each township). In

all cases, these observations were on the

periphery of the species occupied

breeding range, and were disjunct from

the contiguous breeding area used by

the vast majority of North Slope eiders.

The aerial surveys that we relied upon

in establishing critical habitat

boundaries were flown during early to

mid-June, when spectacled eiders were

about to nest or had recently initiated

nesting. Transect lines were flown at 5-

mile intervals, covered a 400-m (1,312-

ft) swath, and sampled about 4 percent

of suitable spectacled eider breeding

habitat. The survey repeats the same

complete set of survey lines every 4

years.

About 75 percent of the terrestrial

portion of the North Slope proposed

critical habitat unit is managed by the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as

the NPR–A. BLM recently conducted an

oil and gas lease sale for the Northeast

Planning Area of the NPR–A.

Approximately 18 percent of the

Northeast Planning Area that is

currently available for lease is within

the boundary of proposed spectacled

eider critical habitat. The Teshekpuk

Lake Surface Protection Area is a

portion of the Northeast Planning Area

within the NPR–A that is unavailable

for leasing for a period of at least 10

years. This entire surface protection area

is within the boundary of the proposed

spectacled eider critical habitat.

Also part of the North Slope

designation are marine areas in the

Beaufort sea. Our information on the

importance of the Beaufort Sea to

migrating spectacled eiders, in both

spring and fall, is very limited. Only one

spectacled eider was observed among

420,000 eiders migrating past point

Barrow during spring (Woodby and

Divoky 1982) suggesting that either the

timing of this survey was not concurrent

with spectacled eider spring migration,

or spectacled eiders do not migrate

along the Beaufort Sea coast in spring.

Little else is known of North Slope

spectacled eider spring migration

routes.

Beaufort Sea seaduck and waterbird

surveys flown from shore to 81 km (50

mi) offshore during June, July, August,

and September 1999, resulted in the

sighting of only two groups of fewer

than four spectacled eiders (Bill Larned,

Service, MBM, pers. comm. 1999; TERA

6120 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1999). No spectacled eiders were

observed on these offshore surveys

during June and July, nor were

spectacled eiders sighted on surveys of

the near shore lagoon areas and within

bays. However, aerial survey biologists

concede that eider species in summer

plumage are exceedingly difficult to

discern from one another on aerial

surveys. Nine groups of unknown eiders

were observed in the vicinity of

Harrison Bay between August 31 and

September 2, 1999. Aerial observers

suspect that spectacled eider family

groups use the waters offshore of the

Colville River Delta and west, and

within Harrison Bay during the summer

(Bill Larned, Service, MBM, pers.

comm. 1999). Satellite telemetry

supports this belief. Most satellitetagged post-nesting female spectacled

eiders from Prudhoe Bay used Harrison

Bay briefly (5 of 13 tagged birds were

detected there once from satellite

telemetry data that is acquired every 3

days, another 5 of 13 were detected

there twice, resulting in a mean

residence time of at least 4 days) (TERA

1999). Thus, it seems that spectacled

eiders nesting near to or, presumably,

east of Prudhoe Bay make use of the

Beaufort Sea, especially those waters

near Harrison Bay. Satellite telemetry

indicates that molt migration and fall

migration of North Slope eiders takes

place in the offshore waters of the

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Peterson et

al. 1999). We believe that the Beaufort

and Chukchi Seas is probably important

habitat to eiders that nest west of

Prudhoe Bay, as well. Satellite telemetry

indicates post-breeding spectacled

eiders use the Beaufort and Chukchi

Seas out to 40 km (25 mi) (Peterson et

al. 1999). Therefore, we believe that

waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas

within 40 km (25 mi) of the mainland

are essential to the conservation of the

species.

Norton Sound

The area of this proposed parcel in

eastern Norton Sound east of the line

connecting Uwik Slough on the

northern edge of the Yukon River Delta

to Priest Rock on the northern shore of

Norton Sound is approximately 17,502

km2 (6,758 mi2) or 1,750,200 ha

(4,324,800 acres). As stated earlier,

Norton Sound is the principal, and

perhaps only, molting area for breeding

female spectacled eiders from the Y–K

Delta (Petersen et al. 1999). As many as

4,030 spectacled eiders have been

observed in one portion of eastern

Norton Sound at one time (Larned et al.

1995a). Use of this area by molting

eiders has been documented regularly

from 1982 to 1999 (Charles Lean, Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, Nome,

pers. comm. 1999; Bill Larned, Service,

MBM, pers. comm. 1999; Petersen et al.

1999). The area is used by spectacled

eiders from mid-July until the end of

October (Petersen et al. 1999).

Primary constituent elements of this

habitat include the marine waters,

associated marine aquatic flora and

fauna in the water column, and the

underlying marine benthic community.

Energy needs of waterfowl during molt

are high (Hohman et al. 1992). The

benthic biomass in the portion of

Norton Sound that spectacled eiders

inhabit apparently meets the high

metabolic needs for the many birds that

molt there. Indeed, the abundance of

large gastropods is higher in this area

than elsewhere in Norton Sound

(Springer and Pirtle 1997). Therefore,

we consider this habitat to be essential

to the conservation of the species.

Ledyard Bay

We propose to designate as critical

habitat for spectacled eiders waters

within Ledyard Bay between Cape

Lisburne and Icy Cape west to

167°00′W. The area of this parcel totals

approximately 21,688 km2 (8,374 mi2)

or 2,168,800 ha (5,359,200 acres).

Ledyard Bay is located along the

western coast of Alaska between Cape

Lisburne and Point Lay. It is one of the

primary molting grounds for female

spectacled eiders breeding on the North

Slope, and most female birds molting

here are from the North Slope (Petersen

et al. 1999). Male spectacled eiders from

the North Slope appear to molt and

stage in equal numbers in Ledyard Bay

and the two primary molting areas in

Russia: Mechigmenskiy Bay and the

Indigirka-Kolyma Delta (Petersen et al.

1999). The area is used by eiders from

early July through mid-October

(Petersen et al. 1999).

Primary constituent elements of the

Ledyard Bay molting area include the

marine waters, associated aquatic flora

and fauna in the water column, and the

underlying benthic community. As

stated earlier, the energy needs of birds

during molt is high. Due to the

importance of the benthic biomass in

this area to spectacled eiders during

molt, we believe that Ledyard Bay is

essential to the conservation of the

species. Spectacled eiders molting in

Ledyard Bay may be particularly

susceptible to disturbance because they

occur in dense concentrations and are

flightless for several weeks. Aerial

surveys in September 1995, found

33,192 spectacled eiders primarily

concentrated in a 37 km (23 mi)

diameter circle in Ledyard Bay (Larned

et al. 1995b). A single ill-timed oil-spill

in this area could harm thousands of

eiders.

Wintering Area

We are proposing to designate as

critical habitat those waters between St.

Lawrence and St. Matthew Islands that

are used by spectacled eiders during late

fall, winter, and early spring. No portion

of St. Lawrence Island or Russia is

included in this parcel. The area of this

parcel is approximately 73,937 km2

(28,547 mi2) or 7,393,700 ha (18,270,200

acres). Spectacled eiders typically

winter south and southwest of St.

Lawrence Island in the central Bering

Sea; they wintered in the same place in

4 of 5 years since the discovery of their

wintering area. In the 1 year when they

are known to have wintered elsewhere,

they were found further south and east

between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew

Islands. Prior to the formation of sea ice

in the area, spectacled eiders inhabit

waters directly south of Powooiliak Bay,

St. Lawrence Island, moving farther off

shore as winter progresses. Spectacled

eiders from all three main breeding

populations (Y–K Delta, North Slope,

and Arctic Russia) concentrate within a

50-km (31-mi) diameter circle in small

openings in the sea ice (Service 1999).

The location of this area changes

slightly among years and perhaps

within years. Distribution of wintering

eiders overlapped for the surveys

conducted in late winter of 1996–1999,

but was far removed from that area in

1995 (Larned and Tiplady 1999). The

most recent estimate of the number of

spectacled eiders wintering in this area

is 374,792 (±3,514) birds (Larned and

Tiplady 1999). Most, perhaps all, of the

worldwide population of spectacled

eiders congregates for several months in

this small portion of the central Bering

Sea. The primary constituent elements

of this habitat include the marine

waters, associated aquatic flora and

fauna in the water column, and

underlying benthic community. Because

this area receives such intensive use by

the species, and because wintering

spectacled eiders are not known to use

any other habitat, we believe that this

area is essential to the conservation of

this species.

Summary

We propose designation of critical

habitat on the North Slope and marine

waters within 40 km (25 mi) of the

coast; on the Y–K Delta and marine

waters within 40 km (25 mi) of the

coast; in Norton Sound, Ledyard Bay,

and the waters between St. Lawrence

and St. Matthew Islands. We believe all

of these areas meet the definition of

critical habitat in that they contain

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6121

physical or biological elements essential

for the conservation of the species and

may require special management

considerations or protection.

Designation of these areas will highlight

the conservation needs of the species,

and perhaps increase the degree to

which Federal agencies fulfill their

responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) of

the Act.

In accordance with the regulations

implementing the listing provisions of

the Act (50 CFR 424.12(h)), we have not

proposed any areas outside the

jurisdiction of the United States (e.g.,

within Russian jurisdiction or

international waters).

Spectacled eiders formerly bred on

the Seward Peninsula, St. Lawrence

Island, and elsewhere between the Y–K

Delta and North Slope. We have a recent

record of a single spectacled eider nest

on St. Lawrence Island (Shawn

Stephensen, Service, pers. comm. 1998).

We have no other recent breeding

records outside of the previously

discussed breeding areas. In addition,

we are unaware of any reports

suggesting that these formerly occupied

habitats are essential to the conservation

of the species. Because we believe the

areas within our proposed critical

habitat boundaries encompass all of the

existing eider breeding range in Alaska

that is essential to the conservation of

the species, we therefore believe that the

breeding areas we have proposed are

sufficient to support the recovery of

these populations of spectacled eiders.

Consequently, we have not proposed as

critical habitat areas on St. Lawrence

Island or outside of the species’ current

breeding range.

We are unaware of other parts of the

United States within the range of the

spectacled eider that are essential to the

conservation of the species. We believe

currently available information supports

designating critical habitat only in those

areas that we have proposed. Should

additional information on the value of

any marine area to spectacled eiders

become available, we will consider that

information in our critical habitat

decision making process.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing encourages

and results in conservation actions by

Federal, State, and private agencies,

groups, and individuals. The Act

provides for possible land acquisition

and cooperation with the States and

requires that recovery actions be carried

out for all listed species. The

protections required by Federal agencies

and the prohibitions against certain

activities involving listed species are

discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is designated or

proposed. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal

agencies to confer with us on any action

that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a proposed species or result

in destruction or adverse modification

of proposed critical habitat. If a species

is listed or critical habitat is

subsequently designated, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of such a species or

to destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. If a Federal action may

affect a listed species or its critical

habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with us.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and

regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require

Federal agencies to confer with us on

any action that is likely to result in

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. Regulations at

50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies

to reinitiate consultation on previously

reviewed actions in instances where

critical habitat is subsequently

designated. Consequently, as a result of

this proposal, some Federal agencies

may wish to request conferencing with

us on actions for which formal

consultation has been completed.

Conference reports provide conservation

recommendations to assist the agency in

eliminating conflicts that may be caused

by the proposed action. The

conservation recommendations in a

conference report are advisory.

We may issue a formal conference

report if requested by a Federal agency.

Formal conference reports on proposed

critical habitat contain a biological

opinion that is prepared according to 50

CFR 402.14, as if critical habitat were

designated. We may adopt the formal

conference report as the biological

opinion when the critical habitat is

designated, if no significant new

information or changes in the action

alter the content of the opinion (see 50

CFR 402.10(d)). We may also prepare a

formal conference report to address the

effects on proposed critical habitat from

issuance of an incidental take permit,

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Activities on Federal lands that may

affect the spectacled eider or its critical

habitat will require section 7

consultation. Activities on private or

State lands requiring a permit or license

from a Federal agency (e.g., a permit

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

under section 404 of the Clean Water

Act for wetland fill), would also be

subject to the section 7 consultation

process. Federal actions not affecting

the species, as well as actions on nonFederal lands that are not federally

funded, permitted, or licensed would

not require section 7 consultation.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us

to describe in any proposed or final

regulation that designates critical

habitat those activities involving a

Federal action that may adversely

modify such habitat or that may be

affected by such designation. Activities

that may destroy or adversely modify

critical habitat include those that alter

the primary constituent elements to an

extent that the value of critical habitat

for both the survival and recovery of the

spectacled eider is appreciably reduced.

We note that such activities are also

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species. Such activities

that may have the potential to destroy

or adversely modify critical habitat for

spectacled eiders include, but are not

limited to: (1) Commercial fisheries, (2)

oil exploration and development, and

(3) petroleum product transport.

The specific types of activities that

have required section 7 consultation

include but are not limited to: (1)

Construction and installation of

facilities and roads associated with oil

and gas development; (2) village growth

and upkeep, such as housing

developments, road building and

maintenance, and airport

improvements; (3) wastewater discharge

from communities and oil development

facilities; and (4) commercial fisheries.

Designation of critical habitat for

spectacled eiders notifies the Army

Corps of Engineers, other permitting

agencies, and the public that Clean

Water Act section 404 nationwide

permits and other authorizations for

activities with these designated critical

habitat areas must comply with section

7 consultation requirements. For each

section 7 consultation, we review the

direct and indirect effects of the

proposed projects on spectacled eiders.

6122 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—ACTIVITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY SPECTACLED EIDER LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Categories of activities Activities involving a Federal action potentially affected by species listing only 1

Additional activities involving a Federal action potentially affected by critical

habitat designation 2

Federal Activities Potentially

Affected 3.

Activities that the Federal Government carries out such as scientific research, land

surveys, law enforcement, oil spill response, resource management, and construction/expansion of physical facilities.

None.

Private Activities Potentially

Affected 4.

Activities that also require a Federal action (permit, authorization, or funding) such

as scientific research, commercial fishing, sport and subsistence hunting, shipping and transport of fuel oil and gasoline to villages, and village maintenance,

construction and expansion.

None.

1This column represents impacts of the final rule listing the spectacled eider (May 10, 1993) (58 FR 27474) under the Endangered Species

Act. 2This column represents the impacts of the critical habitat designation above and beyond those impacts resulting from listing the species. 3Activities initiated by a Federal agency.

4Activities initiated by a private entity that may need Federal authorization or funding.

In instances where we have consulted

on projects and a Federal action agency

has retained discretionary authority

over the action, we will notify the

agency of this proposal and will, when

requested, render a conference opinion

on their action as it relates to spectacled

eider critical habitat prior to publication

of a final critical habitat determination.

If you have questions regarding

whether specific activities will

constitute adverse modification of

critical habitat, contact the Field

Supervisor, Ecological Services

Anchorage Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section). Requests for copies of the

regulations on listed wildlife and

inquiries about prohibitions and permits

may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered

Species/Permits, 405 West 4th Street,

Room G–62, Anchorage, AK 99501

(telephone 907–271–2888, facsimile

907–271–2786).

Although we are proposing critical

habitat throughout much of the North

American portion of the spectacled

eider’s range and anticipate that doing

so will be beneficial to the species, this

action is not meant to imply that little

is currently being done to ensure the

species’ survival. On the contrary,

tremendous strides have been made in

recent years in our understanding of the

species and in ways to assist it in its

recovery.

For example, shortly after we learned

that spent lead shot was affecting birds,

we launched a public relations

campaign throughout remote bush

communities where lead shot was often

not recognized to be a hazard. We later

offered to swap boxes of steel shot for

subsistence hunters’ existing stores of

lead shot in an effort to reduce future

lead deposition. We designed field

projects to minimize disturbance of the

birds, and enforced the laws prohibiting

harvest of this species. Posters, flyers,

and fact sheets have been distributed

throughout rural Alaska, and we

regularly air radio spots reminding

hunters that spectacled eiders need their

help and that they are not legal quarry.

We also attend meetings of the

Waterfowl Conservation Committee, a

committee comprising elders from

Native communities throughout the

region that cooperatively manage

subsistence waterfowl harvest on the Y–

K Delta.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us

to designate critical habitat on the basis

of the best scientific and commercial

data available and to consider the

economic and other relevant impacts of

designating a particular area as critical

habitat. We may exclude areas from

critical habitat upon a determination

that the benefits of such exclusions

outweigh the benefits of specifying such

areas as critical habitat. We cannot

exclude such areas from critical habitat

when such exclusion will result in the

extinction of the species. Although we

could not identify any incremental

effects of this proposed critical habitat

designation above those impacts of

listing, we will conduct an economic

analysis to further evaluate this finding.

We will conduct the economic analysis

for this proposal prior to a final

determination. When the draft economic

analysis is completed, we will announce

its availability with a notice in the

Federal Register, and we will reopen

the comment period for 30 days at that

time to accept comments on the

economic analysis or further comment

on the proposed rule.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we solicit comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. We particularly seek

comments concerning:

(1) The reasons why any habitat

should or should not be determined to

be critical habitat as provided by section

4 of the Act, including whether the

benefits of designation will outweigh

any threats to the species due to

designation;

(2) Specific information on the

amount and distribution of spectacled

eiders and habitat, and what habitat is

essential to the conservation of the

species and why;

(3) Current or planned activities in the

subject areas and their possible impacts

on proposed critical habitat;

(4) Information on threats of take of

spectacled eiders by humans that may

result from critical habitat designation;

and

(5) Any foreseeable economic or other

impacts resulting from the proposed

designation of critical habitat, in

particular, any impacts on native

villages.

(6) Economic and other potential

values associated with designating

critical habitat for the spectacled eider

such as those derived from nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping,

bird-watching, ‘‘existence values,’’ and

reductions in administrative costs).

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations and notices

that are easy to understand. We invite

your comments on how to make this

proposed rule easier to understand

including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Are the requirements

in the document clearly stated? (2) Does

the proposed rule contain technical

language or jargon that interferes with

the clarity? (3) Does the format of the

proposed rule (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing,

etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6123

description of the proposed rule in the

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the document? (5) What else could we

do to make the proposed rule easier to

understand?

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law. In

certain circumstances, we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. We will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions

of at least three appropriate and

independent specialists regarding this

proposed rule. The purpose of such

review is to ensure listing decisions are

based on scientifically sound data,

assumptions, and analyses. We will

send copies of this proposed rule

immediately following publication in

the Federal Register to these peer

reviewers. We will invite these peer

reviewers to comment, during the

public comment period, on the specific

assumptions and conclusions regarding

the proposed designation of critical

habitat.

We will consider all comments and

information received during the 90-day

comment period on this proposed rule

during preparation of a final

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final

decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for one or more

public hearings on this proposal, if

requested. We intend to schedule three

public hearings on this proposal. We

will announce the dates, times, and

places of those hearings in local

newspapers at least 15 days prior to the

first hearing.

Required Determinations

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order

12866, this action was submitted for

review by the Office of Management and

Budget.

a. This rule will not have an annual

economic effect of $100 million or

adversely affect an economic sector,

productivity, jobs, the environment, or

other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis is not

required. The Spectacled eider was

listed as a threatened species in 1993.

Between the Fiscal Years 1997–2000 we

have conducted 108 section 7

consultations with other Federal

agencies to ensure that their actions

would not jeopardize the continued

existence of the spectacled eider. The

areas proposed for critical habitat are

currently occupied by the spectacled

eider. Under the Endangered Species

Act, critical habitat may not be

adversely modified by a Federal agency

action; it does not impose any

restrictions on non-Federal entities

unless they are conducting activities

funded or otherwise sponsored or

permitted by a Federal agency. Section

7 requires Federal agencies to ensure

that they do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species.

Based upon our experience with the

species and its needs, we conclude that

any Federal action or authorized action

that could potentially cause an adverse

modification of the proposed critical

habitat would currently be considered

as ‘‘jeopardy’’ under Act. Accordingly,

the designation of currently occupied

areas as critical habitat does not have

any incremental impacts on what

actions may or may not be conducted by

Federal agencies or non-Federal persons

that receive Federal authorization or

funding. Non-Federal persons that do

not have a Federal ‘‘sponsorship’’ of

their actions are not restricted by the

designation of critical habitat (they

continue to be bound by the provisions

of the Act concerning ‘‘take’’ of the

species).

b. This rule will not create

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. As discussed above, Federal

agencies have been required to ensure

that their actions do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the spectacled

eider since the listing in 1993. The

prohibition against adverse modification

of critical habitat is not expected to

impose any additional restrictions to

those that currently exist because all

proposed critical habitat is occupied.

Because of the potential for impacts on

other Federal agency actions, we will

continue to review this proposed action

for any inconsistencies with other

Federal agency actions.

c. This rule will not materially affect

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan

programs, or the rights and obligations

of their recipients. Federal agencies are

currently required to ensure that their

activities do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species, and

as discussed above we do not anticipate

that the adverse modification

prohibition (from critical habitat

determination) will have any

incremental effects because all proposed

critical habitat is occupied.

d. The proposed rule follows the

requirements for determining critical

habitat contained in the Endangered

Species Act.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

In the economic analysis, we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will have a significant

effect on a substantial number of small

entities. As discussed under Regulatory

Planning and Review above, this rule is

not expected to result in any restrictions

in addition to those currently in

existence. As indicated on Table 1 (see

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

section) we have proposed land and

marine waters, which are occupied by

the spectacled eider, and summarized

by Private, State, Federal and Native

government ownership. Within these

areas, activities that may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include

those that alter the primary constituent

elements to an extent that the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and

recovery of the spectacled eider is

appreciably reduced. We note that such

activities are also likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of the species.

Such activities that may have the

potential to destroy or adversely modify

critical habitat for spectacled eiders

include, but are not limited to: (1)

Commercial fisheries, (2) oil exploration

and development, and (3) petroleum

product transport. Many of these

activities sponsored by Federal agencies

within the proposed critical habitat

areas are carried out by small entities (as

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act) through contract, grant, permit, or

other Federal authorization. As

discussed under Regulatory Planning

and Review above, these actions are

currently required to comply with the

listing protections of the Act, and the

designation of critical habitat is not

anticipated to have any additional

effects on these activities. For actions on

non-Federal property that do not have a

Federal connection (such as funding or

authorization), the current restrictions

concerning take of the species remain in

6124 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

effect and this rule has no additional

restrictions (See Table 2 under

Available Conservation Measures

above).

3. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

In the economic analysis, we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will cause (a) any effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, (b) any increases in costs or prices

for consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions in the

economic analysis, or any significant

adverse effects on competition,

employment, investment, productivity,

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

In accordance with the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et

seq.):

a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly or

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A

Small Government Agency Plan is not

required. Small governments will only

be affected to the extent that any Federal

funds, permits or other authorized

activities must ensure that their actions

will not adversely affect the critical

habitat. However, as discussed in

section 1, these actions are currently

subject to equivalent restrictions

through the listing protections of the

species, and no further restrictions are

anticipated.

b. This rule will not produce a

Federal mandate of $100 million or

greater in any year, i.e., it is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The designation of critical habitat

imposes no obligations on State or local

governments.

5. Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the rule does not have significant

takings implications. A takings

implication assessment is not required.

As discussed above, the designation of

critical habitat affects only Federal

agency actions. The rule will not

increase or decrease the current

restrictions on private property

concerning take of the spectacled eider.

Due to the prohibition against take of

the species both within and outside of

the designated areas, and the fact that

critical habitat provides no incremental

restrictions, we do not anticipate that

property values should be affected by

the critical habitat designation.

Additionally, critical habitat

designation does not preclude

development of habitat conservation

plans and issuance of incidental take

permits. Landowners in areas that are

included in the designated critical

habitat will continue to have

opportunity to utilize their property in

ways consistent with the survival of the

spectacled eider.

6. Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have significant

Federalism effects. A Federalism

assessment is not required. The

designation of critical habitat in areas

currently occupied by the spectacled

eider imposes no additional restrictions

to those currently in place, and

therefore has little incremental impact

on State and local governments and

their activities. The designation may

have some benefit to these governments

in that the areas protected are more

clearly defined, and the primary

constituent elements of the habitat

necessary to the survival of the species

specifically identified. While this

definition and identification does not

alter where and what federally

sponsored activities may occur, it may

assist these local governments in long

range planning (rather than waiting for

case by case section 7 consultations to

occur).

7. Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that the rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We designate

critical habitat in accordance with the

provisions of the Endangered Species

Act and plan public hearings on the

proposed designation during the

comment period. The rule uses standard

property descriptions and identifies the

primary constituent elements within the

designated areas to assist the public in

understanding the habitat needs of the

spectacled eider.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any

information collection requirements for

which Office of Management and

Budget approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act is required.

9. National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we do not

need to prepare Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact

Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We

published a notice outlining our reasons

for this determination in the Federal

Register in October 1983 (48 FR 49244).

10. Government-to-Government

Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512

DM 2:

We understand that we must relate to

federally recognized Tribes on a

Government-to-Government basis.

Secretarial Order 3206 American Indian

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust

Responsibilities and the Endangered

Species Act states that ‘‘Critical habitat

shall not be designated in such areas [an

area that may impact Tribal trust

resources] unless it is determined

essential to conserve a listed species. In

designating critical habitat, the Service

shall evaluate and document the extent

to which the conservation needs of a

listed species can be achieved by

limiting the designation to other lands.’’

While this Order does not apply to the

State of Alaska, we recognize our

responsibility to inform affected Native

Corporations, and regional Native

governments of this proposal.

Subsequent to this proposal, we will

coordinate with the Native communities

and analyze the need to designate

critical habitat on Native lands; and

consult with other bureaus and offices

of the Department about the potential

effects of this rule on Indian tribes.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

in this proposed rule is available upon

request from the Ecological Services

Anchorage Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary authors of this document

are Greg Balogh and Terry Antrobus (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons given in the preamble,

we propose to amend 50 CFR part 17 as

set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6125

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544: 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245: Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11 (h) revise the entry for

spectacled eider under ‘‘BIRDS’’ to read

as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate

population where

endangered or

threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

BIRDS

*******

Eider, spectacled ..... Somateria ...............

(=Arctonetta,

=Lampronetta,)

fischeri.

USA (AK); Russia ... Entire ...................... T 503 17.95(b) NA

*******

3. In § 17.95 add critical habitat for

the spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri)

under paragraph (b) in the same

alphabetical order as this species occurs

in § 17.11 (h) to read as follows:

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—Fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(b) Birds.

* * * * *

Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri)

1. Critical habitat units are depicted for the

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and adjacent

marine waters, North Slope and adjacent

marine waters, Ledyard Bay, Norton Sound,

and the Bering Sea between St. Lawrence and

St. Matthew Islands for reference only. The

areas in critical habitat are described below.

2. Within these areas, the primary

constituent elements are those habitat

components that are essential for the primary

biological needs of feeding, nesting, brood

rearing, roosting, molting, migrating and

wintering. The primary constituent elements

on the Y–K Delta include open water; low

wet sedge; grass marsh; dwarf shrub/

graminoid meadow; high and intermediate

graminoid meadow; mixed high graminoid

meadow/dwarf shrub uplands; areas adjacent

to open water, low wet sedge and grass

marsh; and all marine waters, associated

marine aquatic flora and fauna in the water

column, and the underlying marine benthic

community. Primary constituent elements on

the North Slope include all marine waters,

associated marine aquatic flora and fauna in

the water column, and the underlying marine

benthic community; all deep water bodies;

all water bodies that are part of basin wetland

complexes; all permanently flooded wetlands

and water bodies containing either Carex

aquatilis, Arctophila fulva, or both; and all

habitat immediately adjacent to these habitat

types. Primary constituent elements for the

Norton Sound Unit, the Ledyard Bay Unit

and the Wintering Unit include all marine

waters, associated marine aquatic flora and

fauna in the water column, and the

underlying marine benthic community.

3. Critical habitat does not include

existing human structures.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

6126 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6127

Unit 1. North Y–K Delta Unit

Seward Meridian: T28N, R86W; T28N,

R85W; T27N, R86W; T27N, R85W; T26N,

R87W; T26N, R86W; T25N, R88W; T25N,

R87W; T24N, R90W; T24N, R89W; T23N,

R90W; T23N, R89W; T22N, R90W; T21N,

R90W; T21N, R89W; T21N, R88W; and all

marine waters of the Bering Sea within 40

kilometers (25 miles) of the above area.

Unit 3. Central Y–K Delta Unit

Seward Meridian: T19N, R91W; T19N,

R90W; T18N, R93W; T18N, R92W; T18N,

R91W; T18N, R90W; T17N, R93W; T17N,

R92W; T17N, R91W; T17N, R90W; T16N,

R94W; T16N, R93W; T16N, R92W; T16N,

R91W; T15N, R93W; T15N, R92W; T15N,

R91W; T15N, R90W; T15N, R89W; T14N,

R93W; T14N, R92W; T14N, R91W; T14N,

R90W; T14N, R89W; T13N, R91W; T13N,

R90W; T13N, R89W; T13N, R88W; T13N,

R87W; T12N, R92W; T12N, R91W; T12N,

R90W; T12N, R89W; T12N, R88W; T12N,

R87W; T11N, R91W; T11N, R90W; T11N,

R89W; T11N, R88W; T11N, R87W; T10N,

R90W; T10N, R89W; T10N, R88W; T9N,

R89W; T9N, R88W; T9N, R87W; T8N, R90W;

T8N, R89W; and all marine waters of the

Bering Sea within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of

the above area.

Unit 4. South Y–K Delta Unit

Seward Meridian: T4N, R91W; T4N, R90W;

T4N, R89W; T4N, R88W; T3N, R91W; T3N,

R90W; T3N, R89W; T3N, R88W; T2N, R89W;

T2N, R88W; T1N, R88W; and all marine

waters of the Bering Sea within 40 kilometers

(25 miles) of the above area.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

6128 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6129

Unit 5. North Slope Unit

Umiat Meridian: T23N, R18W; T23N,

R17W; T22N, R19W; T22N, R18W; T22N,

R17W; T22N, R16W; T22N, R15W; T21N,

R20W; T21N, R19W; T21N, R18W; T21N,

R17W; T21N, R16W; T21N, R15W; T21N,

R14W; T21N, R13W; T21N, R12W; T20N,

R21W; T20N, R20W; T20N, R19W; T20N,

R18W; T20N, R17W; T20N, R16W; T20N,

R15W; T20N, R14W; T20N, R13W; T20N,

R12W; T20N, R11W; T19N, R21W; T19N,

R20W; T19N, R19W; T19N, R18W; T19N,

R17W; T19N, R16W; T19N, R15W; T19N,

R14W; T19N, R13W; T19N, R12W; T19N,

R11W; T19N, R10W; T18N, R23W; T18N,

R22W; T18N, R21W; T18N, R20W; T18N,

R19W; T18N, R18W; T18N, R17W; T18N,

R16W; T18N, R15W; T18N, R14W; T18N,

R13W; T18N, R12W; T18N, R11W; T18N,

R10W; T18N, R8W; T18N, R7W; T18N, R6W;

T18N, R5W; T18N, R4W; T18N, R3W; T18N,

R2W; T17N, R30W; T17N, R29W; T17N,

R28W; T17N, R27W; T17N, R26W; T17N,

R25W; T17N, R24W; T17N, R23W; T17N,

R22W; T17N, R21W; T17N, R20W; T17N,

R19W; T17N, R18W; T17N, R17W; T17N,

R16W; T17N, R15W; T17N, R14W; T17N,

R13W; T17N, R12W; T17N, R11W; T17N,

R10W; T17N, R9W; T17N, R8W; T17N, R7W;

T17N, R6W; T17N, R5W; T17N, R4W; T17N,

R3W; T17N, R2W; T17N, R1W; T16N, R31W;

T16N, R30W; T16N, R29W; T16N, R28W;

T16N, R27W; T16N, R26W; T16N, R25W;

T16N, R24W; T16N, R23W; T16N, R22W;

T16N, R21W; T16N, R20W; T16N, R19W;

T16N, R18W; T16N, R17W; T16N, R16W;

T16N, R15W; T16N, R14W; T16N, R13W;

T16N, R12W; T16N, R11W; T16N, R10W;

T16N, R9W; T16N, R8W; T16N, R7W; T16N,

R6W; T16N, R5W; T16N, R4W; T16N, R3W;

T16N, R2W;

T15N, R32W; T15N, R31W; T15N, R30W;

T15N, R29W; T15N, R28W; T15N, R27W;

T15N, R26W; T15N, R25W; T15N, R24W;

T15N, R23W; T15N, R22W; T15N, R21W;

T15N, R20W; T15N, R19W; T15N, R18W;

T15N, R17W; T15N, R16W; T15N, R15W;

T15N, R14W; T15N, R13W; T15N, R12W;

T15N, R11W; T15N, R10W; T15N, R9W;

T15N, R8W; T15N, R7W; T15N, R6W; T15N,

R5W; T15N, R4W; T15N, R3W; T15N, R2W;

T14N, R33W; T14N, R32W; T14N, R31W;

T14N, R30W; T14N, R29W; T14N, R28W;

T14N, R27W; T14N, R26W; T14N, R25W;

T14N, R24W; T14N, R23W; T14N, R22W;

T14N, R21W; T14N, R20W; T14N, R19W;

T14N, R18W; T14N, R17W; T14N, R16W;

T14N, R15W; T14N, R14W; T14N, R13W;

T14N, R12W; T14N, R11W; T14N, R10W;

T14N, R9W; T14N, R8W; T14N, R7W; T14N,

R6W; T14N, R5W; T14N, R4W; T14N, R3W;

T14N, R2W; T14N, R1W; T14N, R1E; T14N,

R2E; T13N, R34W; T13N, R33W; T13N,

R32W; T13N, R31W; T13N, R30W; T13N,

R29W; T13N, R28W; T13N, R27W; T13N,

R26W; T13N, R25W; T13N, R24W; T13N,

R23W; T13N, R22W; T13N, R21W; T13N,

R20W; T13N, R19W; T13N, R18W; T13N,

R17W; T13N, R16W; T13N, R15W; T13N,

R14W; T13N, R13W; T13N, R12W; T13N,

R11W; T13N, R10W; T13N, R9W; T13N,

R8W; T13N, R7W; T13N, R6W; T13N, R5W;

T13N, R4W; T13N, R3W; T13N, R2W; T13N,

R1W; T13N, R1E; T13N, R2E; T13N, R4E;

T13N, R5E; T13N, R6E; T13N, R7E; T13N,

R8E; T13N, R9E; T13N, R10E; T13N, R11E;

T13N, R12E; T13N, R13E; T12N, R35W;

T12N, R34W; T12N, R33W; T12N, R32W;

T12N, R31W; T12N, R30W; T12N, R29W;

T12N, R28W; T12N, R27W; T12N, R26W;

T12N, R25W; T12N, R24W; T12N, R23W;

T12N, R22W; T12N, R21W; T12N, R20W;

T12N, R19W; T12N, R18W; T12N, R17W;

T12N, R16W; T12N, R15W; T12N, R14W;

T12N, R13W; T12N, R12W; T12N, R11W;

T12N, R10W; T12N, R9W; T12N, R8W;

T12N, R7W; T12N, R6W; T12N, R5W; T12N,

R3E; T12N, R4E; T12N, R5E; T12N, R6E;

T12N, R7E; T12N, R8E; T12N, R9E; T12N,

R10E; T12N, R11E; T12N, R12E; T12N, R13E;

T12N, R14E; T12N, R15E; T12N, R16E; T11N,

R40W; T11N, R39W; T11N, R37W; T11N,

R36W; T11N, R35W; T11N, R34W; T11N,

R33W; T11N, R30W; T11N, R29W; T11N,

R28W; T11N, R27W; T11N, R26W; T11N,

R25W; T11N, R24W; T11N, R23W; T11N,

R22W; T11N, R21W; T11N, R20W; T11N,

R19W; T11N, R18W; T11N, R17W; T11N,

R16W; T11N, R15W; T11N, R14W; T11N,

R13W; T11N, R12W; T11N, R3E; T11N, R4E;

T11N, R5E; T11N, R6E; T11N, R7E; T11N,

R8E; T11N, R9E; T11N, R10E; T11N, R11E;

T11N, R12E; T11N, R13E; T11N, R14E; T11N,

R15E; T11N, R16E; T11N, R17E; T10N,

R40W; T10N, R39W; T10N, R38W; T10N,

R37W; T10N, R36W; T10N, R35W; T10N,

R34W; T10N, R30W; T10N, R29W; T10N,

R28W; T10N, R27W; T10N, R26W; T10N,

R25W; T10N, R24W; T10N, R23W; T10N,

R22W; T10N, R21W; T10N, R20W; T10N,

R19W; T10N, R18W; T10N, R17W; T10N,

R16W; T10N, R15W; T10N, R14W; T10N,

R13W; T10N, R12W; T10N, R3E; T10N, R4E;

T10N, R10E; T10N, R11E; T10N, R12E; T10N,

R13E; T10N, R14E; T10N, R15E; T10N, R16E;

T10N, R17E; T10N, R18E; T10N, R19E; T9N,

R41W; T9N, R40W; T9N, R39W; T9N, R38W;

T9N, R23W; T9N, R22W; T9N, R21W; T9N,

R20W; T9N, R19W; T9N, R18W; T9N, R17W;

T9N, R16W; T9N, R15W; T9N, R14W; T9N,

R13W; T9N, R12W; T9N, R11E; T9N, R12E;

T9N, R13E; T9N, R14E; T9N, R15E; T9N,

R16E; T9N, R17E; T9N, R18E; T9N, R19E;

T9N, R20E; T8N, R42W; T8N, R41W; T8N,

R20W; T8N, R19W; T8N, R18W; T8N, R17W;

T8N, R16W; T8N, R15W; T8N, R14W; T8N,

R13W; T8N, R12W; T8N, R11E; T8N, R12E;

T8N, R17E; T8N, R18E; T8N, R19E; T8N,

R20E; T7N, R13W; T7N, R12W; and all

marine waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi

Seas within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the

above area.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

6130 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6131

Unit 6. Norton Sound Unit

The area east of a great circle route

connecting the east bank of the mouth of

Uwik Slough, on the northern edge of the

Yukon River Delta, to Priest Rock, on the

northern shore of Norton Sound (a great

circle route connecting the geographic

coordinates 63°15′ N × 164°09′ W and 64°19′

N × 162°47′ W).

Unit 7. Ledyard Bay Unit

The area bound by the following

description: from Cape Lisburne (68°5′ N ×

166°11′ W) along the mean low tide line of

the Alaska coast north and east to Icy Cape

(70°18′ N × 161°54′ W); from Icy Cape west

along 70°18′ N to 70°18′ N × 167°00′ W; south

from 70°18′ N × 167°00′ W along 167°00′ W

to 68°52′ N × 167°00′ W, and from 68°52′ N

× 167°00′ W east along 68°52′ N back to Cape

Lisburne.

Unit 8. Wintering Area Unit

The area bound by the following

description: from 61°00′ N × 174°30′ W east

along that latitude to 61°00′ N × 169°00′ W,

north along 169°00′ W longitude to the south

shore of St. Lawrence Island (at

approximately 63°12′ N × 169°00′ W), west

and north along the mean low tide line of the

south shore of St. Lawrence Island to 63°30′

N × 171°48′ W, west to the U.S.-Russia border

at 63°30′ N × 173°16.2′ W, southwest along

the U.S.-Russia Border to 62°56.4′ N ×

174°30′ W, south along 174°30′ W to 61°00′

N × 174°30′ W.

* * * * *

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Stephen C. Saunders,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 00–2608 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P