[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12932-12968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6012]



[[Page 12931]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 
Petition To List the Yellow-Billed Loon as Threatened or Endangered; 
Proposed Rules

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

[[Page 12932]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 yellow-billed 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 
(Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia) to list the yellow-billed 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,

[[Page 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). Yellow-billed 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 brood-rearing 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 
(Sj[ouml]lander and [Aring]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[deg] to 74[deg] 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

[[Page 12934]]

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 (long-lived 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 nest-
survival rate) calculated for yellow-billed 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) x 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.

[[Page 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 Reserve-Alaska (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 fixed-wing 
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, yellow-billed 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 non-territorial 
birds (Earnst 2004, p. 7). Earnst (2004, pp. 6-7) reviewed yellow-
billed 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/km\2\ using coastal waters near the Kyttyk Peninsula and 
Ayon Island at the northern end of Chaun Bay in western Chukotka, and 
0.04 birds/km\2\ 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 [Oslash]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

[[Page 12936]]

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 [Oslash]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 
[Oslash]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 yellow-billed 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 
boat-based 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 boat-based 
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. Yellow-billed 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. Yellow-billed 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 km\2\ (503.5 mi\2\) transect 
area that sampled a total area of 30,465 km\2\ (11,763 mi\2\), for 4.3 
percent coverage) and late June each year from 1986 through 2006 (ACP 
survey, 1986-2006, average of 1,256 km\2\ (485 mi\2\) transect area 
which sampled a total area 61,645 km\2\ (23,801 mi\2\), 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

[[Page 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 x 7-km (4.35 x 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 lake-
circling surveys, on 12 x 12-km (7.46 x 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 km\2\ (5,882 mi\2\) 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.bsc-eoc.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 km\2\) (193,051-
289,577 mi\2\) minus the surveyed areas on the mainland (46,000 km\2\), 
(17,761 mi\2\) and using opportunistic observations of yellow-billed 
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/km\2\ 
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 km\2\ area around 
the Sanctuary, and a lower density of 0.007 for the wider area of 
400,000 km\2\. 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-km\2\ (60,854-mi\2\) 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

[[Page 12938]]

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 sub-adult 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 
pilot-observer 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 yellow-billed 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.

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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 K-selected 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 yellow-billed 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 three-quarters 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-million-ac) 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,

[[Page 12940]]

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, 
Timan-Pechora, 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 yellow-billed loon nesting 
habitat. Yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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

[[Page 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 brood-rearing 
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 (moderate-high 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 yellow-
billed 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 Trans-Alaska 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

[[Page 12942]]

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 
brood-rearing 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.). 
Drilling-water 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 cost-effective 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 fish-bearing 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 non-sensitive 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 site-specific 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 yellow-billed 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 water-quality 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 population-
level impacts. Although a large proportion of high-density yellow-
billed loon nesting habitat on Alaska's ACP coincides with areas of 
high potential

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed loon marine 
migrating and wintering habitats include depletion of the prey base 
through a variety of mechanisms, including pollution-induced 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 Alaska-breeding 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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.

[[Page 12944]]

    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. 
Yellow-billed 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 climate-induced 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 yellow-billed 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 (Richter-Menge 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 near-surface 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 ice-rich 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

[[Page 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 near-term (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 yellow-billed 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, yellow-billed 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

[[Page 12946]]

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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 sea-ice decline discussed above, in 2008 both the Northwest passage 
and the so-called 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 
yellow-billed loons now or in the foreseeable future.
    In summary, our evaluation of climate-change effects on arctic 
yellow-billed loon habitats included documented and predicted climate-
induced 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, low-latitude 
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 oxygen-deficient ``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.

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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 
yellow-billed 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 climate-mediated 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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.

[[Page 12948]]

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 
yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 population-level 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 yellow-billed 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

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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. Yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 site-specific 
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 yellow-billed 
loons, such as disturbance of nesting birds and broods. As discussed 
under Factor A, these include water-withdrawal standards for deep fish-
bearing 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 yellow-billed 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.

[[Page 12950]]

    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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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. Yellow-billed 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 
yellow-billed 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 
liquefied-natural-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

[[Page 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 yellow-
billed 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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

[[Page 12952]]

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 
population-level 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 yellow-billed loons. As a result, most yellow-
billed 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 yellow-
billed 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 
Yukon-Kuskokwim 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

[[Page 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 
subsistence-harvest 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Year
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2004                                            2005                           2006
            Region             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                   Estimated                                       Estimated                                      Estimated
                                    harvest         95% CI         Seasona          harvest        95% CI         Season           harvest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Strait.................  317............  271-530....  Spring..........  45............  45-123.....  Spring..........  NSb...........        362
                                                              Summer..........                               Summer..........
                                                              Fall............
Bristol Bay...................  10.............  8-30.......  Fall              5.............  2-22.......  Spring..........  0.............         15
YKD...........................  4..............  3-16.......  Spring..........  12............  (c)........  Spring..........  0.............         16
                                                                                                             Summer..........
                                                                                                             Fall............
North Slope...................  NS.............  ...........  ................  3.............  2-14.......  Summer..........  NS............          3
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  331
                                65                                              0.............  396........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI = confidence interval
\a\ Seasons that yellow-billed loons were reported as harvested.
\b\ NS = region not surveyed in that year.
\c\ For 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Year
                             -------------------------------------------
           Species                    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

[[Page 12954]]

(95 percent CI = 19-134) and 366 red-throated loons (95 percent CI = 
221-511) was also estimated for the subregion (Naves 2008, p. 7). 
Yellow-billed 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 
yellow-billed 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 
yellow-billed 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 red-throated 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed loons in Alaska is in the 
hundreds. Based on this information, the large number of yellow-billed 
loons from Alaskan, Russian, and Canadian

[[Page 12956]]

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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-
billed 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 non-response, 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,

[[Page 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 yellow-billed loon's range. Immature yellow-billed 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. mid-
Atlantic coast found that loons (red-throated 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 surface-feeding 
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 red-throated 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 
yellow-billed 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

[[Page 12958]]

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 observer-program 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. Yellow-billed loons comprised less than or equal to 0.02 
percent of reported bycatch, with an extrapolated estimate of 89 
yellow-billed loons, likely non-breeders, 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 
drift-net 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 gill-net 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 [Oslash]stnes 2007, p. 4). 
Although the extent of winter bycatch is unknown, Strann and 
[Oslash]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

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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 
subsistence-harvest regulations in 2003, the yellow-billed 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 red-throated 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 yellow-
billed 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, yellow-billed 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 population-
level 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 non-industrial 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 red-throated loons from the ACP had 
PCB

[[Page 12960]]

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 yellow-billed 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 multi-agency 
study in Alaska show that yellow-billed loon eggs do not have 
concentrations of toxic PCBs thought to affect reproduction. Because 
yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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

[[Page 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 yellow-billed 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 
temperate-latitude wintering habitat of the yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed loons.
    There are multiple hypothetical mechanisms associated with climate 
change that could potentially affect loons and their breeding and non-
breeding habitats. Unlike documented and predicted declines in sea ice, 
an

[[Page 12962]]

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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed 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 yellow-billed loons, such as understanding effects of 
disturbance on nesting loons

[[Page 12963]]

to ensure that buffers separating loons from human activity are 
adequate.
    Research and management of yellow-billed 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 higher-priority 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 court-mandated 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 court-mandated 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-but-precluded 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 litigation-related, 
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

[[Page 12964]]

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 court-approved 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 yellow-billed 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 court-
approved 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       Notice of 90-day         72 FR 57278-57283.
                                       Petition to List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Black-Footed Albatross    Substantial.
                                       (Phoebastria nigripes)
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
10/09/2007..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         72 FR 57273-57276.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Giant Palouse Earthworm   substantial.
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
10/23/2007..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         72 FR 59983-59989.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Mountain Whitefish        substantial.
                                       (Prosopium williamsoni)
                                       in the Big Lost River,
                                       ID, as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.

[[Page 12965]]

 
10/23/2007..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         72 FR 59979-59983.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Summer-Run Kokanee        substantial.
                                       Population in Issaquah
                                       Creek, WA, as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
11/08/2007..........................  Response to Court on      Response to Court......  72 FR 63123-63140.
                                       Significant Portion of
                                       the Range, and
                                       Evaluation of Distinct
                                       Population Segments,
                                       for the Queen Charlotte
                                       Goshawk.
12/13/2007..........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       72 FR 71039-71054.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Jollyville Plateau        Warranted but
                                       salamander (Eurycea       Precluded.
                                       tonkawae) as Endangered
                                       With Critical Habitat.
1/08/2008...........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 1312-1313.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Pygmy Rabbit              Substantial.
                                       (Brachylagus
                                       idahoensis) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
1/10/2008...........................  90-Day Finding on         Notice of 90-day         73 FR 1855-1861.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Amargosa River            Substantial.
                                       Population of the
                                       Mojave Fringe-Toed
                                       Lizard (Uma scoparia)
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                       Critical Habitat.
1/24/2008...........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       73 FR 4379-4418.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Siskiyou Mountains        Warranted.
                                       Salamander (Plethodon
                                       stormi) and Scott Bar
                                       Salamander (Plethodon
                                       asupak) as Threatened
                                       or Endangered.
2/05/2008...........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       73 FR 6660-6684.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Gunnison's Prairie Dog    Warranted.
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
02/07/2008..........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of Review.......  73 FR 7236-7237.
                                       Petition To List the
                                       Bonneville Cutthroat
                                       Trout (Oncorhynchus
                                       clarki utah) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
02/19/2008..........................  Listing Phyllostegia      Proposed Listing,        73 FR 9078-9085.
                                       hispida (No Common        Endangered.
                                       Name) as Endangered
                                       Throughout Its Range.
02/26/2008..........................  Initiation of Status      Notice of Status Review  73 FR 10218-10219.
                                       Review for the Greater
                                       Sage-Grouse
                                       (Centrocercus
                                       urophasianus) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
03/11/2008..........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       73 FR 12929-12941.
                                       Petition To List the      petition finding, Not
                                       North American            warranted.
                                       Wolverine as Endangered
                                       or Threatened.
03/20/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 14950-14955.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       U.S. Population of        Substantial.
                                       Coaster Brook Trout
                                       (Salvelinus fontinalis)
                                       as Endangered.
04/29/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 23170-23172.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Western Sage-Grouse       Substantial.
                                       (Centrocercus
                                       urophasianus phaios) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
04/29/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on         Notice of 90-day         73 FR 23173-23175.
                                       Petitions To List the     Petition Finding,
                                       Mono Basin Area           Substantial.
                                       Population of the
                                       Greater Sage-Grouse
                                       (Centrocercus
                                       urophasianus) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
05/06/2008..........................  Petition To List the San  Notice of 90-day         73 FR 24611-24915.
                                       Francisco Bay-Delta       Petition Finding,
                                       Population of the         Substantial.
                                       Longfin Smelt
                                       (Spirinchus
                                       thaleichthys) as
                                       Endangered.
05/06/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 24915-24922.
                                       Petition to List          Petition Finding,
                                       Kokanee (Oncorhynchus     Substantial.
                                       nerka) in Lake
                                       Sammamish, Washington,
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
05/06/2008..........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of Status Review  73 FR 24910-24911.
                                       Petition To List the
                                       White-tailed Prairie
                                       Dog (Cynomys leucurus)
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.

[[Page 12966]]

 
05/15/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 28080-28084.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Ashy Storm-Petrel         Substantial.
                                       (Oceanodroma homochroa)
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
05/15/2008..........................  Determination of          Final Listing,           73 FR 28211-28303.
                                       Threatened Status for     Threatened.
                                       the Polar Bear (Ursus
                                       maritimus) Throughout
                                       Its Range; Final Rule.
05/15/2008..........................  Special Rule for the      Interim Final Special    73 FR 28305-28318.
                                       Polar Bear; Interim       Rule.
                                       Final Rule.
05/28/2008..........................  Initiation of Status      Notice of Status Review  73 FR 30596-30598.
                                       Review for the Northern
                                       Mexican Gartersnake
                                       (Thamnophis eques
                                       megalops).
06/18/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 34686-34692.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Long-Tailed Duck          substantial.
                                       (Clangula hyemalis) as
                                       Endangered.
07/10/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 39639-39643.
                                       Petition To Reclassify    Petition Finding,
                                       the Delta Smelt           Substantial.
                                       (Hypomesus
                                       transpacificus) From
                                       Threatened to
                                       Endangered.
07/29/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 43905-43910.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Tucson Shovel-Nosed       Substantial.
                                       Snake (Chionactis
                                       occipitalis klauberi)
                                       as Threatened or
                                       Endangered with
                                       Critical Habitat.
8/13/2008...........................  Proposed Endangered       Proposed Critical        73 FR 47257-47324.
                                       Status for Reticulated    Habitat, Proposed
                                       Flatwoods Salamander;     Listing, Endangered.
                                       Proposed Designation of
                                       Critical Habitat for
                                       Frosted Flatwoods
                                       Salamander and
                                       Reticulated Flatwoods
                                       Salamander.
9/9/2008............................  12-month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       73 FR 52235-52256.
                                       Petition To List the      petition finding, Not
                                       Bonneville Cutthroat      warranted.
                                       Trout as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
10/15/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 61007-61015.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Least Chub.               Substantial.
10/21/2008..........................  Listing 48 Species on     Proposed Listing,        73 FR 62591-62742.
                                       Kauai as Endangered and   Endangered; Proposed
                                       Designating Critical      Critical Habitat.
                                       Habitat.
10/24/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 63421-63424.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding, Not
                                       Sacramento Valley Tiger   substantial.
                                       Beetle as Endangered.
10/28/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice of 90-day         73 FR 63919-63926.
                                       Petition To List the      Petition Finding,
                                       Dusky Tree Vole           Substantial.
                                       (Arborimus longicaudus
                                       silvicola) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
11/25/2008..........................  12-Month Finding on a     Notice of 12-month       73 FR 71787-71826.
                                       Petition To List the      petition finding,
                                       Northern Mexican          Warranted but
                                       Gartersnake (Thamnophis   precluded.
                                       eques megalops) as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                       Critical Habitat;
                                       Proposed Rule.
12/02/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice 90-day Petition   73 FR 73211-73219.
                                       Petition To List the      Finding, Substantial.
                                       Black-tailed Prairie
                                       Dog as Threatened or
                                       Endangered.
12/05/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice 90-day Petition   73 FR 74123-74129.
                                       Petition To List the      Finding, Substantial.
                                       Sacramento Mountains
                                       Checkerspot Butterfly
                                       (Euphydryas anicia
                                       cloudcrofti) as
                                       Endangered with
                                       Critical Habitat.
12/18/2008..........................  90-Day Finding on a       Notice 90-day Petition   73 FR 76990-76994.
                                       Petition to Change the    Finding, Substantial.
                                       Listing Status of the
                                       Canada Lynx.
1/06/2009...........................  Partial 90-Day Finding    Notice 90-day Petition   74 FR 419-427.
                                       on a Petition To List     Finding, Not
                                       475 Species in the        substantial.
                                       Southwestern United
                                       States as Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                       Critical Habitat.

[[Page 12967]]

 
2/05/2009...........................  Partial 90-Day Finding    Notice 90-day Petition   74 FR 6122-6128.
                                       on a Petition To List     Finding, Not
                                       206 Species in the        substantial.
                                       Midwest and Western
                                       United States as
                                       Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                       Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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      90-day petition finding.
 completed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      High Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Oahu candidate species (16 plants, 5  Proposed listing.
 damselflies) (18 with LPN =2, 3 with
 LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9).
3 southeast aquatic species (Georgia     Proposed listing.
 pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, rough
 hornsnail) \1\ (all with LPN = 2).
Casey's june beetle (LPN = 2)..........  Proposed listing.
Sand dune lizard (LPN = 2).............  Proposed listing.
2 southwest springsnails (Pyrgulopsis    Proposed listing.
 bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
 trivialis (LPN = 2)).
3 southwest springsnails (Pyrgulopsis    Proposed listing.
 chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
 gilae (LPN = 11), Pyrgulopsis
 thermalis (LPN = 11)).
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2),         Proposed listing.
 snuffbox No LPN).
2 mussels (sheepnose (LPN = 2),          Proposed listing.
 spectaclecase (LPN = 4),).
Ozark hellbender \2\ (LPN = 3).........  Proposed listing.
Altamaha spinymussel (LPN = 2).........  Proposed listing.
5 southeast fish (rush darter (LPN =     Proposed listing.
 2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2),
 yellowcheek darter (LPN = 2),
 Cumberland darter (LPN = 5), laurel
 dace (LPN = 5)).
3 Colorado plants (Pagosa skyrocket      Proposed listing.
 (Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2),
 Parchute beardtongue (Penstemon
 debilis) (LPN = 2), Debeque phacelia
 (Phacelia submutica) (LPN = 8)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for 3 of these species were also provided
  in FY 2007.
\2\ We 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.


[[Page 12968]]

    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