12932 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R7–ES–2009–0133; MO9221050083– 

B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Yellow-Billed Loon 

as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) 

as threatened or endangered, with 

critical habitat, under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

The petitioners provided two listing 

options for consideration by the Service: 

(1) Listing the yellow-billed loon 

throughout its range, or (2) listing the 

United States population of the yellowbilled loon as a Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS). After a review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we have determined that 

listing the yellow-billed loon rangewide 

under the Act is warranted but 

precluded by other higher priority 

listing actions. 

DATES: This finding was made on March 

25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Data, information, 

comments, or questions regarding this 

notice should be submitted to the Field 

Supervisor, Endangered Species Branch, 

Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

101–12th Ave., Room 110, Fairbanks, 

AK 99701. The complete administrative 

file for this finding is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ted Swem, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 

907–456–0441; facsimile 907–456– 

0208). If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition presenting substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

that listing may be warranted, we make 

a finding within 12 months of the date 

of receipt of the petition on whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but that 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of 

the Act requires that we treat a petition 

for which the requested action is found 

to be warranted but precluded as though 

resubmitted on the date of such finding, 

and is, therefore, subject to a new 

finding to be made within 12 months 

and subsequently thereafter until we 

take action on a proposal to list or 

withdraw our original finding. We must 

publish these 12-month findings in the 

Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 5, 2004, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) (Sitka, AK), Natural 

Resources Defense Council 

(Washington, DC), Pacific Environment 

(San Francisco, CA), Trustees for Alaska 

(Anchorage, AK), Kaira Club (Chukotka, 

Anadyr, Russia), Kronotsky Nature 

Preserve (Kamchatka Region, Russia), 

Taiga Rangers (Khabarovsk Region, 

Russia), Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Local 

Public Fund (Sakhalin Region, Russia), 

Interregional Public Charitable 

Organization of Far Eastern Resource 

Centers (Vladivostok, Russia), 

Kamchatka Branch of Pacific Institute of 

Geography (Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, 

Russia), and Kamchatka League of 

Independent Experts (PetropavlovskKamchatsky, Russia) to list the yellowbilled loon as endangered or threatened 

throughout its range, or as a Distinct 

Population Segment in the United 

States, and to designate critical habitat 

once listed. The petition summarizes 

threats to the species based on CBD’s 

review of Fair’s (2002) report, prepared 

for the Natural Resources Defense 

Council and Trustees for Alaska, on the 

status and significance of the species in 

Alaska, as well as CBD’s review of the 

scientific literature. In September 2006, 

the Service completed a ‘‘Conservation 

Agreement for the Yellow-billed Loon 

(Gavia adamsii)’’ with Federal, State, 

and local partners. In response to the 

petition, we published a 90-day finding 

on the yellow-billed loon in the Federal 

Register on June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31256). 

In the 90-day finding we determined 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific or commercial information to 

indicate that a listing may be warranted 

and announced that a status review 

would be promptly commenced. In that 

notice we announced the opening of a 

60-day information collection period 

and invited the public to submit to us 

any pertinent information concerning 

the status of or threats to this species. 

Approximately 28,000 comments were 

received during the information 

collection period. We also consulted 

with recognized yellow-billed loon 

experts and other Federal and State 

agencies. We sent letters to national 

wildlife or natural resource agencies in 

Canada, China, Japan, North Korea, 

Norway, Republic of Korea (South 

Korea), and the Russian Federation, 

asking for information about ongoing 

management measures and any 

conservation and management strategies 

being developed to protect the species. 

We received a formal response from the 

government of Canada, and an informal 

response from a government biologist in 

the Russian Federation. 

On June 11, 2007, we received a 60- 

day notice of intent to sue from the 

Center for Biological Diversity alleging a 

violation of section 4 of the ESA for 

failure to complete a 12-month finding 

on the petition. We informed the 

plaintiffs by letter dated July 9, 2007, 

that further action on the petition was 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions but that, pending the fiscal year 

2008 allocation of funds, we hoped to 

complete the 12-month finding within 

that fiscal year. 

On December 19, 2007, the Center for 

Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a 

complaint alleging that the Service had 

failed to make a timely 12-month 

finding on the petition, as required 

under section 4 of the ESA. Consistent 

with a settlement agreement reached 

between the Service and CBD, the Court 

ordered the Service to submit this 12- 

month finding for publication to the 

Federal Register by February 15, 2009. 

Because the Service later received 

substantial new information to be 

evaluated and considered in the 12- 

month finding, we subsequently sought 

and were granted a one month extension 

with a new deadline of March 16, 2009. 

This notice constitutes a 12-month 

finding for the petition to list the 

yellow-billed loon as threatened or 

endangered. The petitioners provided 

two listing options for consideration by 

the Service: (1) Listing the yellow-billed 

loon throughout its range, or (2) listing 

the United States population of the 

yellow-billed loon as a Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS). Because we 

find that listing the yellow-billed loon 

rangewide is warranted at this time, 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12933 

there is no need to conduct further 

analysis of whether listing the United 

States population of the yellow-billed 

loon as a DPS, which is a smaller 

geographic entity than the entire range, 

is warranted, as this consideration is 

subsumed by the rangewide warranted 

but precluded finding. 

Outline of This Notice 

In this notice, we first provide 

background information on the biology 

of the yellow-billed loon. Next, we 

address each of the categories of factors 

listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 

each factor, we first determine whether 

any stressors, or risk factors, appear to 

be negatively affecting yellow-billed 

loons anywhere within the species’ 

range. If we determine they are, then we 

evaluate whether each of these risk 

factors is resulting in population-level 

effects that are significant to the 

determination of the conservation status 

of the species. If so, we describe it as a 

‘‘threat.’’ The fact that we find a stressor 

to be a threat to the species does not 

necessarily mean that the species meets 

the definition of threatened or 

endangered. Rather, in the subsequent 

finding section, we then consider each 

of the stressors and identified threats, 

individually and cumulatively, and 

make a determination with respect to 

whether the species is endangered or 

threatened according to the statutory 

standard. 

The term ‘‘threatened species’’ means 

any species (or subspecies or, for 

vertebrates, distinct population 

segments) that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The Act 

does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable 

future.’’ However, in a January 16, 2009, 

memorandum addressed to the Acting 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Office of the Solicitor, 

Department of the Interior, concluded, 

‘‘* * * as used in the ESA, Congress 

intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to 

describe the extent to which the 

Secretary can reasonably rely on 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species.’’ In a 

footnote, the memorandum states, ‘‘In 

this memorandum, references to 

‘reliable predictions’ are not meant to 

refer to reliability in a statistical sense. 

Rather, I use the words ‘‘rely’’ and 

‘‘reliable’’ according to their common, 

non-technical meanings in ordinary 

usage. Thus, for the purposes of this 

memorandum, a prediction is reliable if 

it is reasonable to depend upon it in 

making decisions’’ (M–37021, January 

16, 2009). 

Species Biology 

The yellow-billed loon is a migratory 

bird. Solitary pairs breed on lakes in the 

arctic tundra of the United States, 

Russia, and Canada from June to 

September. During the remainder of the 

year the species winters in more 

southern coastal waters of the Pacific 

Ocean and the Norway and North Seas. 

Non-breeding birds remain in marine 

waters throughout the year, either in 

wintering areas or offshore from 

breeding grounds. 

The following information regarding 

the description and natural history of 

the yellow-billed loon (American 

Ornithologists’ Union 1998, p. 5) has 

been condensed from the status 

assessments conducted by North (1994) 

and Earnst (2004), and updated with 

information that has become available 

since then. 

Taxonomy and Description 

The yellow-billed loon (Order 

Gaviiformes, Family Gaviidae) is one of 

the largest of the five loon species and 

similar in appearance to the common 

loon (Gavia immer). There are no 

recognized subspecies or geographic 

variations (American Ornithologists’ 

Union 1998, p. 5). A field characteristic 

that distinguishes yellow-billed loons 

from common loons is their larger 

yellow or ivory-colored bill. Adults 

weigh 4,000 to 6,000 grams (8.8 to 13.2 

pounds) and are 774 to 920 millimeters 

(30 to 37 inches) in length. Breeding 

(alternate) plumage of adults of both 

sexes is black on top with white spots 

on the wings and underside, and white 

stripes on the neck. Non-breeding 

(basic) plumage is gray-brown with 

fewer and less distinct white spots than 

breeding plumage, with paler 

undersides and head, and a blue-gray 

bill. Hatchlings have dark brown and 

gray down, and juveniles are gray with 

a paler head (North 1994, p. 2). Yellowbilled loons are specialized for aquatic 

foraging with a streamlined shape and 

legs near the rear of the body, and are 

unable to take flight from land. 

Feeding Habits 

Yellow-billed loons forage underwater 

for fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

Limited information exists on specific 

prey species consumed. Marine prey 

species collected from loons wintering 

in southeast Alaska and Canada include 

fish such as sculpins (Leptocottus 

armatus, Myoxocephalus sp.), Pacific 

tomcod (Microgadus proximus), and 

rock cod (Sebastodes sp.), and 

invertebrates such as amphipods 

(Orchomonella sp., Anonyx nirgax), 

isopods (Idothea sp.), shrimps 

(Pandalus danae, Spirontocaris 

ochotensis), hermit crabs (Pagarus sp.), 

and marine worms (Nereis sp.) (Bailey 

1922, p. 205; Cottam and Knappen 1939, 

p. 139; North 1994, pp. 6–7; Earnst 

2004, pp. 9–10). Pacific sand dabs 

(Citharichthys sordidus) were found in 

a yellow-billed loon collected 

extralimitally (i.e., outside the limits of 

the species’ range) in Baja California 

(Jehl 1970, p. 376) and sculpin 

(Myoxocephalus scorpius) in a 

specimen collected in Norway (Collett 

1894, p. 280). Prey species taken in 

other wintering grounds, such as in the 

Yellow Sea (which supports 276 fish 

species and 54 crustacean species; 

UNDP 2002, p. 8) are unknown. 

During the breeding season, foraging 

habitats include lakes, rivers, and the 

nearshore marine environment. 

Successfully breeding adults feed their 

young almost entirely from the broodrearing lake (North 1994, p. 14). 

Ninespine sticklebacks (Pungitius 

pungitius) and least cisco (Coregonus 

sardinella) are thought to be the main 

foods of chicks in Alaska (Earnst 2004, 

p. 9). Other freshwater prey available in 

Alaska that are likely utilized include 

Alaska blackfish (Dallia pectoralis), 

fourhorn sculpins (M. quadricornus), 

amphipods, and isopods (Earnst 2004, 

p. 9), as well as aquatic plant material 

(Sjo ̈lander and A ̊ gren 1976, p. 460). In 

arctic Russia, limited stomach content 

analysis indicates sticklebacks, salmon, 

crustaceans, beetles, and plant 

vegetation are consumed during the 

breeding season (Uspenskii 1969, p. 

130). 

Breeding Habitat and Territories 

Yellow-billed loons nest exclusively 

on margins of lakes in coastal and 

inland low-lying tundra from 62° to 74° 

North (N) latitude. Lakes that support 

breeding loons have abundant fish 

populations. Studies of yellow-billed 

loon habitat have identified several 

characteristics that predict loon 

presence. These may be indirect 

measures or correlates of the actual 

characteristics necessary or preferred by 

loons, such as fish availability. 

Predictors of yellow-billed loon 

presence on a lake include water depths 

greater than 2 meters (m) or 6.5 feet (ft) 

allowing for unfrozen water under the 

ice during winter; large lake areas (at 

least 13.4 hectares (ha) or 33 acres (ac)); 

connections to streams that may supply 

fish; highly convoluted, vegetated, and 

low-lying shorelines; clear water; and 

dependable water levels (Earnst et al. 

2006, pp. 230–233; Stehn et al. 2005, 

pp. 9–10; North 1994, p. 6). Probability 

of yellow-billed loon presence on a lake 

increases with the absence of Pacific 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12934 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

loons (Gavia pacifica) (Earnst et al. 

2006, p. 233; Stehn et al. 2005, p. 9). 

Breeding lakes may be near major rivers, 

but are usually not connected to them, 

possibly because greater fluctuations 

associated with river connections may 

flood nests or cause turbidity that 

compromises foraging success (North & 

Ryan 1989, p. 303). Falling water levels 

may also expose loon nests to increased 

risk of predation (Kertell 1996, p. 356). 

Breeding territories (areas defended 

against other yellow-billed loons and 

other loon species, particularly Pacific 

loons) may include one or more lakes or 

parts of lakes. Territory size, likely 

dependent upon lake size and quality, 

ranged from 13.8 to greater than 100 ha 

(34 to greater than 247 ac) on the 

Colville River Delta, Alaska (North 

1986, as cited in North 1994, p. 10). It 

is thought that individual loons occupy 

the same breeding territory throughout 

their reproductive life. Some breeding 

lakes are ‘‘known to be reoccupied over 

long time spans’’ (North 1994, p. 10), 

most likely by the same monogamous 

pair (North 1994, p. 10), similar to 

common loons (Evers 2004, p. 13). 

Nesting Sites and Behavior 

Nest sites are usually located on 

islands, hummocks, or peninsulas, 

along low shorelines, within 1 m (3 ft) 

of water. The nest location, which may 

be used in multiple years, usually 

provides a better view of the 

surrounding land and water than other 

available lakeshore locations. Nests are 

constructed of mud or peat, and are 

often lined with vegetation. One or two 

large, smooth, mottled brown eggs are 

laid in mid-to late June (North 1994, pp. 

11–12). Egg replacement after nest 

predation occurs rarely; unless failure 

occurs very early in the season, the 

short arctic summer probably precludes 

the production or success of 

replacement clutches (Earnst 2004, p. 8). 

Hatching occurs after 27 to 28 days of 

incubation by both sexes. Although the 

age at which young are capable of flight 

is unknown, it is probably similar to 

common loons (8–9, possibly up to 11, 

weeks). The young leave the nest soon 

after hatching, and the family may move 

between natal and brood-rearing lakes. 

Both males and females participate in 

feeding and caring for young (North 

1994, p. 13). 

Life History 

There is no reliable scientific 

information on lifespan and 

survivorship, but as large-bodied birds 

with low clutch size, yellow-billed 

loons are probably K-selected (longlived and dependent upon high annual 

adult survival to maintain populations). 

On average, individuals reach sexual 

maturity at 3 years of age, but may not 

acquire breeding territories until at least 

4 years of age (North 1994, p. 15). The 

average age at first breeding for common 

loons is 6 years (Evers 2004, p. 18). 

Territory occupancy and nesting 

success of yellow-billed loons were 

studied on the Colville River Delta 

during 18 years between 1983 and 2007. 

Ground-based surveys in 1983 and 1984 

found 76 and 79 percent of the 

territorial pairs nesting, respectively 

(Field et al. 1993, p. 329). The same 

territories studied in 1983 and 1984 

were visited in 1989 and 1990, and 42 

percent and 67–71 percent, respectively, 

of the territorial pairs were found 

nesting (Field et al. 1993, p. 329; North 

1993, p. 46). Low nest occupancy 

recorded in 1989 may have been a result 

of surveys being conducted late in 

incubation (July 9–16, 1989) after nests 

of some pairs had already failed; weekly 

monitoring surveys of nesting yellowbilled loons on the Colville River Delta 

in 2005–2007 found that 19–36 percent 

of the nests had failed by July 10–12 of 

those years (Johnson et al. 2006, Table 

5; Johnson et al. 2007, Table 5; Johnson 

et al. 2008, Table 4). However, low nest 

occupancy occurred in some years 

during two long-term studies of yellowbilled loons on the Colville Delta. The 

percentage of territorial pairs nesting 

ranged from 39 percent to 89 percent 

during a 6-year ground-based study 

(1995–2000; Earnst 2004, p. 9) and from 

43 percent to 76 percent (average of 58 

percent) during 13-years of aerial 

surveys (1993–2007; ABR, Inc. 2007, 

Table 1; ABR, Inc., unpublished data). 

Reproductive success, like nest 

occupancy by territorial pairs, varied on 

the Colville River Delta. Low 

reproductive success has been attributed 

to late ice melt or extreme flooding 

(Earnst 2004, p. 9). Based on Mayfield 

survival rates (a technique for 

measuring nesting success in which the 

number of days from discovery of the 

nest to fledging or failure (exposure 

days) is used to compute a daily nestsurvival rate) calculated for yellowbilled loons nesting on the Colville 

River Delta in 1995–2000, 4 percent to 

60 percent of eggs/chicks survived from 

laying to age 6 weeks (Earnst 2004, p. 

9). Apparent nesting success [(broods/ 

nests) × 100] based on broods counted 

on aerial surveys conducted 8 weeks 

apart during nesting and brood-rearing 

ranged from 19 percent to 64 percent 

annually in 13 years between 1993 and 

2007 (ABR, Inc. 2007, Table 1; ABR, 

Inc., unpublished data). During the last 

three years (2005–2007) of this study, 

weekly monitoring surveys were 

conducted after nests were found. 

Apparent nesting success calculated 

from these weekly surveys was 1–10 

percent higher than calculations based 

on nesting and brood-rearing surveys 

conducted 8 weeks apart, because the 

more frequent surveys identified nests 

with chicks that did not survive to 5– 

6 weeks of age (Johnson et al. 2006, p. 

17; Johnson et al. 2007, p. 16; Johnson 

et al. 2008, p. 15). The highest recorded 

apparent nesting success on the Colville 

River Delta was 71 percent in 2007 

based on weekly monitoring surveys 

(Johnson et al. 2008, p. 15). 

Breeding Distribution 

Yellow-billed loons nest near 

freshwater lakes in arctic tundra of 

Alaska on the Arctic Coastal Plain 

(ACP), northwestern Alaska, and St. 

Lawrence Island; in Canada east of the 

Mackenzie Delta and west of Hudson 

Bay; and in Russia on a relatively 

narrow strip of coastal tundra from the 

Chukotka Peninsula in the east and on 

the western Taymyr Peninsula in the 

west, with a break in distribution 

between these two areas (Earnst 2004, p. 

3; North 1993, p. 42; Red Data Book of 

the Russian Federation 2001, p. 366; 

Ryabitsev 2001, p. 22; Il’ichev and Flint 

1982, p. 277; Pearce et al. 1998, p. 369). 

Loons are sparsely distributed across 

their range, although, perhaps because 

of non-uniform quality of habitat, at a 

large scale breeding birds are somewhat 

clumped in distribution. 

Breeding Bird Densities 

Most of the breeding range of the 

yellow-billed loon has not been 

adequately surveyed, and only in Alaska 

have surveys been conducted 

specifically for breeding yellow-billed 

loons. Unless otherwise noted, the 

following discussion includes data from 

waterfowl surveys for which loons were 

not focal species. In these surveys, 

density estimates were not corrected for 

visibility bias and so are minimal 

estimates (see discussion in Groves et al. 

1996, pp. 193–194). Surveys enumerate 

all yellow-billed loons seen on breeding 

grounds, including an unknown 

proportion of which are non-breeders 

(Earnst et al. 2005, p. 300). 

Alaska 

Based on fixed-wing aerial survey 

data (1992 to 2003 ACP and North Slope 

Eider (NSE) surveys conducted by the 

Service), Earnst et al. (2005, p. 300) 

calculated that most of the population 

on the ACP of Alaska occurred within 

concentration areas with more than 0.11 

individuals per square kilometer (km2). 

Such areas comprised only 12 percent of 

the surveyed area yet contained 53 

percent of yellow-billed loon sightings. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12935 

The largest concentration area was 

between the Meade and Ikpikpuk 

Rivers; it covered only 8 percent of the 

survey area, but had 38 percent of 

yellow-billed loon sightings (Earnst et 

al. 2005, p. 300). Other notable 

concentrations were on the Colville 

River Delta and west, southwest, and 

east of Teshekpuk Lake (Earnst et al. 

2005, p. 300). In aerial lake-circling 

surveys designed for yellow-billed loons 

(fixed-wing aircraft were used 1992– 

2000; helicopters were used 2001– 

2007), the average density on the 

Colville River Delta (363 km2 (140 mi2) 

survey area) was 0.13 individuals per 

km2 during 10 years from 1993 to 2004 

(Johnson et al. 2005, p. 65), and 0.15 to 

0.17 individuals per km2 from 2005 to 

2007 (Johnson et al. 2006, p. 15; Johnson 

et al. 2007, p. 16; Johnson et al. 2008, 

p. 15). Similar surveys for yellow-billed 

loons in a larger area (878 km2) (339 

mi2) in the Northeast Planning Area 

(NE) of the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska (NPR–A) in 2001–2004 indicated 

densities there were lower (0.07 

individuals/km2; Johnson et al. 2005, p. 

68), except that the density in an area 

adjacent to Fish and Judy Creeks was 

similar to that of the Colville River Delta 

(Johnson et al. 2005, p. 68; Johnson et 

al. 2006, p. 15; Johnson et al. 2007, p. 

16). In western Alaska, where fixedwing aerial surveys were also designed 

specifically for loons, density on the 

northern Seward Peninsula averaged 

0.058 (standard error (SE)=0.011; 

standard error is a measure of the 

variability in the data) individuals/km2

over 2 years (Bollinger et al. 2008, p. 5). 

Canada 

In Canada, concentrations are found 

on parts of Victoria and Banks Islands, 

on the mainland, the Kent Peninsula, 

east of Bathhurst Inlet and west of Ellice 

River, the west side of Boothia 

Peninsula, and the lake district between 

Great Slave Lake and Baker Lake, 

including the Thelon Game Sanctuary 

(North 1993, p. 42). Densities obtained 

in 2005 and 2007 from fixed-winged 

aerial waterfowl surveys on southern 

Victoria Island and the Kent Peninsula 

ranged from 0.017 to 0.16 birds/km2

(Conant et al. 2006, pp. 2, 7; Groves in 

litt. 2008); lower densities (0.004–0.027 

birds/km2) were found in surveys on the 

Queen Maud Gulf Migratory Bird 

Sanctuary, King William Island, 

Rasmussen Lowlands, and Kugluktuk 

(Conant et al. 2007, pp. 10, 12; Groves 

in litt. 2008). On western Victoria 

Island, Raven and Dickson (2006, p. 24) 

estimated densities from 0.004 to 0.08 

birds/km2 from helicopter-based 

waterfowl surveys. Hines (in litt. 2008) 

estimated 0.01 yellow-billed loons/km2

on Banks Island from helicopter-based 

waterfowl surveys in 1992 and 1993. 

Russia 

In Russia, breeding concentrations 

have been identified on the Chukotka 

(Chukotskiy) Peninsula (Il’ichev and 

Flint 1982, p. 280; Solovyov 1992, p. 

21), Kyttyk Peninsula and Ayon Island 

in western Chukotka (Solovyova 2007, 

p. 6), and the western Taymyr Peninsula 

(Krechmar 1966, p. 200; Il’ichev and 

Flint 1982, p. 277). Hodges and Eldridge 

(2001, pp. 141–142), using fixed-winged 

aircraft in the only aerial waterfowl 

survey of the eastern Siberian coast, 

found concentrations of approximately 

0.01 birds/km2 on the Cape Schmidt 

coast of the Chukotka Peninsula, 

between the Indigirka and Yana River 

Deltas, and between the Indigirka and 

Kolyma Deltas. Post-breeding density on 

Kyttyk Peninsula in western Chukotka 

was approximately 0.52 birds/km2

(including young birds) during late 

July–August 2003–2007 (calculated 

from ground surveys, Solovyova 2007, 

p. 6). No density estimates are available 

for the Taymyr Peninsula. 

Nest Densities 

Nest density on 363 km2 (140 mi2) of 

the Colville River Delta, Alaska, ranged 

from 0.03 to 0.08 nests/km2 during 13 

years of aerial surveys for yellow-billed 

loons during 1993–2007 (Johnson et al. 

1999, p. 44; Burgess et al. 2003, p. 36; 

Johnson et al. 2003, p. 43; Johnson et al. 

2004, p. 74; Johnson et al. 2005, p. 64; 

Johnson et al. 2006, p. 15; Johnson et al. 

2007, p. 16; Johnson et al. 2008, p. 15). 

Nest density in an 878 km2 (339 mi2) 

survey area of NE NPR–A was 0.03 

nests/km2 in each year during 2002– 

2004. Higher densities within this area 

were found along Fish and Judy Creeks 

(helicopter-based surveys; Johnson et al. 

2005, p. 68). In Russia, Solovyov (1992) 

reported 0.18 nests/km2 on a 27.6 km2

(10.6 mi2) plot searched from the ground 

on Belyaka Spit near Kolyuchin Bay on 

the Chukotka Peninsula. On the Kyttyk 

Peninsula in western Chukotka, yellowbilled loons nest on approximately 25 

percent of lakes larger than 4 ha (9.9 

acres) (Solovyova 2007, p. 6). 

Foraging Distribution During Breeding 

Season 

Yellow-billed loons use nearshore and 

offshore marine waters adjacent to their 

breeding areas for foraging in summer. 

Such habitats are likely used by both 

breeding adults and younger or nonterritorial birds (Earnst 2004, p. 7). 

Earnst (2004, pp. 6–7) reviewed yellowbilled loon distribution information 

from fixed-wing aerial waterfowl 

surveys that Fischer et al. (2002) 

conducted in 1999 and 2000 off the 

coasts of Canada’s arctic islands and the 

ACP of Alaska between Cape Halkett 

and Brownlow Point. Similar surveys 

conducted between Barrow and 

Demarcation Point in 2001 also 

included yellow-billed loon 

observations in Elson Lagoon (Fischer 

2001, p. 4; Fischer and Larned 2004, p. 

146). During fixed-wing aerial surveys 

for common eiders in late June of 1999 

through 2007, between 23 and 99 

yellow-billed loons were observed in 

nearshore waters and along barrier 

islands of the Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas (Dau and Larned 2007, p. 18). 

Yellow-billed loons used lagoons and 

nearshore waters along the coast of St. 

Lawrence Island in summer in the 1950s 

(Fay and Cade 1959, pp. 92, 100). In 

Russia, Solovyova (coastal boat surveys; 

2007, p. 6) reported densities of 0.24 

birds/km2 using coastal waters near the 

Kyttyk Peninsula and Ayon Island at the 

northern end of Chaun Bay in western 

Chukotka, and 0.04 birds/km2 at the 

southern end of Chaun Bay near the 

Chaun River Delta in 2006. Vronskiy 

(1987, p. 30) observed individual 

yellow-billed loons and pairs in bays 

100–150 m (328–492 ft) offshore of 

northwestern Taymyr during summer. 

Yellow-billed loons occurred in summer 

along the coast of Wrangel Island, 

although there were no indications of 

nesting on the island (Stishov et al. 

1991, p. 20). In boat-based surveys in 

the Kara and Barents Seas, arctic (Gavia 

arctica) and red-throated (G. stellata) 

loons were abundant in the nearshore 

marine waters of the western Kara Sea 

and in the Ob’ and Yenisey estuaries, 

especially in Baidaratskaya Bay, and 

occurred in smaller numbers in the 

Pechora Bay in the Barents Sea in 

August and September 1995, but no 

yellow-billed loons were observed 

(Decker et al. 1998, pp. 9, 11). In 

subsequent boat surveys between 1998 

and 2003, only one yellow-billed loon 

was observed in mid-August 1998 in 

coastal waters northeast of Dolgy Island 

(west of Vaigach Island) in the Pechora 

Sea (M. Gavrilo, in litt. 2008). 

Wintering Habitat and Distribution 

Wintering habitats include sheltered 

marine waters less than 30 m (98.4 ft) 

deep, such as fiords and areas between 

islands on the inner coast in Norway 

(Strann and ;stnes 2007, p. 2). Schmutz 

(2008, p. 1) found that throughout 

migrating and wintering seasons, 

yellow-billed loons marked with 

satellite transmitters occurred from 1 to 

20 miles offshore. The wintering range 

includes coastal waters of southern 

Alaska and British Columbia from the 

Aleutian Islands to Puget Sound; the 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Pacific coast of Asia from the Sea of 

Okhotsk south to the Yellow Sea; the 

Barents Sea and the coast of the Kola 

Peninsula; coastal waters of Norway; 

and possibly Great Britain (Earnst 2004, 

pp. 13–14; North 1993, pp. 42–43; 

Ryabitsev 2001, p. 22; Schmutz in litt. 

2008, p. 1; Strann and ;stnes 2007, p. 

2; Burn and Mather 1974, p. 278; Gibson 

and Byrd 2007, p. 68). A small 

proportion of yellow-billed loons may 

winter in interior lakes or reservoirs in 

North America (North 1994, p. 3). 

Winter population distribution and 

numbers of yellow-billed loons are not 

well documented, but some information 

is available from marine bird surveys. 

Earnst (2004, p. 14) summarized loon 

observations in boat-based marine bird 

population surveys in Lower Cook Inlet, 

Prince William Sound, and Kodiak 

Island. In these surveys, estimates of 

yellow-billed loons were in tens to low 

hundreds, with wide confidence limits. 

In many cases, loons were not identified 

to species. Strann and ;stnes (2007, p. 

3) counted 1,160–1,605 yellow-billed 

loons on surveys conducted off the coast 

of Norway from 1986 to 1994, 

confirming Norway as the most 

important known wintering area for the 

species in Europe. No surveys have been 

conducted in Asian wintering areas. In 

some regularly used wintering areas 

such as the Yellow Sea, the Aleutian 

Islands, and Great Britain, the yellowbilled loon’s small population and 

scattered marine distribution may have 

contributed to the impression that 

yellow-billed loons are vagrants or rare 

visitors (Lepage 2008, p. 1; Gibson and 

Byrd 2007, p. 68; Dudley et al. 2006, p. 

533; Scott and Shaw 2008, pp. 241– 

248). 

Immature loons and possibly some 

non-breeding adults stay in wintering 

areas throughout the year (North 1994, 

p. 4). Earnst (2004, pp. 11–12) 

summarized yellow-billed loon 

observations in summer marine boatbased surveys conducted in lower Cook 

Inlet and Prince William Sound in 

southcentral Alaska, and in southeast 

Alaska. Estimates from all these surveys 

totaled only 339 yellow-billed loons, but 

many loons were not identified to 

species (Earnst 2004, p. 11). In boatbased surveys of murrelets conducted in 

July of 2002–2004 from Icy Bay to 

LeConte Bay in southeast Alaska, 

Kissling et al. (2007, Appendices 7, 8) 

counted 20 yellow-billed loons. Yellowbilled loons have been observed 

throughout summer months in the 

Aleutians (Gibson and Byrd 2007, p. 

68). According to the Red Data Book of 

Kamchatka (2006, p. 92), non-breeding 

birds occur off the coast of Kamchatka 

in summer. 

Migration 

Yellow-billed loon migration routes 

are thought to be primarily marine. 

Schmutz (in litt. 2008, p. 1) found that 

yellow-billed loons marked with 

satellite transmitters generally remained 

between 1 and 20 miles from land 

during migration and winter. Yellowbilled loons migrate singly or in pairs, 

but gather in polynyas (areas of open 

water at predictable, recurrent locations 

in sea-ice covered regions), ice leads 

(more ephemeral breaks in sea ice, often 

along coastlines), and early-melting 

areas off river deltas near breeding 

grounds in spring along the Beaufort Sea 

coast of Alaska and Canada (Barry et al. 

1981, pp. 29–30; Barry and Barry 1982, 

p. 25; Woodby and Divoky 1982, p. 406; 

Johnson and Herter, 1989, p. 9; Barr 

1997, pp. 12–13; Alexander et al. 1997, 

pp. 15, 17; Mallory and Fontaine 2004, 

pp. 52–53). 

These observations of yellow-billed 

loons in the Beaufort Sea during 

migration establish that at least some 

yellow-billed loons breeding in 

Canada’s Arctic Islands and along the 

adjacent Canadian coast use this 

migration route. North (1993, pp. 45–46) 

examined evidence of alternative 

migration routes for yellow-billed loons 

wintering in southeast Alaska and 

British Columbia, suggesting that they 

could migrate overland to mainland 

breeding areas in Canada, particularly 

around Great Slave Lake. Yellow-billed 

loons have been observed on inland 

lakes in Canada and Alaska (North 1993, 

pp. 43, 46). The existence of this route 

is still hypothetical, and the number of 

yellow-billed loons in interior mainland 

Canada is highly uncertain (discussed 

below under Population Size). 

Yellow-billed loons breeding in 

Alaska have been studied to determine 

migration routes. Nineteen yellow-billed 

loons captured on the ACP between 

2002 and 2008 were outfitted with 

satellite transmitters (Schmutz in litt. 

2008, p. 1). All of them migrated to 

Asia, predominantly south along the 

Russian coastline from the Chukotka 

Peninsula (either through the Bering 

Strait or across the mountains from the 

north side of the Chukotka Peninsula to 

the Gulf of Anadyr), and along the 

Kamchatka coast. They wintered in the 

Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan off China, 

North Korea, Russia, and Japan (near 

Hokkaido). All 10 yellow-billed loons 

fitted with transmitters on the Seward 

Peninsula, Alaska, in 2007 and 2008 

also used the Bering Strait region after 

leaving breeding grounds. Five of these 

migrated to Asian grounds as described 

above for ACP breeding birds; the other 

5 wintered throughout the Aleutian 

Islands from Shemya Island in the west 

to the Semidi Islands off the coast of the 

Alaska Peninsula (Schmutz in litt. 2008, 

p. 1). Most of these yellow-billed loons 

departed breeding areas in late 

September, arrived in wintering 

locations in mid-November, started 

spring migration in April, and arrived 

on breeding grounds in the first half of 

June; these dates are consistent with 

breeding ground arrival dates reported 

by North (1994, p. 5). Non-breeders or 

failed nesters may start fall migration in 

July. 

The migration routes of yellow-billed 

loons breeding in Russia have not been 

studied. Because of the proximity of the 

Chukotka Peninsula to the ACP in 

Alaska, and the fact that ACP breeding 

yellow-billed loons use the Chukotka 

Peninsula during migration (Schmutz in 

litt. 2008, p. 1), it is likely that some or 

all yellow-billed loons from eastern 

Russia migrate through the Bering Strait 

to Asian wintering areas. 

Population Size 

ACP, Alaska 

Yellow-billed loon population indices 

on the ACP of Alaska were determined 

by two independent fixed-wing aerial 

transect surveys conducted each year by 

the Service’s Migratory Bird 

Management program. Surveys were 

flown in early June each year from 1992 

through 2008 (NSE survey, 1992–2008, 

an average of 1,304 km2 (503.5 mi2) 

transect area that sampled a total area of 

30,465 km2 (11,763 mi2), for 4.3 percent 

coverage) and late June each year from 

1986 through 2006 (ACP survey, 1986– 

2006, average of 1,256 km2 (485 mi2) 

transect area which sampled a total area 

61,645 km2 (23,801 mi2), for 2.0 percent 

coverage of a larger area than that 

covered by the NSE survey). The 

average population index from the NSE 

survey is 1,119 yellow-billed loons (95 

percent confidence interval (CI) = 1,012 

to 1,226, Larned et al. 2009, p. 24). 

(Note: In order to estimate the reliability 

of a sample statistic, such as an average, 

it is common to set confidence limits to 

it (Sokal and Rohlf 1995, p. 139). The 

limits will show the maximum and 

minimum numbers the statistic (e.g., 

average) is likely to be, along with a 

measure of that likelihood (e.g., 95 

percent). So, when an average number 

of birds, for example, is reported, 

followed by a confidence interval, the 

confidence interval shows the statistical 

range of values that provides cutoff 

points for the likely values for the 

average.) The long-term mean from the 

ACP survey is 2,611 loons (95 percent 

CI = 2,218 to 3,005; Mallek et al. 2007, 

p. 10; USFWS unpublished data). The 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12937 

confidence intervals around these 16- 

and 21-year means incorporate the 

variation due to within-year sampling 

error, the spatial variability among 

transects and within strata, and 

variation among years related either to 

detection rate (observer ability, habitat 

change, weather conditions) or the 

availability of birds to be seen (arrival 

or departure of population components, 

behavior associated with nesting 

chronology). One study integrated 

results from both the early and late 

surveys, incorporating covariates 

adjusting for detection rates (Earnst et 

al. 2005). The 12-year mean (1992 

through 2003) resulted in an estimate of 

2,221 individuals (95 percent CI = 

1,209–3,233) in early June and 3,369 

individuals (95 percent CI = 1,910– 

4,828) in late June (Earnst et al. 2005, p. 

295). Another estimate of population 

size was determined by lake-circling 

aerial searches of greater than 7-ha 

(17.3-acre) lakes on 7 × 7-km (4.35 × 

4.35-mi) plots as part of a 2003–2004 

study of yellow-billed loon habitat 

preferences (Stehn et al. 2005, pp. 1– 

37). This survey was flown from June 15 

through 22 each year. Based on average 

density observed, the estimated total 

population index was 2,544 (95 percent 

CI = 1,780–3,308) yellow-billed loons 

(Stehn in litt. 2008, p. 1). 

Western Alaska 

Seward Peninsula and Cape 

Krusenstern fixed-wing aerial lakecircling surveys, on 12 × 12-km (7.46 × 

7.46-mi) sample plots, were flown in 

June of 2005 and 2007, and resulted in 

an estimate of 431 (95 percent CI = 280– 

582) yellow-billed loons on these 

western Alaska breeding grounds 

(Bollinger et al. 2008, p. 1). Additional 

aerial transects sampling an area of 

15,234 km2 (5,882 mi2) were flown on 

Selawik National Wildlife Refuge and 

adjacent wetlands in June in the years 

1996 and 1997 (Platte 1999, p. 3), but 

only three yellow-billed loons were 

sighted, resulting in an estimated mean 

population index of 44 birds (95 percent 

CI = 0–95) (USFWS unpublished data). 

Yellow-billed loons were documented 

nesting on St. Lawrence Island in the 

1950s (Fay and Cade 1959, pp. 84, 100), 

but there is no more recent information. 

Adding western Alaska population 

figures to those from the ACP results in 

an estimated total of 3,000 to 4,000 

yellow-billed loons on breeding grounds 

in Alaska. 

Canada 

Although overall breeding population 

estimates for yellow-billed loons in 

Canada do not exist (http://www.bsceoc.org/clls-bw1.html, accessed May 19, 

2008), and yellow-billed loons are not 

summarized in the Waterfowl 

Population Status annual reports 

compiled by the U.S. and Canadian 

governments for North American 

Waterfowl (USFWS 2007, pp. 1–62), 

several recent fixed-wing aerial 

waterfowl surveys included loon 

observations in parts of Nunavut and 

Northwest Territories. Loons were not 

the focus of the surveys, so it is possible 

that observer effort or identification 

ability varied, and no visibility 

correction factors or seasonal timing 

factors were applied. Helicopter surveys 

yielded estimates ranging from 659 (SE 

359) to 1,784 (SE 502) on northwest 

Victoria Island, and from 98 (SE 70) to 

258 (SE 146) birds in the southwest part 

of the island (Raven and Dickson 2006). 

A fixed-winged survey included Kent 

Peninsula and southeastern Victoria 

Island in 2005, and Queen Maud Gulf, 

King William Island, Rasmussen 

Lowlands, and near Kugluktuk in 2006; 

all areas from both years were repeated 

in 2007 but with fewer transects 

sampled per unit area. The combined 

estimate for both areas from 2005–2006 

fixed-winged surveys and the 2007 

estimate were similar, at 2,500–3,000 

birds (Conant et al. 2006, p. 7; Conant 

et al. 2007, p. 12; Groves in litt. 2008). 

Hines (in litt. 2008) estimated there 

were 500–1,000 yellow-billed loons on 

Banks Island, based on helicopter aerial 

surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993. 

The range of these point estimates 

suggests that between 3,750–6,000 birds 

occur on breeding grounds in the 

surveyed areas. 

The rest of the yellow-billed loon’s 

range on the Canadian mainland has not 

been surveyed. Based on the vast 

number of large, fish-bearing lakes north 

of treeline (an area of 500,000–750,000 

km2) (193,051–289,577 mi2) minus the 

surveyed areas on the mainland (46,000 

km2), (17,761 mi2) and using 

opportunistic observations of yellowbilled loons by Northwest Territory and 

Nunavut checklist survey cooperators 

over the last decade, Poter (in litt. 2008, 

p. 2, adjusted from Hines in litt. 2008, 

p. 1) calculated that a density of 0.01– 

0.02 birds/km2 would yield an estimate 

of 4,500–14,000 birds in mainland 

breeding areas in Canada, not including 

surveyed areas in the arctic described in 

the previous paragraph. This estimate is 

based on a very large land area bounded 

at the southern end by an area of 

documented yellow-billed loon 

breeding between Great Slave Lake and 

Baker Lake, particularly in or near the 

Thelon Game Sanctuary (North 1993, p. 

42). Between this area and the arctic 

coast is a large area where breeding has 

not been documented (North 1993, 

Figure 2). Fair (2002, p. 30) estimated 

the yellow-billed loon population on 

interior Canadian breeding grounds to 

be 4,800, using a density of 0.02 loons 

in a 100,000 km2 area around the 

Sanctuary, and a lower density of 0.007 

for the wider area of 400,000 km2. Fair’s 

estimate of 4,800 is close to the lower 

end of Poter’s (2008, p. 1) estimate of 

4,500. We believe Fair’s analysis more 

accurately reflects likely yellow-billed 

loon distribution in Canada, because it 

reflects a lower average density for the 

large area where breeding has not been 

documented. Combining the 4,500 to 

14,000 breeding birds estimated for 

interior Canada, and 3,750 to 6,000 

breeding birds estimated for the arctic 

(and rounding to thousands), we 

conclude that the Canadian breeding 

population size is 8,000 to 20,000, but 

that it is most likely at the lower end of 

this range. 

Russia 

Information on the breeding-ground 

population size of yellow-billed loons 

for Russia is limited. Hodges and 

Eldridge (2001, Appendix 2) estimated 

674 yellow-billed loons (coefficient of 

variation (C.V., a measure of dispersion 

in a probability distribution) 0.55) in a 

157,611-km2 (60,854–mi2) fixed-wing 

aerial survey area of the eastern Siberia 

arctic coast from Kolyuchin Bay to the 

Lena River Delta. We know of no other 

loon surveys within the breeding range 

of the yellow-billed loon in Russia. Red 

Data Books for the Russian Federation 

(2001, pp. 366–367), Yakutia (1987, p. 

33), and the Northern Far East of Russia 

(1998, pp. 97–98) do not offer 

population estimates. Kondratiev (1989, 

p. 37) estimated that 2,000 birds nested 

in Chukotka, but did not give a basis or 

sources for his estimate. Fair (2002, p. 

31) projected, based on this estimate of 

2,000 birds in Chukotka (Kondratiev 

1989, p. 37), that another 2,000 nested 

on the Taymyr Peninsula, and that 

perhaps another 1,000 were scattered 

across the arctic coast, giving 5,000 

birds on Russian breeding areas. 

Syroechkovsky (in litt. 2008) suggested 

(based on field observations but not 

scientific surveys) that the number of 

birds on breeding grounds (including 

non-breeding birds) is around 3,000 for 

Chukotka, 500 for Yakutia, and about 

1,200 for Taymyr, for a total of around 

4,700 birds. However, Solovyova (in. 

litt. 2008, p. 1; calculated from 

Solovyova 2007, p. 6) recently estimated 

the post-breeding population of the 

Kyttyk Peninsula on Chaun Bay in 

western Chukotka at 1,000, and the 

post-breeding population of nearby 

Ayon Island at 900 birds. Given 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Solovyova’s (in. litt. 2008, p. 1) 

estimates for her study area in 

Chukotka, she estimated that the total 

breeding ground population in 

Chukotka might be as high as 5,000 

birds. If the Chukotka population is 

5,000, the total for Russia could be as 

high as 8,000 based on habitat 

availability. Thus, our best information 

suggests the Russian breeding 

population is between 5,000 and 8,000 

birds. 

In summary, the global breeding 

ground population size for yellow-billed 

loons is unknown, but probably at the 

lower end of the range of 16,000 to 

32,000. The Alaska population estimate 

of 3,000 to 4,000 is derived from 

surveys. Less certain estimates based on 

the amount of available habitat (plus 

limited survey data) are the lower end 

of the range of 8,000 to 20,000 birds in 

Canada, and 5,000 to 8,000 in Russia. 

Population Trend 

Alaska 

The only population trends available 

for yellow-billed loons breeding in 

Alaska are on the ACP, where the ACP 

and NSE waterfowl surveys are 

conducted. We note that because we 

count only the breeding component of 

the population, the total population 

could decline without being detected for 

a number of years. This could occur 

because increased mortality of breeding 

birds could be masked by movements of 

birds without territories (either subadult birds or adults which have not 

found territories) into vacated 

territories. With this caution, we believe 

the time series of at least 17 years for the 

surveys described below gives us a 

reasonably reliable data set for 

observing population trends, and these 

data represent the best information 

available at this time. 

A population growth rate, or lambda, 

less than 1.00 would indicate 

population decline (negative ‘‘growth’’), 

while a lambda greater than 1.00 would 

indicate population growth. For the 

ACP survey 1986–2006, the average 

growth rate was 0.9886 (95 percent CI = 

0.9625–1.0154) (Mallek et al. 2007, p. 

21), and for the NSE survey 1992–2008 

(a smaller area than that covered by the 

ACP survey, and surveyed earlier in 

June), the average growth rate was 1.016 

(95 percent CI = 0.995–1.036) 

(calculated from Larned et al. 2009, 

Figure 1). Thus, these surveys provide 

slightly conflicting perspectives, with 

one suggesting a stable or slightly 

declining population (with a point 

estimate of a decline of 1.1 percent/yr.) 

and the other suggesting a stable or 

slight increasing population (with a 

point estimate of an increase of 1.6 

percent/yr.) on the ACP. 

Earnst et al. (2005, pp. 289–304) 

sought to improve the estimates above 

by using a statistical model that takes 

into account possible confounding 

factors of survey type, spring timing, 

and observer experience. They used this 

model to analyze ACP and NSE survey 

data through 2003. Controlling for these 

confounding factors, they (p. 298) 

estimated average population growth 

rate to be 0.991 (95 percent CI = 0.964– 

1.018), also indicating a stable or 

slightly declining population. 

We also examined a subset of the NSE 

data through 2008 that included only 

the observations of the most consistent 

and experienced pilot-observer, who has 

flown all 16 early-June NSE surveys 

during 1992–2008. Each survey includes 

observations of two observers: the pilotobserver in the left-side seat of the 

aircraft, and a second observer in the 

right-side seat. There have been 

numerous ‘‘right-side observers’’ over 

the course of the NSE survey. Each of 

these observers has a different ability to 

see and identify birds, and this ability 

often increases over successive surveys 

as the observer gains experience. Our 

analysis of the left-side pilot-observer 

eliminated the necessity to estimate the 

variable magnitudes of influence of 

right-side observer experience. In 

addition, the increased interest in 

yellow-billed loons in 2002 may have 

influenced new right-side observers to 

search more intensively for yellowbilled loons than earlier observers, who 

focused on waterfowl. Our analysis of 

the pilot-observer data from the NSE 

survey also eliminated the need to 

reconcile the later timing and different 

survey extent of the ACP survey. The 

average growth rate using this subset of 

data was slightly lower and more 

precisely estimated at 0.986 (95 percent 

CI = 0.967–1.006) (USFWS unpublished 

data) than the estimate of 0.991 from 

Earnst et al.’s (2005, p. 298) model, and 

the results also indicate a relatively 

stable or slightly declining population. 

In summary, the information available 

from the ACP does not allow us to 

precisely determine current population 

trends. Two surveys and multiple 

analytical approaches used to control 

for confounding factors provide 

estimates indicating trends ranging from 

slightly increasing to slightly 

decreasing, and all estimates have 95 

percent CIs that include a lambda of 1.0, 

indicating that possible trends cannot be 

distinguished from population stability 

with reasonable certainty. Although the 

population trend on the ACP is 

uncertain, we conclude that the number 

of breeding yellow-billed loons on the 

ACP breeding grounds is either stable or 

declining slightly, with point estimates 

from models controlling for 

confounding factors estimating decline 

on the order of ∼1 percent per year. We 

will continue to look for ways to 

improve our ability to detect trends. 

Surveys in western Alaska have not 

been conducted for a long enough 

period (2005 and 2007) to detect trends. 

Russia 

In Russia, recent data are fragmentary, 

making it difficult to determine trends. 

In the west, the Red Data Book of the 

Russian Federation (2001, p. 366) stated 

that the species no longer nests in 

European Russia where it was formerly 

found, such as the Kola Peninsula, the 

archipelago of Novaya Zemlya, and 

Vaigach and Ainovy Islands in the Kara 

Sea, although it is unclear how 

abundant or widespread the species was 

in these areas historically. (However, 

Kalyakin (2001, p. 10) reports finding it 

nesting on Novaya Zemlya, although it 

is ‘‘extremely rare.’’) Similarly, 

according to the Red Data Book of the 

Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District 

(1997) near the western end of the 

Russian breeding range, in the previous 

20 years only a few non-breeding 

yellow-billed loons were recorded in the 

District. Strann (in litt. 2008) speculated 

that since the early 1990s there may 

have been a decline in the number of 

yellow-billed loons in the main Norway 

wintering area, which would be 

consistent with a western Russian 

breeding ground range contraction if 

birds nesting in western Russia migrate 

to Norway for winter (which seems 

logical). We were unable to find either 

the source of the Red Data Book 

statements or supporting evidence for 

this potential range contraction. In 

eastern Russia, yellow-billed loons 

apparently no longer nest along the 

northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk 

where they occurred 30–50 years ago, 

nor on the Anadyr River delta (Red Data 

Book of the Russian Federation 2001, p. 

366; Red Data Book of the Northern Far 

East of Russia 1998, p. 97). However, 

Solovyova (in litt. 2008) reported that 

the number of breeding yellow-billed 

loons may be increasing in some 

locations in eastern Siberia, specifically 

near Chaun Bay in western Chukotka, 

and at Belyaka Spit near Kolyuchin Bay 

in northeastern Chukotka. 

In summary, we found 

unsubstantiated reports that the species 

may no longer be found in parts of its 

historical range in Russia, but there is 

somewhat contradictory information for 

some areas and a lack of survey data for 

all areas. Yellow-billed loons may also 

be increasing in some areas in Russia. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12939 

We conclude that we do not have 

reliable trend information for the 

Russian breeding grounds. 

Canada 

As described above for Population 

Size, survey data for Canadian breeding 

grounds cover a small portion of the 

range, and have not been conducted for 

enough years to analyze trends. We 

conclude that we do not have reliable 

trend information for Canadian breeding 

grounds. 

To summarize rangewide population 

trend information, we have reliable data 

indicating that the ACP breeding 

population is stable or slightly 

declining. We do not have reliable 

evidence from other breeding areas that 

breeding populations are increasing or 

decreasing. There have been no surveys 

of yellow-billed loons on wintering 

areas, so we have no trend information 

from those areas. 

Population Resiliency 

Certain intrinsic aspects of yellowbilled loon ecology and demography, 

including low and variable productivity, 

adult survival, and low population 

numbers, are relevant to the species’ 

status. Stable populations of K-selected 

species, such as the yellow-billed loon, 

are characterized by low annual 

productivity rates balanced with high 

annual survival rates, meaning that 

individuals must live many years to 

replace themselves with offspring that 

survive to recruit into the breeding 

population. Low productivity means 

that depleted K-selected species have 

lower recovery potential and slower 

recovery rates following population 

declines than r-selected species, which 

are characterized by high annual 

productivity. Factors that reduce 

productivity, including loss of 

productive breeding habitats, reduction 

in prey populations, and increases in 

nest predators, may further constrain Kselected species’ recovery potential. 

Further, most arctic species are 

characterized by variable annual 

productivity, given the vagaries and 

severity of arctic weather, fluctuations 

in predator-prey relationships, and 

other aspects of arctic ecology. The 

population impact of threats that reduce 

productivity could be magnified if 

coincident with an infrequent year of 

otherwise high productivity. 

Although factors that compromise 

productivity can cause populations to 

decline, adult survival is likely the more 

important determinant of K-selected 

species’ population size and persistence 

(Smith and Smith 2001, p. 235). If 

enough adults are removed from the 

population prior to replacing 

themselves (i.e., adult survival is 

decreased), the population will decline. 

Perhaps most pertinent to a discussion 

of extinction, rare species—those with 

low numbers—are intrinsically closer to 

a threshold below which recovery is not 

possible (i.e., minimum viable 

population) (Hunter 1996, p. 137). 

These intrinsic aspects of yellowbilled loon ecology and demography 

signal the continuing need to monitor 

yellow-billed loon populations, despite 

the fact that the species continues to be 

widely distributed across both its arctic 

breeding range, which is nearly 

holarctic, and in its wintering range. 

Factors Affecting the Yellow-Billed 

Loon 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(1)) and regulations promulgated 

to implement the listing provisions of 

the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth the 

procedures for adding species to the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species due to 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Below, we 

provide a summary of our analysis of 

threats to the yellow-billed loon. 

Factor A: Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range 

We considered whether yellow-billed 

loon habitats are threatened by oil and 

gas development (including 

disturbance, changes in freshwater 

chemistry and pollutant loads, and 

changes in freshwater hydrology), by 

degradation of the marine environment 

from pollution or overfishing, or by 

climate change. Potential threats from 

oil and gas development are addressed 

by the petitioners under Factor E, but 

are discussed here under Factor A 

because they are potential mechanisms 

for rendering breeding habitats 

unsuitable. Potential direct impacts on 

loon mortality associated with 

development, such as increased 

predation and oil spills, are discussed 

under Factors C and E, respectively. 

Terrestrial Oil and Gas Development 

Terrestrial and marine oil and gas 

development occurs in the range of the 

yellow-billed loon. Here we discuss 

terrestrial development in Alaskan and 

Russian breeding grounds. We are not 

aware of any terrestrial oil or gas 

development within the breeding range 

of the yellow-billed loon in Canada; 

planned terrestrial development on the 

Mackenzie River Delta is outside the 

breeding range, although activity there 

could affect loons migrating through 

adjacent marine waters. Marine 

activities related to oil and gas 

development are discussed under Factor 

E. 

Much of the yellow-billed loon’s 

breeding habitat in Alaska is within 

areas available for oil and gas leasing 

and development. Approximately threequarters of the yellow-billed loons that 

nest in Alaska, and over 90 percent of 

those that nest on Alaska’s ACP, occur 

within the 9.5-million-ha (23.5-millionac) NPR–A (Earnst et al. 2005, p. 300), 

in areas that are leased or available for 

leasing for oil and gas exploration and 

development. Approximately 29 percent 

of yellow-billed loons breeding on the 

ACP nest in NPR–A tracts that have 

been leased (Stehn and Platte, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in litt. 2008, p. 1), 

and 25 exploration wells were drilled 

during the period 2000–2007 (http:// 

www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/ 

oil_gas/npra.html, accessed 3 June 

2008). The Northwest Planning Area 

(NW) NPR–A Integrated Activity Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement Record 

of Decision (ROD) (USDOI–BLM 2004a, 

p. 5) has made 100 percent of the NW 

NPR–A available for leasing. The Final 

NE NPR–A Supplemental Integrated 

Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement ROD (USDOI–BLM 2008b, p. 

1) allows leasing of 86 percent (1.6 

million ha, or 3.94 million ac) of the NE 

NPR–A immediately, and an additional 

9 percent beginning in 2018. Virtually 

all yellow-billed loon breeding habitat 

in the NE NPR–A is within areas 

currently available for leasing (USDOI– 

BLM 2008a, Volume 6, Maps 2–4 and 3– 

10). 

If offshore development occurs in the 

Chukchi Sea, it is anticipated that a 500- 

km (300-mi) oil pipeline will be built 

across the NPR–A from the coast 

between Icy Cape and Point Belcher to 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (USMMS 

2008, p. IV–10). The State of Alaska also 

leases rights to oil and gas development 

on its land, including the Colville River 

Delta (ADNR 2008, p. 1), where 

development has already occurred 

within the range and habitats of the 

yellow-billed loon (ADNR 2008, p.1). 

Thus, as a result of past and possible 

future oil and gas lease sales, and 

ongoing exploratory efforts, a significant 

portion of the yellow-billed loon’s 

breeding habitat in NPR–A is subject to 

potential oil and gas development. 

Additionally, resource development in 

adjacent offshore areas may result in the 

construction of pipelines across 

breeding habitat in NPR–A. 

Although lease sales and exploratory 

efforts set the stage for possible future 

development in yellow-billed loon 

breeding habitat in northern Alaska, 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12940 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

determining the likelihood and timing 

of eventual development is difficult. In 

northeast NPR–A, several satellite 

production pads associated with 

existing infrastructure and facilities 

outside NPR–A at the Alpine field on 

the Colville River delta are in various 

stages of planning, permitting, and 

construction. It is very likely that within 

the next 10 to 20 years at least 5 to 7 

satellite production pads feeding the 

existing central processing facility will 

be in operation, with some pads on 

State lands on the delta and some on 

adjacent Federal lands in NPR–A. 

Elsewhere in NPR–A the likelihood and 

timing of possible future development 

are more difficult to predict. BLM 

estimates that exploratory activities take 

roughly 10 years before construction 

begins (USDOI–BLM 2008c, p. 13), with 

roughly 70 years from the initiation of 

exploration until final field 

abandonment. Initial exploratory 

activities have commenced in some 

areas in NPR–A; exploration has yet to 

begin on some existing leased tracts 

elsewhere; and other lands have not yet 

been leased or offered for lease. Thus, 

yellow-billed loon habitat in the 

Colville River delta and adjacent NPR– 

A varies in its potential for future oil 

and gas development, and the timing of 

development, where it occurs, will be 

staggered starting with imminent 

development on and near the Colville 

River delta, followed by exploration, 

construction, and production over a 

period of several decades elsewhere, 

persisting for at least 70 years and 

possibly longer in various areas. 

Terrestrial oil development is 

ongoing, and likely to increase, at the 

western edge of Russian yellow-billed 

loon breeding range. These areas have 

never been systematically surveyed for 

loons, so the historical occurrence and 

degree to which development areas 

overlaps areas used by loons is 

unknown. On the Yamal Peninsula, the 

largest gas field is the Bovanenkovskeo 

field, which is projected, beginning in 

2011, to produce approximately 115 

billion cubic meters (4 trillion cubic ft) 

of gas, which will be transported by new 

railways and a 2,451-km (1,523-mi) long 

pipeline currently under construction 

(Barents Observer 2008, p. 1). A 

liquefied-natural-gas plant is planned 

on the Kara Sea coast of the peninsula. 

The Yuzhnoe-Khykchuyu oil field in the 

Timan-Pechora province near the port of 

Varandey on the Pechora Sea is among 

the largest in Russia, and is planned as 

an anchor field for further development 

(ConocoPhillips 2008, p. 1). Major 

western Siberian oil fields in the 

Pechora River basin of the Komi 

Republic have operated for decades 

upstream of yellow-billed loon breeding 

range, and a large mining industry 

operates out of Norilsk on the Taymyr 

Peninsula. Gazprom, Russia’s largest oil 

and gas company, is developing new 

discoveries in Chukotka near Anadyr 

(Gazprom Neft 2004, p. 1). In addition 

to these activities at the western edge of 

the Russian breeding area, reserves exist 

but are not currently planned for 

development in the Laptev formation on 

the arctic coast east of the Lena River 

(USGS 2007, pp. 1–2). 

We are not aware of any yellow-billed 

loon surveys in the Taymyr, TimanPechora, and Yamal districts described 

above; so we do not know whether or 

to what extent yellow-billed loon 

breeding habitat overlaps with zones of 

industrial activity in this area. It is 

possible that the reported potential 

contraction at the western edge of the 

yellow-billed loon’s range in Russia 

(Red Data Book of the Russian 

Federation 2001, p. 366) could have 

resulted from the effects of resource 

extraction in the region, but we have no 

evidence for or against this possibility. 

No data are available on potential effects 

of disturbance on yellow-billed loons, 

and we know of no special protection to 

prevent disturbance of yellow-billed 

loons or other nesting birds in Russian 

oil fields (Syroechkovskiy 2008, p. 1). 

Likewise, we have no information on 

the possible impacts of oil spills, facility 

development, and lake-water 

withdrawals on yellow-billed loons in 

Russia. Therefore, the remainder of this 

section will focus on available 

information regarding potential impacts 

associated with oil and gas exploration 

and development in Alaska. 

The potential negative effects of 

industrial development in yellow-billed 

loon nesting areas includes disturbance 

caused by aircraft, vehicular traffic, 

heavy-equipment use, maintenance 

activities, and pedestrian traffic. 

Disturbance to nesting birds from oil 

infrastructure has been widely 

discussed but poorly documented (NRC 

2003, p. 49; USDOI–BLM 2008a, pp. 4– 

890, 4–891). Loons as a genus are 

susceptible to disturbance, although 

they sometimes habituate to predictable 

disturbance (discussed in Vogel 1995, 

pp. 15–18; Barr 1997, pp. 22–23; Evers 

2004, pp. 35–37; Earnst 2004, pp. 19, 31; 

Mills and Andres 2004, pp. 212–213; 

North 1994, p. 16). Human disturbance 

can cause yellow-billed loons to 

abandon reproductive efforts or leave 

eggs or chicks unattended and exposed 

to predators or bad weather (Earnst 

2004, p. 19). Observations by Earnst 

(2004, p. 31) indicated that adults left 

nests when an approaching human is as 

much as 1.6 km (1 mi) away, or as close 

as a few meters (yards). These behaviors 

varied by individual and circumstance, 

and have not been subject to formal 

study (Earnst 2004, p. 31); more 

importantly, the impacts to fitness and 

the potential for habituation have not 

been studied. Preliminary observations 

have been made on the Colville River 

Delta, Alaska, where oil field 

development has occurred in yellowbilled loon nesting habitat. Yellowbilled loons were surveyed during 

nesting and brood-rearing before (1993, 

1995–1997) and during (1998–2001) the 

oil-facility-development phase; surveys 

are continuing in the oil production 

phase that began in 2000 (ABR Inc. 

2007, pp. 1–2; Johnson et al. 2008, p. i). 

Between 16 and 30 nests were identified 

each year. No statistical comparisons 

among phases are available, but the 

proportion of territories with nests and 

nest success appeared roughly 

comparable before and during 

construction and during production. 

Too few pairs (3) have been within 1.6 

km (1 mi) of facilities to allow 

meaningful comparisons of potential 

disturbance among phases (ABR 2007, 

pp. 3–4). 

Potential disturbance and other 

habitat degradation on NPR–A oil fields 

will likely be mitigated by stipulations 

and required operating procedures 

(ROPs) described in the RODs for the 

Northwest and Northeast Planning 

Areas and included in oil and gas leases 

for those areas (USDOI–BLM 1998, 

Appendix B, pp. 29–43; USDOI–BLM 

2004a, Appendix B, pp. B–1–B–18; 

USDOI–BLM 2008b, Appendix A, pp. 

33–74). Most of the area leased is 

subject to the performance-based 

stipulations and ROPs described here; 

for tracts leased in 1999 and 2002 under 

the 1998 ROD, prescriptive stipulations 

and ROPs apply (USDOI–BLM 1998, 

Appendix B, pp. 29–43). When lessees 

propose specific development plans for 

those tracts, there will be opportunities 

for the BLM to apply conservation 

measures for yellow-billed loons, as 

appropriate. For tracts leased under 

more recent RODs (USDOI–BLM 2004a, 

Appendix B, pp. B–1–B–18; USDOI– 

BLM 2008b, Appendix A, pp. 33–74), 

ROP E–11 requires facility setbacks from 

lakes known to harbor nesting yellowbilled loons, and E–2 and K–2 require 

smaller setbacks for other water bodies. 

The current ROP E–11 states that if 

yellow-billed loons are found during 

required aerial surveys, design and 

location of facilities must minimize 

disturbance; default mitigation is a 1- 

mile buffer around nest sites and a 500- 

meter buffer around the remainder of 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12941 

the lake shoreline (USDOI–BLM 2004a, 

Appendix B, p. B–9; USDOI–BLM 

2008b, Appendix A, pp. 51–53). The 

size of these buffers was determined in 

consultation with the Service and loon 

experts. Deviations to ROPs and 

stipulations can be authorized if it is 

demonstrated that the conservation 

objective of the stipulation or ROP can 

be met, or if it is determined that no 

other options are available (USDOI– 

BLM 2008b, Appendix A, pp. 52–53). 

Such deviations are sometimes 

exercised (e.g., USDOI–BLM 2004b, p. 

1033), but BLM has committed in 

writing to close collaboration with the 

Service in its evaluation of a deviation 

request that may affect yellow-billed 

loons (V. Galterio, in litt. 2008, p. 1). 

Specifically, BLM has stated in writing 

that any exception or deviation would 

be required to meet the management 

objective of minimizing disturbance to 

the species and would, at a minimum, 

need to provide the same level of 

protection that the default buffers 

provide (V. Galterio, in litt. 2008, p. 2). 

This and other ROPs and stipulations 

are also discussed under Factor D. 

Varner (2008a, pp. 1–4) analyzed the 

likelihood that oil-field facilities placed 

randomly (i.e., without regard to loon 

distribution) on the landscape would 

occur proximal to loon nesting or broodrearing areas. Using data from Stehn et 

al. (2005, pp. 1–38) that identified lakes 

within NPR–A leased tracts that have a 

less than 30 percent likelihood of 

yellow-billed loon presence (moderatehigh potential yellow-billed loon lakes) 

and BLM’s projected development 

scenarios for NW and NE NPR–A, 

Varner (2008a, p. 4) estimated that 52 

percent of 12 projected facilities would 

occur within the 1.6 km (1 mi) buffer of 

a moderate-high potential yellow-billed 

loon lake, and 38 percent would occur 

within a 500-m (1,640 ft) buffer. In other 

words, approximately half of projected 

developments would require additional 

consideration during site layout and 

design to avoid yellow-billed loon 

buffers. We note that this development 

projection is uncertain, and it is 

possible that either a smaller or greater 

number of facilities could actually be 

built. 

In summary, based on our 

understanding of factors affecting nest 

success in other species and our 

knowledge of loon behavior, we have 

identified potential impacts of 

disturbance to loons in NPR–A. 

However, the only data on the effect of 

oil development disturbance on yellowbilled loons are from the Colville River 

Delta, where small sample size and lack 

of controls or replicates make inference 

difficult. As suggested by Earnst (2004, 

p. 31), a well-designed study is needed 

to determine the most appropriate buffer 

distance between loon nesting lakes and 

oil facilities. However, we believe that 

current buffer distances are conservative 

and will protect loons from disturbance. 

We do not know how much 

development will occur in NPR–A, nor 

do we know the timeline over which 

development will occur. In NPR–A, 

where 90 percent of yellow-billed loons 

breeding on the ACP occur, we expect 

that adherence to current BLM 

regulations will ameliorate impacts by 

requiring that planners build facilities 

outside buffers or find other ways to 

comparably minimize disturbance. 

Terrestrial oil or fuel spills occur 

during oil and gas extraction activities 

from multiple sources, including well 

blowouts, pipeline leaks, failure of fuel 

storage tanks, and accidents 

transporting fuel. Spills of saline water 

produced with oil or derived from 

seawater used in oil recovery also occur 

frequently (NRC 2003, pp. 47, 230). 

Marine oil spills may damage prey 

populations, and air and boat traffic 

associated with oil and gas extraction 

offshore could affect yellow-billed loon 

habitat by disturbing loons so that they 

decrease foraging success or avoid 

disturbed areas. Both non-nesting and 

breeding yellow-billed loons on 

Alaska’s ACP use marine areas of the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to forage 

during the nesting season. In addition, 

in spring yellow-billed loons gather in 

polynyas, ice leads, and open shorelines 

near river deltas offshore of breeding 

areas in Alaska and Canada prior to 

dispersing to nesting grounds. Here we 

discuss effects of spills on loon habitat; 

direct effects of oil spills on loon 

mortality are discussed under Factor E. 

Negative effects are expected to result 

for bird habitats contacted by oil spills 

(USDOI–BLM 2008a, pp. 4–760, 4–916). 

Changes in freshwater chemistry or 

pollutant loads due to oil spills 

associated with oil and gas development 

could render breeding habitats 

unsuitable (NRC 2003, pp. 6–7, 73–74). 

Oil or saline water spills could have 

long-term effects on tundra waters by 

killing prey and shoreline vegetation 

(NRC 2003, pp. 95, 119, 124–125, 230– 

231; USDOI–BLM 2008a, pp. 4–914, 4– 

915), thereby reducing food availability 

and cover. 

On Alaska’s North Slope oil fields, 

one of the most closely regulated oil 

production areas in the world, there 

were 3,696 spills from oil production, 

pipeline, and oil exploration facilities 

between July 1995 and June 2005 

totaling more than 6.8 million liters (L) 

(1.8 million gal) of sea water, produced 

water, crude and diesel oil, and drilling 

muds (ADEC 2007, p. 49). Most spills 

have been relatively small and caused 

minimal impacts to surrounding 

habitats or wildlife, although three 

major spills have occurred from the 

North Slope segment of the TransAlaska Pipeline (NRC 2003, p. 47), and 

a transit pipeline accident spilled 6,357 

barrels (bbl) of crude oil in 2006 (ADEC 

2008, p. 1). It is difficult to predict the 

likelihood of future spills, in part 

because technology continues to 

improve. Based on previous spill rates, 

BLM estimates that development in NE 

NPR–A could result in more than 2,000 

small oil spills (less than 500 bbl), and 

approximately 3 large spills (greater 

than 500 bbl) (USDOI–BLM 2008a, pp. 

4–60–4–62); in the next 100 years, there 

is a 4.2 percent chance of a very large 

(238,000 bbl, or 10-million-gal) blowout 

oil spill in NPR–A (USDOI–BLM 2008a, 

p. 4–910). If, as expected, development 

is concentrated in specific areas that 

overlap with high-density loon breeding 

habitat, the potential for oil spills 

affecting some loon nesting lakes exists. 

However, as discussed above and under 

Factor D, measures are in place in NPR– 

A to lessen this potential. For example, 

ROP E–11 requires minimizing 

disturbance to loons using setbacks of 

permanent infrastructure around nesting 

lakes that would make spills less likely 

to affect these lakes; other stipulations 

and ROPs require minimizing the 

potential for pipeline leaks and 

protecting fish-bearing water bodies 

(USDOI–BLM 2008b, Appendix A, pp. 

33–74). 

Construction of roads, gravel pads, 

and facilities on the North Slope of 

Alaska has affected freshwater flow and 

drainage as a result of permafrost decay 

consequent to infrastructure placement, 

vegetation damage, or fluid extraction 

and injection (NRC 2003, pp. 3, 10, 64– 

72, 126–127). North (1994, p. 16) and 

North and Ryan (1989, p. 303) suggested 

that permafrost decay consequent to 

infrastructure placement and 

disturbance of vegetation could cause 

breaching of rivers into yellow-billed 

loon breeding lakes, rendering them 

unsuitable due to fluctuating water 

levels (causing drowned nests) or 

increased turbidity (negatively affecting 

foraging success). The requirement in 

ROP E–11 of a 1.6 km (1 mi) buffer 

around nest sites and a 500-meter (1600- 

ft) buffer around the remainder of the 

lake shoreline or an equally protective 

alternative where no permanent 

infrastructure would occur (USDOI– 

BLM 2004a, Appendix B, p. B–9; 

USDOI–BLM 2008b, Appendix A, pp. 

51–53) will likely lessen the chances of 

such damage. It is possible that ice 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12942 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

roads on breeding lakes could compact 

lake ice and delay melting (USDOI–BLM 

1998, p. IV–3–b–1–b), thus delaying or 

discouraging yellow-billed loon 

breeding, since loons require lakes to be 

largely clear of ice before they 

commence nesting. There are currently 

no regulations which would prevent ice 

roads on breeding lakes. 

It is possible that lake-water depletion 

or drawdown could affect 

connectedness, depth, or melt date of 

yellow-billed loon nesting or broodrearing lakes and could render such 

areas unsuitable as breeding habitats. 

Fluctuations in lake water levels during 

nesting could cause nests to flood, or 

alternately could leave nests stranded 

away from the water during incubation, 

making them more vulnerable to 

depredation or abandonment (e.g., 

Kertell 1996, pp. 356–366 for Pacific 

loons; Fair 1979, pp. 57–63 for common 

loons; see also discussion in Earnst 

2004, p. 19). Earnst (2004, p. 19) 

proposed that yellow-billed loons might 

be less adapted to fluctuating water 

levels than other loons, in part because 

the short arctic summer does not allow 

the opportunity to re-nest or delay nest 

initiation. Water withdrawals could 

have additional impacts on habitat 

suitability by affecting fish populations 

that breeding yellow-billed loons 

depend upon for food. 

Usually taken by pumping in winter, 

water from lakes is used in arctic oil 

fields for exploratory drilling, as well as 

winter road and pad construction and 

facility use. From 1999 through 2006, 

approximately 2 billion L (513 million 

gal) of water from 126 lakes were used 

to drill 20 wells and construct 23 ice 

drill pads and roads in the NW NPR–A 

(USDOI–BLM 2008a, p. 3–26). During 

development, water is needed for 

drilling and facility use. According to 

BLM, ‘‘Drilling water demand is 

estimated to be 21,000 to 63,000 gal per 

day, or 850,000 gal per well. Water 

demand is estimated to be 100 gallons 

per day per person. Potable water 

demand would drop after 2 to 4 drilling 

seasons, when the major construction 

phase would be finished. 

Approximately 160 persons would be 

on site during the production and 

development phases for each CPF 

(central processing facility) and 4 to 6 

satellite fields (S. Rothwell, 

ConocoPhillips, pers. comm.). Drillingwater demand over the 20-year 

production life of the field (largely for 

workover operations and infill drilling) 

would likely be less than the 21,000 gal 

per day estimated above’’ (USDOI–BLM 

2008a, p. 4–30). 

During production, waterflooding 

(injecting water into the reservoir) is 

sometimes used, but it is more costeffective to use treated sea water rather 

than freshwater from lakes (Varner in 

litt. 2008b, p. 1). BLM has included 

potential use of lakes for waterflooding 

in their consideration of environmental 

effects of oil and gas development in 

NPR–A (USDOI–BLM 2008a, pp. 4–31– 

4–32), but at present such use is 

considered unlikely, particularly 

considering present stipulations and 

ROPs protecting lake fish and wildlife 

habitat (Varner in litt. 2008b, p. 1). 

Injection water demands can be met by 

produced formation water (i.e., water 

within the pores of rock) once 

production begins (Varner in litt. 2008b, 

p. 1; USDOI–BLM 2008a, pp. 4–31–4– 

32). 

The actual amount of water 

withdrawn from lakes is highly variable 

and dependent upon the type of water 

use. To build ice roads, the amount 

taken from a given lake may be lower 

than allowed limits because it is not 

efficient to transport water a long 

distance; in contrast, lakes used for 

facility use or drilling are pumped more 

frequently and throughout the year 

(Hinzman et al. 2006, pp. 14, 56; Baker 

Inc. 2007, p. 4; Moulton 2007, p. 11). 

Most pumped lakes monitored by oil 

companies on the ACP have recharged 

completely in spring from snowmelt or 

river flooding; however, most removals 

were much less than the 30-percent 

volume permitted at the time by State of 

Alaska regulations (Hinzman et al. 2006, 

p. 143; URS 2001, p. 4–1; Baker 2007, 

pp. 77–79; Baker 2008, pp. 7, 38). Two 

adjacent lakes monitored at Alpine 

Development showed different patterns 

in 2007: One recharged adequately from 

estimated snowmelt runoff given the 

allowable withdrawal volume of 30 

percent; the other lake did not do so, 

and would likely be below required 

levels if river flooding did not occur 

(Baker 2008, p. 38). 

We examined whether current 

regulations will likely be adequate to 

protect loon nesting lakes from 

excessive water withdrawal. Ninety 

percent of yellow-billed loon nesting 

range on the ACP is under BLM 

management in NPR–A. Outside NPR– 

A, the Alpine development on the 

Colville River Delta is the only set of oil 

facilities in ACP yellow-billed loon 

nesting range under sole State of Alaska 

management. At this facility, the State 

increased the 15-percent limit on water 

withdrawal from one lake with nesting 

yellow-billed loons to 30 percent 

because ‘‘the previous criterion imposed 

a severe constraint on the project’’ 

(Moulton 2007, p. 4). However, since 

that decision, the State of Alaska has 

participated in the ‘‘Conservation 

Agreement for the Yellow-billed Loon 

(Gavia adamsii),’’ making a commitment 

to protect yellow-billed loons 

(Conservation Agreement 2006, p. 11) 

and, therefore, making it less likely that 

the State would allow such activities to 

occur if they might negatively affect 

loons. 

In NPR–A, water-withdrawal 

stipulations and ROPs are specifically 

designed to protect and monitor fishbearing lakes. The current Federal 

(BLM) requirements for NE NPR–A, 

based on State of Alaska permit 

regulations, allow up to 15 percent of 

lake volume below ice cover to be 

removed from lakes deeper than 2.1 m 

(7 ft) with ‘‘sensitive’’ fish species (i.e., 

fish other than ninespine stickleback 

and Alaska blackfish) and up to 30 

percent of lake volume from lakes 

deeper than 1.5 m (5 ft) with nonsensitive fish species; up to 35 percent 

may be removed from lakes without fish 

(USDOI–BLM 2008b, Appendix A, pp. 

44–45). Permits are based on a sitespecific analysis. At present, there are 

no requirements to prevent pumping of 

known loon-nesting lakes, and no 

requirements for direct measurements of 

effects on lake biota, including fish. 

However, in a letter to the Service 

emphasizing the BLM’s commitment to 

supporting conservation of the yellowbilled loon, the BLM State Director for 

Alaska expressly clarified the ROPs and 

stipulations in NPR–A leases 

concerning water withdrawal. 

Underscoring the importance of 

continued collaboration with the 

Service (V. Galterio, in litt. 2008, pp. 1– 

3), the State Director explained that it 

will require a water-quality monitoring 

plan to be developed that will outline 

specific physical and biological waterquality parameters to be collected in 

lakes harboring yellow-billed loons (V. 

Galterio, in litt. 2008, pp. 1–3). We 

believe these requirements will protect 

yellow-billed loon lakes from 

deleterious effects of water withdrawals. 

See discussion under Factor D, 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms. 

In conclusion, we have identified 

several mechanisms by which 

development could affect yellow-billed 

loons, including disturbance, oil spills, 

facility development, and lake-water 

withdrawals. Although we believe 

onshore oil and gas activity is likely to 

increase in Alaskan and Russian 

breeding grounds in the foreseeable 

future, we do not believe these activities 

will result in significant populationlevel impacts. Although a large 

proportion of high-density yellow-billed 

loon nesting habitat on Alaska’s ACP 

coincides with areas of high potential 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12943 

for oil and gas development in NPR–A, 

the BLM, through stipulations and ROPs 

required to be included in oil and gas 

leases, has established a number of 

mechanisms to protect yellow-billed 

loons from the effects of oil and gas 

activities in NPR–A, if development 

ultimately does overlap with yellowbilled loon breeding habitat. We believe 

that disturbance and spills will likely be 

minimized through requirements that 

facilities be built at least 1.6 km (1 mi) 

from nests, and 500 m (1,640 ft) from 

lake shorelines, or an equally protective 

alternative. The BLM and the State of 

Alaska have committed to work with the 

Service to minimize impacts through 

water quality monitoring. With current 

projections of approximately 12 

facilities in NPR–A, we believe the 

current regulations and close 

consultation with the Service are 

sufficient to protect yellow-billed loons 

from population-level effects of oil and 

gas development on the ACP. Based on 

the best available information we find 

that oil and gas development in the ACP 

is not a threat to the yellow-billed loon 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

On western Russian breeding 

grounds, we do not have information on 

whether yellow-billed loon distribution 

overlaps with zones of industrial 

activity. Due to lack of study, regulation, 

and available information, the 

environmental impacts of industrial 

development in the Russian yellowbilled loon breeding range are not well 

understood. Because the bulk of the 

Russian breeding population appears to 

occur in eastern Siberia (Yakutia and 

Chukotka), where little industrial 

development is occurring or planned, 

most potential impacts of industrial 

development in Russia are limited to the 

western edge of the range. Based on the 

best available information, we find that 

oil and gas development is not a threat 

to the yellow-billed loon in its Russian 

breeding range now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

We expect large spatial and temporal 

variation in the level of oil and gas 

development activities on yellow-billed 

loon breeding habitat, but most such 

habitat will remain undeveloped in the 

foreseeable future. We do not expect 

terrestrial oil and gas development to 

occur in the Canadian breeding range, 

and Russian oil and gas development is 

likely to be confined to the western edge 

of the breeding range there. In Alaska’s 

NPR–A, some areas are likely to be 

developed, particularly at the eastern 

edge of NE NPR–A near the Alpine 

development. In Alaska, we believe that 

existing required protective measures 

will protect the yellow-billed loon from 

impacts of development. We find that 

degradation of breeding grounds 

throughout its range from oil and gas 

development is not a threat to the 

yellow-billed loon now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Temperate Marine Habitat: Degradation 

of Marine Habitats in Migration and on 

Wintering Grounds 

The marine environment is clearly 

important for yellow-billed loons, as 

that is where they spend their first 3 

years, and subsequently at least 8 

months per year. Wintering areas along 

the coast of Alaska and British 

Columbia, Canada, are relatively 

pristine. Two important wintering areas 

for yellow-billed loons, the western 

Pacific Ocean coastal waters of the 

Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan, and the 

North and Norwegian Seas, have 

recently been identified among the 

ocean ecosystems with the greatest 

human impacts, and therefore 

degradation, of any in the world 

(Halpern et al. 2008, p. 949). Possible 

effects of human activities on yellowbilled loon marine migrating and 

wintering habitats include depletion of 

the prey base through a variety of 

mechanisms, including pollutioninduced hypoxia and destructive fishing 

practices, as discussed below. Potential 

effects on loons from depletion of the 

winter prey base include reduced body 

condition, which could result in 

mortality or reduced breeding 

propensity. 

Effects of marine oil spills, other 

effects of marine oil and gas 

development, and potential direct 

effects of contaminants on yellow-billed 

loons are discussed under Factor E. 

Asian seas, where 24 out of 29 Alaskabreeding yellow-billed loons with 

satellite transmitters wintered (Schmutz 

in litt. 2008, p. 11), are undergoing 

environmental stress. The United 

Nations Global International Waters 

Assessment (GIWA) Regional 

Assessment of the Yellow Sea described 

Yellow Sea fisheries as threatened by 

‘‘pollution and loss of biomass, 

biodiversity and habitat, resulting from 

extensive economic development in the 

coastal zone’’ (Teng et al. 2005, p. 33), 

caused by a tenth of the world’s humans 

(approximately 600 million) living in 

surrounding watersheds. For example, 

the East China Sea (adjacent to the 

Yellow Sea) is undergoing ‘‘severe 

environmental degradation’’ from inputs 

of inorganic nitrogen, phosphate, oil 

hydrocarbons, organic matter, and 

heavy metals (Li and Daler 2004, p. 

107). A significant effect of pollution 

inputs in aquatic systems are zones of 

eutrophication-induced hypoxia (‘‘dead 

zones’’), which are among the most 

deleterious anthropogenic influences on 

marine environments, leading to mass 

mortality of fish and invertebrates, and 

major changes in community structure 

(Diaz and Rosenberg 2008, p. 926). Large 

ecosystem effects of eutrophication and 

hypoxia have been documented in 

coastal waters of Japan (e.g., Ueda et al. 

2000, pp. 906–913; Suzuki 2001, pp. 

291–302; Kodama et al. 2002, pp. 303– 

313), Korea (Lim et al. 2006, p. 1525), 

and the East China Sea (Chen et al. 

2007, p. 399). However, these effects are 

seasonal, occurring more often in 

summer, when adult breeding yellowbilled loons would have migrated from 

the area. These effects also vary 

geographically, with most severe dead 

zones occurring at mouths of 

watersheds with large population 

centers or that deliver large quantities of 

nutrients. 

Unsustainable fishing practices, 

including overfishing, indiscriminate 

trawling, and use of pesticides for 

fishing (Teng et al. 2005, pp. 34–35), 

have resulted in significant changes in 

the fisheries of the intensively exploited 

Yellow Sea and other Asian fisheries. 

These changes include significant 

declines in fish populations and 

changes in community structure, with 

larger (and commercially important) 

species replaced by smaller (and less 

valuable) fish (Teng et al. 2005, p. 33). 

Unsustainable exploitation of marine 

natural resources is expected to 

continue over the next 20 years, causing 

fisheries production to decrease by 30– 

50 percent (Teng et al. 2005, p. 35). 

Degradation of temperate marine 

wintering and migrating yellow-billed 

loon habitats could deplete the yellowbilled loon prey base, which could 

cause reduced body condition, 

mortality, fewer birds migrating, and 

reduced breeding propensity. Although 

information exists regarding pollution 

occurrence and effects on fisheries in 

temperate marine waters in Asian 

wintering areas, we do not know which 

species yellow-billed loons eat there. 

We therefore do not know whether 

yellow-billed loon prey species have 

been affected. Indeed, documented 

changes in community structure from 

large finfish to smaller forage fish could 

benefit yellow-billed loons, as their diet 

items are relatively small. Further, 

although pollution and declines in 

fisheries are documented in Asian 

Pacific wintering areas, the information 

is inadequate to assess what proportion 

of the habitat or wintering loons is 

affected. We also have no data on 

yellow-billed loon mortality due to 

habitat degradation in wintering areas or 

migration routes, or on body condition 

at any season. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12944 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

In summary, yellow-billed loon 

mortality from marine pollution has not 

been documented. The only other 

source of information we have to 

evaluate this factor is population trend 

information from the ACP. Yellowbilled loons breeding on the ACP 

migrate to Asian wintering grounds 

(Schmutz in litt. 2008, p. 1). If 

deterioration of these wintering areas 

were resulting in population-level 

effects on yellow-billed loons, we would 

expect to see evidence of a large 

population decline on the Alaska 

breeding grounds. Instead, survey trends 

indicate a slightly declining or stable 

population. We do not have information 

indicating that the current effects to the 

species from the degradation of 

temperate marine waters will change in 

the future. Therefore, we find that 

degradation of temperate marine waters 

is not a threat to yellow-billed loons 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Climate Change 

While climate change impacts to some 

environmental features (e.g., sea ice) can 

be reliably assessed to some degree into 

the future, assessment of climateinduced changes to yellow-billed loon 

habitat in arctic terrestrial and 

freshwater systems and arctic and 

temperate marine systems is complex, 

with highly variable predictions of 

effects. Current models suggest that 

global temperatures are likely to 

continue to rise for up to 50 years, even 

if greenhouse gas emissions were curbed 

today (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 749). Below, 

we evaluate the available information 

on possible climate-change effects in 

these systems that could affect yellowbilled loons. 

I. Arctic Habitats 

There is strong evidence of ongoing 

impacts of climate change in the arctic, 

all of which are predicted to continue or 

accelerate in the next century (Anisimov 

et al. 2007, pp. 662–663; Christensen et 

al. 2007, pp. 902–903), although with 

varying degrees of uncertainty and 

regional variation (Reist et al. 2006b, p. 

381) in effects on different biotic 

communities, hydrology, and 

geomorphology. Impacts include rising 

air temperatures (Anisimov et al. 2001, 

summarized in Anisimov et al. 2007, p. 

656) at approximately twice the global 

rate (McBean et al. 2005, p. 39), 

declining summer sea ice (RichterMenge et al. 2008, p. 1), increasing 

coastal erosion (Mars and Houseknecht 

2007, p. 585; Rachold et al. 2002, cited 

in Walsh et al. 2005, p. 233), rising sea 

levels (Walsh et al. 2005, pp. 232–234), 

a small increasing trend in precipitation 

(McBean et al. 2005, p. 39), warming 

and thawing permafrost, and decreasing 

extent of land underlain by permafrost 

(Clow and Urban 2008, p. 3; Walsh et 

al. 2005, p. 210; Jorgenson et al. 2006, 

p. 1; Jorgenson et al. 2008, p. 1). All of 

these could interact via feedback loops, 

as described below. 

With respect to the yellow-billed 

loon, we are most concerned about 

effects of potential climate-induced 

changes on morphology of breeding 

lakes and prey fish communities. In 

northern areas, such as along the arctic 

coast in most of the yellow-billed loon’s 

breeding habitat (Siberia, Alaska’s ACP, 

and most of the Canadian breeding 

range), permafrost is continuous, and 

could be hundreds of meters (ft) deep. 

However, some habitat extends south of 

this region to areas of discontinuous 

permafrost, which is more susceptible to 

the effects of climate change (Seward 

Peninsula, southern part of the 

Canadian range). Yellow-billed loon 

breeding habitat on the arctic coast 

depends on a unique hydrological 

system, which is in turn dependent 

upon cold temperatures resulting in 

continuous and stable permafrost 

underlying perched (i.e., isolated above 

the groundwater) lakes (Rovansek et al. 

1996, p. 316) and relatively consistent 

weather patterns, such as most 

precipitation deposited in winter as 

snow, and spring ice-jams and floods 

contributing to lake recharge (Prowse et 

al. 2006, pp. 330–331). A community of 

fish species has adapted to this system, 

overwintering in deeper lakes, but also 

entering or leaving some lakes during 

spring river floods. 

Morphology of Breeding Lakes 

Permafrost thawing could reduce the 

size, number, or suitability of lakes that 

yellow-billed loons use for nesting and 

brood-rearing, especially near the 

southern boundary of continuous and 

discontinuous permafrost. When nearsurface permafrost thaws, unfrozen 

channels develop between and below 

water bodies, allowing subsurface 

drainage to occur. In addition, 

permafrost degradation around edges of 

lakes near river channels can cause 

lakes to be breached and drained (Mars 

and Houseknecht 2007, p. 586). 

Permafrost degradation has already 

affected lakes in some areas at the 

southern boundary of continuous 

permafrost. In Siberia, L.C. Smith et al. 

(2005, p.1) documented a decline in 

lake abundance and area in zones of 

discontinuous permafrost. Yoshikawa 

and Hinzman (2003, p. 151) 

documented numerous shrinking ponds 

on Alaska’s Seward Peninsula, at the 

southern boundary of the yellow-billed 

loon’s range, due to an increase in 

internal drainage following permafrost 

degradation between 1950 and 2000. 

Because a limited number of loon 

surveys have been conducted on the 

Seward Peninsula, we do not know 

whether these changes are affecting 

yellow-billed loons there. Riordan et al. 

(2006, p. 1) observed ponds shrinking 

throughout subarctic Alaska, and 

attributed this drying to permafrost 

warming, as well as increased 

evaporation during a warmer and longer 

growing season. The arctic zone of 

continuous permafrost has relatively 

cold air temperatures and is considered 

relatively stable. However, Clow and 

Urban (2008, p. 3) measured increases 

for a total average warming of 3.5 K 

(kelvin) (3.5 degrees C, 6.3 degrees F) 

during 1989–2007, and Jorgenson et al. 

(2006, p. 1) observed a recent, abrupt 

increase in the extent and rate of ice 

wedge degradation on Alaska’s ACP. Ice 

wedges are 2–4 m deep polygons of ice, 

more than 3,000 years old, occurring 

just below the vegetation layer in icerich regions of the arctic. Both effects 

were coincident with record warm air 

temperatures in the late 1990s. 

Permafrost warming and thawing is 

predicted to continue as the arctic 

climate warms (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 

772). Zhang et al. (2007, p. 443) 

simulated changes in Canada’s 

permafrost distribution using a model 

driven by six general circulation 

models. They predicted that active layer 

(the top layer of soil that thaws in 

summer) thickness would increase, the 

boundary between continuous and 

discontinuous permafrost would move 

north, and there would be significant 

impacts on surface and ground 

hydrology. Stendel et al. (2007, pp. 203, 

211) used a high-resolution regional 

climate model to predict changes to 

permafrost in eastern Siberia over the 

next century, and concluded that under 

the various modeling scenarios 

reviewed by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 

active layer depth would increase up to 

1 m (3.1 ft) along the arctic coast. These 

predictions suggest that some breeding 

lakes, particularly in the southern part 

of the yellow-billed loon’s range, could 

be altered, but overall effects will 

depend on the magnitude and direction 

of other changes (e.g., precipitation). 

Arctic sea-ice loss accelerates air 

temperature warming, which, in turn, 

increases permafrost warming. Recently, 

Lawrence et al. (2008, p. 1) evaluated 

how periods of abrupt rapid sea-ice loss 

affect terrestrial arctic climate and 

ground thermal state in the Community 

Climate System Model. They found that 

arctic land warming trends would be 3.5 

times greater during periods of rapid 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12945 

sea-ice loss than otherwise predicted for 

the 21st century. They predicted that 

such a warming period would increase 

ground heat accumulation substantially, 

increasing the vulnerability of 

permafrost to degradation (Lawrence et 

al. 2008, p. 1). The 2007 arctic summer 

sea-ice extent was a new record 

minimum since satellite measurements 

began in 1979, with a large reduction in 

area compared to the previous record set 

in 2005 (Richter-Menge et al. 2008, p. 1), 

and the 2008 extent was similar 

(National Snow and Ice Data Center, 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ 

index.html). 

Aside from causing increased land 

warming trends, loss of sea ice could 

affect freshwater breeding lakes adjacent 

to marine shorelines through breaching 

and increased salinity, because 

shorelines would no longer be protected 

from storms by summer and fall 

shorefast ice (Mars and Houseknecht 

2007, p. 586). Coastal erosion rates are 

increasing, with land loss rates in some 

of Alaska doubling in the last half 

century (Mars and Houseknecht 2007, p. 

585), and parts of the Laptev Sea coast 

in arctic Russia are retreating at an 

average rate of 2.5 m (8.2 ft) per year 

(Rachold et al. 2002, cited in Walsh et 

al. 2005, p. 233), but it is not known 

whether yellow-billed loon breeding 

lakes in this region are close enough to 

the coast to be affected. These effects are 

exacerbated by rising global sea levels. 

The greatest sea-level increases over the 

next century are projected for the arctic, 

although with much uncertainty 

(Christensen et al. 2007, p. 914; Walsh 

et al. 2005, pp. 232–234). 

The amount and timing of 

precipitation also influences the 

permafrost active layer, and is predicted 

to increase in the arctic (Christensen et 

al. 2007, pp. 902–906), with a greater 

percentage increase in winter and less 

in summer. Increased snow cover in 

winter is likely to contribute to 

permafrost warming, as snow limits heat 

exchange between the atmosphere and 

the ground; significant snow cover 

keeps the ground warmer than the air 

(Stieglitz et al. 2003, p. 1). Predicted 

increased frequency of rain-on-snow 

events in Alaska and eastern Siberia 

(Rennert et al. 2008, p. 4) would 

exacerbate the warming effect on 

permafrost, as latent heat release from a 

single large rain-on-snow event can 

constrain the soil temperature to 0 

degrees C (32 degrees F) for months 

(Putkonen and Roe 2002, p. 1,188). 

There could also be direct effects of 

changes in precipitation on lakes used 

by yellow-billed loons. Increased winter 

precipitation could provide more spring 

floodwater to recharge lake basins 

(Walsh et al. 2005, p. 188; Prowse 2006, 

pp. 330–331). In contrast, increased 

summer rainfall will likely be lost to 

stream flow, increased subsurface 

storage, and increased evaporation in 

warmer air temperatures (Rovansek et 

al. 1996, p. 311; Bowling et al. 2003, p. 

2–1). Earlier snow melt from increasing 

air temperatures and the predicted 

increase in winter rain events could 

decrease large breakup events in the 

spring, perhaps reducing lake 

replenishment from ice-jam flooding. 

Overall, it is possible that lakes at the 

southern boundary of continuous 

permafrost could be affected, that this 

boundary will move north, and that 

eventually even northern areas of 

continuous permafrost could experience 

changes that will negatively affect lakes. 

For the yellow-billed loons, these effects 

could mean reduced habitat in the 

southern part of its range in the nearterm (an uncertain period, but perhaps 

the next several decades), and 

eventually, in the northern parts of its 

range. At present, however, models have 

not been developed to make reliable 

predictions about the timing or extent of 

such habitat reductions and associated 

impacts on the species. Although 

permafrost degradation has already 

occurred in southern parts of the 

breeding range, such as the Seward 

Peninsula, there have been no observed 

effects on loon breeding lakes, and we 

do not have trend information for that 

population (which could provide some 

indication of the population impacts of 

permafrost degradation). Therefore, 

based on currently available information 

we find that climate-induced changes to 

the morphology of the yellow-billed 

loon’s breeding lake habitats are not a 

threat to the species now, and we 

cannot reasonably predict that they will 

become a threat to the species in the 

future. 

Prey Fish Communities 

Climate change could alter yellowbilled loon prey fish communities in 

breeding lakes; species potentially 

affected include ninespine sticklebacks, 

Alaska blackfish, and least cisco 

(considered among the most vulnerable 

to extirpation through changes in 

species composition) (Wrona et al. 2006, 

p. 413). We are uncertain, however, 

about the form or timing that potential 

effects on fish communities might have 

on yellow-billed loons due to the 

interaction of factors influencing 

community composition. Fish species 

vary with lake depth and resulting ice 

thickness. Shallow (less than 2 m) (less 

than 6.6 ft) lakes that freeze to the 

bottom cannot harbor overwintering 

fish, and even somewhat deeper lakes 

may have low dissolved oxygen levels, 

allowing only species adapted to these 

low levels, such as sticklebacks and 

Alaska blackfish, to survive. Shallow 

lakes that freeze to the bottom 

sometimes maintain fish populations 

via replenishment from spring river 

floods. If ice thickness declines in a 

warmer climate, deep lakes could have 

increased oxygen, allowing less tolerant 

species to overwinter, and shallower 

lakes would be able to harbor 

overwintering fish. Conversely, shallow 

lakes might lose replenishment with 

decreased spring flooding (Hershey et 

al. 2005, pp. 39, 52). Fish habitat is also 

dependent on basin shape, since 

shallow littoral zones are needed to 

provide food for fish; lower water levels 

might alter or diminish littoral habitats. 

Fish habitat characteristics are reflected 

in yellow-billed loon habitat preferences 

modeled by Earnst et al. (2006). Loons 

were found more often on medium or 

deep lakes than on shallow (less than 2 

m) (less than 6.6 ft) lakes that freeze to 

the bottom, and for shallow lakes, loons 

were more likely to be present if the 

lake was connected to streams or other 

lakes. Proportion of shoreline with 

vegetation, indicating littoral habitat, 

was a positive indicator of yellow-billed 

loon presence. Loons preferred both 2 to 

4 m (6.6 to 13.1 ft) deep lakes and 

greater than 4 m (greater than 13.1 ft) 

deep lakes, but because the latter are 

rare on the North Slope, 64 percent of 

yellow-billed loon sightings were on 

lakes 2 to 4 m (6.6 to 13.1 ft) deep 

(Earnst et al. 2006, p. 235). In summary, 

although climate change could have 

negative effects on prey communities, 

there could be positive effects. Not only 

is there considerable uncertainty as to 

the possible effects to prey communities 

from climate change, there is also 

substantial uncertainty about the timing 

over which changes will occur. 

Scientists have not yet developed the 

specific predictive models and 

empirical research to improve our 

understanding of these changes and 

enable us to predict the timing with 

which they might occur. 

In addition to breeding lakes, yellowbilled loons in summer use shallow 

nearshore marine waters (less than 10 m 

(33 ft), roughly within 20 km (12.4 mi) 

of shore) adjacent to mainland habitats 

and near barrier islands (Earnst 2004, p. 

7). Little is known about the prey 

species that yellow-billed loons use in 

these habitats, although they are known 

to eat a variety of species in winter 

marine habitats (see Feeding Habits, 

above; also reviewed in North 1994, p. 

7 and Earnst 2004, pp. 9–10). Changes 

in arctic marine ecosystems, including 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

increased primary production, 

introduction of new species, and 

population shifts in existing species 

could occur as the climate warms (Perry 

et al. 2005, p. 1,912; Behrenfeld et al. 

2006, p. 752; Reist et al. 2006a, pp. 370– 

380). These changes to summer marine 

prey communities would be complex, 

and the form of potential new species 

assemblages cannot be reliably 

predicted at this time. 

Increased ocean acidification as a 

result of increasing levels of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide could affect 

marine food webs, but the form, 

magnitude, and timing of such effects 

are unknown. Due to limited research 

and understanding of the processes 

involved (Zeebe et al. 2008, p. 52), it is 

not possible to predict effects on loon 

prey species from ocean acidification at 

this time. 

Therefore, as discussed above, due to 

a paucity of information and models 

available to reliably predict effects of 

climate-induced changes to yellowbilled loon prey species assemblages in 

breeding lake and marine habitats, we 

find that climate-induced changes to 

yellow-billed loon prey species is not a 

threat to this species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Polynyas and Ice Leads 

We also considered whether polynyas 

and ice leads, both of which provide 

feeding and staging areas for yellowbilled loons in spring before the 

breeding season, were likely to 

disappear as the arctic climate changes. 

Arctic sea ice is projected to decline 

most, and surface air temperatures 

increase most, in summer and fall 

(Walsh 2008, p. S19). In 2007, there was 

a record sea-ice minimum in the arctic 

in September, and the Chukchi Sea did 

not freeze until early December, but an 

advancing ice field covered most of the 

eastern Bering Sea shelf by mid-January 

2008. A subsequent near record 

maximum ice extent occurred in March 

2008, and the Bering Sea was not ice 

free until almost July 2008 (Overland 

and Stabenow 2008, p. 2). Overland and 

Stabenow (2008, p. 5) predicted that 

although arctic sea ice will continue to 

decrease seasonally in late summer and 

fall, sea ice will still form in winter, 

extending south to the Bering Sea. If this 

projection is correct, polynyas and ice 

leads should continue to provide 

productive spring habitat for yellowbilled loons, even as the arctic climate 

continues to warm. Therefore, we find 

that loss of polynyas and ice lead 

habitats is not a threat to yellow-billed 

loons now or in the foreseeable future. 

Shipping Traffic 

We also evaluated the potential effects 

of increased disturbance and oil spills to 

arctic yellow-billed loon habitat from 

increased shipping traffic, as a result of 

summer and autumn sea-ice loss, 

throughout arctic marine waters near 

loon breeding areas. Because of the seaice decline discussed above, in 2008 

both the Northwest passage and the socalled Northeast Passage, or Northern 

Sea Route, along the Russian arctic coast 

were ice free likely for the first time 

since the last ice age 125,000 years ago 

(NSIDC 2008). As the extent of arctic sea 

ice in the summer has declined and the 

duration of ice-free periods has 

increased, interest in shipping within 

and through arctic waters has increased 

(Brigham and Ellis 2004, p. 2). This 

potential increase in shipping could 

affect yellow-billed loons through 

habitat degradation, disturbance, or fuel 

spills. However, we have not found any 

reliable predictions about the location, 

type, and amount of shipping that might 

occur as ice-free periods increase. In 

addition, the wide distribution and low 

density of yellow-billed loons in arctic 

marine areas during the breeding season 

makes it unlikely that the population 

would be at increased risk if shipping 

traffic were to increase. Because we are 

uncertain about the magnitude of 

shipping traffic increases and because 

the low density of loons in the 

environment makes them less 

vulnerable to vessel accidents or 

disturbance, we find that increased 

arctic shipping is not a threat to yellowbilled loons now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

In summary, our evaluation of 

climate-change effects on arctic yellowbilled loon habitats included 

documented and predicted climateinduced changes to various features of 

the environment, followed by 

hypothetical but reasonable 

suppositions about possible alterations 

to habitats important to yellow-billed 

loons. There are no data to suggest that 

climate-induced changes documented to 

date have resulted in breeding-habitat 

changes, and based on the stable or 

slightly declining trend on the ACP, it 

does not appear that these changes have 

affected the yellow-billed loon 

population there. At this time, we are 

unable to predict potential future 

changes to yellow-billed loons and their 

habitats discussed above, because, in 

addition to uncertainty about the 

magnitude, direction, and timing of 

climate-induced changes to the 

environment, no empirical data exist 

regarding the effects of those potential 

changes on yellow-billed loons or their 

habitats. 

In arctic areas, there is strong 

evidence that coastal erosion is 

occurring, and some evidence for 

breaching of freshwater lakes adjacent to 

coasts, but little or no information on 

whether these environmental changes 

have affected yellow-billed loon 

breeding lakes. While there is strong 

evidence that climate change is causing 

permafrost loss, no information is 

available on how this could affect 

freshwater lake morphology and the 

yellow-billed loon prey base in the 

future. Based on the best available data, 

we believe that important polynyas and 

ice-lead spring staging habitat are likely 

to continue to exist in the foreseeable 

future. While ocean acidification will 

likely have long-term effects on marine 

communities, we do not know how it 

will affect loons. We believe the effects 

of increased shipping in arctic seas will 

be negligible because yellow-billed 

loons are widely dispersed across 

breeding and migrating landscapes. 

II. Temperate Habitats 

Global ocean temperatures increased 

(0.1 degrees C (0.2 degrees F) from 1961 

to 2003, although with some cooling 

since 2003; Bindoff et al. 2007, p. 387), 

and effects on primary productivity and 

dissolved oxygen varied with latitude. 

Primary productivity in warm, lowlatitude oceans declines as upper-ocean 

temperature increases, while warmer 

temperature at high latitudes increases 

productivity and decreases oxygen 

levels (Behrenfeld et al. 2006, p. 752; 

Bindoff et al. 2007, p. 400). 

For the yellow-billed loon wintering 

at low latitudes in the Yellow Sea and 

the Japan (East) Sea, a drop in primary 

productivity might mean decreased prey 

availability. However, as already 

observed in northern environments (e.g., 

Perry et al. 2005, pp. 1,912–1,915), 

marine animals, including yellow-billed 

loons, might shift north to colder, more 

productive waters if winter sea ice is not 

a barrier. As noted for northern marine 

species (e.g., Perry et al. 2005, p. 1,914) 

the movements of species as a result of 

climate change will likely be complex, 

so predicting the form of new species 

assemblages is difficult. 

Potential expansion of oxygendeficient ‘‘dead zones’’ in Asian coastal 

waters where yellow-billed loons winter 

depends partly on how climate change 

affects water-column stratification (Diaz 

and Rosenberg 2008, p. 929). Warming 

ocean temperatures could increase 

stratification, deepening the depletion 

of oxygen, but increased storminess, 

such as hurricanes, could increase 

mixing and thereby lessen stratification. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12947 

Changes in rainfall patterns could 

change freshwater and nutrient inputs. 

At this time, available data on the 

effects of climate change on dead zones 

in winter marine habitats of the yellowbilled loon are uncertain. 

In summary, climate change effects on 

the temperate-latitude wintering habitat 

of the yellow-billed loon include 

increases in ocean temperature and 

decreases in primary productivity and 

dissolved oxygen levels, which could 

potentially affect prey fish communities 

and their distribution. The magnitude 

and form of these effects are highly 

uncertain, but would most likely 

involve a northward shift of prey 

species, which could be mirrored by 

their predators, such as wintering 

yellow-billed loons. Therefore, while we 

conclude that the effects of climate 

change will be widespread and will 

likely have some impact on yellowbilled loons in temperate habitats, we 

find that climate-induced changes in the 

temperate marine habitat are not a threat 

to the yellow-billed loon now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

There are multiple hypothetical 

mechanisms associated with climate 

change that could affect loons and their 

breeding and non-breeding habitats. 

Unlike documented and predicted 

declines in sea ice, an obligate habitat 

for other arctic species such as polar 

bears (Ursus maritimus), we lack 

predictive models on how climate 

change will affect yellow-billed loon 

terrestrial, freshwater, and marine 

habitats. Manifestations of climatemediated changes throughout arctic and 

temperate yellow-billed loon habitats 

will emerge as models continue to be 

refined and effects are documented, but 

at this time the timing, magnitude, and 

net effect of the impacts are uncertain. 

In our analysis of Factor A, we 

identified and evaluated the risks to the 

yellow-billed loon’s habitats, including: 

Oil and gas development (i.e., 

disturbance, changes in freshwater 

chemistry and pollutant loads, and 

changes in freshwater hydrology); 

pollution; overfishing; and climate 

change. Based on our review of the best 

available information, we find that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

yellow-billed loon’s habitat or range is 

not a threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Subsistence harvest, as well as, 

bycatch of loons during commercial and 

subsistence fishing are discussed under 

Factor E. 

Researchers seeking to understand the 

life history of yellow-billed loons have 

implanted 29 yellow-billed loons with 

satellite transmitters to date (19 birds on 

the ACP and 10 birds on the Seward 

Peninsula, Alaska; Schmutz in litt. 

2008). This research is permitted by the 

Service under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) and by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) 

under State law. Although it is 

reasonably likely that there could be 

heightened risks of mortality and 

reduced productivity in individual birds 

implanted with transmitters, the 

number of loons in this study is not 

sufficient to cause population-level 

effects. 

We do not have any evidence of risks 

to yellow-billed loons from 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, and we have no reason to 

believe this factor will become a threat 

to the species in the future. Therefore, 

we find that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific or 

educational purposes is not a threat to 

the yellow-billed loon now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

Loons are susceptible to avian 

diseases, including avian cholera (from 

Pasteurella multocida), aspergillosis 

(from Aspergillus fumigatus), and avian 

botulism (from Clostridium botulinum) 

(Friend and Franson 1999, pp. 79, 130, 

274), but we are not aware of any large 

disease-related die-offs in yellow-billed 

loons. Loons are susceptible to avian 

influenza, but in Alaska, none of six 

loons sampled, including two yellowbilled loons, tested positive for avian 

influenza viruses in 2006 (USFWS/ 

USGS 2007, pp. 1–93; Y. Gillies in litt. 

2008, p. 1), and worldwide the highly 

pathogenic H5N1 has not been detected 

in loons (http://www.who.int/csr/ 

disease/avian_influenza/en/, accessed 

11/24/2008). 

Predation on adult yellow-billed 

loons is thought to be uncommon, but 

predation on nests on the ACP has been 

attributed as the primary cause of egg 

loss and therefore reduced productivity 

in some years (Earnst 2004, p. 22). 

Yellow-billed loon nest predators 

include glaucous gull (Larus 

hyperboreus), parasitic jaeger 

(Stercorarius parasiticus), and arctic fox 

(Alopex lagopus); pomarine jaeger 

(Stercorarius pomarinus), common 

raven (Corvus corax), snowy owl 

(Nyctea scandiaca), red fox (Vulpes 

fulva), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) also predate nests (North 

1994, p. 11; Earnst 2004, p. 22). Many 

of these predators are attracted to 

infrastructure, which is used as nesting 

platforms or is associated with food 

sources, and so predation might be 

expected to increase as development in 

yellow-billed loon nesting habitat 

increases (NRC 2003, p. 6; Earnst 2004, 

p. 19). However, in Alaska, NPR–A ROP 

A–2 and A–8 require control of waste 

and other measures to prevent attracting 

wildlife to infrastructure (USDOI–BLM 

2008b, Appendix A, pp. 37, 41–42), 

reducing the risks associated with future 

development. We do not know whether 

similar regulations would be 

implemented in Canada should 

development occur there. The extent of 

infrastructure increase in Russian 

yellow-billed loon nesting habitats, and 

accompanying regulation, is unknown. 

In conclusion, we note that no large 

disease-related mortality events have 

been documented for yellow-billed 

loons. Indeed, yellow-billed loons might 

be relatively protected from avian 

disease mass mortality events that are 

more common in other water birds 

because of the loon’s dispersed 

distribution and relatively solitary 

habits. We have no reason to believe 

that disease outbreaks will increase or 

will have more severe effects on yellowbilled loons in the future. Nest 

predation might affect current 

productivity, but population-level 

effects are more likely to results from 

decreases in adult survival (see 

Population Resiliency, above). 

Moreover, due to regulations associated 

with infrastructure development that 

also target increasing human safety, we 

believe that nest predation is unlikely to 

cause population-level effects in the 

future, at least in Alaska and Canada; no 

information is available that would 

indicate future effects of such 

development in Russia. Therefore, we 

find that neither disease nor predation 

is a threat to the yellow-billed loon now 

or in the foreseeable future. 

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

To determine if existing regulatory 

mechanisms protect yellow-billed loons, 

we evaluated existing international and 

United States conventions, agreements, 

and laws for the specific protection of 

yellow-billed loons or their marine and 

terrestrial habitats in the countries 

where yellow-billed loons winter, 

migrate, or breed. In July 2008, we sent 

letters to national wildlife or natural 

resource agencies in Canada, China, 

Japan, North Korea, Norway, Republic 

of Korea (South Korea), and the Russian 

Federation, asking for information about 

ongoing management measures and any 

conservation and management strategies 

being developed to protect the species. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12948 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We received a formal response from the 

government of Canada, and an informal 

response from a government biologist in 

the Russian Federation (discussed 

below). 

The yellow-billed loon is included in 

the 2008 International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List 

Category as a ‘‘Least concern’’ species; 

widespread and abundant taxa are 

included in this category. The species is 

not currently listed under the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES); and trade is not known 

to negatively affect the yellow-billed 

loon. The species is listed under the 

United Nations Environment Program 

Convention on the Conservation of 

Migratory Species of Wild Animals 

(UNEP–CMS), although the United 

States, Russia, Canada, and most Asian 

nations are not signatories (http:// 

www.cms.int/, accessed September 9, 

2008). 

In Asia, no specific relevant laws for 

North Korea or the Republic of Korea 

(South Korea) were found that would 

apply to protection of yellow-billed 

loons or their habitat. Chinese wildlife 

laws (The Law of the People’s Republic 

of China on the Protection of Wildlife 

1991; The Regulations for the 

Implementation of the People’s 

Republic of China on the Protection of 

Terrestrial Wildlife 1992) protect 

species of wildlife and the environment, 

with provisions for hunting (including 

licensure), and habitat protection for 

species under the special protection of 

the state, although the yellow-billed 

loon is listed as ‘‘not threatened’’ by the 

China Species Information Service 

(CSIS database, http:// 

www.chinabiodiversity.com; accessed 

Sept. 8, 2008). 

The Japan-United States Convention 

for the Protection of Migratory Birds and 

Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their 

Environment (1974) includes the 

yellow-billed loon, though it is not 

designated as a Japanese endangered 

species. The Convention prohibits the 

taking of migratory birds or their eggs, 

unless there are permitted exceptions 

for subsistence. The Convention also 

specifies that each party shall seek 

means to prevent damage to such birds 

and their environment, including, 

especially, damage resulting from 

pollution of the seas. 

Lack of regulation and enforcement of 

fishing and pollution in marine waters 

of China and the Republic of Korea have 

been identified as barriers to recovery of 

the Yellow Sea ecosystem (UNDP/GEF 

2007, pp. 79–84). ‘‘In the Yellow Sea, 

there are clearly deficiencies in fisheries 

management and regulation. 

Furthermore, these deficiencies have 

contributed to environmental impacts or 

threats to biodiversity in sectors other 

than fisheries management’’ (UNDP/ 

GEF 2007, p. 80). We are concerned that 

these problems could cause harm to 

yellow-billed loons, but currently we 

have little information on mortality 

rates or loss of loon habitat in this 

region, and no evidence from our 

limited information on breeding 

population trends indicates that the lack 

of regulation in Asian waters is causing 

a population-level threat to yellowbilled loons. 

We received a response to our letter 

to the Russian Ministry of Natural 

Resources from the Russian Academy of 

Sciences, which stated that there are no 

ongoing management measures to 

protect the yellow-billed loon in Russia. 

They stated that all the best known 

species’ breeding sites are outside any 

protected areas, and no conservation 

and management strategies have been 

recently developed to protect the 

species (E. Syreochkovskiy, Russian 

Academy of Sciences, in litt. 2008). 

The yellow-billed loon is listed in the 

Red Data Book of the Russian 

Federation (2001, pp. 366–367) as a 

category 3 species (rare, sporadically 

distributed species). The species is 

nominally protected under the 1978 

U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty with the 

former Soviet Union (Convention 

between the United States of America 

and the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics Concerning the Conservation 

of Migratory Birds and their 

Environment; Pub. L. 95–616), which 

specifies that each party shall prohibit 

the taking of migratory birds, the 

collection of their nests and eggs, and 

the disturbance of nesting colonies. 

Exceptions include subsistence 

purposes for indigenous people. The 

Treaty also mandates that to the extent 

possible, the parties shall undertake 

measures necessary to protect and 

enhance the environment of migratory 

birds and to prevent and abate the 

pollution or detrimental alteration of 

that environment. Regional protection 

occurs in some regions where yellowbilled loons occur such as Kamchatka, 

Murmansk, Sakhalin, and Yamal-Nenets 

Autonomous District (AD), but not in 

Yakutia, Taymyr AD, or Chukotka AD, 

where nesting is concentrated (Red Data 

Book Bulletin 2003, p. 77). In 

Kamchatka, yellow-billed loons are 

protected in some nature reserves along 

the eastern and southern coasts of 

Kamchatka (Red Data Book of 

Kamchatka, p. 92), but not along the 

western coast where oil and gas 

development are planned. Yellow-billed 

loons are also protected under bilateral 

agreements between the Russian 

Federation and the Korean Republic, 

and Japan and China, respectively (Red 

Data Book of Kamchatka 2006, p. 92). 

We do not have reliable information on 

enforcement of regulations in Russia, 

and we also do not have information 

that insufficient regulation or 

enforcement has caused a populationlevel threat to the yellow-billed loon. 

The Wildlife Act of Norway (1981), 

where loons winter in marine waters, 

specifies that all wildlife, including 

eggs, nests, and habitats, are protected 

(meaning that individuals of the species 

may not be collected or destroyed) 

unless otherwise prescribed by statutory 

law. Norway’s marine ecosystem is 

managed by the Ministries of 

Environment, Fisheries and Coastal 

Affairs, Petroleum and Energy, and 

Labour and Social Inclusion (Royal 

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 

2006, pp. 46–59), which coordinate 

environmental laws regulating fishing 

and controlling pollution from 

development and vessel traffic (Royal 

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment 

2006, p. 46). We do not have evidence 

that lack of adequate regulation in 

Norway has or is likely to lead to threats 

to the yellow-billed loon. 

The yellow-billed loon is designated 

as ‘‘not at risk’’ under Canada’s Species 

at Risk Act of 2002, legislation similar 

to the U.S. Endangered Species Act 

(http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/; 

accessed January 28, 2009). In its 

assessment and status report on the 

yellow-billed loon, the Committee on 

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC) determined the 

yellow-billed loon was ‘‘not at risk’’ 

(COSEWIC 1997, p. iii). The report 

acknowledged that all loons are highly 

susceptible to pollution and destruction 

of wetland and coastal marine habitats 

(COSEWIC 1997, p. vi). According to the 

COSEWIC status report on the yellowbilled loon prepared by Barr (1997, p. 

4), the dangers of human activities, the 

naturally low population, limited 

breeding habitat and food resources, and 

inability to adapt ensure that the 

yellow-billed loon will remain 

vulnerable. However, he also stated that 

its present low population could be 

normal, stable, and well adapted to its 

severe environment, and that there does 

not yet seem to have been any 

significant loss of critical habitat (Barr 

1997, p. 4). The COSEWIC report (1997; 

p. iii) concluded that the yellow-billed 

loon is uncommon but widespread with 

no evidence of declines or limiting 

factors over widespread areas. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty (or 

Convention) between Canada and the 

United States (originally ratified in 1916 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12949 

and implemented in 1918, and amended 

in 1994 in Canada) established a legal 

framework protecting migratory birds. 

Under Canada’s Migratory Birds 

Convention Act (1994), the Governor in 

Council regulates migratory nongame 

bird species, such as the yellow-billed 

loon, by prohibiting the killing, 

capturing, injuring, taking, or disturbing 

of migratory birds or the damaging, 

destroying, removing, or disturbing of 

nests; prescribing protection areas for 

migratory birds and nests; and requiring 

the control and management of those 

areas (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ 

showtdm/cs/M-7.01///en; accessed 

November 24, 2008). However, the Act 

allows for the subsistence take of birds, 

including the yellow-billed loon, by 

Aboriginal people in Canada. Currently, 

the species is not covered under 

Canadian Provincial laws or regulations 

and, thus, receives no additional 

protections or conservation 

considerations in Canada. There are no 

conservation and management strategies 

being developed to protect the species 

in Canada (V. Poter, Canadian Wildlife 

Service, in litt. 2008, p. 1), and no 

population surveys are conducted or 

planned. Although the two Migratory 

Bird Sanctuaries where yellow-billed 

loons breed (Queen Maud Gulf and 

Banks Island Migratory Bird 

Sanctuaries) encompass over 8 million 

hectares total and are remote from major 

human cities or other development, 

subsistence hunting by Aboriginal 

people is allowed within them 

(MacDonald in litt. 2008, p. 1). At 

present, we have some concern about 

subsistence harvest in Canada which 

appears to be unregulated, particularly 

in light of the lack of knowledge about 

loon population levels or trends, but we 

do not have evidence that this lack of 

regulation is causing a population-level 

threat to the yellow-billed loon breeding 

population in Canada. 

Within the United States, the yellowbilled loon has protection under several 

laws and regulations. The MBTA makes 

it unlawful to kill or take eggs or nests 

of yellow-billed loons, but it does not 

provide protection for habitat, a 

potential concern in relation to 

development in breeding areas. Yellowbilled loons are not open for subsistence 

hunting in Alaska under migratory bird 

subsistence-harvest regulations (March 

14, 2008, 73 FR 13788), but our analysis 

of harvest surveys (discussed under 

Factor E) indicates that harvest 

nevertheless occurs, at times at 

substantial levels. Although we have 

some concerns about the accuracy of 

reported harvest levels, as described in 

Factor E, we have concluded that 

harvest is higher than previously 

thought, and is likely unsustainable. 

The yellow-billed loon is a K-selected, 

long-lived species, that requires high 

adult survival and has low recovery 

potential and slow recovery rates once 

populations decline; consequently, 

significant mortality of yellow-billed 

loons, especially of adults, is a major 

concern. The Service and State of 

Alaska have recognized the yellowbilled loon as a potentially vulnerable 

species under the Birds of Conservation 

Concern (68 FR 6179) and State 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy (http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/ 

statewide/ngplan/, accessed September 

9, 2008), respectively. These 

designations provide management and 

research funding prioritization. 

Much of the yellow-billed loon’s 

breeding range in Alaska is found on the 

NW and NE NPR–A (which is managed 

by the BLM), and the species is on the 

BLM-Alaska’s list of sensitive species. 

One of the objectives of BLM’s Special 

Status Species Policy is to ensure that 

actions requiring authorization or 

approval by BLM are consistent with the 

conservation needs of special status 

species and do not contribute to the 

need to list any special status species, 

either under provisions of the Act or 

other provisions of the policy. 

Specifically, the BLM must manage the 

habitat to conserve the species by: 

ensuring sensitive species are 

appropriately considered in land-use 

plans; developing, cooperating with, 

and implementing range-wide or sitespecific management plans, 

conservation strategies, and assessments 

for sensitive species that include 

specific habitat and population 

management objectives designed for 

conservation, as well as management 

strategies necessary to meet those 

objectives; and ensuring that BLM 

activities affecting the habitat of 

sensitive species are carried out in a 

manner that is consistent with the 

objectives for managing those species. 

The BLM has adopted stipulations 

and ROPs for the NW and NE NPR–A 

(USDOI–BLM 2004a, Appendix B, pp. 

B–1–B–18; USDOI–BLM 2008b, 

Appendix A, pp. 37–74) in order to 

minimize potential impacts to yellowbilled loons, such as disturbance of 

nesting birds and broods. As discussed 

under Factor A, these include waterwithdrawal standards for deep fishbearing lakes and setbacks for 

exploratory drilling and permanent 

facilities near fish-bearing and deep 

lakes (greater than 3.9 m (13 ft) deep). 

Both the NW NPR–A Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Record of Decision (USDOI–BLM 2004a, 

Appendix B, p. B–11) and the NE NPR– 

A Supplemental Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Record of Decision (USDOI–BLM 2008b, 

Appendix A, pp. 51–53) contain ROP E– 

11, an express objective of which is to 

minimize disturbance to yellow-billed 

loons from oil and gas activities in the 

NPR–A (V. Galterio, BLM Alaska State 

Director, in litt. 2008). This ROP 

requires oil and gas lessees to conduct 

multi-year surveys in order to detect 

nesting yellow-billed loons before the 

construction of development facilities 

will be authorized. The ROP further 

specifies that the design and location of 

facilities must be such that disturbance 

to yellow-billed loons is minimized. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information currently 

available, the BLM agrees with the 

Service that this objective can best be 

achieved by prohibiting development 

within 1.6 km (1 mi) of detected nests 

and 500 m (1,640 ft) around the 

shorelines of lakes 10.1 ha (25 ac) or 

larger (Galterio, in litt. 2008). 

According to the BLM (Galterio, in 

litt. 2008), to account for new 

information that might be obtained in 

the future (such as information about 

yellow-billed loons, specific 

development proposals, and their 

potential impact on yellow-billed 

loons), both the Northwest and 

Northeast Records of Decision would 

allow for exceptions or deviations from 

enumerated buffers in limited 

circumstances. In these circumstances, 

the exception or deviation would still be 

required to meet the management 

objective of minimizing disturbance to 

the species and would, at a minimum, 

need to provide the same level of 

protection that the existing buffers 

provide. The evaluation of a deviation 

request that could affect yellow-billed 

loons would be made with close 

collaboration and extensive discussions 

with subject-matter experts at the 

Service and academia to ensure the 

conservation of the species. 

Although data are not available to 

determine how effective the stipulations 

and ROPs will be in minimizing or 

eliminating adverse impacts to the 

species, BLM has expressed a 

commitment to measures aimed at 

minimizing potential impacts to yellowbilled loons from activities within the 

purview of BLM’s authority as a land 

management agency (V. Galterio, in litt. 

2008). We believe that BLM’s 

stipulations and ROPS will likely be 

adequate to mitigate potential impacts 

to the yellow-billed loon in Alaska, if 

careful monitoring and coordination 

with the Service continues. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12950 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The Service, National Park Service, 

Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources, ADFG, and the North Slope 

Borough entered into a ‘‘Conservation 

Agreement for the Yellow-billed Loon 

(Gavia adamsii)’’ (Conservation 

Agreement 2006, pp. 1–29) in November 

2006. The agreement specifies the goal 

of protecting the yellow-billed loon and 

its habitat in Alaska and identifies 

several strategies for achieving this goal. 

These strategies include implementing 

actions to reduce the impacts of oil and 

gas activities; determining and reducing, 

if necessary, impacts from subsistence 

activities; and inventorying, monitoring, 

and conducting research on the yellowbilled loon. While the agreement 

demonstrates the parties’ good-faith 

efforts to identify and undertake 

protective measures for the loon and its 

habitat, it does not require any specific 

actions to be undertaken to achieve its 

goals or specify any time frames for 

doing so, nor does it establish any 

quantifiable, scientifically valid 

parameters by which to measure 

achievement of the objectives and gauge 

progress. Thus, we are unable to 

conclude with sufficient certainty that 

the agreement is likely to be effective in 

protecting the yellow-billed loon; so we 

did not rely on it for our analysis in this 

finding. This is consistent with the 

Service’s 2003 ‘‘Policy for Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions’’ (PECE) policy, which 

sets forth criteria to be used to 

determine whether conservation efforts 

that have yet to be implemented or 

show effectiveness contribute to making 

listing a species as threatened or 

endangered unnecessary. 

In summary, Russia is the only nation 

that includes the yellow-billed loon on 

an endangered or sensitive species list. 

Some countries (Canada, Japan, Norway, 

Russia, and the United States) have laws 

that prohibit the hunting of migratory 

birds such as the yellow-billed loon, 

unless specific regulations are issued, or 

unless the animals are harvested for 

subsistence. Provisions to prevent 

habitat degradation for wildlife and 

migratory birds or to protect the 

environment exist, but enforcement 

levels are unknown and in some 

countries may not be effective at 

protecting habitats. In the United States, 

the MBTA prohibits killing of yellowbilled loons, but does not provide for 

habitat protection. The Bureau of Land 

Management, the land management 

agency with authority over most of the 

yellow-billed loon’s breeding range in 

Alaska, has instituted protective 

measures for the species and its habitat. 

However, existing regulatory 

mechanisms have not been adequate to 

eliminate all threats to the yellow-billed 

loon throughout its range. In particular, 

despite the fact that the species is closed 

to subsistence hunting in Alaska, 

harvest surveys have recorded a 

substantial level of harvest. We believe 

that future take at a level consistent 

with these prior levels would cause a 

population-level decline that constitutes 

a threat to the species (see Factor E, 

below). Therefore, we conclude that 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to protect the species. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Man-Made 

Factors Affecting its Continued 

Existence 

Direct Effects of Oil and Gas 

Development and Vessel Traffic 

Yellow-billed loons spend the 

majority of their life in the marine 

environment, and are exposed to 

potential impacts of disturbance, 

collisions with oil and gas structures, 

and spills of oil and toxic substances 

from offshore oil and gas development 

and other vessel traffic. Offshore oil and 

gas development might also affect 

terrestrial yellow billed loon habitats 

(e.g., through construction of pipelines, 

support facilities, etc.). Those impacts 

are discussed under Factor A. 

The magnitude of potential impacts 

from offshore oil and gas development 

is related to the type, size, and 

probability of development, and its 

location in relation to yellow-billed loon 

distribution and use of an area. Yellowbilled loons are widely dispersed during 

most of their annual cycle, so the largest 

potential for impacts to a number of 

individuals from a single environmental 

perturbation is in spring, when 

localized, temporary concentrations 

occur in migration. Adult loons gather 

in polynyas and ice leads and along 

open shorelines near river deltas on the 

coasts of northern Alaska and Canada. It 

is likely that there are similar 

movements and concentrations of 

yellow-billed loons near Russian 

breeding areas in spring, but we have 

not found documentation of such 

activity. The oil industry is active in 

these areas, as demonstrated by existing 

projects such as Pioneer’s Ooogrurk 

field, BP Alaska’s Northstar 

development, and exploration activities 

in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas by 

Shell Inc., ConocoPhillips, and others. 

In Alaska, exploration and production 

are active in Federal and State lease 

tracts in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

where loons gather in spring and 

summer offshore from yellow-billed 

loon breeding areas on the ACP 

(USMMS 2008, p. 1; ADNR 2008, p. 1). 

In Canada, offshore resources are being 

explored and developed in the southern 

Beaufort Sea near the McKenzie Delta, 

where loons gather in polynyas and ice 

leads in spring to stage before arriving 

on breeding grounds (Canada Indian 

and Northern Affairs 2008, p. 1). 

Offshore drilling and ship traffic occur 

in the area of the Amundsen Gulf and 

Cape Bathurst Polynya, where yellowbilled loons are common in spring 

(Mallory and Fontaine 2004, p. 52). 

Development could also continue north 

of yellow-billed loon breeding areas in 

the arctic Islands, where the Sverdrup 

Basin contains oil and gas reserves. In 

western Russia, offshore projects at the 

western edge of yellow-billed loon 

breeding grounds in the Barents Sea 

include the Shtokman gas field 

currently in planning stages. Gazprom is 

developing offshore gas fields in the 

Kara Sea near the Yamal Peninsula. 

Undiscovered reserves are thought to 

occur in the East Siberian Sea and the 

Laptev Sea Shelf in the Arctic Ocean, 

but exploration has not occurred there 

(EIA 2008, p. 1; USGS 2007, pp. 1–2). 

Oil and gas development are ongoing 

in migration and wintering areas. An 

offshore lease sale is planned for Bristol 

Bay near the wintering location of a 

yellow-billed loon tagged with a 

transmitter on Seward Peninsula 

breeding grounds (U.S. Minerals 

Management Service 2008, p. 1). In 

Russia, reserves of oil and gas in the Sea 

of Okhotsk are large, and just beginning 

to be exploited. Drilling is planned off 

the west coast of Kamchatka (Rosneft 

2008, p. 1), where tagged yellow-billed 

loons have passed in migration and 

wintered. Development around Sakhalin 

Island in the southern Sea of Okhotsk 

includes three offshore fields under the 

Sakhalin I project and two fields under 

Sakhalin II. Sakhalin II is ‘‘the world’s 

largest integrated, export-oriented oil 

and gas project,’’ including an oil 

terminal and Russia’s first liquefiednatural-gas plant at Aniva Bay (Royal 

Dutch Shell 2008, p. 1) where tagged 

yellow-billed loons have passed in 

migration and wintered. Exploration 

continues for additional Sakhalin fields. 

Norway is among the 10 largest 

producers of oil and gas in the world, 

with all its production offshore in the 

North, Norwegian, and Barents Seas 

(Norwegian Petroleum Directorate 2008, 

p. 1–1, Figures 3.2–3.5). Production of 

oil is expected to decline slowly, while 

gas production will increase, depending 

on future discoveries (Norwegian 

Petroleum Directorate, p. 1–3). Seismic 

studies are occurring in the Lofoten 

fishing grounds currently closed to oil 

and gas development under a regional 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12951 

management plan (Royal Norwegian 

Ministry of the Environment 2006, pp. 

1–144); this area is offshore from the 

largest concentrations of yellow-billed 

loons wintering along the Norwegian 

coast (Strann and Ostnes 2007, Figure 

2). The management plan will be 

updated in 2010, with an opportunity to 

open the area to drilling. 

Air and boat traffic associated with oil 

and gas development could disturb 

yellow-billed loons, decreasing foraging 

success or displacing individuals to less 

preferred areas at some unknown 

energetic costs. The severity of 

disturbance and displacement effects 

depends upon the duration, frequency, 

and timing of the disturbing activity. 

Hence, construction and operation of 

offshore facilities, which could persist 

for years, will likely have greater 

impacts than seismic and exploratory 

activities, which generally last less than 

one year. Depending upon the frequency 

of operations and routes traversed by 

vessels and aircraft, impacts could range 

from negligible (few yellow-billed loons 

encountered at irregular intervals) to 

substantial (vessels or aircraft 

repeatedly encounter yellow-billed 

loons). Expected increases in arctic 

shipping traffic due to reduced summer 

sea ice are discussed in the Climate 

Change section under Factor A. 

Offshore oil and gas development 

would result in both fixed (e.g., offshore 

platforms) and mobile structures (e.g., 

supply ships) in the marine 

environment, posing a potential 

collision risk for yellow-billed loons. 

Birds are particularly at risk of collision 

with objects in their path when 

visibility is impaired during darkness or 

inclement weather, such as rain, drizzle, 

or fog (Weir 1976, p. 6). In a study of 

avian interactions with offshore oil 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, Russell 

(2005, pp. 266–297) found that collision 

events were more common and more 

severe (by number of birds) during poor 

weather. Weather conditions that 

increase collision risk are common in 

northern waters such as the Bering, 

Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas. Without 

knowing the number, location, and 

design of structures that would result 

from offshore oil and gas development, 

it is difficult to estimate the number of 

yellow-billed loons that would pass by 

structures during migration. 

Vulnerability to collision with 

structures probably varies among 

species, but we are not aware of 

information on the propensity of 

yellow-billed or other loons to collide 

with structures. 

Spills of oil, refined petroleum 

products (e.g., diesel fuel), or other toxic 

substances (e.g., drilling mud) from 

offshore oil and gas development can 

occur as a result of well blowouts, 

operational discharges, pipeline 

failures, tanker or other vessel leaks, 

and numerous other potential accidental 

discharges (AMAP 2007, pp. 24–25). A 

discharge of these products could cause 

direct mortality of yellow-billed loons 

or result in indirect effects through 

habitat degradation or killing prey 

species. 

Mortality following exposure to oil is 

common in aquatic birds, which are 

vulnerable to surface oil (Albers 2003, 

pp. 354–356). External oiling disrupts 

feather structure, causes matting of 

feathers, and permits wetting of the 

bird, and death typically results from 

hypothermia and drowning (Vermeer 

and Vermeer 1975, pp. 281–295; Jenssen 

1994, pp. 207). Ingesting petroleum 

through feather preening or 

consumption of contaminated food or 

water, and inhalation of fumes from 

evaporating oil, might not be 

immediately lethal, but debilitating 

effects include gastrointestinal 

irritation, pneumonia, dehydration, red 

blood cell damage, impaired 

osmoregulation, immune system 

suppression, hormonal imbalance, 

inhibited reproduction, retarded growth, 

and abnormal parental behavior 

(Jenssen 1994, pp. 207–211; Hartung 

and Hunt 1966, pp. 564–569; Miller et 

al. 1978, pp. 315–317; Szaro et al. 1981, 

pp. 791–798; Leighton 1993, pp. 93–99; 

Fry et al. 1986, pp. 455–462; Eppley 

1992, pp. 309–311; Fowler et al. 1995, 

pp. 383–387; Walton 1997, pp. 264–267; 

and Briggs et al. 1997, pp. 718–723). 

These effects can cause death from 

starvation, disease, or predation, 

especially in the harsh arctic 

environment. 

In northern seas it is difficult to 

contain and clean up spilled petroleum 

products due to ice, high winds, and 

high seas. A spill can result in persistent 

environmental contamination by oil and 

its toxic breakdown products and 

reduced food resources, resulting in 

lower survival and hydrocarbon 

exposure years after visible oil has been 

abated (Esler et al. 2000, p. 843; Trust 

et al. 2000, pp. 399–402). 

While a large spill in an area 

supporting large numbers of yellowbilled loons could have significant 

adverse effects, we consider the relative 

probability of such an event to be very 

low. First, the likelihood of 

development occurring in areas where 

loons gather is low. For example, the 

U.S. Minerals Management Service 

calculates the probability of commercial 

success resulting from their lease sale 

193 in the Chukchi Sea to be 10 percent 

(USMMS 2006, p. 2). Second, if 

development occurs, spills are relatively 

infrequent, even in the arctic. To date, 

there have been no large oil spills in the 

arctic marine environment from oil and 

gas activities (AMAP 2007, p. 24). No 

exploratory drilling blowouts have 

occurred from the 98 wells drilled to 

date in Alaska’s arctic offshore region 

(USMMS 2007, Appendix A.1, p. 2). In 

fact, of the 13,463 exploratory wells that 

have been drilled in the coastal United 

States, there were 66 blowouts during 

drilling, only 4 of which resulted in oil 

spills (range 1 to 200 bbl; average 78 ∼ 

bbl) (USMMS 2007, Appendix A.1, p. 

2). Finally, even if a spill occurred, the 

chances that it would occur close to 

loons in the seasonal window of time 

when they are present is also small. 

Oil and gas exploration, production, 

and transportation, as well as spills 

from other vessel traffic, could also 

affect migrating and wintering yellowbilled loons, as described below, but we 

believe this risk factor is minimized 

because yellow-billed loons are widely 

distributed and, therefore, at extremely 

low densities throughout most of the 

year when they are at sea. The 1989 

Exxon Valdez tanker spill killed an 

estimated 17 to 50 yellow-billed loons 

in Prince William Sound, Alaska (Earnst 

2004a, p. 21). There is oil and gas 

development in the Sea of Okhotsk, 

including on and around Sakhalin 

Island and off the west coast of 

Kamchatka. Oil and gas development 

also occurs in yellow-billed loon 

wintering areas in Norwegian waters, 

and oil spills at drilling sites and due to 

vessel accidents occur. Due to the 

importance of the Norwegian fishing 

industry, regulation of offshore oil 

development has been protective. 

However, it is possible that in 2010 

Norway will allow oil development in 

the Lofoten fishing grounds offshore 

from a yellow-billed loon wintering 

area. The Sea of Japan and the Yellow 

Sea, bordering China, North and South 

Korea, and Japan, have high levels of 

vessel traffic subject to oil spill 

accidents, with several ports among the 

world’s top 25 in cargo transported. In 

December 2007, the crude oil carrier MT 

Hebei Spirit caused South Korea’s worst 

oil spill to date, estimated at 71,000 bbl 

in the Yellow Sea near where yellowbilled loons tagged with transmitters 

have been located in winter. In 

December 2004, the freighter M/V 

Selendang Ayu grounded and broke in 

half in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, 

spilling more than 8,000 bbl of oil. One 

yellow-billed loon was observed to be 

oiled in the vicinity of the spill (Byrd 

and Daniel 2008, p. 6). Yellow-billed 

loons wintering in marine waters off 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

southern Alaska, British Columbia, and 

around Great Britain could also 

encounter spills, primarily from vessel 

traffic. 

Yellow-billed loons face the 

possibility of oil spills throughout their 

range. The one breeding population for 

which we have population trend data, 

the ACP population, is stable or slightly 

declining at present. We would expect 

a steep decline if cumulative oil spills 

were affecting this population, which 

winters in Asian waters. We do not have 

evidence that marine oil spills are 

causing population-level effects to 

yellow-billed loons on the ACP. The 

Asian wintering grounds are likely to 

harbor the most oil spills due to vessel 

accidents compared to other wintering 

areas, so it is reasonably likely that 

breeding populations that winter 

elsewhere are not at greater risk than the 

birds that winter in Asia. 

In summary, at present we believe the 

risk to yellow-billed loons from offshore 

oil and gas development and shipping 

traffic accidents to be low. Moreover, 

the one breeding population for which 

we have population trends does not 

appear to be declining steeply due to 

this risk factor. Although the amount of 

oil and gas development and shipping 

traffic will likely increase in the future, 

the associated risk is reasonably likely 

to be partly or wholly offset by 

improved technologies and regulation, 

such as the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. Also, the species’ wide 

distribution and extremely low densities 

throughout most of the year when birds 

are at sea reduces the risk of populationlevel impacts from any single event. As 

offshore oil and gas development and 

shipping traffic continue, individual 

yellow-billed loons will likely continue 

to be negatively affected as a result of 

collisions with vessels or structures and 

oil spills. However, we cannot reliably 

predict that the species will be affected 

at the population level, given the 

considerable uncertainty of the location 

of such events and the effectiveness of 

the design and operational spill cleanup 

methods that may be employed. 

Therefore, we find that oil and gas 

development and vessel traffic is not a 

threat to the yellow-billed loon now or 

in the foreseeable future. 

Subsistence Harvest 

Subsistence harvest of yellow-billed 

loons in the Bering Strait has been 

reported at levels that we expect would 

cause impacts to the species in the 

foreseeable future. Although we have 

concerns about the degree of accuracy of 

the reported numbers of yellow-billed 

loons harvested, as discussed below, we 

believe that the likely magnitude of 

actual harvest levels constitutes a threat 

to the species rangewide. 

Subsistence hunting of wild birds, 

including loons, is an important 

component of the customs, traditions, 

and economies of many cultural groups 

in the arctic. Subsistence is defined in 

U.S. Federal and State law as the 

‘‘customary and traditional uses’’ of 

wild resources for a variety of purposes, 

including food, clothing, fuel, 

transportation, construction, art, crafts, 

sharing, and customary trade (Wolfe 

2000, p. 1). Yellow-billed loons are 

generally not a preferred food in some 

parts of their arctic range, but their skin 

and feathers are used for ceremonial 

purposes (Paige et al. 1996, appendices; 

Georgette 2000, p. 19; Syreochkovskiy 

2008, p. 2), and they are shot for other 

reasons, such as for taxidermy, to chase 

them from fishing nets, or out of 

curiosity (Syreochkovskiy 2008, p. 2). 

Discussions between St. Lawrence 

Island, Alaska hunters, and Service 

biologists confirmed that Bering Strait 

hunters target loons for harvest (Ostrand 

in litt. 2009, p. 1). A Service biologist 

working with hunters on St. Lawrence 

Island in the spring rarely observed 

hunters with harvested loons in their 

possession (Benter in litt. 2008, p. 1), 

although he has observed hunters 

targeting loons for harvest (Benter pers. 

comm. 2009). 

Although it is clear that loons are 

harvested for subsistence, there are 

challenges to assessing the magnitude of 

harvest and biases inherent in the 

process. Harvest surveys have been 

conducted in many arctic communities, 

but they have varied in geographic 

coverage, methodology and analysis, 

and level of detail; thus, comparing 

among areas or detecting trends over 

time is difficult (SHSAC 2003, p. 5). 

Most survey data are collected through 

recall interviews conducted a month or 

more after harvest, resulting in varying 

and unknown levels of recall error. 

Sampling designs might inadequately 

survey rarely taken species (SHSAC 

2003, p. 15), and there have been no 

surveys specifically targeting yellowbilled loons. As a result, most yellowbilled loon harvest estimates have a 

high level of variance and yield results 

of unknown accuracy. In some surveys, 

loons are not identified to species; in 

others misidentification of species 

harvested probably occurs but to an 

unknown degree. To consider 

misidentification issues, we present 

some data below on other loon species 

reported in harvest surveys. 

I. Alaska 

Surveys Conducted Prior to Migratory 

Bird Subsistence-Harvest Regulations 

As stated in Factor D, yellow-billed 

loons are not open for subsistence 

hunting in Alaska under migratory bird 

subsistence-harvest regulations. Prior to 

the establishment of Federal regulations 

authorizing subsistence harvest for 

migratory bird species in 2003, 

subsistence harvest surveys for 

migratory birds were conducted 

sporadically, and coverage varied 

considerably among surveys. 

Yellow-billed loons migrate through 

the Chukchi and Bering Sea, making 

them available for harvest during spring 

and fall migration in northwest Alaska. 

In the Northwest Arctic Borough (the 

area around Kotzebue, Alaska) harvest 

surveys (from 1994–1998; Georgette 

2000, pp. 1–218), no yellow-billed loons 

were reported, but 71 common, 2 arctic, 

6 red-throated, and 1 unknown loon 

were reported, with identification of 

species noted as uncertain at times 

(Georgette 2000, p. 10). Loons 

comprised generally less than one 

percent of the total bird harvest 

(Georgette 2000, p. 19). A one-year 

survey of the two villages on St. 

Lawrence Island in the Bering Strait 

from 1995–1996 reported 40 yellowbilled loons and 290 common, 81 

Pacific, and 15 unknown loons 

harvested (ADFG and Kawerak 1997, p. 

2). Concerns about misidentification of 

species, particularly identification of 

common loons, which are rare in the 

Bering Strait, are discussed below. 

Yellow-billed loons migrate along the 

coast of the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta 

and Bristol Bay regions, so harvest in 

spring and fall is possible. Because 

yellow-billed loons do not breed in 

these regions, reports of summer and 

egg harvest suggest misidentification. 

Below we report the long-term harvest 

survey record for these areas. Because 

reports give summary results 

overlapping the pre- and post-2003 

regulation period, we report the entire 

survey record here, including post-2003 

results. 

Yellow-billed loons have been 

reported in almost every annual YukonKuskokwim Delta harvest survey 

(conducted 1985 to present, except 

2003, with methodology changes in 

2001 and 2002; Wentworth 2007b, p. 

12). The 2001–2006 5-year average 

yellow-billed loon harvest was 44 ± 78 

SD (standard deviation, a measure of the 

dispersion of the data around the mean) 

(range 0–183) for the Yukon/ 

Kuskokwim Delta (calculated from 

Wentworth 2007b, p. 36 and USFWS et 

al. 2008, Table 2006–17a). Yellow-billed 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12953 

loon eggs were reported taken in 14 of 

20 years, with an annual average of 14 

eggs per year estimated for 2001 through 

2005 (Wentworth 2007b, pp. 37–41). 

Yellow-billed loons have been 

reportedly taken in every Bristol Bay 

region survey (since 1995, except no 

surveys in 2000 and 2003, surveys were 

limited to Togiak NWR in 1996, 1998, 

and 2006, and methodology changed in 

2001 and 2002; Wentworth 2007a, pp. 

1–2). The 2001–2005 Bristol Bay region 

average yellow-billed loon harvest was 

78 ± 128 SD (range 5–269) (Wentworth 

2007a, p. 22). From 1995–2005, the only 

eggs reported in Bristol Bay were in 

1997, when 27 eggs were estimated 

taken (Wentworth 2007a, pp. 23–24). 

Harvest Surveys Conducted Subsequent 

to Migratory Bird Subsistence-Harvest 

Regulations 

In 2004, a new Alaska-wide 

subsistence-harvest survey, including 

spring, summer, and fall seasons, was 

initiated subsequent to the 2003 

implementation of migratory bird 

subsistence-harvest regulations. Under 

the new regulations, areas of Alaska 

eligible for migratory bird subsistenceharvest are divided into regions that are 

surveyed periodically (map available at 

http://alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/ 

Regulations.htm). The new survey has 

yet to be conducted simultaneously 

within a year in all villages or all 

regions (USFWS et al. 2008, p. 3), and 

the 2004–2006 summary report states 

that the results should be used with 

caution due to possible inaccuracies, 

unreliable data, and insufficient sample 

size (USFWS et al. 2008, p. 3). Within 

the area covered by the new survey, 

yellow-billed loons are most likely to 

occur in the North Slope, Northwest 

Arctic, and Bering Strait/Norton Sound 

regions during nesting and in Bristol 

Bay and Yukon/Kuskokwim regions 

during migration; they were reported as 

harvested in the Bering Strait/Norton 

Sound, Bristol Bay, North Slope, and 

Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta regions in 

2004–2006 (Table 1). The largest 

number of yellow-billed loons and other 

loon species were estimated for the 

Bering Strait/Norton Sound region 

(Table 2). 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED HARVEST OF YELLOW-BILLED LOONS (EXCLUDING EGGS) IN ALASKA REGIONS REPORTING TAKE OF

THE SPECIES IN THE YEARS 2004–2006. NO OTHER REGIONS REPORTED YELLOW-BILL LOON TAKE. DATA EXTRACTED FROM TABLES IN USFWS ET AL. 2008 

Region 

Year 

Total 2004 2005 2006 

Estimated 

harvest 95% CI Seasona Estimated harvest 95% CI Season Estimated harvest 

Bering Strait ............................... 317 .......... 271–530 Spring ..............

Summer 

Fall 

45 ............ 45–123 Spring ..............

Summer 

NSb .......... 362 

Bristol Bay ................................. 10 ............ 8–30 ..... Fall 5 ............... 2–22 ..... Spring .............. 0 ............... 15 

YKD ........................................... 4 ............... 3–16 ..... Spring .............. 12 ............ (c) ......... Spring ..............

Summer 

Fall 

0 ............... 16 

North Slope ................................ NS ............ .............. .......................... 3 .............. 2–14 ..... Summer ........... NS ........... 3 

Total .................................... 331 65 0 ............... 396 

CI = confidence interval 

aSeasons that yellow-billed loons were reported as harvested. 

b NS = region not surveyed in that year. 

cFor Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta (YKD) in 2005, 11 yellow-billed loons reported in the Kuskokwim River subregion (95 percent CI 8–53) and one 

reported in North Coast subregion (95 percent CI 1–23). 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED HARVEST OF LOONS FOR THE BERING STRAIT/NORTON SOUND REGION IN 2004 AND 2005. DATA

EXTRACTED FROM TABLES IN USFWS ET AL. 2008 

Species 

Year 

2004 2005 

Number 95% CI Number 95% CI 

Yellow-billed loon ............................................................................................................................. 317 271–530 45 45–123 

Common loon .................................................................................................................................. 405 345–889 891 871–1438 

Pacific loon ...................................................................................................................................... 498 425–772 33 18–115 

Red-throated loon ............................................................................................................................ 26 22–89 15 10–82 

We recently received preliminary 

subsistence-harvest estimates for 2007 

(Naves 2008, pp. 1–30). For 2007, Naves 

(2008, pp. 1–31) reported results by 

subregion rather than by region as 

reported previously; thus these 

observations are not directly comparable 

to data in Tables 1 and 2 and are not 

included therein. Naves (2008, p. 7) 

reported that an estimated 1,077 (95 

percent CI = 808–1,347) yellow-billed 

loons and 2,492 (95 percent CI = 2,158– 

2,826) common loons were harvested for 

a Bering Strait/Norton Sound subregion 

that includes two villages on St. 

Lawrence Island and one on Little 

Diomede Island, called the St. 

Lawrence-Diomede Islands subregion 

(SL-DI subregion). This estimated SL-DI 

subregion yellow-billed loon harvest 

was allocated among seasons with 5 

birds estimated harvested in spring, 362 

in the summer, and 711 in the fall. 

Estimated harvest of common loons in 

the SL-DI subregion were 166 in spring, 

560 in summer, and 1,766 in fall (Naves 

2008, p. 7). Harvest of 76 Pacific loons 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(95 percent CI = 19–134) and 366 redthroated loons (95 percent CI = 221– 

511) was also estimated for the 

subregion (Naves 2008, p. 7). Yellowbilled loons were not reported for any 

other subregion in the Bering Strait/ 

Norton Sound Region. The Barrow 

subregion of the North Slope region was 

the only other surveyed area that 

reported harvest of yellow-billed loons 

in 2007, with an estimated 84 (95 

percent CI = 32–135) yellow-billed 

loons harvested (Naves 2008, p. 15). 

Interpretation of the 2007 loon harvest 

estimates requires consideration of 

several factors (beyond their magnitude 

and potential population-level impact, 

which will be discussed later). First, the 

confidence intervals (which are 

mathematical estimates of the reliability 

of the estimate, and in this case are 

expressed as a percent of the estimated 

value) surrounding the estimates of both 

yellow-billed and common loons are 

comparatively small. The 2007 survey 

results for the SL–DI subregion have a 

95 percent CI that is only 25 percent of 

the estimate for yellow-billed loons and 

13 percent for common loons (Naves 

2008, p. 7); these are much smaller than 

earlier estimates given for the entire 

Bering Strait/Norton Sound region (for 

example, the 2005 95 percent CI was 

174.2 percent of the estimate for yellowbilled loons and 61.4 percent for 

common loons (USFWS et al. 2008, 

Table 2005–2a)). These smaller CI 

values indicate increased precision in 

the 2007 subregional estimate compared 

to the earlier regional estimates, which 

reflects large sample size (82 of 318 

households (26 percent) sampled) and 

low variation among households 

(indicating that most households 

reported taking fairly comparable 

numbers of loons). 

A second consideration in 

interpreting the large estimate of yellowbilled loon harvest for 2007 is possible 

misidentification. Large numbers of 

common loons are reported as harvested 

in the SL/DI subregion where they are 

a rare to uncommon visitor (Fay and 

Cade 1959, p. 100; Kessel 1989, p. 66; 

North 1994, p. 3; Armstrong 1995, p. 23; 

McIntyre and Barr 1997, p. 2; Lehman 

2005, p. 15). The report described above 

of 290 common loons taken on St. 

Lawrence Island in 1995–1996 (ADFG 

and Kawerak 1997, p. 2) is considered 

by Lehman (2005, p. 15) to result from 

misidentification because only two 

verified records of this species from the 

island are known to date. Similarly, 

common loons reported as harvested 

from the Bering Strait/Norton Sound 

region in 2004 and 2005 (Table 2) likely 

also include other loon species, possibly 

including yellow-billed loons. 

A potential source of 

misidentification is the probable 

presence in the fall of juvenile loons 

whose plumage resembles adult basic 

(i.e., non-breeding or winter) plumage. It 

is difficult to differentiate among loon 

species in this plumage, and survey 

forms do not illustrate this plumage or 

highlight ways to distinguish among 

species. It is unknown how many 

common loons move through the Bering 

Strait, but as described above, the 

number is thought to be small since they 

have rarely been seen on St. Lawrence 

Island. Therefore, if misidentification is 

attributable to confusion between 

yellow-billed and common loons, the 

actual harvest of yellow-billed loons is 

likely even greater than that reported. It 

is also possible that Pacific and redthroated loons are misidentified as 

yellow-billed and common loons, 

although they are notably smaller. If so, 

this would result in actual harvest of 

yellow-billed loons being less than that 

reported. 

We considered the possibility that a 

large number of households in the 

subregion misidentified loons due to 

survey deficiencies, and we considered 

the possibility that this problem was 

worse in 2007 than in earlier years, 

resulting in a higher estimated harvest 

than in previous years. The survey 

forms show color pictures of birds 

exclusively in breeding plumage, and 

survey respondents are asked to mark 

the number taken next to the pictures. 

The lack of depictions of winter and 

immature plumages in the survey form 

is a likely problem for harvest reported 

in the fall, when immature birds are 

likely to be harvested. There is no need 

for the respondent to identify the name 

of the bird, making it less likely that 

cultural differences in nomenclature 

would cause systemic misidentification. 

The surveyors were trained in a 

standard manner for all surveys across 

the state in all years, using a manual 

developed over many years. In the 

Bering Strait/Norton Sound region, the 

surveyors were provided with several 

bird identification books to assist them, 

although it is unknown how and how 

often they used the books during 

surveys (Ostrand in litt. 2009, p. 1). In 

summary, we found that 

misidentification could be occurring 

because the survey form includes only 

breeding plumages. We found no reason 

to conclude that the survey was 

conducted any differently in 2007 than 

in previous years. 

Above we noted the large inter-annual 

variation in harvest estimates of yellowbilled loons for the Bering Strait/Norton 

Sound region (Table 2); this variation is 

increased with the addition of the large 

estimated harvest in the 2007 survey 

(Naves 2008, p. 7). Large inter-annual 

variation in estimated harvest of yellowbilled loons could represent 

measurement error for a relatively 

constant rate of harvest, or it could 

represent actual variation in harvest 

among years. Schmutz (in litt. 2008, p. 

1) observed that some yellow-billed 

loons fitted with transmitters in 2002, 

2003, and 2007 on Alaskan breeding 

grounds moved to marine waters near 

St. Lawrence Island before migrating 

south, but others, including all eight 

birds fitted with transmitters in 2008, 

moved from Alaskan breeding grounds 

to Kolyuchin Bay on the north side of 

the Chukotka Peninsula, and crossed 

overland to the southwest over the 

peninsula and into Anadyr Bay, thereby 

avoiding the St. Lawrence Island area. 

Thus, migratory behavior may vary from 

year to year based on some unknown 

environmental factor, and loon harvest 

could vary with changes in the number 

of loons moving past hunting areas in 

different years. 

Because the 2007 estimated harvest 

was substantially higher than earlier 

estimates, we evaluated issues specific 

to the 2007 survey that might help 

explain this difference. Other than the 

fact that the survey for all three seasons 

was conducted at the end of the fall 

season, survey protocols were followed, 

and no other factors were identified to 

explain the high estimate (Ostrand in 

litt. 2009, p. 1). Conducting the survey 

at the end of the year means that the 

respondents would have to recall what 

they harvested months earlier, which 

could reduce the accuracy of the survey, 

especially for the earlier seasons. 

Although we examined potential 

flaws in the harvest survey data and 

concluded that some birds could have 

been misidentified, we believe the data 

are reliable enough to identify the order 

of magnitude of likely harvest. We 

conclude that on average, hundreds of 

yellow-billed loons are probably taken 

annually in the Bering Strait region. In 

addition, tens are likely taken in other 

parts of Alaska, particularly the North 

Slope. 

To evaluate the effect of this harvest 

on the yellow-billed loon, we examined 

what we know about the number of 

birds that move through the Bering 

Strait. As described in the Species 

Biology section, above, all 29 marked 

Alaskan breeding birds used the Bering 

Strait or Chukotka Peninsula during 

migration. There are an estimated 3,000 

to 4,000 Alaskan breeding birds. It is 

likely that, due to their proximity, 3,000 

to 5,000 eastern Siberian breeding 

yellow-billed loons also migrate through 

the Bering Strait region. Observations of 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12955 

yellow-billed loons during migration on 

the Beaufort Sea provide evidence that 

at least some Canadian breeding birds 

use this migration route, most likely the 

3,750 to 6,000 breeding birds estimated 

to occur on Banks and Victoria Islands 

and the adjacent arctic mainland coast. 

Thus, we believe it is likely that a large 

part of the rangewide population moves 

through the Strait and is subject to 

harvest there. We do not know whether 

the actual rangewide breeding 

population is closer to 16,000 or 32,000, 

but as discussed in the Population Size 

section, we believe it is likely closer to 

16,000. 

We next evaluated whether hundreds 

of yellow-billed loons being harvested 

annually would be unsustainable to the 

rangewide population. We examined a 

population model developed by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to test the 

sensitivity or response of the population 

to a range of possible harvest levels 

(Table 3; Schmutz 2009, p. 15). The 

model was constructed to begin with 

stable populations (i.e., lambda = 1.00), 

and then examined whether harvest 

caused additional declines. The model 

considered a range in harvest mortality 

rates and population sizes to reflect our 

uncertainty about these parameters. We 

believe the model includes the entire 

range of possible values for the size of 

the affected population. 

The model suggests that for all 

scenarios, harvest would cause an 

otherwise stable population to decline 

(i.e., lambda declines from 1.00 to 

values below 1.00) (Table 3). The annual 

average values for harvest that we 

believe are most likely (i.e., hundreds; 

best approximated in Table 3 by the 

column corresponding to a harvest of 

317 birds) and the population size we 

believe is subjected to the harvest (i.e., 

approximately 16,000 plus 1 and 2 year 

old birds; best approximated in Table 3 

by the row corresponding to a 

population size of 18,764, which 

includes 1 and 2 year olds) show that a 

hypothetical stable population that 

experienced added harvest of 317 birds 

would decline by half in 41 years, or 

less if the harvest is larger or varies 

among harvest estimates for recent years 

(Table 3). Even if there are 37,528 

yellow-billed loons in the rangewide 

population subject to harvest (which we 

think is unlikely, as discussed above), a 

harvest of 317 birds would cause the 

population to decline by half in 83 

years. We believe this harvest and 

associated declines would be 

unsustainable to the rangewide 

population, causing a long-term 

decrease in abundance that would be 

difficult to reverse due to the low 

reproductive potential of the species. It 

is important to note that this analysis 

does not take into account that 

additional mortality, such as harvest in 

other parts of Alaska, Russia, or Canada, 

or from other sources, could exacerbate 

the rate of decline from a stable 

population. 

Table 3. Model results of the effects of 

various harvest scenarios on trend and 

population size of yellow-billed loons. 

The starting model predicted a stable 

population (trend = 1.0). This model 

used productivity data from yellowbilled loons on the Colville Delta, and 

survival rates allocated among age 

classes similar to Mitro et al. (2008) for 

common loons, but with an adjustment 

factor to achieve hypothetical 

population stability so that the model 

could evaluate likely population 

response to varying levels of harvest. 

Thus, the starting, stable population 

shown in the first column represents a 

population without harvest. Reference 

population sizes used breeding 

population sizes of 4,000, 10,000, 

16,000 and 32,000 breeding birds, and 

were then adjusted to include an 

additional population component 

comprised of individuals (likely 1- and 

2-year olds) that remain at sea and are 

not counted during summer surveys of 

tundra habitats. The next three data 

columns represent three starting levels 

of harvest corresponding to recent 

harvest estimates for the Bering Straits 

region. The fourth data column 

represents population response to 

harvest levels that vary among years, 

which reflects reported variation in 

harvest and satellite tracking data that 

indicate inter-annual variation in 

migratory behavior through the Bering 

Strait. For all harvest levels, the 

mortality rate, rather than mortality 

number, from harvest is kept constant 

across the years of each population 

projection. In each cell, there are two 

numbers. The first is annual population 

growth rate, given the indicated harvest 

and the population that such harvest is 

allocated to. Second is the number of 

years from present until the population 

falls below half of current size. These 

harvest estimates and corresponding 

predicted population responses do not 

consider possible additional harvest 

occurring outside of the Bering Straits 

region in other portions of the species’ 

life cycle. This model assumes hunting 

mortality is additive and not 

compensatory. From Schmutz 2009, p. 

15. 

Beginning harvest level to set mortality rate 

Reference population ................................................................................................ 45 317 1,077 Annually rotate 

between 45, 

317, and 

1,077 

N = 4,508 ................................................................................................................... 0.9900 0.9297 0.7611 0.8937 

70 10 3 6 

N = 10,372 ................................................................................................................. 0.9957 0.9695 0.8962 0.9538 

162 23 7 15 

N = 18,764 ................................................................................................................. 0.9976 0.9832 0.9426 0.9745 

295 41 12 27 

N = 37,528 ................................................................................................................. 0.9988 0.9916 0.9713 0.9873 

601 83 24 54 

In summary, although there is 

uncertainty about the reported numbers 

of yellow-billed loons harvested in 

Alaska, these surveys represent the best 

information available to us at this time. 

We believe that the data are reliable 

enough to conclude it is likely that 

recent annual average harvest of yellowbilled loons in Alaska is in the 

hundreds. Based on this information, 

the large number of yellow-billed loons 

from Alaskan, Russian, and Canadian 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12956 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

breeding areas that are likely to use the 

Bering Strait in migration, and the 

model results presented in Table 3, we 

conclude that the potential impact of 

the Alaska harvest on the rangewide 

yellow-billed loon population is 

significant. It is possible that recent high 

harvest estimates represent a new 

phenomenon not yet reflected in 

population trend information, although 

we do not have information on whether 

the harvest will increase or decrease in 

the future. Harvest at the present 

magnitude, even if occurring every few 

years, will cause a rangewide decline 

that constitutes a threat to the yellowbilled loon. 

II. Russia 

The Red Data Book of the Russian 

Federation (2001, p. 367) states ‘‘during 

the nesting period, loons are often 

killed/harvested by the indigenous 

population for food and pelts 

particularly in the northeast of Russia.’’ 

Other information comes from a recent 

review from the Russian Academy of 

Sciences to the Service, which reported 

current yellow-billed loon harvest of 

approximately 200 per year, including 

for protection of fishing nets 

(Syroechkovskiy 2008, p. 1–2). The 

review also noted that in former times 

yellow-billed loons were occasionally 

shot by indigenous peoples for ritual 

purposes and raw materials, and 

conversely, some tribes in the Yakutian 

arctic recognize loons as sacred species 

and never shoot them (Syroechkovskiy 

2008, p. 1). 

The basis for the Russian estimate of 

yellow-billed loon harvest above is 

unknown. Few surveys have been 

conducted (limited information from 

Yakutia and Chukotka), the species’ 

range has not been adequately sampled, 

and the species has an uneven 

distribution across Russia 

(Syroechkovskiy 2008, p. 1). No 

subsistence harvest information is 

available from the Taymyr Peninsula, 

one of the two core areas of the breeding 

range in arctic Russia and the only 

region where Syroechkovskiy (2008, p. 

1–2) reported hunting of the species as 

a food source. 

Other harvest surveys have occurred 

in Russia, however. Unidentified loons 

were reported taken in two Providensky 

communities in 1997 and 1998 as part 

of subsistence harvest surveys for 

marine mammals (Ainana et al. 1999, p. 

83; Ainana et al. 2000, pp. 66 & 71). No 

loons were listed in 1999 (Ainana et al. 

2001), but this report included fewer 

and less detailed reports of birds. 

Service-funded waterfowl (eider) 

subsistence harvest surveys in 19 of 100 

northeastern Russia (Yakutia and 

Chukotka regions) communities within 

100 km (62 mi) of the coastline by the 

Goose, Swan, and Duck Study Group of 

Northern Eurasia from 2002–2005 

(Syroechkovski and Klokov 2007, p. 8) 

included loons. Yellow-billed loons 

reported (by previous year recall of 

hunters) varied among villages (range 0– 

58), with only three villages reporting 

harvesting 10 or more birds. Harvest 

was greatest in northern Chukotka, 

where the species nests and where one 

village reported egg harvest of 44 eggs 

in one year. The species’ range was not 

completely surveyed because loons 

were not the focus of the survey 

(Syroechkovski and Klokov 2007, p. 1). 

However, based on these surveys, as 

well as the nationwide estimate 

provided by the Russian Academy of 

Sciences (Syroechkovskiy 2008, pp. 2), 

we estimate tens to possibly 200 yellowbilled loons are harvested by 

subsistence hunters annually in Russia, 

virtually all affecting the Russian 

breeding population (the breeding 

population is estimated to be 5,000 to 

8,000). The effect of an annual harvest 

of 200 birds on a population of this size 

is significant, particularly if the 

population is subject to additional 

harvest in migration through the Bering 

Strait (as described under the Alaska 

section above). 

III. Canada 

Yellow-billed loons are thought to 

breed in several of the Native Land 

Claims in northern Canada, but 

primarily in Inuvialuit and Nunavut. 

The land claims are in different phases 

of settlement, and harvest data are only 

available for those areas where claims 

have been settled and Renewable 

Resource Boards (RRBs) are in operation 

to jointly manage wildlife resources 

(http://www.mb.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecb/ 

da02s11.en.html, accessed October 

2008). The RRBs all use similar 

methodology to determine wildlife 

harvest levels for their areas of 

jurisdiction. Reported possible sources 

of error in these harvest estimates 

include enumeration, coverage and nonresponse, measurement and 

questionnaire design, recall failure, and 

strategic response bias (Priest and Usher 

2004, pp. 35–42). 

Harvest survey data are available from 

the Nunavut, Inuvialuit, and Sahtu 

regions, which encompass the vast 

majority of the yellow-billed loon’s 

breeding range in Canada (see map at 

http://www.mb.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecb/ 

da02s11.en.html, accessed November 

25, 2008), from 1988 to 2003. Nunavut 

harvest surveys (Priest and Usher 2004) 

were conducted from 1996 through 

2001. Five communities reported 

harvesting yellow-billed loons from May 

through October, while twenty-two 

communities did not report harvest of 

yellow-billed (or unidentified) loons. 

The estimated yearly harvest (reported 

as a range) was 2.6–8.2 yellow-billed 

and 1.4–5.8 unidentified loons (Priest 

and Usher 2004; tables). Inuvialuit 

harvest surveys were conducted from 

1988 to 1997 (Inuvialuit Harvest Study 

2003). Loons, including yellow-billed 

loons, were reported harvested from 

May through July in three of six 

communities surveyed. Estimated mean 

annual harvest of yellow-billed loons for 

the region was 10 ± 8 SD, and 1 ± 2 SD 

additional unidentified loons per year 

(Inuvialuit Harvest Study 2003; tables). 

Sahtu Region surveys were conducted 

from 1998 to 2003 (Bayha and Snortland 

2002, 2003, 2004). (Yellow-billed loons 

occur only in the northern Sahtu 

region.) No yellow-billed loons were 

reported harvested, but a total of 5 

unidentified loons were harvested over 

the 6 survey years (less than 1 per year) 

from May to August (Bayha and 

Snortland 2002, 2003, 2004; tables), 

with no extrapolation to the entire 

Sahtu region. Based on these data, we 

estimate low tens of yellow-billed loons 

are harvested by subsistence hunters 

annually in Canada. 

IV. Conclusion for Subsistence 

Our ability to accurately estimate the 

magnitude of subsistence harvest of 

yellow-billed loons rangewide is 

compromised by incomplete harvest 

survey coverage of the species’ range, 

possible misidentification among 

species, sampling shortcomings, and our 

limited ability to allocate harvest during 

migration to source breeding 

populations. Correctly assessing 

subsistence harvest of a rare species, 

such as the yellow-billed loon, requires 

intensive surveys to adequately sample 

villages within the species’ range to 

increase precision in the harvest 

estimate. The data do tell us that 

yellow-billed loons have been 

harvested, probably averaging in the 

hundreds annually, which we believe 

would be unsustainable relative to the 

overall yellow-billed loon population. 

Despite the limitations described 

above, the best available information 

indicates that, throughout its range, on 

average, hundreds of yellow-billed 

loons from multiple breeding areas are 

harvested annually by subsistence 

hunters. Population modeling suggests 

that the number of yellow-billed loons 

being harvested in the Bering Strait area 

of Alaska alone is likely unsustainable. 

In addition, up to several hundred 

yellow-billed loons could be taken 

annually on Russian breeding grounds, 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12957 

and small amounts of harvest are 

reported for other areas in Alaska and 

Canada. The lack of precision of the 

population trend information for Alaska 

could be preventing us from detecting 

the impact of this harvest on the 

population, or the high harvest 

estimates could represent a new 

phenomenon not yet manifested in our 

population trend estimates. The harvest 

is also likely having an impact on 

breeding populations that are not being 

monitored; population trends for 

Canada and Russia are not known. We 

have no reason to believe that the 

current level of subsistence harvest of 

yellow-billed loons will change in the 

future. Because we believe that the 

rangewide population of yellow-billed 

loons is subject to unsustainable levels 

of harvest, we find that subsistence 

harvest is a threat to the species 

rangewide. 

Fishing Bycatch (Commercial and 

Noncommercial) 

Incidental take (‘‘bycatch’’) from 

commercial and subsistence fisheries 

poses a risk to yellow-billed loons due 

to direct mortality caused by 

entanglement or accidental drowning in 

gear. Gear type, location, and timing 

affect both frequency and intensity of 

bycatch rates. Yellow-billed loons are 

believed to be attracted to nets by 

entangled fish or other loons (J. Bacon 

in litt. 2008, p. 1). Yellow-billed loons 

spend the majority of the year foraging 

in coastal waters; therefore, coastal 

fisheries are more likely to encounter 

loons than pelagic fisheries. Thus, our 

primary concern is assessing the current 

level of bycatch occurring in nearshore 

gill-net fisheries that overlap the yellowbilled loon’s range. Immature yellowbilled loons (1–2 year olds), which are 

thought to remain on adult wintering 

grounds (Earnst 2004, p. 11), might be 

exposed to commercial fisheries 

overlapping these areas year-round. 

Adult yellow-billed loons could be 

exposed to commercial fisheries on the 

wintering grounds and over a larger area 

of marine coastlines during migration, 

as well as to subsistence fishing during 

migration and while on the nesting 

grounds. 

I. Commercial Fishing Bycatch 

Loon bycatch has been documented in 

commercial drift-net, gill-net, trap-net, 

and longline fisheries. Compared to 

other fisheries, gill-net fisheries have 

the greatest potential to affect loons. For 

example, a 1998 study of bycatch in 

winter gill-net fisheries on the U.S. midAtlantic coast found that loons (redthroated and common) accounted for 89 

percent of all avian bycatch (Forsell 

1999, p. 23). While loon species have 

been recorded as bycatch in several 

longline fisheries (Brothers et al. 1999), 

in general, longlines attract surfacefeeding seabirds rather than species that 

dive to feed. 

While commercial fishing occurs 

across marine waters inhabited by 

yellow-billed loons, primarily within 

the species’ wintering grounds, there are 

several challenges to assessing the 

impact of these fisheries on the species. 

Bycatch monitoring programs are 

infrequent and do not exist for many 

fisheries in the yellow-billed loon’s 

wintering grounds. This is particularly 

true for the Yellow Sea, which is 

historically one of the most intensively 

fished areas in the world (LME 48 2004, 

p. 1). Where programs do exist, loons 

are often not identified to species level 

or are categorized as ‘‘other.’’ These 

problems might explain low reported 

levels of yellow-billed loon bycatch. In 

addition, actual bycatch in any given 

fishery is likely to be low due to the 

species’ low densities and widespread 

distribution. 

Alaska 

The Alaskan commercial fisheries 

most likely to catch yellow-billed loons 

are gill-net fisheries in the Gulf of 

Alaska (Prince William Sound and Cook 

Inlet) and Southeast Alaska. While these 

fisheries overlap spatially with areas 

used by yellow-billed loons, they occur 

primarily during summer when adults 

and an unknown proportion of 

immatures have moved north to arctic 

habitats. 

No bycatch data are available from 

gill-net fisheries in Southeast Alaska, 

but limited seabird bycatch data are 

available from some Gulf of Alaska 

fisheries with marine mammal bycatch 

monitoring programs. For example, 

salmon gill-net fisheries in Prince 

William Sound and Unimak Island area 

in 1990 to 1991 recorded low levels of 

loon bycatch (1 unknown loon, 2 redthroated loons, and 2 common loons 

from more than 9,000 sets; Wynne et al. 

1991, p. 30; Wynne et al. 1992, pp. 47– 

48). Another program for Cook Inlet 

salmon drift-net and set-net fisheries 

(1999–2000) also recorded low loon 

numbers (2 common loons and 1 

unidentified loon in 540 sets observed; 

Manly 2006, pp. 27 & 32). Of all loons 

observed near nets in 2000, about half 

were identified as common loons, and 

half were unknown loon species (Manly 

2006, p. 40). 

Alaska longline, pot, and trawl 

fisheries are less likely to affect this 

species due to the loon’s foraging 

behaviors and location of these 

fisheries. While these fisheries overlap 

the wintering grounds of the yellowbilled loon in the Bering Sea, Aleutians, 

and Gulf of Alaska from September to 

April, they are conducted offshore. An 

observer program exists for the Alaskan 

demersal groundfish fisheries (including 

longline, pot, and trawl for certain 

groundfish species) but no loon bycatch 

data exist because all loon species are 

classified as part of the category ‘‘other’’ 

along with several other species not 

typically caught by these gear types. 

Less than one percent (0–351 individual 

birds) of all reported bycatch in these 

fisheries has been recorded as ‘‘other’’ 

for years 1993 through 2006 (AFSC 

2006a, pp. 9–15; AFSC 2006b, pp. 5–8; 

AFSC 2007, pp. 5–9). In addition, 

bycatch rates in the longline fisheries 

have declined in recent years (highs in 

1998–1999) due to the implementation 

of seabird-avoidance measures (AFSC 

2006a, p. 2). 

In summary, bycatch of loon species, 

as well as unknown loons, has been 

reported in limited observer-program 

coverage of Alaskan gill-net fisheries 

that occur within the yellow-billed 

loon’s range. While no bycatch of 

yellow-billed loons has been reported, 

available data are limited and lacking 

for some parts of the species’ range. In 

addition, there is no available 

information that suggests take levels 

will change in the future. 

Washington State and British Columbia 

Loon entanglement has been reported 

in commercial gill-net fisheries in 

Washington’s Puget Sound, Hood Canal, 

Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the 

Columbia River. At least 1 yellow-billed 

loon, 3 unidentified loons, and 11 

common loons were documented as 

bycatch in the mid-1990s (Erstad et al. 

1994, p. 6; Pierce et al. 1994, p. 18; 

Erstad et al. 1996, p. 12; and Jeffries et 

al. 1996, cited in Richardson et al. 2000, 

p. 20). Based on season, these birds are 

presumably non-breeders. Fishery-wide 

estimates were not extrapolated. 

In British Columbia, common and 

Pacific loons have been identified as 

bycatch in sockeye gill net fisheries, but 

comprise less than one percent of total 

bycatch reported from net fisheries from 

1995–2001 (one individual of each 

species was identified, for an estimated 

take of 31 of each species) (Smith and 

Morgan 2005, p. 25) (although a high 

proportion of bycatch was unidentified). 

Based upon known seabird and 

commercial fishing locations, Queen 

Charlotte Sound, the Scott Islands, and 

Cape St. James are of concern for 

bycatch from March–June, and the 

Western coast of Vancouver Island from 

June–September (Smith and Morgan 

2005, p. 29). These areas are all in 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12958 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

yellow-billed loon wintering grounds, 

and non-breeding yellow-billed loons 

might remain there throughout summer. 

In summary, bycatch of loon species, 

including one yellow-billed loon, has 

been reported in limited observerprogram coverage of Washington and 

British Columbia gill-net fisheries that 

occur within the yellow-billed loon’s 

range. The available data indicate that 

individuals (particularly non-breeders) 

are vulnerable to bycatch in these 

fisheries, but do not allow estimation of 

the number of yellow-billed loons taken. 

We also have no information to predict 

whether current take levels will increase 

or decrease in the future. 

Russian Far East 

Russian drift-net fisheries for salmon, 

as well as net fisheries for herring, 

mackerel, and Pacific saury occur in the 

northwest Pacific Ocean (Northridge 

1991, p. 52). Bycatch data do not exist 

for most of these fisheries (WWF 2004, 

p. 56), except for limited data from the 

salmon drift-net fisheries. Seabird 

bycatch was monitored for the Japanese 

salmon drift-net fishery in the Russian 

Exclusive Economic Zone within the 

Sea of Okhotsk and Kuril Islands from 

1993 to 1998 and western Bering Sea 

from 1993 to 2001. This fishery takes 

place from May through July. Yellowbilled loons comprised less than or 

equal to 0.02 percent of reported 

bycatch, with an extrapolated estimate 

of 89 yellow-billed loons, likely nonbreeders, within all fishery zones from 

1993–1998, and an additional 45 

individuals in the Bering Sea zone from 

1999–2001 (Artukhin et al. 1999, pp. 96 

& 101; Artukhin et al. 2000, p.122; 

Artukhin et al. 2001, p. 83). The highest 

bycatch rate (0.4 percent) for all fishery 

zones occurred in the area bordering the 

Northern edge of the Sea of Okhotsk 

(from 1993 to 1998) (Artukhin et al. 

1999, p. 96; Artyukhin and Burkanov 

2000, p. 108). Overall, catch rates of 

yellow-billed loons were similar to but 

slightly higher than those reported for 

other loons (arctic and red-throated). 

Unidentified birds comprised less than 

or equal to 0.05 percent of bycatch. No 

yellow-billed loons have been reported 

as bycatch in the Russian salmon driftnet fishery (Y. Artukhin in litt. 2008, p. 

1), which exceeded the Japanese salmon 

harvest in 2003 (WWF 2004, p. 56). 

Longline and trawl fisheries also 

occur in the Russian Far East by 

Russian, Japanese, Korean, and 

American companies (Artyukhin et al. 

2006, p. 7). These year-round fisheries 

for cod, halibut, and rockfish are located 

primarily in western Bering Sea, Pacific 

Ocean waters of Kamchatka, and Sea of 

Okhotsk (Artyukhin et al. 2006, p. 6). A 

seabird observer program for the 

Russian longline fishery was conducted 

in these waters from 2003 to 2005 

during a project to test methods and 

equipment to reduce incidental seabird 

bycatch (Artyukhin et al. 2006). No 

loons were reported as bycatch 

(Artyukhin et al. 2006, p. 19). 

In summary, yellow-billed loon 

bycatch has been reported in drift-net 

fisheries within the Sea of Okhotsk and 

the western Bering Sea. Due to the 

timing of the fisheries, most individuals 

were likely non-breeders. The data 

indicate vulnerability of the species to 

incidental capture in drift-net gear, but 

do not allow estimation of the total 

number of yellow-billed loons taken. In 

addition, there is no available 

information that suggests take levels 

will change in the future. 

Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, and Coastal 

Japan 

The Yellow Sea, one of the most 

heavily fished areas of the world, is 

classified by the Global International 

Waters Assessment as severely affected 

by overfishing, with major fisheries 

currently occurring at a low level 

compared to 30 years ago (LME 48 

2004). Both the Yellow Sea and Sea of 

Japan are primarily fished by Japan, 

China, Korea, and the Russian 

Federation nearshore gill-net fleets 

(Northridge 1991, pp. 52–54; LME 48 

2004; LME 50 2004). There are also a 

considerable number of Japanese gill-net 

fishing vessels in Japanese coastal 

waters, with coastal vessels estimated to 

be in the thousands (DeGange et al. 

1993, p. 207). Various gill-net fisheries 

(i.e., Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus 

niphonius), silver pomfret (Pampus 

argenteus), and Chinese herring (Illisha 

elongata)) occur during different 

months of the year (Northridge 1991, 

pp. 53 & 54; Zhang and Kim 1999, p. 

167), including overlap in time and 

location with non-breeders and adult 

wintering yellow-billed loons. The level 

of seabird bycatch from most of these 

coastal fisheries is unknown (DeGange 

et al. 1993, p. 209). Longline fisheries 

conducted by Japan, China, and the 

Republic of Korea are also known to 

occur (Brothers et al. 1999), but bycatch 

information is unavailable. 

In summary, no data are available on 

the level of yellow-billed bycatch from 

gill-net fisheries in the Yellow Sea, Sea 

of Japan, or coastal Japan. Due to the 

vulnerability of the species to incidental 

capture in gill nets and extensive 

activity of these fisheries overlapping in 

timing and location with the loon’s 

adult wintering range, bycatch likely 

occurs. However, we have no means to 

assess the current level of take. In 

addition, there is no available 

information that suggests take levels 

will change in the future. 

Norway 

Fisheries occur along the entire 

coastline of Norway, with northern 

areas most intensively fished (Bakken 

1998, p. 28). Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua) is the most important fishery, 

and other species fished include 

capelin, flatfish, haddock, herring, 

lumpsucker, and salmon (Bakken 1998, 

p. 28). The Lofoten fishery, a major 

fishery that includes one-fifth of 

Norway’s total fishermen, primarily 

targets Atlantic cod, from February to 

April, and uses both gill nets and long 

lines, along with hand lines and seines 

(Jentoft and Kristoffersen 1989, pp. 356– 

357). Limited data exist on seabird 

bycatch in these fisheries, but loons 

have been reported as bycatch in the 

cod, herring, haddock, and flatfish gillnet fisheries all along the Norwegian 

coast (Bakken 1998, pp. 28 & 36). There 

are anecdotal reports of yellow-billed 

and common loon bycatch in gill nets, 

especially in the Lofoten Islands, and in 

Troms County to a lesser extent (Strann 

and ;stnes 2007, p. 4). Although the 

extent of winter bycatch is unknown, 

Strann and ;stnes (2007, p. 4) suggest, 

based on anecdotal observations, that 

take of yellow-billed and common loons 

might be increasing in the Lofoten 

Islands. 

In summary, yellow-billed loons, as 

well as other loon species, have been 

anecdotally reported as bycatch in 

Norwegian gill-net fisheries. We have no 

means to extrapolate available 

information to estimate the total number 

of yellow-billed loons taken. In 

addition, other than anecdotal 

information that suggests take levels in 

the Lofoten Islands are increasing, we 

do not have evidence that take levels 

will change in the future. 

II. Subsistence-Fishing Bycatch 

Subsistence fishing is an important 

component of the customs, traditions, 

and economies of many indigenous 

groups in the arctic. Across the breeding 

range of the yellow-billed loon, rural 

residents fish primarily using gill nets, 

although some angling and ice jigging 

occurs (Craig 1987, p. 17). Gill-net use 

is localized near villages and fish 

camps, in marine inlets and lagoons, 

lakes, and rivers, depending on season 

and target fish species (Craig 1987, p.17, 

Bacon in litt. 2008). During the breeding 

season, yellow-billed loons will forage 

in large lakes close to their nests (Earnst 

2004, p. 4), as well as other nearby 

lakes, rivers, and marine areas (Earnst 

2004, pp. 6–7), where the potential for 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12959 

bycatch in subsistence fisheries exists. 

Because yellow-billed loons are widely 

dispersed across their nesting grounds, 

however, a large proportion of the 

breeding population is likely not 

exposed to localized subsistence fishing. 

Limited observations confirm that 

yellow-billed loons have been 

inadvertently caught in subsistence gill 

nets in Canada, Russia, and the United 

States, although the level of bycatch is 

not extensively documented. In Canada, 

researchers on Victoria Island 

documented yellow-billed loon 

entanglement in nets on several 

occasions, including one instance where 

seven birds were found dead in nets in 

a single day (Sutton 1963 p.1; Parmelee 

et al. 1967). In Russia, Syroechkovski 

(2008, p. 2) reported that two reasons for 

subsistence harvest were accidental 

entanglement in fishing nests and 

deliberate shooting to scare loons from 

fishing areas. The Red Data Book of the 

Russian Federation states that yellowbilled loon mortality in fishing nets is 

the main threat to the species (Red Data 

Book 2001, pp, 366–367), with bycatch 

rates described as ‘‘catastrophic’’ in the 

Chukchi Peninsula region (Red Data 

Book 2001, pp, 366–367). We could not 

locate data or a source for that 

assessment. 

In Alaska, information on loon 

bycatch from subsistence fishing is 

available only for the ACP, where 

Inupiat Eskimos use yellow-billed loon 

parts for subsistence and ceremonial 

purposes (Hepa and Bacon 2008, p. 1). 

With implementation of Alaska spring/ 

summer migratory bird subsistenceharvest regulations in 2003, the yellowbilled loon was officially closed to 

harvest (Hepa and Bacon 2008, p. 1). 

In 2005, an exception for the North 

Slope region was incorporated into the 

regulations allowing possession for 

subsistence use of up to 20 (total for the 

region each year) yellow-billed loons 

inadvertently caught in subsistence nets 

(50 CFR Part 92). As a result of this 

provision, the North Slope Borough 

Department of Wildlife Management 

compiles data on incidental bycatch 

from a variety of sources. Two to nine 

yellow-billed loons (and some redthroated and Pacific loons) were 

reported as found dead in nets in each 

of three years (2005 to 2007) (Acker and 

Suydam 2006, p. 1; Acker and Suydam 

2007, p. 1; Hepa and Bacon 2008, p. 10). 

Small numbers of loons, including 

yellow-billed loons, were also reported 

as found alive and released. All yellowbilled loons collected in 2007 were 

reportedly utilized for subsistence, 

including ceremonial purposes (Hepa 

and Bacon 2008, p. 2). These numbers 

are likely a minimum estimate of 

yellow-billed loon subsistence bycatch 

because not all fishers were contacted 

(Hepa and Bacon 2008, p. 2). 

In conclusion, yellow-billed loon 

bycatch in commercial fisheries has 

been documented anecdotally or by 

observer programs in Washington State, 

Russia, and Norway. No data exist from 

large portions of the species’ wintering 

range (Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, and 

coastal Japan), but bycatch is likely to 

occur in extensive gill net fisheries that 

overlap with wintering yellow-billed 

loons. We lack information to explain 

the difference in catch rates reported 

from various observer programs. We do 

not have enough information to 

extrapolate bycatch estimates to areas 

lacking data, or to determine the 

number of birds taken as bycatch over 

time. 

For subsistence fisheries, yellowbilled loon bycatch has been 

documented either anecdotally or in 

reporting programs on the breeding 

grounds in Alaska, Canada, and Russia. 

Data are limited or non-existent for large 

parts of the species’ range. Because 

yellow-billed loons are widely 

dispersed across the landscape on the 

nesting grounds, while subsistence 

fishing is localized, we suspect a large 

proportion of the breeding population is 

not exposed to subsistence fishing. We 

do not have enough information to 

extrapolate subsistence bycatch 

accounts to areas lacking data or to 

evaluate likely population-level affects. 

Yellow-billed loon bycatch data are 

primarily anecdotal and cannot be 

extrapolated to estimate total bycatch 

levels or rates. Although yellow-billed 

loon mortality from commercial and 

subsistence gill-net fisheries currently 

affects yellow-billed loons at the 

individual level, we do not have enough 

evidence of bycatch to show populationlevel impacts. The ACP breeding 

population is the only one for which we 

have trend information. That trend is 

slightly declining or stable, and so we 

do not have evidence that bycatch is 

currently affecting the species at the 

population level. In addition, there is no 

available information that suggests take 

levels will change in the future. 

Therefore, we find that bycatch is not a 

threat to yellow-billed loons now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Direct Effects of Contaminants Not 

Associated With Oil and Gas 

Although contaminants can affect 

species through a variety of 

mechanisms, below we discuss direct 

effects on individuals or reproduction, 

such as mortality or embryo viability, 

from contaminants other than those 

associated with oil and gas (discussed 

under Factor A and earlier in Factor E). 

Indirect effects of contaminants or 

pollution, such as alterations in prey 

abundance, were also discussed under 

Factor A. 

Ecological characteristics can be used 

to estimate the relative risk of 

contaminants to a species. These 

include trophic status (species higher in 

a food chain are more likely to 

accumulate persistent pollutants), 

pollution point sources, location 

(including migratory pathways), and 

lifespan (long-lived individuals have 

more time to accumulate persistent 

compounds). Yellow-billed loons are 

relatively long-lived birds, and being 

piscivorous are also trophically 

elevated. Both arctic breeding areas and 

temperate wintering areas have 

documented pollution. It is therefore 

appropriate to examine potential risk to 

yellow-billed loons from contaminant 

exposure. 

Yellow-billed loons spend the 

majority of the year in southern 

wintering areas, which are primarily 

coastal and are more likely to have 

elevated environmental concentrations 

of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 

such as organochlorine pesticides and 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

compared to northern breeding areas. 

Twenty-four out of 29 yellow-billed 

loons fitted with transmitters on Alaska 

breeding grounds wintered in Asian 

waters (Schmutz 2008, p. 1) that have 

been demonstrably affected by 

pollution. For example, Ma et al. (2001, 

pp. 133–134) reported high levels of 

persistent organic pollutants (DDT and 

PCBs) and petroleum-derived 

contaminants in the intertidal zone of 

the Bohai and Yellow Seas off China. In 

Korea, PCBs were greater in fish and 

birds from industrially contaminated 

areas of the Nakdong estuary than nonindustrial areas (Choi et al. 1999, p. 

233). Other studies document 

contamination of Asian sea sediments 

and biota, including fish and birds, that 

support potential exposure for wintering 

migratory birds such as yellow-billed 

loons (e.g., Nie et al. 2005, pp. 537–546; 

Oh et al. 2005, pp. 217–222; Daoji and 

Daler 2004, pp. 107–113; Guruge et al. 

1997, pp. 186–193). In a test of exposure 

to persistent contaminants in Asian 

wintering areas compared to northern 

breeding areas, Kunisue et al. (2002, p. 

1,397) found that herring gulls (Larus 

argentatus) and other migratory birds 

nesting on Lake Baikal in Russia had 

higher levels of organochlorine 

contaminants on arrival from Asian 

wintering areas than at the end of the 

breeding season. 

Further, sympatrically nesting redthroated loons from the ACP had PCB 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12960 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

concentrations and formulations 

(containing the most toxic PCB 

congeners) great enough, when 

compared to thresholds developed for 

other species, to postulate teratogenic 

(causing abnormal development) or 

other reproductive effects (Schmutz et 

al. in review, p. 19). Preliminary 

satellite telemetry data indicate that 

these red-throated loons winter in Asian 

marine waters (Schmutz et al. in review, 

p. 1), similar to yellow-billed loons. 

These data compelled us to examine 

PCBs in yellow-billed loon eggs from 

the ACP. We found that although PCBs 

were present in yellow-billed loon eggs 

(n = 45, collected over three years), 

preliminary data show the most toxic 

individual PCB congeners (PCBs 77 and 

81) present in red-throated loon eggs 

were generally not present in yellowbilled loon eggs, and therefore the PCB 

toxicity in yellow-billed loon eggs (TEQ 

(toxic equivalency quotient, a measure 

of toxicity) range = 0.176—10.39 

picograms/gram (pg/g); A. Matz, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, unpubl. data) 

was much lower than in red-throated 

loon eggs (TEQ mean ± SE = 237 ± 129 

pg/g), and lower than published 

thresholds for embryonic toxicity in 

other avian species, such as 227 pg/g in 

great blue heron (Ardea herodias) eggs 

(Hoffman et al. 1996, pp. 191). We are 

currently evaluating other contaminants 

in yellow-billed loon eggs and blood 

from the coastal plain and the Seward 

Peninsula of Alaska, but based on the 

red-throated loon data (presented in 

Schmutz et al. in review), we were most 

concerned about the PCBs. 

In conclusion, we have few data on 

most of the contaminants that could 

directly affect yellow-billed loons 

throughout their range. Additional 

range-wide data on productivity, 

population trends, and concentrations 

of persistent contaminants will allow us 

to more fully evaluate this risk factor. 

However, data from an ongoing multiagency study in Alaska show that 

yellow-billed loon eggs do not have 

concentrations of toxic PCBs thought to 

affect reproduction. Because yellowbilled loons nesting in Canada, and 

some proportion of those nesting in 

Russia, likely winter in Asian seas or on 

the Pacific coast of North America, we 

assume that PCB and other persistent 

contaminant concentrations in their 

eggs would be equal to or less than 

those from the ACP, which are known 

to winter in Asia. The contaminant 

loading for yellow-billed loons 

wintering in the North Sea is unknown, 

but those loons represent a small 

proportion of the total population. In 

the future, yellow-billed loons could 

continue to be exposed to the 

contaminants they are exposed to now, 

as well as emerging persistent 

contaminants such as polybrominated 

compounds. However, the Service and 

its partners plan to monitor contaminant 

exposure, mortality, and productivity in 

Alaska. Future contaminant risks will be 

identified and efforts made to address 

them before they cause population-level 

declines that threaten the continued 

existence of the species. Therefore, we 

find that contaminants other than those 

associated with oil and gas are not a 

threat to the yellow-billed loon now or 

in the foreseeable future. 

In our analysis of Factor E, we 

identified and evaluated other risk 

factors, including: Oil and gas 

development and vessel traffic; 

subsistence harvest; commercial- and 

subsistence-fishery bycatch; and 

contaminants other than those 

associated with oil and gas. Based on 

our review of the best available 

information, we find that subsistence 

harvest is a threat to the yellow-billed 

loon now and in the foreseeable future. 

Foreseeable Future 

In considering the foreseeable future 

as it relates to the status of the yellowbilled loon, we considered the stressors 

acting on the species. We considered the 

historical data to identify any relevant 

existing trends that might allow for 

reliable prediction of the future (in the 

form of extrapolating the trends). We 

also considered whether we could 

reliably predict any future events that 

might affect the status of the species, 

recognizing that our ability to make 

reliable predictions in the future is 

limited by the variable quantity and 

quality of available data. Further, 

predictability varies significantly among 

risk factors, and in some cases, even 

geographically within a single factor. 

Based on the lack of proposed 

onshore oil and gas development within 

the yellow-billed loon’s range in 

Canada, it is reasonably likely that no 

population-level impacts will be 

incurred at least until development 

occurs. In contrast, in Russia, although 

it is likely that oil and gas development 

will increase in the future, our 

understanding of the species’ 

distribution is so limited that it is 

difficult to reliably assess the likely 

impact of even existing oil and gas 

development on the yellow-billed loon, 

much less the impact of projected future 

development on the loon. In Alaska, 

some increased terrestrial oil and gas 

development is likely to occur 

beginning in the next decade, and the 

period from exploration through 

production to abandonment is estimated 

at 70 years. In the case of climate 

change, current models suggest that 

global temperatures are likely to 

continue to rise for up to 50 years, even 

if greenhouse gas emissions were curbed 

today (Meehl et al 2007, p. 749). 

However, we are not currently able to 

link projected climate changes to 

changes in arctic freshwater habitats or 

their ability to support loons, and so our 

ability to foresee the future is limited 

until research and climate modeling 

improve our predictive ability. 

Although climate-change models show 

continued decrease in the summer arctic 

ice sheet, and it is possible that 

shipping will, therefore, increase, we 

have no data to describe to what degree 

shipping pathways or frequency is 

likely to change. With respect to 

subsistence harvest, the best available 

data show substantial inter-annual 

variation in loons harvested in Alaska 

during migration, which could be 

related to inter-annual variation in 

yellow-billed loon migratory behavior. 

Modeled scenarios show that even when 

harvest varies among years within the 

range defined by recent harvest 

estimates, the yellow-billed loon 

population continues to decline over 

time. Although we have no information 

that subsistence harvest throughout the 

range of the yellow-billed loon will 

either increase or decrease in the future, 

we have no reason to believe that 

harvest of yellow-billed loons will not 

continue to vary from year to year 

within the range of levels incurred over 

recent years. Our ability to assess 

current bycatch in fishing nets is limited 

by poor data, and we have no empirical 

basis with which to predict even the 

direction of trends in the effects of this 

activity into the future. Although the 

amount of oil and gas development and 

shipping traffic will likely increase in 

the future, the associated risk is 

reasonably likely to be partly or wholly 

offset by improved technologies and 

regulation. We do not have evidence 

that marine pollution or contaminants 

will have an increased or decreased 

effect on yellow-billed loons in the 

future. 

Available data indicate a stable or 

slightly declining trend for the ACP 

population. Available data do not allow 

us to establish a trend for other breeding 

populations. Overall numbers of yellowbilled loons are cautiously estimated 

between 16,000 and 32,000 birds on 

breeding grounds worldwide, which, 

considering the wide distribution of the 

species most of the year, is enough to 

make it unlikely that the species is at 

risk from stochastic events because of its 

small numbers. Thus, the foreseeable 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12961 

future includes consideration of the 

ongoing effects of current risk factors 

and threats at comparable levels. 

Significant Portions of the Range 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ is not defined by the 

statute. For the purposes of this finding, 

a significant portion of a species’ range 

is an area that is important to the 

conservation of the species because it 

contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

If an analysis of whether a species is 

threatened or endangered in a 

significant portion of its range is 

appropriate, we engage in a systematic 

process that begins with identifying any 

portions of the range of the species that 

warrant further consideration. The range 

of a species can theoretically be divided 

into portions in an infinite number of 

ways. However, there is no purpose in 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) the species may be in 

danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

range that are unimportant to the 

conservation of the species, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

On the basis of an analysis of factors 

that may threaten the yellow-billed 

loon, we have determined that listing is 

warranted throughout its range. 

Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct 

further analysis with respect to the 

significance of any portion of its range 

at this time. We will further analyze 

whether threats may be disproportionate 

and warrant further consideration as an 

SPR at such time that we develop a 

proposed listing determination. 

Finding 

In our review of the status of the 

yellow-billed loon, we carefully 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available. We 

identified a number of potential threats 

to this species, including: Oil and gas 

development, marine pollution and 

overfishing, exposure to contaminants, 

climate change, subsistence- and 

commercial-fishing bycatch, and 

subsistence harvest. To determine 

whether these risk factors individually 

or collectively put the species in danger 

of extinction throughout its range, or are 

likely to do so within the foreseeable 

future, we first considered whether the 

risk factors were causing a population 

decline, or were likely to do so in the 

future. 

Information on population size and 

trends for the yellow-billed loon is 

limited. Overall population size is 

unknown, but probably at the low end 

of the range between 16,000 and 32,000 

loons on breeding grounds. Population 

trends are available for the ACP 

breeding grounds from waterfowl 

surveys, and these surveys suggest that 

the ACP breeding population is stable or 

slightly declining. Limited surveys have 

been conducted only in small parts of 

the Russian and Canadian ranges, so 

population sizes for these ranges are 

gross approximations, and no 

information on trends is available. 

There are reports of range contractions 

at the edges of the Russian breeding 

range, but these reports are 

unsubstantiated, and there are also 

unsubstantiated reports of Russian 

breeding areas where yellow-billed loon 

numbers could be increasing. Therefore, 

based on the best available information, 

we find that the only trend information 

we have indicates a stable or slightly 

declining trend for the ACP population. 

We evaluated existing and potential 

stressors on the yellow-billed loon to 

determine what affects on the species 

were currently occurring, whether these 

stressors were likely to increase or 

decrease in the future, and which of the 

stressors may be expected to rise to the 

level of a threat to the species, either 

rangewide or at the population level. 

We examined several stressors for 

which we have little information on 

whether they will increase in the future. 

We did not find that bycatch by 

subsistence or commercial fishing, 

pollution in wintering habitats, or 

contaminants are threats to the yellowbilled loon. An unknown number of 

individuals are taken in fisheries, which 

adds to other forms of mortality. 

Next we considered whether any of 

the risk factors are likely to increase 

within the foreseeable future. We 

believe that oil and gas activities in 

various parts of the loon’s range are 

likely to increase in the future. In 

Alaska, we determined that Federal and 

State of Alaska regulations currently in 

place will likely mitigate future effects 

of terrestrial oil and gas development, 

and therefore development in Alaska is 

not considered a threat to the species 

now or in the foreseeable future. In 

Russia, terrestrial oil and gas 

development is occurring at the western 

edge of the Russian breeding range, and 

it is unknown whether this activity 

overlaps with loon nesting habitat. Most 

importantly, even if a local range 

contraction has occurred, we find no 

reason to conclude impacts extend 

beyond the local scale at the edge of the 

range. In Canada, there has been little 

overlap between oil and gas 

development and the species’ range, and 

we are aware of none projected for the 

near future. We also found that although 

marine oil and gas development is likely 

to increase in various parts of the loon’s 

range, the wide distribution and low 

density of the species in the marine 

environment make it unlikely that 

associated impacts including marine oil 

spills will put the species at risk of 

extinction. 

Climate change is likely to continue 

for at least the next 50 years, but there 

is substantial uncertainty as to how 

climate change, described in Factor A, 

will affect yellow-billed loon terrestrial, 

freshwater, and marine habitats. For 

example, if native prey fish species are 

extirpated, other suitable prey species 

may colonize the area, replacing 

extirpated species to some degree. We 

do not know whether large-scale 

degradation of continuous permafrost, 

where the majority of yellow-billed 

loons breed, and the subsequent impacts 

to lake levels and vegetation will occur 

on a scale that will affect loon 

populations in the foreseeable future. 

Climate-change effects on the temperatelatitude wintering habitat of the yellowbilled loon include increases in ocean 

temperature and decreases in primary 

productivity and dissolved oxygen 

levels, which might affect numbers and 

distribution of prey species. The 

magnitude and form of these effects are 

highly uncertain, but would most likely 

involve northward shift of prey items, 

which could be mirrored by their 

predators such as wintering yellowbilled loons. 

There are multiple hypothetical 

mechanisms associated with climate 

change that could potentially affect 

loons and their breeding and nonbreeding habitats. Unlike documented 

and predicted declines in sea ice, an 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12962 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

obligate habitat for other arctic species 

such as polar bears, we lack predictive 

models on how climate change will 

affect yellow-billed loon terrestrial, 

freshwater, and marine habitats. 

Manifestations of climate-mediated 

changes throughout arctic and 

temperate yellow-billed loon habitats 

will emerge if reliable, predictive 

models are developed, but currently 

there is little certainty regarding the 

timing, magnitude, and net effect of 

impact. Therefore, given current 

limitations in available data and climate 

models, we find that climate change is 

not a threat to yellow-billed loons now 

or in the foreseeable future. However, 

currently unknown detrimental effects 

of climate change could be additive to 

other threats and stressors on the 

population. 

We also considered whether any of 

the ongoing risk factors began recently 

enough that their effects are not yet 

manifested in a long-term decline in 

population numbers, but are likely to 

have that effect in the future. 

Information from recent subsistence 

harvest surveys indicate potentially 

high levels of harvest compared to 

earlier surveys. There are not enough 

years of data, and there is not enough 

precision in the accuracy of the surveys, 

to indicate whether there is a trend of 

increasing harvest. All marked Alaskan 

breeding birds used the Bering Strait or 

Chukotka Peninsula during migration; 

in addition, it is likely that most 

Russian breeding loons and at least 

some Canadian breeding birds also 

migrate through the Bering Strait region. 

Thus, we believe it is likely that a large 

part of the rangewide population moves 

through the Strait and is subject to 

harvest there. The best available 

information indicates that, on average, 

hundreds of yellow-billed loons from 

breeding areas throughout its range are 

harvested annually by subsistence 

hunters. Population modeling suggests 

that the number of yellow-billed loons 

being harvested in the Bering Strait area 

of Alaska alone is likely unsustainable. 

The lack of precision of the population 

trend information for Alaska could be 

preventing us from detecting the impact 

of this harvest on the population, or the 

high harvest estimates could represent a 

new phenomenon not yet taken into 

account in our population trend 

estimates. The harvest is also likely 

having an impact on breeding 

populations that are not being 

monitored in Canada and Russia. 

Because we believe that the rangewide 

population of yellow-billed loons is 

subject to unsustainable levels of 

harvest, we find that subsistence harvest 

is a threat to the species rangewide. In 

light of this level of subsistence harvest 

occurring despite existing MBTA 

regulations that prohibit such harvest, 

we also find that inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms are a threat to the species. 

We next considered whether the 

existing level of threats causes us to 

conclude that the species is in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. If population size were to 

decline or the range were to contract, 

recovery or re-colonization would likely 

occur slowly. Individuals in the 

population are so widespread during 

most of the year that high adult 

mortality is unlikely. However, during 

migration, yellow-billed loons are 

subject to subsistence harvest that 

appears to be unsustainable based on 

the best available information. The total 

population is uncertain, but based on 

the best available information, the 

population, estimated at 16,000 to 

32,000 birds on breeding grounds, could 

decline substantially if unsustainable 

harvest continues. Future subsistence 

harvest in Alaska is enough in itself to 

constitute a threat to the species 

rangewide. In addition, up to several 

hundred yellow-billed loons could be 

taken annually on Russian breeding 

grounds, and small amounts of harvest 

are reported for other areas in Alaska 

and Canada. Other stressors discussed 

above may not rise to the level of a 

threat individually, but when taken 

collectively with the effects of 

subsistence hunting in other areas, may 

reduce the rangewide population even 

further. Given the small population and 

the existence of subsistence harvest and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms as 

threats, we believe the species is likely 

to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

we find that listing the yellow-billed 

loon throughout its range is warranted. 

While we find that listing the yellowbilled loon is warranted, an immediate 

proposal to list this species is precluded 

by other higher priority listing actions, 

which we address below. 

We have reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats pose an 

emergency. We have determined that an 

emergency listing is not warranted for 

this species at this time because, within 

the current distribution of the species 

throughout its range, there are at least 

some populations of the yellow-billed 

loon that exist in relatively natural 

conditions that are unlikely to change in 

the short-term. However, if at any time 

we determine that emergency listing of 

the yellow-billed loon is warranted, we 

will initiate an emergency listing. 

Future Conservation 

We have determined that the listing of 

the yellow-billed loon is warranted but 

precluded by pending proposals for 

other species with higher listing 

priorities and actions. Our 

recommendation of a listing priority 

number of 8 (described below) will 

provide time and opportunity to 

implement conservation and better 

monitor the species’ status and threats. 

Here we provide a summary of our 

commitment to the conservation of 

yellow-billed loons. 

As described in the ‘‘Conservation 

Agreement for the Yellow-billed Loon 

(Gavia adamsii),’’ the Service and its 

partners plan to: (1) Implement specific 

actions to protect yellow-billed loons 

and their breeding habitats in Alaska 

from potential impacts of land uses and 

management activities, including oil 

and gas development; (2) inventory and 

monitor yellow-billed loon breeding 

populations in Alaska; (3) reduce the 

impact of subsistence activities 

(including fishing and hunting) on 

yellow-billed loons in Alaska; and (4) 

conduct biological research on yellowbilled loons, including response to 

management actions. 

We believe that the strategies outlined 

in the agreement demonstrate the 

partners’ commitment to prioritize 

yellow-billed loon conservation in 

Alaska. To fulfill the first strategy, we 

will continue to work with partners to 

maintain their commitment to actions 

protecting loons. In particular, we will 

work closely with the BLM to monitor 

and maintain protection of loons on 

NPR-A, as expressed in their recent 

memorandum on the yellow-billed loon 

(Galterio, in litt. 2008, pp. 1–3). For the 

second strategy, we will continue to 

inventory yellow-billed loons through 

our waterfowl surveys on the ACP and 

through loon-specific surveys currently 

in operation on the Seward Peninsula, 

and we will investigate the potential for 

initiating yellow-billed-loon-specific 

surveys. For the third strategy, we are 

working closely with the Alaska 

Migratory Bird Co-management Council 

(AMBCC) and the State of Alaska to 

acquire reliable, verifiable information 

on subsistence harvest and fishing 

bycatch levels in Alaska, and to 

substantially increase education and 

law enforcement efforts to reduce levels 

of this threat. Finally, we support the 

ongoing research by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and others on yellow-billed 

loons in Alaska, and will continue to 

advocate for further research where it 

will inform management of yellowbilled loons, such as understanding 

effects of disturbance on nesting loons 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12963 

to ensure that buffers separating loons 

from human activity are adequate. 

Research and management of yellowbilled loons are needed outside Alaska, 

and we will support and advocate for 

such work. In particular, we need to 

understand population sizes and trends 

for Russian and Canadian breeding 

populations, migration corridors, and 

where breeding populations winter. We 

also encourage managers in both 

countries to take an active role 

conserving loons where substantial 

industrial development occurs, or where 

other threats such as subsistence harvest 

or fishing bycatch occur. Finally, habitat 

conditions in wintering grounds, 

especially in Asia, need to be 

understood and managed so that they 

continue to support loons. In particular, 

it will be critical to increase awareness 

of pollution impacts in marine habitats 

in Asia, and to develop regulations to 

reduce pollution levels, so that these 

wintering areas continue to support 

yellow-billed loons. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

competing demands for those resources. 

Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 

multiple factors dictate whether it will 

be possible to undertake work on a 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual determinations on 

prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ 

petition findings as required under 

section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; proposed 

and final rules designating critical 

habitat; and litigation-related, 

administrative, and program 

management functions (including 

preparing and allocating budgets, 

responding to Congressional and public 

inquiries, and conducting public 

outreach regarding listing and critical 

habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. For example, during the 

past several years, the cost (excluding 

publication costs) for preparing a 12- 

month finding, without a proposed rule, 

has ranged from approximately $11,000 

for one species with a restricted range 

and involving a relatively 

uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for 

another species that is wide-ranging and 

involving a complex analysis. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Recognizing that designation of 

critical habitat for species already listed 

would consume most of the overall 

Listing Program appropriation, Congress 

also put a critical habitat subcap in 

place in FY 2002 and has retained it 

each subsequent year to ensure that 

some funds are available for other work 

in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical 

habitat designation subcap will ensure 

that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species; 

however, in FY 2008 we were unable to 

do this because all of the critical habitat 

subcap funds were needed to address 

our workload for designating critical 

habitat. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding whether, when 

making a 12-month petition finding, we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97–304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states (in a 

discussion on 90-day petition findings 

that by its own terms also covers 12- 

month findings) that the deadlines were 

‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to 

delay commencing the rulemaking 

process for any reason other than that 

the existence of pending or imminent 

proposals to list species subject to a 

greater degree of threat would make 

allocation of resources to such a petition 

[that is, for a lower-ranking species] 

unwise.’’ 

In FY 2008, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that could be 

achieved with $8,206,940, which is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). Our process is to make 

our determinations of preclusion on a 

nationwide basis to ensure that the 

species most in need of listing will be 

addressed first and also because we 

allocate our listing budget on a 

nationwide basis. The $8,206,940 was 

used to fund work in the following 

categories: compliance with court orders 

and court-approved settlement 

agreements requiring that petition 

findings or listing determinations be 

completed by a specific date; section 4 

(of the Act) listing actions with absolute 

statutory deadlines; essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing 

program management functions; and 

high-priority listing actions. The 

allocations for each specific listing 

action are identified in the Service’s FY 

2008 Allocation Table (part of our 

administrative record). 

For FY 2009, on September 23, 2008 

Congress passed a Continuing 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12964 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Resolution to operate the Federal 

government at the FY 2008 level of 

funding through March 6, 2009 (Pub. L. 

110–329). Although we are currently 

developing the allocations for specific 

listing actions that we will fund during 

FY 2009, we anticipate funding work to 

comply with court orders and courtapproved settlement agreements, work 

on statutorily required petition findings, 

final listing determinations for those 

species that were proposed for listing 

with funds from FY 2008, and 

continued work on proposed listing 

determinations for high-priority species. 

In FY 2007, we had more than 120 

species with a listing priority number 

(LPN) of 2, based on our September 21, 

1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for 

each candidate species (48 FR 43098). 

Using this guidance, we assign each 

candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending 

on the magnitude of threats (high vs. 

moderate to low), immediacy of threats 

(imminent or nonimminent), and 

taxonomic status of the species (in order 

of priority: monotypic genus (a species 

that is the sole member of a genus); 

species; or part of a species (subspecies, 

distinct population segment, or 

significant portion of the range)). The 

lower the listing priority number, the 

higher the listing priority (that is, a 

species with an LPN of 1 would have 

the highest listing priority). Because of 

the large number of high-priority 

species, we further ranked the candidate 

species with an LPN of 2 by using the 

following extinction-risk type criteria: 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, comprised a list of 

approximately 40 candidate species 

(‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate species 

have had the highest priority to receive 

funding to work on a proposed listing 

determination. As we work on proposed 

listing rules for these 40 candidates, we 

are applying the ranking criteria to the 

next group of candidates with LPN of 2 

and 3 to determine the next set of 

highest priority candidate species. 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, as we work on proposed rules 

for these species in the next several 

years, we are preparing multi-species 

proposals when appropriate, and these 

may include species with lower priority 

if they overlap geographically or have 

the same threats as a species with an 

LPN of 2. In addition, available staff 

resources are also a factor in 

determining high-priority species 

provided with funding. Finally, 

proposed rules for reclassification of 

threatened species to endangered are 

lower priority, since as listed species, 

they are already afforded the protection 

of the Act and implementing 

regulations. 

We assigned the yellow-billed loon an 

LPN of 8 based on moderate magnitude 

and imminent threats. One or more of 

the threats discussed above is occurring 

throughout the range of the yellowbilled loon, either in its breeding or 

wintering grounds, or during migration. 

However, the primary threat to the 

species that caused us to conclude 

listing is warranted is subsistence 

harvest, despite the species being closed 

to hunting under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. Although subsistence 

harvest is ongoing, the numbers taken 

have varied substantially between years. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

although we believe subsistence harvest 

is a substantial threat to the species, we 

have concerns about the precision of the 

numbers reported. In addition, if 

changes in management are 

implemented in the near future, we 

believe there is time to reduce this 

threat before it causes further 

population-level impacts. While we 

conclude that listing the yellow-billed 

loon is warranted, an immediate 

proposal to list this species is precluded 

by other higher priority listing, which 

we address below. Therefore, work on a 

proposed listing determination for the 

yellow-billed loon was, and will 

continue to be in the next year, 

precluded by work on higher priority 

candidate species (i.e., species with LPN 

of 2); listing actions with absolute 

statutory, court ordered, or courtapproved deadlines; and final listing 

determinations for those species that 

were proposed for listing with funds 

from FY 2008. This work includes all 

the actions listed in the tables below 

under expeditious progress. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species to and from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. (Although we do not discuss 

it in detail here, we are also making 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the list under the Recovery 

program, which is funded by a separate 

line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. As 

explained above in our description of 

the statutory cap on Listing Program 

funds, the Recovery Program funds and 

actions supported by them cannot be 

considered in determining expeditious 

progress made in the Listing Program.) 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists is a function of the 

resources available and the competing 

demands for those funds. Given that 

limitation, we find that we made 

expeditious progress in FY 2008 and are 

making progress in FY 2009 in the 

Listing Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

FY 2008 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS (SOME COMPLETED IN FY2009) 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

10/09/2007 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Black-Footed Albatross 

(Phoebastria nigripes) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

72 FR 57278–57283. 

10/09/2007 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Giant Palouse Earthworm as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

72 FR 57273–57276. 

10/23/2007 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium 

williamsoni) in the Big Lost River, 

ID, as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

72 FR 59983–59989. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12965 

FY 2008 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS (SOME COMPLETED IN FY2009)—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

10/23/2007 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Summer-Run Kokanee Population in Issaquah Creek, WA, as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

72 FR 59979–59983. 

11/08/2007 .................... Response to Court on Significant Portion of the Range, and Evaluation 

of Distinct Population Segments, 

for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk.

Response to Court ............................. 72 FR 63123–63140. 

12/13/2007 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) as Endangered With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 12-month Petition Finding, 

Warranted but Precluded.

72 FR 71039–71054. 

1/08/2008 ...................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus 

idahoensis) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 1312–1313. 

1/10/2008 ...................... 90-Day Finding on Petition To List the 

Amargosa River Population of the 

Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard (Uma 

scoparia) as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 1855–1861. 

1/24/2008 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi) and 

Scott Bar Salamander (Plethodon 

asupak) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month Petition Finding, 

Not Warranted.

73 FR 4379–4418. 

2/05/2008 ...................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Gunnison’s Prairie Dog as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month Petition Finding, 

Warranted.

73 FR 6660–6684. 

02/07/2008 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki utah) as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of Review ................................ 73 FR 7236–7237. 

02/19/2008 .................... Listing Phyllostegia hispida (No Common Name) as Endangered 

Throughout Its Range.

Proposed Listing, Endangered ........... 73 FR 9078–9085. 

02/26/2008 .................... Initiation of Status Review for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of Status Review ..................... 73 FR 10218–10219. 

03/11/2008 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the North American Wolverine 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

73 FR 12929–12941. 

03/20/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the U.S. Population of Coaster 

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) 

as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 14950–14955. 

04/29/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Western Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus 

phaios) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 23170–23172. 

04/29/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List 

the Mono Basin Area Population of 

the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 23173–23175. 

05/06/2008 .................... Petition To List the San Francisco 

Bay-Delta Population of the Longfin 

Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as 

Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 24611–24915. 

05/06/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 

Lake Sammamish, Washington, as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 24915–24922. 

05/06/2008 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the White-tailed Prairie Dog 

(Cynomys leucurus) as Threatened 

or Endangered.

Notice of Status Review ..................... 73 FR 24910–24911. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12966 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2008 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS (SOME COMPLETED IN FY2009)—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

05/15/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Ashy Storm-Petrel 

(Oceanodroma homochroa) as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 28080–28084. 

05/15/2008 .................... Determination of Threatened Status 

for the Polar Bear (Ursus 

maritimus) Throughout Its Range; 

Final Rule.

Final Listing, Threatened .................... 73 FR 28211–28303. 

05/15/2008 .................... Special Rule for the Polar Bear; Interim Final Rule.Interim Final Special Rule .................. 73 FR 28305–28318. 

05/28/2008 .................... Initiation of Status Review for the 

Northern Mexican Gartersnake 

(Thamnophis eques megalops).

Notice of Status Review ..................... 73 FR 30596–30598. 

06/18/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Long-Tailed Duck (Clangula 

hyemalis) as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

73 FR 34686–34692. 

07/10/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Delta Smelt 

(Hypomesus transpacificus) From 

Threatened to Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 39639–39643. 

07/29/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake 

(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as 

Threatened or Endangered with 

Critical Habitat.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 43905–43910. 

8/13/2008 ...................... Proposed Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; 

Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander.

Proposed Critical Habitat, Proposed 

Listing, Endangered.

73 FR 47257–47324. 

9/9/2008 ........................ 12-month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout 

as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

73 FR 52235–52256. 

10/15/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Least Chub.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 61007–61015. 

10/21/2008 .................... Listing 48 Species on Kauai as Endangered and Designating Critical 

Habitat.

Proposed Listing, Endangered; Proposed Critical Habitat.73 FR 62591–62742. 

10/24/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Sacramento Valley Tiger Beetle 

as Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

73 FR 63421–63424. 

10/28/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Dusky Tree Vole (Arborimus 

longicaudus silvicola) as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

73 FR 63919–63926. 

11/25/2008 .................... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Northern Mexican 

Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques 

megalops) as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

73 FR 71787–71826. 

12/02/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as 

Threatened or Endangered.

Notice 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.73 FR 73211–73219. 

12/05/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Sacramento Mountains 

Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas 

anicia cloudcrofti) as Endangered 

with Critical Habitat.

Notice 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.73 FR 74123–74129. 

12/18/2008 .................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to 

Change the Listing Status of the 

Canada Lynx.

Notice 90-day Petition Finding, Substantial.73 FR 76990–76994. 

1/06/2009 ...................... Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

To List 475 Species in the Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical 

Habitat.

Notice 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

74 FR 419–427. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 12967 

FY 2008 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS (SOME COMPLETED IN FY2009)—Continued 

Publication date Title Actions FR pages 

2/05/2009 ...................... Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

To List 206 Species in the Midwest 

and Western United States as 

Threatened or Endangered With 

Critical Habitat.

Notice 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

74 FR 6122–6128. 

Our expeditious progress also 

included work on listing actions, which 

were funded in FY 2008, but have not 

yet been completed to date. These 

actions are listed below. Actions in the 

top section of the table are being 

conducted to meet deadlines set by a 

court. Actions in the middle section of 

the table are being conducted to meet 

statutory timelines, that is, timelines 

required under the Act. Actions in the 

bottom section of the table are high 

priority listing actions. These actions 

include work primarily on species with 

an LPN of 2, and selection of these 

species is partially based on available 

staff resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2008 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions With Court Order/Settlement Agreement Deadlines 

SW Bald Eagle DPS ................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Greater and Western Sage Grouse ......................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Actions With Statutory Deadlines 

Phyllostegia hispida .................................................................................. Final listing. 

Black-footed albatross .............................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly ............................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Goose Creek milk-vetch ........................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard .......................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

White-tailed prairie dog ............................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide) ........................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Wyoming pocket gopher ........................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Llanero coqui ............................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

American pika ........................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

206 species (partially completed) ............................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

475 Southwestern species (partially completed) ..................................... 90-day petition finding. 

High Priority Listing Actions 

21 Oahu candidate species (16 plants, 5 damselflies) (18 with LPN =2, 

3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9).

Proposed listing. 

3 southeast aquatic species (Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, 

rough hornsnail) 1 (all with LPN = 2).

Proposed listing. 

Casey’s june beetle (LPN = 2) ................................................................. Proposed listing. 

Sand dune lizard (LPN = 2) ..................................................................... Proposed listing. 

2 southwest springsnails (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), 

Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)).

Proposed listing. 

3 southwest springsnails (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2), 

Pyrgulopsis gilae (LPN = 11), Pyrgulopsis thermalis (LPN = 11)).

Proposed listing. 

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) ............................. Proposed listing. 

2 mussels (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) ................ Proposed listing. 

Ozark hellbender 2 (LPN = 3) ................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Altamaha spinymussel (LPN = 2) ............................................................. Proposed listing. 

5 southeast fish (rush darter (LPN = 2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2), 

yellowcheek darter (LPN = 2), Cumberland darter (LPN = 5), laurel 

dace (LPN = 5)).

Proposed listing. 

3 Colorado plants (Pagosa skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2), 

Parchute beardtongue (Penstemon debilis) (LPN = 2), Debeque 

phacelia (Phacelia submutica) (LPN = 8)).

Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for 3 of these species were also provided in FY 2007. 

2We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species 

were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 

2008. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
12968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The yellow-billed loon will be added 

to the list of candidate species upon 

publication of this 12-month finding. 

We will continue to monitor the status 

of this species as new information 

becomes available, and information on 

the species’ distribution, status, and 

threats will be evaluated every year. In 

particular, we will work with the 

AMBCC and the State of Alaska to 

improve the reliability of subsistence 

harvest data, and to substantially 

increase education and law enforcement 

efforts to reduce levels of these threats. 

This review will determine if the 

species should be removed or 

maintained as a candidate species, or if 

a change in status is warranted, 

including the need to make prompt use 

of emergency listing procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the yellow-billed loon will be 

as accurate as possible. Therefore, we 

will continue to accept additional 

information and comments from all 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

finding. 

References Cited 

A list of the references used to 

develop this proposed rule is available 

upon request (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this 12-month 

finding are the staff members of the 

Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: March 12, 2009. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–6012 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2