[Federal Register: June 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 118)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34686-34692]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn08-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R7-ES-2008-0004; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Long-Tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) as
Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the long-tailed duck (Clangula
hyemalis) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
species may be warranted.
[[Page 34687]]
Therefore, we will not initiate a further status review in response to
this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information
that becomes available concerning the status of the long-tailed duck or
threats to it or its habitat at any time. This information will help us
monitor and encourage the conservation of the species.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 18,
2008. You may submit new information concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting information we used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage
Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 605 West 4th Avenue, G-61, Anchorage,
AK 99501. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this species or this finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg Balogh, Endangered Species
Branch Chief, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, (see
ADDRESSES); by telephone at 907-271-2778; or by facsimile at 907-271-
2786. Persons who use a telecommunications devise for the deaf (TTD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination.
To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within
90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species.
In making this finding, we based our decision on information
provided by the petitioner and otherwise available in our files at the
time of the petition review, and we evaluated this information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making a 90-day
finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our
regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in
the petition meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
Petition
On February 10, 2000, we received an undated petition from Nancy
Hillstrand, Homer, Alaska, to list the long-tailed duck as endangered
and to designate critical habitat in southcentral and southeastern
Alaska, including Kodiak and the Aleutians, the Yukon-Delta National
Wildlife Refuge, and the National Petroleum Reserve. The petition
itemizes threats to the species based on personal observations. The
petition references, but does not provide supporting data on, multiple
threats to the long-tailed duck and other species of the Tribe Mergini.
As the petition does not specify the particular population to be listed
as endangered, the Service assumed the petitioned action was to list
the species as endangered throughout its entire range. On March 10,
2000, the Service informed the petitioner that funds available for
listing activities were fully allocated to higher-priority actions
associated with statutory requirements and active litigation, and that
we would address the petition as funding became available. We also
concluded in our March 10, 2000, letter that emergency listing of the
long-tailed duck was not indicated. Responding to the petition was
further delayed due to the high priority of responding to court orders
and settlement agreements regarding other species, until funding
recently became available to respond to the petition. This finding
fulfills the Service's obligation under 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A) and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b).
Biology and Distribution
The long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) (Order Anseriformes,
Family Anatidae) is a small to medium-sized sea duck, with a long tail,
steep forehead, flattened crown, small stout bill, and strongly
contrasting plumages of white, black, and brown. It is most similar to
the harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) and Steller's eider
(Polysticta stelleri). Adults weigh roughly 750 to 1,000 grams (1.7 to
2.2 pounds) and measure roughly 38 to 53 centimeters (15 to 21 inches)
in length. Average male body mass and size is greater than that of the
female.
The long-tailed duck is Holarctic in distribution, breeding in
tundra and taiga regions around the globe as far north as 80 degrees
north latitude. With a worldwide population of more than seven million
birds, this species may be the most abundant Arctic sea duck. The
following information regarding the description and natural history of
the long-tailed duck has been condensed from Robertson and Savard
(2002) and Wilbor (1999). Specific references are cited for data of
particular relevance to this finding.
In North America, the long-tailed duck breeds from the northern
coast of Alaska east across Canada to Ellesmere and Baffin Islands and
northern Labrador south to southern and central Alaska, northwestern
British Columbia, eastern and southcentral Ontario, and Hudson and
James Bays (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 3). This species winters on
both coasts of North America and on the Great Lakes. In western North
America, it winters throughout the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak Island
and along coastal southern Alaska, the entire British Columbia coast,
the Puget Sound, and coastal Washington State south to northern Oregon
(Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 3). It is rare along the Oregon and
California coasts and present throughout all western provinces and
States east to Colorado and Utah and south to Gulf of California,
Mexico. On the east coast of North America, it winters from southern
Labrador, Newfoundland, St. Lawrence estuary, Gulf of St. Lawrence,
Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Gulf of Maine, and along the New
England coast and Chesapeake Bay south to Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina. It is common south to the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico
and Atlantic Coast to Florida and rare as far south as Bermuda. Inland,
it winters on all five Great Lakes. Small numbers are scattered
throughout many water bodies in eastern North America. It remains in
northern areas as long as open water is available.
In the Palearctic, the breeding range of the long-tailed duck is
circumpolar, including all of coastal Greenland (except the far north),
Iceland, northern Scandinavia, the north coast of continental arctic
Russia to the Chukotska Peninsula, and most offshore islands. It
winters in southwest Greenland and throughout most of Iceland. Large
numbers winter in the
[[Page 34688]]
Baltic Sea and Finland, and in the North Sea and coastal Norway. In the
Pacific, the species winters along eastern and southern Kamchatka
Peninsula, along Commander Island, Bering Strait, and northern Anadyr
Gulf.
Long-tailed ducks breed over a vast range and at low densities,
making comprehensive surveys of their abundance difficult. They are
even more difficult to monitor in winter due to their offshore
distribution. Although incomplete survey coverage reduces reliability
of population size and trend estimates, current population estimates
suggest they are the most abundant Arctic sea duck. The North American
population may number up to two million birds (USFWS 2001, p. 45).
Approximately 200,000 birds breed in Alaska; the remainder breeds in
Canada (USFWS 2003, p. 50). Miyabayashi and Mundkur (1999, p. 118)
estimate 500,000 to 1,000,000 birds breed and winter in eastern Asia.
Nearly 150,000 birds breed in Iceland and Greenland (Wetlands
International 2002, p. 97), and an estimated 4,600,000 breed in western
Siberia and northern Europe (Scott and Rose 1996, p. 208). The size of
the pre-breeding population (birds less than 3 years old) is unknown.
Although the Icelandic breeding population experienced a marked
decline in the early 20th century, the breeding populations in Iceland
and Greenland are now thought to be stable (Wetlands International
2002, p. 97). Scott and Rose (1996, p. 208) indicated that post-
breeding numbers on the tundra of western and central Siberia and
breeding populations in northern Europe were stable between 1972 and
1989. In contrast, several surveys suggest declining long-tailed duck
populations in some parts of Alaska and Canada. The North American
Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey indicated an average annual
decline of 5.3 percent from 1973 to 1997 (USFWS 2001, p. 45), and
Conant and Groves (2005, p. 5) report a 29-year downward trend for
long-tailed ducks in Alaska and the Yukon Territory. Larned, et al.
(2005, p. 7) reported an insignificant decline in long-tailed duck
numbers on the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, and Mallek, et al.
(2006, p. 4) reported a significant downward 20-year trend for the same
area. However, existing breeding population surveys must be interpreted
with caution. Both Conant and Groves (2005, p. 9) and Larned, et al.
(2005, p. 7) suggest that survey timing relative to spring arrival
(whether early or late) may account for the lower abundances detected
in recent years. The North American Waterfowl Breeding Population
Survey does not include major breeding grounds in Canada and Alaska,
its transect lines are not located systematically throughout all
habitat strata, and it is unlikely that birds are evenly distributed in
the sampled area. Such incomplete survey coverage represents an
obstacle to providing reliable population and trend estimates for
species like the long-tailed duck that occur over vast regions at low
densities (USFWS 2001, p. 45). In contrast to suggested population
declines in northern Alaska, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Coastal Zone
Survey indicated significantly increasing populations for long-tailed
ducks since 1988 (Platte and Stehn 2005, p. 6).
Long-tailed ducks have the most complex molt of any waterfowl
species, with three different plumages (basic, supplemental, and
alternate) during the year; plumage is changing almost continuously. In
winter and spring, male plumage is mainly white with a black ear patch,
black collar around the breast, completely dark wings, and dark central
tail feathers; the male has a short dark bill with a pink subterminal
band. In early spring and early summer, males appear mostly dark, with
a pale gray facial patch. By mid-summer, males have gray flanks and
buff on their wings. The pattern of plumage change in the female is
similar to that of the male, lighter in winter and darker in summer,
but lacks the sharp contrast of dark and white, thus appearing darker
than the male in winter plumage. Females also do not possess long
central tail feathers. Juveniles resemble females but are duller, and
the white areas are less distinct than in adult plumages. There are no
recognized subspecies or geographic variations.
Long-tailed ducks nest in small clusters in subarctic and arctic
wetlands on lake islands and by ponds in open tundra and taiga, rarely
to tree line; offshore islands with freshwater ponds and tundra-like
vegetation are also used. Nests are usually in upland habitat,
concealed in vegetation, and close to fresh water with emergent
vegetation (Arctophila spp. or Carex spp.) for cover, and open deep
water for feeding. Nest site selection may be influenced by predation
pressure from foxes (Vulpes spp. and Alopex spp.), gulls (Larus spp.),
ravens (Corvus corax), and jaegers (Stercorarius spp.). Long-tailed
ducks avoid nesting on ponds where herring gulls (Larus argentatus),
Pacific loons (Gavia pacifica), and common eiders (Somateria
mollissima) nest (Robertson and Savard 2002, pp. 5, 12-13).
While male long-tailed ducks defend a territory, females are not
territorial at any stage. Although information on the mating system is
scarce, site fidelity of males and females to breeding grounds suggests
long-term monogamy. Data from Hudson Bay (Alison 1975, pp. 10, 43)
indicate that females show a strong tendency to return to their
previous nest area and suggest some level of subadult female philopatry
to natal breeding areas as well.
A diurnal feeder, the long-tailed duck dives for food and has a
highly variable diet of animal prey, focusing on locally abundant food
items. Diving to depths greater than 60 meters (196.8 feet), it is
probably the deepest diver among waterfowl (Robertson and Savard 2002,
p. 6). On breeding grounds, its diet consists mainly of larval and
adult aquatic insects, crustaceans, fish roe, and vegetable matter. On
marine wintering grounds, epibenthic crustaceans, amphipods, mysids,
isopods, bivalves, gastropods, fish, and fish eggs are important in the
diet; amphipods, fish, mollusks, and oligochaete worms make up the diet
on freshwater wintering grounds (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 7).
Nest sites, selected by the female, are generally close to water on
islands in freshwater ponds, on mainland tundra, in marshy habitat, in
scrubland (Salix spp. and Betula spp.), and in dry uplands. Alison
(1975, p. 43) documented nest reuse for three successful females.
Between six and eight smooth, pale gray to olive buff eggs are laid
between late June and late July, depending on location and weather,
particularly snow melt. Hatching occurs after 24-29 days of incubation
(by the female only), between early July and early August. Ducklings
are precocial, and leave the nest 1-2 days after hatching, feeding on
material that surfaces when the female dives. The female will lead
broods to new ponds when food resources become depleted in the occupied
pond. Hens and broods tend to use lakes without fish and may use 10-20
different ponds during the pre-fledging period. Young birds fledge 35-
40 days after hatching. Re-nesting following nest failure is not
documented in this species and is unlikely at high latitudes.
Mean annual survival rate of adult females in Alaska is estimated
to be 75 percent (+8 Standard Error (SE)) (Robertson and Savard 2002,
p. 15). In Iceland, mean annual survival of banded adults is 72 percent
(Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 15). Although little information is
available, first breeding is thought to begin at age 2 years, but first
attempts to breed are likely unsuccessful. Periodic non-breeding may
occur, although it is poorly documented. Long-tailed ducks are thought
to be long-lived; band recovery
[[Page 34689]]
data include a male at least 15 years old recovered alive and a male at
least 18 years old that had been harvested.
Very little data are available on percent of eggs that eventually
result in fledged young, fledging success of hatched young, or mean
number of young fledged per nest attempt. Nest success ranges from 41.3
percent in western Alaska to 58.9 percent in northern Manitoba
(Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 14). Duckling success in western Alaska
is reported to average 9 percent (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 14). In
North America during years with warmer arctic temperatures, more
immature birds are harvested, suggesting that temperatures influence
reproductive success. In northern Sweden, the proportion of females
that reared at least one brood to fledging was higher in years with
abundant small rodents (Lemmus spp. and Microtus spp.) (Robertson and
Savard 2002, p. 15).
The long-tailed duck is a short-to-medium-distance migrant that
stages in the thousands at traditional coastal locations before
migrating north. Northerly movements begin in late February in western
North America and late March on the east coast of North America
(Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 4; Wilbor 1999, p. 16). Northward
migration from the Great Lakes area begins in late February. Birds
travel along the northeast Alaska coast from late May to mid-June, and
move inland to nesting areas from Baffin Bay during mid-to late June.
Large flocks make use of ice leads in the Arctic until breeding areas
become available for nesting. Birds arrive on the breeding grounds from
mid-May in southerly areas to June in arctic Alaska, Baffin Island, and
Ellesmere Island (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 4).
Post-breeding males begin molting-migration mid-June in Manitoba
and late June along the north Alaska coast. Sub-adults leave Arctic
Coastal Plain breeding areas by late June. Females migrate to molting
sites several weeks after males in mid-to late August. Small molting
populations are thought to occur throughout most of the breeding range.
Major molting habitats in the Beaufort Sea occur near St. Lawrence
Island and in coastal lagoons on the west and north coasts of Alaska.
Other important molting sites, with concentrations numbering 30,000 to
40,000 individuals, are located between Prudhoe Bay and Demarcation
Bay. A large number of birds molt along the coasts of western Baffin
Bay. North American breeders may also molt in coastal eastern Russia
and northwestern Greenland (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 5).
Long-tailed ducks winter in either offshore marine habitat or
inland freshwater areas. Southerly migration begins in late fall with
arrival at the Pacific coast, Great Lakes, and Atlantic coast wintering
areas in October. Resident populations may exist in Alaska and Hudson
Bay (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 4). Migration routes are both marine
(coastal and up to 160 kilometers (km) (99.4 miles (mi)) from offshore)
(Fischer, et al. 2002, p. 76) and overland. Few long-tailed ducks have
been banded, making it difficult to determine affiliations between
breeding and wintering locations. Breeding birds banded in northern
Manitoba were found to winter primarily in the Great Lakes and to a
lesser extent on the Atlantic Coast (Chesapeake Bay). Birds banded in
Alaska have never been recovered on the Atlantic Coast (Robertson and
Savard 2002, p. 5).
Although there may be two or more geographic populations of long-
tailed ducks in North America that are separated by the breeding and
wintering distribution, the delineation of these populations is not
documented (USFWS 2001, p. 45). Traditional band recovery data are
insufficient to determine the relationship between breeding, molting,
migrating, and wintering groups of long-tailed ducks across their
distribution.
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 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: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In
making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the long-tailed
duck presented in the petition and other information available in our
files at the time of the petition review reasonably indicate that
listing the long-tailed duck may be warranted. Our evaluation of these
threats is presented below. In the discussion below, we have evaluated
the threats listed in the petition under the most appropriate listing
factor.
Certain aspects of long-tailed duck ecology and demography should
be considered when evaluating the species' status and threats. When
compared with dabbling (Anatini) and diving (Aythyini) ducks, long-
tailed ducks are considered K-selected species. Healthy populations of
K-selected species are characterized by delayed sexual maturity, low
annual recruitment, relatively low and variable breeding propensity,
and high adult survival. Low annual productivity rates and high annual
survival rates balance to ensure that individuals replace themselves
with offspring that survive to recruit into the breeding population.
Although factors that compromise productivity can cause populations to
decline, population growth rates are most sensitive to changes in adult
survival (Goudie, et al. 1994, p. 30). K-selected species will decline
in abundance most rapidly if adults are removed from the population
prior to replacing themselves (i.e., if adult survival is decreased).
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The petitioner listed, but did not discuss in detail or provide
supporting biological data, the following reasons for the petition that
may be addressed under Factor A: increasing oil exploration and
development and associated oil spills, removal of biomass from the
marine environment by fishing in the North Pacific, and ``mussel
beds.'' Only the indirect, habitat-related effects to long-tailed ducks
of oil spills and operational waste discharges are discussed under
Factor A; direct effects to long-tailed ducks from exposure to oil and
operational wastes will be discussed in Factor E. Lacking more specific
information, we interpreted the term ``mussel beds'' to refer to
potential competition with nearshore marine aquaculture facilities. The
petitioner provided no supporting information to support these claims;
therefore, we relied on information in Service files to clarify these
potential threats.
No direct measures of habitat degradation are available (Robertson
and Savard 2002, p. 18), nor is habitat loss (nesting, molting, or
wintering) implicated as a factor influencing the Bering/Pacific or
North American long-tailed duck population decline (Wilbor 1999, p.
49).
Several sources cite oil pollution as a threat to marine birds in
general and long-tailed ducks in particular [in Alaska (Wilbor 1999, p.
51; USFWS 2003, p. 51); in the North Sea (International Council for the
[[Page 34690]]
Exploration of the Sea 2004, p. 24); in the Baltic Sea (Laine and
Backer 2002, p. 2); in Britain and Ireland (Kirby, et al. 1993, p.
123); and globally (Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 17)]. However, most
are concerned with the acute mortality phase of exposure to oil (to be
discussed under Factor E), and none reported any evidence of long-term
effects on long-tailed duck populations due to habitat degradation.
Franson, et al. (2004, p. 504) analyzed blood from long-tailed
ducks collected at near-shore islands in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay
and at a reference site for trace elements to compare contaminant
levels in sea ducks using the marine environment near the Prudhoe Bay
oil fields. In marine ecosystems, persistent contaminants, including
trace elements and organochlorines, reach their greatest concentrations
in coastal regions, and, except for selenium, concentrations of metals
in blood were low and were not consistently higher at one location
(Franson, et al. 2004, pp. 504-505).
Flint, et al. (2003, p. 38) utilized nearshore and offshore aerial
surveys, as well as ground-based studies, in both industrialized and
control areas to evaluate how long-tailed ducks may be affected by
industrialization. Their data demonstrated that, even when flightless,
long-tailed ducks moved considerable distances. There was little
evidence of displacement of individuals associated with disturbance;
rather, patterns of movements were thought to be primarily influenced
by weather conditions, particularly wind direction. Further, declines
in duck numbers in the seismic area could not be attributed to
underwater seismic activities, as similar changes in aerial survey
counts and lagoon movements were observed in both the industrial and
control areas (Flint, et al. 2003, p. 55).
The potential for competition with mussel aquaculture in the
nearshore environment is limited to areas where overwintering long-
tailed ducks and marine aquaculture overlap, and is anticipated to be
low due to the broad diversity of the winter diet of the species
(Robertson and Savard 2002, p. 7). Additionally, aquaculture sites may
present an attractive foraging site for long-tailed ducks.
The removal of biomass from the marine environment through
overfishing of herring and other species may reduce the availability of
spawn for migrating long-tailed ducks (Robertson and Savard 2002, p.
18); however, no correlation between these indirect impacts and long-
tailed duck population trends has been documented.
Increasing oil exploration and development and associated oil
spills, removal of biomass from the marine environment by fishing in
the North Pacific, and ``mussel beds,'' as identified by the
petitioner, are all potential habitat-related threats to the long-
tailed duck. However, no evidence of long-term effects on long-tailed
duck populations due to habitat degradation or loss has been
documented. We find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the long-
tailed duck as endangered may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioner asserts that subsistence harvest is increasing, and
collection by museums continues despite population declines. The
petitioner provided no information to support these statements;
therefore, we relied on information in Service files to clarify these
potential threats.
The majority of long-tailed ducks harvested during the migratory
game bird season are taken on the Atlantic Coast. Alaska accounts for
approximately 2 percent of the total harvest of approximately 14,500
birds (Trost and Drut 2002, p. 28), which is less than 1 percent of the
world population. Wilbor (1999, p. 51) estimated the total long-tailed
duck subsistence harvest in the Alaska/Pacific flyway to be 11,000
birds annually (plus 1,000 during the migratory game bird season);
however, Service data (Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council
2007) and Trost and Drut (2002, p. 28) reported much lower harvest
levels: fewer than 5,000 (subsistence) and fewer than 500 (sport).
Based on an annual take of 12,000 birds, Wilbor (1999, p. 51) estimated
that about 2 percent of the total Bering/Pacific long-tailed duck
population is harvested annually and concluded that the impact on the
population dynamics of this segment of the population was low. Although
the long-tailed duck is believed to be an important species in the
eastern Russian commercial sea duck harvest (Goudie, et al. 1994, p.
36), no information is available on the Russian and Japanese harvests.
A review of migratory game bird harvest data reported by Trost and Drut
(2002, p. 28) indicates that harvest of long-tailed ducks in Alaska has
remained relatively stable between 1966 and 2001, as has subsistence
harvest of the species in Alaska (Wentworth and Wong 2001, p. 96).
Finally, Robertson and Savard (2002, p. 18) report scientific research
activities have no obvious impacts.
Accordingly, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the long-
tailed duck as endangered may be warranted due to overutilization of
long-tailed ducks for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
The petition does not provide information or state that disease or
predation is a threat to the species. In addition, there is no
information in our files to indicate that disease or predation is a
threat to the long-tailed duck.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioner lists lack of protection under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, increased hunting pressure on long-tailed ducks due to bag
limit reductions on dabbler and goose species, unchanged bag limits
despite population declines, and legalization of the spring subsistence
hunt as threats to the species. The petitioner provided no additional
evidence to support these claims; therefore, we relied on information
in Service files to clarify these potential threats.
The long-tailed duck is not currently listed under the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), nor is it included on the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Threatened Animals of the
World) (Wilbor 1999, p. 3). No specific State or provincial designation
has been given to the long-tailed duck in the United States, Northwest
Territories, Yukon Territory, Canada, or Russia (Wilbor 1999, p. 4).
The long-tailed duck is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act of 1918 (MBTA) in the United States, and is covered by treaties
with Canada, Russia, and Japan. Unless permitted by regulations, the
MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or
kill, possess, sell or purchase, or transport or export any migratory
bird, part, nest, egg or product. The MBTA grants the Secretary of the
Interior the authority to establish hunting seasons for any of the
migratory game bird species, including the long-tailed duck, listed in
the MBTA. The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that hunting is
appropriate
[[Page 34691]]
only for those species for which hunting is consistent with population
status and long-term conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service
annually publishes migratory game bird regulations in the Federal
Register. State and provincial game laws formulated in conjunction with
the Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service establish
bag limits and seasons. In Canada and Russia, long-tailed duck sport
hunting is managed under hunting regulations set forth by the Canadian
Wildlife Service and the Russian Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources, respectively.
Monitoring requirements of the MBTA, the fall/winter migratory game
bird hunting regulations, and the spring/summer subsistence harvest
regulations provide mechanisms to limit the harvest of long-tailed
ducks if necessary for population regulation. We have no documented
information that these mechanisms will not adequately protect long-
tailed duck populations.
Accordingly, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the long-
tailed duck as endangered may be warranted due to the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Threats listed by the petitioner that may be addressed under Factor
E include increased oil spills due to offshore drilling and ``the
climatic decadal oscillation.'' The discussion of oil-related effects
under this factor will be limited to the acute, direct effects to long-
tailed ducks from exposure to oil. Indirect effects of habitat
degradation resulting from offshore oil development and oil spills are
discussed above under Factor A. Furthermore, as the petitioner provided
no additional information to support these claims, we relied on
information in Service files to clarify these potential threats.
Stehn and Platte (2000, p. 1) constructed a spatial model by
overlaying bird density estimates with predicted spill trajectories.
Spills of various sizes were used to estimate the potential effects of
an offshore spill from the proposed Liberty Project in the nearshore
Beaufort Sea. Their model predicted that the average number of birds
that would be exposed to oil in the event of a spill at the site was
greatest for long-tailed ducks (as high as 2,062) and that the average
proportion of the total long-tailed duck population in the study area
that would be exposed to oil in the event of a spill at the site was
between 3 percent and 9 percent, and may approach 19 percent.
The petitioner did not define the term ``Pacific Decadal
Oscillation'' or identify specific concerns regarding the relationship
between this mode of interdecadal climatic variation and long-tailed
duck populations. Hare and Mantua (2000, p. 105) describe the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO) as a long-lived El Ni[ntilde]o (ENSO)-like
pattern of Pacific climate variability that explains variations in the
Pacific Basin and North American regions. The PDO is characterized by
fluctuations between warm- and cold-water regimes.
No data exist evaluating the relationship between long-tailed duck
productivity, survival, or population trends and large-scale climate
patterns. Species like the long-tailed duck have the ability to exploit
a wider range of habitats and food sources, are less sensitive to early
stages of ice formation, and respond to persistent ice cover in the
nearshore zone by concentrating in offshore areas (Zydelis 2001, p.
307). Zydelis and Ruskyte (2005, p. 139) found body condition and fat
reserves in winter to be equivalent between long-tailed ducks feeding
primarily on mollusks and those feeding on mobile, energy-rich food
items such as crustaceans.
The possible effects of exposure to oil on long-tailed ducks are
thought to be localized, and have not been implicated in global
population declines. Additionally, no localized long-tailed duck
declines have been documented. While climate patterns and oceanographic
conditions are important factors influencing long-tailed duck habitat,
food resources, and distribution, the relative ecological plasticity of
the species in selecting winter habitat and food suggests it is less
sensitive to inter-annual and inter-decadal climatic variability
(Zydelis and Ruskyte 2005, p. 139) than other sea ducks. In spite of
potential localized impacts resulting from oil spills, the long-tailed
duck remains the most abundant arctic sea duck and continues to occupy
historical breeding and wintering ranges. For these reasons, we believe
the impact of these potential threats on the population dynamics of
this species is negligible. Therefore, we find that the petition does
not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing the long-tailed duck as endangered may be warranted as a
result of increased oil spills due to offshore drilling and ``the
climatic decadal oscillation'' or any other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' continued existence.
Significant Portion of the Range
The petition does not specify a population of concern, it does not
articulate that the long-tailed duck should be listed in any particular
portion of its range, and it does not specify any particular portion of
the species' range that it maintains is significant. Therefore, we
based our threats analysis on the entire range of the species. Nearly
all of the threats identified in the petition appear to be potential
threats which could occur, rather than actual threats, with no
documented correlation between these potential threats and impacts on
long-tailed duck populations. Our threats analysis does not find
substantial information to indicate that any of the five factors poses
a threat to the long-tailed duck. If we were to determine in the future
that the long-tailed duck is threatened or endangered in a significant
portion of its range, we would add the species to the candidate list
and propose its listing.
Finding
We have reviewed and evaluated the five listing factors with regard
to the long-tailed duck, based on the information in the petition and
available in our files. On the basis of this review and evaluation, we
conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that listing the long-tailed duck as
endangered under the Act may be warranted.
While the petitioner did not provide detailed information on the
abundance or geographic distribution of the long-tailed duck,
information in Service files indicates that the long-tailed duck is
currently numerous and widespread. Its breeding range has not
contracted. The information provided in the petition on the potential
impacts to the species caused by offshore oil exploration and
development, removal of biomass due to fishing, and potential
competition with nearshore marine aquaculture is inadequate to
determine that these activities are destroying or modifying habitat in
a manner and at a level that affects the species to such an extent that
a reasonable person could conclude that listing may be warranted.
Likewise, evidence in our files concerning hunting (both sport and
subsistence), collecting by scientific institutions, and oil spill
losses does not provide substantial information to support a conclusion
that listing the species may be warranted. No data exist evaluating the
relationship between long-tailed duck productivity, survival, or
population trends and large-scale climate patterns such as Pacific
[[Page 34692]]
Decadal Oscillation. We also found the evidence in our files inadequate
to corroborate the petitioner's assertion that the MBTA may not be an
effective regulatory mechanism, because under the MBTA, the harvest of
long-tailed ducks is regulated and monitored.
After reviewing and evaluating the petition and information
available in our files, we find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
listing the long-tailed duck as endangered may be warranted at this
time. Although we will not commence a status review in response to this
petition, we will continue to monitor the long-tailed duck population
status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions
that might be important with regard to the conservation of the long-
tailed duck. If you wish to provide information regarding the long-
tailed duck, you may submit your information and materials to the
Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available, upon request, from the Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this document is staff of the Anchorage Fish
and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: June 12, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-13840 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P