[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24560]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 5, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC01
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Arctic
Peregrine Falcon From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines that
arctic peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius) are no longer a
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended. This determination is based upon evidence that arctic
peregrine falcon populations have recovered due to a reduction in
organochlorine pesticides in the environment. Section 4(g) of the Act
requires the Service to monitor recovered species for at least 5 years
following delisting. This rule includes the Service's post-delisting
monitoring plan for arctic peregrine falcons. Removal of the arctic
peregrine falcon as a threatened species under the Act will not affect
the protection provided under the similarity of appearance provision of
the Act listing all Falco peregrinus found in the wild in the
conterminous 48 States as endangered; nor will it affect the protection
provided to this species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at Northern Alaska
Ecological Services, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1412 Airport Way, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Swem at the above address (907)
456-0441 or Skip Ambrose at the above address (907) 456-0239.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized brown or blue-gray raptor
that preys predominantly upon birds. Three subspecies occur in North
America--arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius); American
peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum); and Peale's peregrine falcon (F. p.
pealei). Only arctic peregrine falcons are included in this rule;
American and Peale's peregrine falcons are not affected. Arctic
peregrine falcons nest in the tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and
Greenland. They are highly migratory with most individuals wintering in
Latin America, although some may winter as far north as northern Mexico
and southern Florida.
Arctic peregrine falcon numbers declined in the period following
World War II as a result of contamination with organochlorine
pesticides. Organochlorine pesticides, used widely in the United States
and other nations in North, Central, and South America for control of
agricultural and forest pests and mosquitos, are stable, long-lived
compounds that persist in the environment. Organochlorines are
deposited in the fatty tissues of animals eating contaminated food, and
bioaccumulate in high concentrations in animals near the top of the
food chain, such as peregrine falcons. Peregrine falcons contaminated
with organochlorines can die if acutely poisoned, but a serious effect
of organochlorines upon peregrine falcons in North America resulted
from sublethal doses of the pesticide DDT. The principal metabolite of
DDT is DDE. DDE prevents normal calcium deposition during eggshell
formation, causing females to lay thin-shelled eggs that often break
before hatching. Although organochlorines were not used in areas where
arctic peregrine falcons breed, arctic peregrine falcons were
nevertheless exposed to organochlorines because they and some of their
prey species migrated through or wintered in areas of organochlorine
use. Arctic peregrine falcon populations may have declined by as much
as 75 percent as a result of organochlorine- caused mortality and
reproductive impairment.
As a result of population declines, arctic peregrine falcons were
protected in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969. They were later afforded the greater protection of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 upon its passage. The Act and its implementing
regulations prohibit the take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these), ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. The Act also requires review of all activities
funded, permitted, or conducted by Federal agencies to consider impacts
to endangered or threatened species. As a result of the prohibitions
and requirements of the Act, harvest of peregrines for the sport of
falconry was prohibited and peregrine falcon nest sites were provided
protection. The pivotal action in aiding the recovery of peregrine
falcons, however, was regulation of the use of organochlorine
pesticides. The use of DDT was restricted in Canada in 1970 and in the
United States in 1973. Restrictions that controlled the use of other
organochlorine pesticides, including aldrin and dieldrin, were imposed
in the United States in 1974.
Following restrictions on the use of organochlorine pesticides,
reproductive rates in arctic peregrine falcon populations increased and
populations began to expand by the mid- to late-1970's. By 1984, the
recovery of arctic peregrine falcons had progressed sufficiently that
the Service reclassified the subspecies from endangered to threatened
(49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984). The number of arctic peregrine falcons
continued to increase. In 1991, the Service announced that it was
reviewing the status of the threatened arctic peregrine falcon to
determine if a proposal to delist was appropriate (56 FR 26969, June
12, 1991). On the basis of all available information and the comments
received in response to the notice of status review, the Service
proposed to delist the subspecies on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51035).
A summary of the information demonstrating the recovery of arctic
peregrine falcons follows.
Arctic peregrine falcons nest in the tundra regions of Alaska,
Canada, and the ice-free perimeter of Greenland. The exact degree of
population decline and subsequent recovery has been poorly documented
because most breeding areas are extremely remote and because there were
few population studies prior to the pesticide era, but it appears
likely that the species' population has expanded 3-fold or more since
the late 1970's. Counts of the number of pairs found breeding in one
area in Alaska and three areas in the Northwest Territories, Canada
(NWT), follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colville
Year River, Hope Bay Coppermine Rankin Inlet
Alaska\2\ NWT\3\ NWT\3\ NWT\4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1959\1\......................................... 35 .............. .............. ..............
1968\1\......................................... 32 .............. .............. ..............
1971\1\......................................... 25 .............. .............. ..............
1978............................................ 15 .............. .............. ..............
1979............................................ 16 .............. .............. ..............
1980............................................ 21 .............. .............. ..............
1981............................................ 24 .............. .............. 17
1982............................................ 27 .............. 17 19
1983............................................ 26 25 17 19
1984............................................ 32 27 28 20
1985............................................ 30 29 17 26
1986............................................ 34 18 24 25
1987............................................ 37 39 29 23
1988............................................ 47 35 25 23
1989............................................ 53 58 37 22
1990............................................ 51 61 34 26
1991............................................ 56 52 51 26
1992............................................ 57 45 42 24
1993............................................ 58 60 44 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From Cade et al. 1968; White and Cade 1975.
\2\1978-1993--unpublished Service data on file, Fairbanks, Alaska.
\3\Data from Shank et al. 1993; Chris Shank, Dept. of Renewable Resources, Govt. of NWT, pers. comm., 1993.
\4\Data from Court et al. 1988; C. Shank, pers. comm., 1993.
Population size has increased in these four areas, although the
rate of increase has varied among areas. Long-term, historical data are
not available from other areas within the breeding distribution of
arctic peregrine falcons; however, similar trends have been observed in
several other areas for which short-term data are available. The range-
wide population size remains unknown because so few areas have been
thoroughly sampled, but certainly the breeding population now numbers
in the thousands.
Only one local population was known to have been extirpated; this
was a small population of about 15 nesting pairs on the north slope of
the Yukon Territory (Mossop 1988). This area is apparently being
gradually recolonized by individuals from adjacent populations (Dave
Mossop, Dept. of Renewable Resources, Yukon Territory, pers. comm.,
1992).
Counts of the number of peregrine falcons seen passing fixed points
during migration also provide evidence of the rapid increase in the
number of arctic peregrine falcons since the late 1970's. Although some
of the peregrine falcons seen during migration are American peregrine
falcons, the majority seen on the east coast and near the Great Lakes
are arctic peregrine falcons (Yates et al. 1988; William S. Clark, Cape
May Bird Observatory, pers. comm., 1992; Mueller et al. 1988). The
number of migrants seen during fall migration at two well-known
concentration areas on the east coast, Assateague Island, Maryland, and
Cape May, New Jersey, reflect the overall growth of the arctic
peregrine falcon population. In the years 1970-1975, the average number
seen per year at Assateague Island was about 100; by 1976-1979 the
average number had increased to 310; and between 1990 and 1993 an
average of 564 were counted (Seegar and Yates 1991; Seegar et al. 1993;
William Seegar, U.S. Army, pers. comm., 1994). At Cape May, the average
number seen in 1976-1979 was 136; by 1990-1993, the average number seen
per year was 588 (Schultz et al. 1992; Paul Kerlinger, Cape May Bird
Observatory, pers. comm., 1994). Counts conducted at Cedar Grove,
Wisconsin, show a similar trend--the number seen decreased in the
1950's and 1960's, reached a low in the mid-1970's, increased rapidly
in the 1980's, and may now equal the numbers seen in the 1930's
(Mueller et al. 1988).
Review of Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan
Four regional recovery plans were produced by the Service for
peregrine falcons. The Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska
Population (Alaska Recovery Plan), was the only plan that established
recovery criteria for arctic peregrine falcons. The Alaska Recovery
Plan, while including both arctic and American peregrine falcons
nesting in Alaska, did not pertain to populations outside of Alaska;
recovery objectives and criteria for arctic peregrine falcon
populations in Canada and Greenland were never established. This rule
applies only to arctic peregrine falcons so only those sections of the
Alaska Recovery Plan that pertain to arctic peregrine falcons are
mentioned in this discussion.
The Alaska Recovery Plan was written in 1982 using the best
information then available. It included a strategy for population
monitoring, recovery objectives, and criteria for reclassification. The
monitoring scheme proposed that breeding surveys be conducted regularly
in the two areas in Alaska (Colville and Sagavanirktok Rivers) for
which historical population data were available. The Alaska Recovery
Plan listed four parameters to be measured in the study areas to assess
recovery status of those populations, and established an objective for
each of the parameters. The four parameters and objectives were:
(1) Number of nesting territories occupied by pairs with an
objective of 36 total pairs within the 2 specified study areas;
(2) Average number of young per nesting attempt with an
objective of 1.4 young per nesting attempt;
(3) Average organochlorine concentration in eggs with an
objective of less than 5 ppm DDE; and
(4) Average degree of eggshell thinning with an objective of
shells averaging not more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era
eggs.
The Alaska Recovery Plan based reclassification criteria upon these
objectives. It was suggested that these objectives should be met for 5
years before downlisting to threatened status, and the parameters
should remain constant or improve during the ensuing 5 years before
delisting.
Recovery plans and objectives are expected to guide and measure
recovery, but are intended to be flexible enough to adjust to new
information. Research conducted since the Alaska Recovery Plan was
written in 1982 has shown that some of the recovery objectives were
based upon incorrect assumptions. A discussion of the basis of each
objective, the current status of arctic peregrines as measured against
the objectives, and a review of recent information pertaining to the
objectives follows:
(1) The objective of 36 pairs occupying territories in the two
study areas was based on historical data and assumed that there were
51 available territories and 70 percent of these would be occupied
in a fully recovered population (70 percent x 51 = 36). The plan
suggested that 36 or more pairs should occupy territories for 10 or
more years before delisting. Thirty-six pairs occupied the areas for
the first time in 1984, and the number has increased each year since
then. Seventy-seven pairs were present in the study areas in 1993,
the tenth consecutive year in which this objective was met. The
number of pairs now occupying breeding territories (77) greatly
exceeds the original estimate of the number of available territories
(51).
(2) The objective of 1.4 young per pair was based upon early
studies of arctic peregrine falcons. Productivity exceeded 1.4 young
per pair for the first time since the pesticide-era in 1982, and
averaged about 1.6 young per pair for the 12-year period of 1982-
1993.
(3) The objective of DDE residues in eggs averaging less than 5
ppm for 10 or more years was based upon the assumption that arctic
peregrine falcons would not reproduce normally as long as residues
exceeded this measure (this assumption was based upon the
observation that peregrine falcons in the Aleutian Islands
reproduced normally in the early 1970's when residues in eggs
averaged 5 ppm). Average DDE residues declined below 5 ppm in arctic
peregrine falcons in Alaska between 1984 and 1988, but it is unclear
exactly when this threshold was crossed. It is therefore uncertain
if the objective has been met for at least 10 years.
However, it is now apparent that this objective was
inappropriate; normal reproduction was occurring for several years
before the average concentration declined to 5 ppm and may have
occurred while residues exceeded 10 ppm. The exact relationship
between DDE residues in eggs and reproductive success remains
unknown. The Service now believes that it is most appropriate to
gauge ``acceptable'' contaminant exposure by reproductive success.
Because reproductive success has been sufficient to allow population
growth since the late 1970's and the objective for the production of
young (1.4 young per pair) has been met or exceeded for 12 years,
the Service considers the desired objective for exposure to
organochlorines to have been met.
(4) The criterion requiring eggshells to average less than 10
percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells was based upon the
observation that Peale's peregrine falcons in the Aleutian Islands
reproduced normally with shells 8 percent thinner than normal in the
early 1970's. This assumed that peregrine falcons could not
reproduce normally if shells were more than 10 percent thinner than
normal. Subsequent field work has shown this to be incorrect.
Although the degree of thinning has gradually decreased over time,
shells collected in arctic Alaska still average approximately 12.5
percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells. Reproduction, however, has
been sufficient to fuel population growth since the late 1970's, and
productivity has met or exceeded the stated objective for 12 years.
The Service considers, therefore, that the basic goal that eggshell
thinning not significantly affect reproduction, population growth,
or recovery for at least 10 years, has been met.
In summary, the Alaska Recovery Plan identified four parameters to
be measured in two study areas in arctic Alaska to monitor population
health and recovery. Objectives were established for measuring recovery
and indicating when downlisting and delisting were appropriate. The
plan suggested that the four objectives were to be met or exceeded for
5 years prior to downlisting to threatened status and an additional 5
years prior to delisting. Two of the four objectives have been met for
the 10-year interval suggested as a prerequisite for delisting.
However, knowledge gained subsequent to the writing of the recovery
plan indicates that the two objectives that have not been met were
based upon incorrect assumptions. The Service concludes, based upon
current information, that the basic goals underlying all four
objectives have been reached--the number of pairs occupying territories
in two study areas surpassed the objective for the tenth consecutive
year in 1993; productivity surpassed the objective for the twelfth year
in 1993; DDE residues in eggs have not prevented population growth and
recovery since the late 1970's; and eggshell thinning has not inhibited
population growth and recovery since the late 1970's.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the September 30, 1993, proposed rule, the Service requested
that all interested parties provide information and comments on the
status of arctic peregrine falcons, on the proposed delisting of the
subspecies, and on the draft monitoring plan included in the delisting
proposal. The appropriate foreign, state and provincial governments,
Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested
parties were contacted and encouraged to comment. During the 90 day
comment period, 39 responses were received by the Service. Responses
were received from one Federal agency, 9 foreign governments, 16 State
governments, and 13 organizations or private individuals. No requests
for public hearings were received. Comments concerning the status of
arctic peregrine falcons and the proposed delisting are presented
below; comments that addressed the proposed monitoring plan are
presented in the Monitoring Plan section of this rule.
Of the 39 responses, 24 (61 percent) expressed support for
delisting, 5 (13 percent) opposed delisting, and 10 (26 percent) stated
no position. Of those expressing support for delisting, 11 (the
government of Trinidad and Tobago, 8 State governments, and 2
organizations) specifically addressed the need for the Service to
implement the proposed, post-delisting monitoring plan. Two of those
(the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the State of Pennsylvania)
stated that their support for delisting was contingent upon
implementation of the monitoring plan. One nation (France, which
governs the colony of French Guiana in South America), three
individuals and one conservation organization opposed delisting. No
position on delisting was given by the governments of Canada or
Greenland, which are the only nations other than the United States in
which arctic peregrine falcons nest.
Responses to the Service's proposal to delist arctic peregrine
falcons contained several concerns. In some cases, similar or identical
concerns were raised by more than one individual or party submitting
comments. Similar comments have been grouped; the different comments
and the Service's response to each are listed below.
Comment 1: Arctic peregrine falcons are still at risk from natural
and human-caused factors. Additionally, pesticides, in low-level
concentrations, may interact synergistically with other human-caused or
natural stresses to negatively affect arctic peregrine falcons.
Service response: The Service recognizes that little is known of
the effects of low-level pesticide contamination upon arctic peregrine
falcons and the synergistic interactions of pesticides with other
decimating factors. However, the Service must base its decision to list
or delist species upon the factors discussed in the ``Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this rule. A species is
protected if one or more of the five factors affects its continued
existence. Since the late 1970's, arctic peregrine falcon populations
have steadily increased in size, indicating that the cumulative and
synergistic effects of pesticides and other decimating factors have
been insufficient during this interval to threaten arctic peregrine
falcons at the population level. The monitoring plan included in this
rule is designed to detect any possible changes in the status of the
subspecies following delisting, regardless of what factor or
combination of factors prompts the change in status.
Comment 2: The use of pesticides may increase in Latin America as
agricultural development proceeds.
Service response: The Service is concerned that arctic peregrine
falcons and their migratory prey are exposed to pesticides during
migration and the winter. Decreasing residues in blood and eggs show
that contamination with pesticides is declining, however, despite
continued agricultural development in Latin America. As part of the
post-delisting monitoring effort, the Service will continue to monitor
pesticide residues in arctic peregrine falcon blood and eggs so an
increase in contamination can be documented.
Comment 3: The potential for over-utilization of arctic peregrine
falcons for falconry following delisting has been underestimated by the
Service.
Service response: Take of arctic peregrine falcons will remain
prohibited under the Act in the conterminous 48 States by the listing
of all Falco peregrinus wherever found in the wild due to similarity of
appearance. In Alaska take will be governed by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). Section 2 of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act requires that in adopting regulations for the take of
migratory birds, the Secretary of the Interior is to ensure that take
is compatible with the protection of the species. Therefore, take of
arctic peregrines, as with other migratory birds, will be regulated so
as to provide for adequate conservation of the subspecies.
Comment 4: The anatum Peregrine Recovery Team, Canadian Wildlife
Service, expressed concern about harvest for falconry following
delisting. This Team asked that the Service ensure that capture of
migrant falcons will not remove birds from breeding populations not yet
completely recovered. They suggested that this could be accomplished by
allowing take only on the breeding grounds.
Service response: Take of arctic peregrine falcons migrating
through the 48 conterminous States will be prohibited under the Act due
to the listing of all Falco peregrinus due to similarity of appearance.
Moreover, the management of migratory birds, including arctic peregrine
falcons, is governed in the United States by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for the cooperative
protection of migratory bird resources that are shared by the Treaty
signatory nations, including Canada. As the Service develops
regulations allowing the harvest of arctic peregrine falcons, the
concerns of other nations with which the United States shares this
resource will be addressed. In particular, the Service will work with
the appropriate Canadian officials to provide for the protection of
breeding populations that have not recovered to the satisfaction of
Canadian resource managers and recovery teams.
Comment 5: The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission pointed
out that the Service was incorrect in stating that arctic peregrine
falcons winter exclusively in Latin America. An estimated 200-300
arctic peregrine falcons over-winter in Florida each year.
Service response: The Service acknowledges that some of the
peregrine falcons over-wintering in Florida are undoubtedly of the
arctic subspecies. The Service has updated its information on the
subspecies to reflect this correction.
Comment 6: The final rule delisting arctic peregrine falcons should
be modified to include those American peregrine falcons that nest north
of 55 degrees N latitude. This is appropriate because the northern
American peregrine falcons have recovered similarly to arctic peregrine
falcons. Limiting the delisting rule to arctic peregrine falcons is
confusing, inconsistent, and ignores a large portion of a stable,
recovered, and definable population of American peregrine falcons.
Service response: The Service listed arctic and American peregrine
falcons as endangered under the Endangered Species Protection Act in
1970. They were listed separately, by subspecies, in order to
differentiate these subspecies from Peale's peregrine falcons, which
did not warrant or receive protection. Arctic and American peregrine
falcon populations were affected by pesticides differently--arctic
peregrine falcons did not decline to the same extent as American
peregrine falcons and they recovered more quickly after the use of
organochlorine pesticides was restricted. Additionally, although the
recovery of arctic peregrine falcons appears to have progressed to a
comparable degree throughout the range of the subspecies, American
peregrine falcons have recovered to dissimilar degrees and at various
rates in different portions of their range. As a result, the Service is
handling the reclassification of American peregrine falcons separately.
Comment 7: It is difficult to identify subspecies of peregrine
falcons in the wild. The conservation of listed subspecies, which may
be confused with arctic peregrine falcons, will be compromised if
arctic peregrine falcons are delisted.
Service response: The Service considers all Falco peregrinus in the
conterminous 48 States to be endangered under the similarity of
appearance provision of the Act and this consideration will not be
affected by delisting arctic peregrine falcons (see Effects of This
Rule section below). This is to ensure that protection given to
American peregrine falcons, currently considered to be endangered, is
not weakened by confusion with members of other subspecies. Although
this protection pertains only to peregrine falcons in the United
States, the Service hopes that other nations, where the subspecies
ranges overlap, will similarly regard all peregrine falcons as
endangered in order to assist the full recovery of American peregrine
falcons.
Comment 8: Delisting will affect international laws and
legislation.
Service response: This final rule applies only to United States
domestic law. All peregrine falcons are listed under Appendix I to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Delisting arctic peregrine falcons under the Act
will not directly affect classification of the species or subspecies
under CITES. Separate procedures to delist the subspecies under CITES
can be pursued. Such amendments of the CITES appendices are done
cooperatively by the numerous parties to the Convention in accordance
with provisions outlined in the Convention's Articles XV and XVI. There
are no other international laws or legislation that will be affected by
this delisting.
Comment 9: The opinions of Canada and Greenland, countries
principally involved, have not been solicited, considered, or provided.
Service response: The Service announced on June 12, 1991, that it
was reviewing the status of arctic peregrine falcons and considering
whether proposing to delist the subspecies was warranted. The Service
notified the federal governments of Canada and Greenland of the status
review and asked that they provide pertinent information and comments
on whether delisting was appropriate. Neither nation stated a position
on delisting but numerous biologists and resource managers within
Canada provided the Service with information on the status of the
subspecies in Canada. On September 30, 1993, the Service proposed to
delist the subspecies and again the governments of Canada and Greenland
were asked to provide information and to comment on delisting. The
response of the anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, Canadian
Wildlife Service, stated that ``the proposal to remove the arctic
peregrine falcon from the U.S. list of endangered and threatened
wildlife seems well justified by the population increases and sustained
productivity that is documented in the September 30, 1993 Federal
Register.'' One specific concern was raised (see Comment 4 above)
concerning the harvest of arctic peregrine falcons for falconry; this
concern will be addressed by the Service when harvest regulations are
formulated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No comments were
received from the government of Greenland.
Comment 10: The data presented in the proposal indicate that
populations in some areas have declined for the last two years. The
Service attempted to discount this trend as being the result of
``exceptional years.''
Service response: Surveys of nesting peregrine falcons at Hope Bay
and Coppermine, NWT, are conducted by helicopter at about the time that
falcons in these areas are hatching (Shank et al. 1993). Failed or non-
nesting pairs may be absent at nesting cliffs during single, brief
visits to cliffs, so may go undetected in this type of survey (C.
Shank, pers. comm., 1992). As a result, annual variation in the number
of pairs counted can be greatly affected by annual variation in nesting
success. In years with good success, most pairs have viable nests and
are present when nest sites are checked. In years with poor nest
success, many pairs may have failed by the time surveys are conducted
and the adults may go undetected. Annual variation in nesting success
is large at Hope Bay and Coppermine, and is probably caused by the
extreme weather conditions found near the coast in arctic areas (C.
Shank, pers. comm., 1992).
Regression analysis provides a means of detecting and describing
trends in the number of pairs found at these areas despite annual
variation. Regression analysis shows that the number of pairs at
Coppermine and Hope Bay has increased significantly since surveys began
and that the rate of population growth has averaged about 10 percent
per year. Furthermore, surveys in 1993 showed a slight increase from
the previous year at Hope Bay and a substantial increase from 1992 at
Coppermine (see Summary section above). The Service believes,
therefore, that despite several short-term decreases in the number of
pairs detected, local populations at both Hope Bay and Coppermine have
shown considerable growth in the last 10 to 12 years. Furthermore, the
Service believes that decreases seen between 1990 and 1992 do not
indicate that populations are declining in either area.
Comment 11: The recovery plan established four criteria to be met
before delisting should be considered but only two of the four
currently have been met. The data on organochlorine concentrations in
eggs and eggshell thickness (the two criteria that have not been met)
are unpublished and as such have not been verified and validated by
scientists.
Service response: As required by the Act, the Service collected all
available information on the status of arctic peregrine falcons before
deciding whether delisting was warranted. Much of the available
information is unpublished. In using unpublished data, the Service is
able to include the most recently acquired data as well as data
collected by a broader array of sources. The Service recognizes,
however, that unpublished data have not been subjected to review by the
scientific community.
The unpublished data and the Service's interpretation of that data
were presented to the scientific community for review in the proposal
to delist, which was published in the Federal Register (September 30,
1993). Since the Federal Register is not widely read among scientists,
the Service sent copies to and requested comments from over 30
professional biologists that have worked with peregrine falcons in
Greenland, Canada, and the United States. Additionally, copies were
sent to members of the Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, a number
of professional ornithological organizations, the appropriate natural
resource agencies in seven provinces and territories in Canada, and
every State fish and game agency in the United States. Several
professional biologists or resource managers expressed support for
delisting--none expressed opposition to delisting. Furthermore, neither
the validity of any data contained in the proposal nor the Service's
interpretation of the data were questioned.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
According to the Act and implementing regulations outlined in 50
CFR part 424, a species shall be listed if the Secretary of the
Interior determines that one or more of five factors listed in section
4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A
species may be delisted, according to Sec. 424.11(d), if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species
is neither Endangered or Threatened for one of the following reasons:
1. Extinction;
2. Recovery; or
2. Original data for classification of the species were in error.
After a thorough review of all available information, the Service
has determined that arctic peregrine falcons are no longer endangered
or threatened with extinction. A substantial recovery has taken place
since the 1970's, and none of the five factors addressed in section
4(a)(1) of the Act currently jeopardizes the continued existence of
arctic peregrine falcons. These factors and their relevance to arctic
peregrine falcons are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. Arctic peregrine falcons nest in
arctic tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. They migrate
through the mid-latitudes of North America across a broad front, but
concentrate in some coastal and estuarine areas along the Atlantic
coast and Gulf of Mexico. Migrants also pass through inland areas
including the Great Lakes, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains, although
the relative importance of coastal and inland habitats to migrants is
unknown. Most arctic peregrine falcons spend the winter in Latin
America, but some winter as far north as southern Florida. Although the
rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration, and wintering
habitats is greater now than in the past, the rapid increase in the
number of arctic peregrine falcons during the last 15 years indicates
that habitat modification does not currently threaten the continued
existence of the subspecies.
B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Delisting of the Arctic peregrine falcon will not
result in the over-utilization of the subspecies for the following
reasons. All Falco peregrinus found in the wild in the conterminous 48
States are listed as endangered due to similarity of appearance.
Therefore, take of arctic peregrine falcons migrating through the
conterminous 48 States will be prohibited by the Act. Additionally, the
take of all migratory birds, including arctic peregrine falcons, is
governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the corresponding
regulations codified in 50 CFR Part 21. Migratory bird regulations
allow for the take of wild peregrine falcons subsequent to obtaining a
permit, for recreational, scientific, and educational purposes, but
require that harvest is limited to levels that prevent over-
utilization.
C. Disease or predation. Although individuals may be vulnerable to
disease or predation, these factors are not known to affect arctic
peregrine falcons at the population level.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Arctic
peregrine falcons will remain protected by the similarity of appearance
provision of the Act while in the conterminous 48 States as long as
other subspecies occurring in this area remain listed. This protection
will not extend beyond such time that other peregrine falcons occurring
in those areas are removed from the list of endangered and threatened
wildlife.
Arctic peregrine falcons are also protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, which governs the taking, killing, possessing,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts,
and nests. A more thorough discussion of the protection offered by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act is included in the Effects of This Rule
section below.
In addition to Federal laws governing the taking of arctic
peregrine falcons within the United States, international agreements
govern the transport of arctic peregrine falcons across international
borders. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) is an international agreement that regulates trade in species
threatened with extinction and those that may become threatened if
trade is not regulated. The arctic peregrine falcon is currently listed
under Appendix I of CITES, and, as a result, international trade in
arctic peregrine falcons is restricted by the United States and 122
other signatory nations. This final rule only affects United States
domestic endangered species law and does not result in removal of
arctic peregrine falcons from Appendix I of CITES.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. There is general agreement within the scientific community
that contamination with organochlorine pesticides was the principal
factor responsible for the decline of arctic peregrine falcons. The
population decline was likely a result of both reproductive impairment
from sublethal dosage and direct mortality from lethal dosage, although
the relative importance of those two factors remains unknown. Change in
population size, therefore, is the best indicator of the total impact
of pesticides because population size is affected by both direct
mortality, which is extremely difficult to measure in wild populations,
and reproductive impairment, which is more easily quantified in the
wild. The consistent growth in arctic peregrine falcon numbers since
the late 1970's, previously discussed in the Background section of this
rule, provides the strongest supporting evidence that organochlorine
pesticides no longer pose a threat at the population level.
The use of organochlorine pesticides was restricted in the United
States and Canada in the early 1970's. Their use in Latin America
continues, however, and some arctic peregrine falcons undoubtedly
winter in areas where organochlorines are currently used. It has been
shown, by comparing blood samples collected during fall and spring
migration, that migrant peregrine falcons accumulate pesticides while
wintering in Latin America (Henny et al. 1982). Additionally, some of
the avian prey utilized by arctic peregrine falcons during the summer
in arctic and subarctic areas also winter in Latin America. Many of
these prey return to their northern nesting areas with pesticide
residues accumulated during the winter (Fyfe et al. 1990). Peregrine
falcons preying upon these birds during the summer are thus further
exposed to Latin American pesticides. Pesticide use in Latin America,
however, may never have been great enough to cause a decline in the
number of arctic peregrine falcons. The widespread reproductive failure
and population crash coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine
use in the United States, and a noticeable increase in productivity
occurred in Alaska within a few years following restrictions on the use
of organochlorines in the United States.
Furthermore, the exposure of arctic peregrine falcons to
organochlorines continues to decrease. Average DDE residues in blood
collected from peregrine falcons during spring migration in Texas
decreased 38 percent between 1978-1979 and 1984 (Henny et al. 1988).
Pesticide residues in arctic peregrine falcon eggs have decreased
similarly. A sample of eggs from 9 clutches collected in arctic Alaska
in 1968 averaged (geometric mean, wet weight basis) 23.5 ppm DDE with a
maximum of 99 ppm (Jeff Lincer, BioSystems Analysis, pers. comm., in
litt., 1992). By the late 1970's to early 1980's, the average DDE
concentration in eggs collected from 19 clutches had declined to 9.3
ppm with a maximum of 46.4 ppm (unpubl. Service data, on file in
Fairbanks, Alaska). In 1990-1991, eggs from 13 clutches averaged 3.3
ppm with a maximum of 5.3 ppm (unpubl. Service data, Fairbanks,
Alaska). Similar trends were observed in Canada. Residues in eggs
collected in arctic Canada averaged 9.9 ppm DDE in 1965-1972 (maximum
72.0); 8.5 ppm in 1973-1979 (max. 19.6); and 6.8 ppm (max. 18.5) in
1980-1986 (Peakall et al. 1990). Eggs from 36 clutches collected at
Rankin Inlet, NWT, in 1981-1986 averaged 7.6 ppm DDE (Court et al.
1990). Eggs collected in Greenland between 1972 and 1978 averaged 12.8
ppm DDE (Burnham and Mattox 1984), but by 1981 and 1982 the maximum
(average not given) in 9 eggs was 9.1 ppm (Mattox and Seegar 1988). To
put these values in perspective, concentrations of DDE in peregrine
falcon eggs in excess of 15 to 20 ppm (parts per million, wet weight
basis) are associated with high rates of nesting failure; if residues
average less than this critical level, productivity is usually
sufficient to maintain population size (Peakall et al. 1975; Newton et
al. 1989). Residues of other organochlorines in arctic peregrine falcon
eggs have also decreased since the 1970's, and residues are currently
well below concentrations associated with reproductive impairment or
population declines.
Most researchers consider DDE-caused eggshell thinning to be the
proximate factor that caused peregrine falcon populations to decline in
North America. Average eggshell thickness decreased by as much as 24
percent in Alaska during the peak period of organochlorine
contamination. This decreased eggshell thickness correlated with
greatly reduced reproductive success. Eggshell thickness has increased
significantly since the use of DDT was restricted in the United States,
but pesticides accumulated in Latin America still affect shell
thickness. Shells from Rankin Inlet, NWT, collected in 1981-1986
averaged 15.8 percent thinner than pre-DDT shells (Court et al. 1990).
Alaskan shells collected in 1979-1984 averaged 13.4 percent thinner
than pre-DDT thickness measurements, and shells collected in 1988-1991
averaged about 12 percent thinner. Peregrine populations are expected
to decrease in size if eggs have shells averaging at least 17 percent
thinner than normal while populations with eggs averaging less than 17
percent thinning generally remain stable or can increase in size (Kiff
1988). Although arctic peregrine falcon eggs remain vulnerable to an
increase in exposure to organochlorines, eggshell thinning has been
insufficient to prevent widespread population recovery since the late
1970's.
Reproductive success is another parameter used in measuring the
effects of pesticide poisoning upon peregrine falcons. ``Normal''
productivity rates vary among regions; therefore, it is difficult to
assess the health of a local population based upon productivity rate
alone. In Alaska, productivity reached its lowest level of about 0.6
yg/pr in the mid 1970's. Productivity improved in the late 1970's,
reaching 0.9 yg/pr in 1979. From 1980 to 1993 it varied between 1.3 and
2.0 yg/pr, which was sufficient to support an average annual increase
in the breeding population size of about 9 percent (unpublished Service
data on file, Fairbanks, Alaska). In Canada, a decrease in the
productivity of arctic peregrine falcons was never clearly documented,
although populations decreased in size so productivity almost certainly
declined. At Rankin Inlet, NWT, productivity averaged about 1.5 yg/pr
between 1981 and 1992 (Court et al. 1988; C. Shank, pers. comm., 1991,
1992), although annual productivity varied tremendously in response to
variation in weather conditions (Court et al. 1988). Productivity in
Ungava Bay, Quebec, reached a low of 1.33 yg/pr in 1970, and exceeded
2.7 yg/pr in each of 3 surveys conducted since 1980 (Bird and Weaver
1988; David Bird, pers. comm., in litt., 1991). Reproductive rates have
remained high in Greenland since observation began in 1972. In western
Greenland productivity from 1972 to 1992 remained at least 1.80 yg/pr
(William Mattox, Greenland Peregrine Falcon Survey, pers. comm., in
litt., 1992). Similarly, in southern Greenland, production remained
high from 1981 to 1991 (Knud Falk, Ornis Consult A/S, pers. comm., in
litt., 1992).
The only recent measurable effect presumably attributable to
organochlorine use in Latin America has been found in Rankin Inlet in
the NWT. Between 1982 and 1986, pesticides caused about 10 percent of
the nesting pairs to fail, but average productivity within the
population was high, and numbers were stable at the extremely high
density of one pair per 17 square kilometers (Court et al. 1988).
Despite the effect on a small portion of the pairs, the overall impact
to the population in this area was minimal. There has been no other
recent evidence of pesticide-caused reproductive failure found in any
other arctic peregrine falcon population studied.
In summary, the reproductive failure and resultant population crash
seen in arctic peregrine falcons were likely the result of the heavy
use of organochlorines in the United States and possibly Canada.
However, arctic peregrines are still exposed to organochlorine
pesticides due to continuing use in Latin America. Because organisms at
the top of the food chain bioaccumulate environmentally stable
contaminants, arctic peregrine falcons remain vulnerable and could
suffer from an increase in the use of organochlorines or the widespread
use of other stable toxins that affect survival or reproduction. The
concentration of organochlorines in arctic peregrine falcon tissues
continues to decline, though, and is currently well below those levels
associated with population declines. The widespread recovery of arctic
peregrine falcon populations is convincing evidence that pesticides and
other contaminants do not currently threaten the continued existence of
the subspecies.
The Service has carefully reviewed all available scientific and
commercial data and concluded that the threat or threats that caused
arctic peregrine falcon populations to decline no longer pose a risk to
the continued survival of the subspecies. A widespread recovery has
followed restrictions on the use of organochlorine pesticides in the
United States and Canada. This recovery indicates that the subspecies
is no longer endangered or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range. Under these
circumstances, removal from the list of threatened and endangered
wildlife is appropriate.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Service has determined that
this rule relieves an existing restriction and good cause exists to
make the effective date of this rule immediate. Delay in implementation
of this delisting would cost government agencies staff time and monies
conducting formal section 7 consultation on actions which may affect
species no longer in need of the protection under the Act. Relieving
the existing restriction associated with this listed species will
enable Federal agencies to minimize any further delays in project
planning and implementation for actions that may affect arctic
peregrine falcons.
Effects of This Rule
Pursuant to the similarity of appearance provisions of section 4(e)
of the Act, species (or subspecies or distinct vertebrate population
segments) that are not considered to be endangered or threatened may
nevertheless be treated as such for law enforcement purposes of
protecting a listed species (or subspecies or vertebrate population
segment) that is biologically endangered or threatened. Under the
similarity of appearance provision (implemented by 50 CFR 17.50), the
Service must find:
(a) that the species so closely resembles in appearance an
endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have
substantial difficulty in identifying listed from unlisted species;
(b) that the effect of the substantial difficulty is an additional
threat to the listed endangered or threatened species; and
(c) that such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially
facilitate the enforcement and further the purposes of the Act.
The Service considers ``all free-flying Falco peregrinus, not
otherwise identifiable as a listed subspecies, to be endangered under
the similarity of appearance provision in the 48 conterminous States''
(49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984). Therefore, arctic peregrine falcons will
be protected as endangered or threatened while migrating through the 48
conterminous States as long as American peregrine falcons that occur in
this area are classified as endangered or threatened. American
peregrine falcons are known to occur or could occur in all areas in
which arctic peregrine falcons are found in the 48 conterminous States,
so protection would be complete in this region. The protection of this
provision would not extend beyond such time that the American peregrine
falcon is delisted. The Service anticipates that recovery will
eventually allow the American peregrine falcon to be removed from the
list of endangered and threatened wildlife. At such time, the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act will govern the take of arctic peregrine falcons, as
will the appropriate State regulations. State regulations applying to
falconry currently vary among States and are subject to change with
time. The applicable State regulations, however, may be more but not
less restrictive than Federal regulations.
The similarity of appearance provision does not apply to arctic
peregrine falcons while they are outside the conterminous United
States. Although American peregrine falcons occur in northern areas,
such as Alaska, there is no overlap in the breeding ranges of the two
subspecies in Alaska (arctic peregrine falcons breed north of the
Brooks Range and along the west coast near Norton Sound whereas
American peregrine falcons breed south of the Brooks Range). If this
proposal is enacted, therefore, the taking of arctic peregrine falcons
within their breeding range would not be prohibited by similarity of
appearance protection and would, therefore, be governed by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally, the similarity of appearance
protection is provided by United States domestic law; this protection
does not apply to arctic peregrine falcons outside the United States.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of migratory
birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes, such as
falconry. Section 2 states that the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to determine if, and by what means, the take of
migratory birds should be allowed, and to adopt suitable regulations
permitting and governing the take. In adopting regulations, the
Secretary is to consider such factors as distribution and abundance to
ensure that take is compatible with the protection of the species.
Existing regulations applying to the use of raptors for falconry and
the captive propagation of raptors are outlined in 50 CFR 21.28 to
21.30.
In addition to Federal regulations, Alaska State regulations would
apply to harvest of arctic peregrine falcons in Alaska. Alaska State
regulations outlined in 5 AAC 92.037 do not currently allow for the use
of arctic peregrine falcons for falconry, but it is likely that State
regulations will be amended to allow harvest in the near future. Alaska
State regulation 92.037(b)(3) requires that ``no person may permanently
export a raptor taken from the wild in Alaska unless the person has
legally possessed that raptor for at least one year.'' The Service
anticipates little or no pressure within Alaska to amend this latter
regulation; therefore, the take of arctic peregrine falcons in Alaska
should remain limited to the roughly 30 falconers who are permanent
residents of Alaska.
Falconry regulations in Canada and Greenland do not allow foreign
falconers to take raptors, so this delisting will not result in United
States residents taking arctic peregrine falcons within these
countries. Take of arctic peregrine falcons in Canada and Greenland by
residents of those nations is not affected by United States domestic
law; therefore, delisting will not affect regulations allowing harvest
in those countries. In addition, as mentioned above, international
trade in arctic peregrine falcons is regulated as a result of the
subspecies' inclusion on the CITES Appendix I list.
Future Conservation Measures
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, monitor species for at
least 5 years after delisting. If evidence acquired during this
monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be
reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the species, the Service
may use the emergency listing authority provided for by the Act. At the
end of the 5-year monitoring period, the Service will, based upon
results of monitoring efforts, decide if relisting, continued
monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is appropriate.
The Service included a draft monitoring plan in the September 30,
1993 (58 FR 51035) proposal to delist arctic peregrine falcons. The
public was asked to provide comments and suggestions for improving the
draft plan. Of the 39 parties responding to the proposal, 15
specifically addressed the monitoring plan, including 11 State fish and
game agencies, one Federal agency, the government of Trinidad and
Tobago, and two non-governmental organizations. Of the 15 that
addressed the plan, five supported the plan as written, five stressed
the importance of implementing the plan, two stated they supported
delisting only if the monitoring plan was implemented, and three
suggested modifications to the plan. The parties suggesting
improvements raised three different concerns; those concerns and the
Service's responses are given below:
Comment 1: The Service has chosen an inappropriate criterion for
considering relisting if population size again declines. Thirty-five
pairs found nesting along the Colville River in 1959 should be
considered the historical norm for this population, not 57 pairs found
in 1992.
Service response: The Service believes that recent survey results
provide the most accurate estimate of the number of pairs that will
nest along the Colville River when the population is in a normal,
healthy condition. Furthermore, the Service's post-delisting monitoring
plan for arctic peregrine falcons is designed to detect a change in the
status of the subspecies. The Service believes that a significant (25
percent or more) change in population size will indicate that some
factor or factors is affecting either reproductive performance or
survival within the population. A change in productivity or survival
will be more quickly detected and accurately measured if recent
population estimates are used as baseline levels.
Comment 2: The monitoring plan should be expanded to include one
nesting area in the Canadian arctic, one nesting area in Greenland, and
migration data from Assateague Island, Maryland, and Cedar Grove,
Wisconsin. Cooperative agreements should be pursued with the
governments of Canada and Greenland to ensure the continuation of
projects in those nations.
Service response: In formulating the monitoring plan, the Service
emphasized breeding surveys conducted in Alaska because surveys in
northern Alaska were designed to measure the criteria listed in the
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, specifically, population size,
reproductive performance, and contaminant levels. These factors are the
most important in monitoring the status, trends, and threats to the
subspecies, and they are not consistently measured in any other study
area in North America. Additionally, the Service has greater influence
over the funding and implementation of monitoring efforts conducted in
the United States, and in particular, those conducted by the Service.
The Service agrees that continuation of on-going research on arctic
peregrine falcons will contribute greatly to monitoring the subspecies
following delisting. In particular, three nesting surveys in the NWT,
Canada, and one in Greenland, and counts of migrants conducted at a
number of different sites have provided data substantiating the
recovery of the subspecies. The delisting criteria have been modified
to consider information on breeding pairs gathered in Canada and
Greenland. In addition, the Service intends to utilize all available
information when reviewing the overall status of the subspecies, and
will encourage the continuation of all research efforts wherever
possible.
Comment 3: The monitoring plan should be extended to 10 years to
allow adequate measurement of the impacts of resumed falconry harvest,
to compensate for short-term variability in productivity due to weather
and other variables, and to measure long-term changes in organochlorine
contamination and eggshell thickness. This is particularly important
because the Service reevaluated criteria concerning organochlorine
concentrations in eggs and eggshell thickness in the recovery plan.
Service response: Although two of the recovery criteria in the
original recovery plan were reevaluated to reflect current information,
the Service feels that the subspecies has recovered sufficiently to
warrant delisting without reservation. At the end of the minimum 5-year
monitoring period, the Service will review all available information,
including organochlorine contamination and eggshell thickness, to
decide if continuation of monitoring is warranted for any reason. The
Service believes that this evaluation process allows for adequate
consideration of all pertinent factors.
After consideration of the comments received on the draft
monitoring plan, the Service has produced the following monitoring
plan. This plan will be revised, as appropriate, to incorporate new
knowledge of threats to the subspecies, research techniques, or other
applicable information.
Monitoring plan. As discussed above, exposure to organochlorines,
particularly DDT, was the primary factor causing the decline of arctic
peregrine falcons. Organochlorines affected populations by reducing
reproductive success, although the mortality rate of adults and
juveniles may have increased as well. As productivity and recruitment
declined to levels insufficient to replace mortality, populations
dwindled. This monitoring plan, therefore, is designed to detect
changes in the status of arctic peregrine falcons by monitoring
population size, reproductive performance, and contamination with
organochlorine pesticides and other pollutants.
In reviewing the status of arctic peregrine falcons and preparing
the proposal to delist the subspecies, the Service relied heavily on
data provided by Service biologists. However, information from research
projects conducted by non-governmental organizations and Canadian
provincial agencies was also used extensively. The Service is hopeful
that research efforts will continue and that investigators will
continue to share data with the Service for management purposes.
Monitoring efforts, therefore, will utilize to the fullest extent
possible information collected at a number of sites by a variety of
organizations and agencies. However, information on each of the
parameters to be measured is not collected in every research project. A
discussion of each parameter, how the parameter is measured or
evaluated, and likely sources of data on the parameter follows.
(1) Number of Breeding Pairs. To detect changes in population size,
the Service will rely on counts of the number of breeding pairs in
selected areas in North America. In order to detect a change in
population size in a given area, surveys must be conducted for several
years, and the survey area, methods, and timing must be consistent
among years. Surveys in four areas have met these criteria. These areas
are the Colville River in Alaska and Hope Bay, Coppermine, and Rankin
Inlet in the NWT, Canada. Results from surveys in other areas that meet
these criteria will be included in future status reviews.
(2) Reproductive Performance. To assess reproductive performance,
the Service will rely on counts of the number of young produced per
territorial pair. Such data are currently available only from the
Colville River, Rankin Inlet, and western Greenland study areas;
however, pre-DDT era data on reproductive performance are only
available for the Colville River study area. In reviewing data on
reproductive performance, the Service will utilize information from all
study areas where appropriate data are available.
(3) Contaminant Exposure. The Service will analyze arctic peregrine
falcon blood and eggs in Service-contracted laboratories to monitor
exposure to organochlorine pesticides and other environmental
contaminants. The Service will collect addled eggs along the Colville
River, Alaska, as feasible, during 1995-1999. In addition, the Service
will continue its ongoing long-term study on contamination levels by
collecting at least 10 eggs in a given year (repeated at approximately
5-year intervals), so that residues at the end of the minimum 5-year
monitoring period can be compared with residues found in earlier
periods. Additionally, the Service will encourage the collection of
eggs from Rankin Inlet, NWT, and western Greenland, near or at the end
the minimum 5-year monitoring period for comparison to earlier
collections in those areas.
Blood will be collected from migrants during spring 1999 at Padre
Island, Texas, as part of an ongoing study to track changes in the
exposure of arctic peregrine falcons to organochlorines during the
winter. Organochlorine concentrations in 1999 will be compared to those
in blood collected in 1978-1979, 1984, and 1994.
Eggs and blood will be analyzed, using gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy, for organochlorines, other pesticides (including mirex),
and polychlorinated biphenyls and hexachlorobiphenyls. These analyses
will be modified, if appropriate, to include other contaminants that
are identified as posing a risk to arctic peregrine falcons.
(4) Migration Counts. In addition to the three factors mentioned
above, the Service will also review counts of migrating arctic
peregrine falcons. Counts of migrating peregrine falcons passing fixed
points along migration corridors provide information on gross trends in
population size. Hundreds of arctic peregrine falcons are counted
annually during fall migration at Cape May, New Jersey, Assateague
Island, Maryland, and Padre Island, Texas. Smaller numbers are counted
at a number of other locations. The Service will continue to request
count data each year from all studies.
Region 7 (Alaska) of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
responsible for coordinating the listing, recovery, and monitoring of
arctic peregrine falcons. Therefore, Region 7 will coordinate this
monitoring effort. Region 7's efforts will include three facets:
(1) Region 7 staff will continue ongoing arctic peregrine falcon
status surveys on the Colville River, Alaska, measuring population size
and reproductive performance, and collecting biological samples (eggs,
blood, feathers) for contaminant analyses as appropriate.
(2) Region 7 staff will encourage, through memoranda of agreement
or similar mechanisms, the continuation of non-Service research efforts
that have provided important data on the status of the arctic peregrine
falcon throughout its range.
(3) Region 7 staff will exchange information with parties involved
in arctic peregrine falcon studies throughout North America and
Greenland. Region 7 will compile pertinent information and conduct
annual reviews of the status of the subspecies based upon all available
information.
At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, the Service will review
all available information to determine if relisting, termination of
monitoring, or continued monitoring is appropriate. The Service will
consider relisting if during, or after, the 5-year monitoring effort,
it appears that a reversal of the recent recovery has taken place. If
one or more of the following conditions exists, the Service will deem
it an indication that a reversal of recovery has taken place and
relisting will be considered:
(1) The number of pairs occupying territories in any of the major
breeding areas declines by 25 percent or more. Baseline information
must meet the standards defined earlier in this section. For example,
reclassification would be considered if the number of pairs occupying
territories along the Colville River falls below 42 pairs (this would
be a 25 percent reduction from the 1992 breeding population of 57
pairs) in any one year;
(2) Average productivity of peregrine falcons nesting along the
Colville River drops below 1.4 young per territorial pair for two
consecutive surveys (unless other identified factors, such as abnormal
weather conditions, explain the lowered productivity). Pre-DDT data are
not available on arctic peregrine falcons for Greenland and Canada, so
no thresholds of concern for subpopulations in these countries are
identifiable;
(3) Average contaminant residues in arctic peregrine falcon eggs or
blood exceed those values associated with widespread reproductive
failure or mortality; or
(4) If the number of migrating arctic peregrine falcons declines by
25 percent or more for three consecutive years, the Service will also
consider relisting arctic peregrine falcons.
If one or more of these criteria indicate that arctic peregrine
falcon populations are declining, the Service will review all available
information to determine if arctic peregrine falcons are threatened or
endangered with extinction in accordance with listing guidelines
outlined in the Act.
The Service will monitor arctic peregrine falcons for a minimum of
5 years following delisting. If, after the 5-year period, studies show
that recovery is complete and that no factors that threaten arctic
peregrine falcons have been identified, the monitoring program may be
reduced or eliminated. If studies show that arctic peregrine falcon
populations are declining or if one or more factors that appear to have
the potential to cause decline are identified, the Service will
continue monitoring beyond the 5-year minimum period. Additionally, if
harvest of arctic peregrine falcons is implemented, the Service may
conclude that surveys and monitoring are necessary. If continuation of
the monitoring effort is warranted for any reason, the Service will
evaluate the current 5-year monitoring plan to determine if
modification of the plan is necessary.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's
reason for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from Ted Swem (see ADDRESSES above).
Author
The primary author of this document is Ted Swem (see ADDRESSES
above).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
(1) The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for ``Falcon,
Arctic peregrine, Falco peregrinus tundrius'' under ``Birds'' from the
list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Dated: September 23, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-24560 Filed 10-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
