[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45446-45463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF04
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To
Remove the Peregrine Falcon in North America From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to
remove the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) in North America from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service proposes
this action because the available data indicate that this species has
recovered following restrictions on organochlorine pesticides in the
United States and Canada and following implementation of successful
management activities. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 American peregrine
falcon pairs are found in Alaska, Canada, and the Western United
States, and a minimum of 205 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the
Eastern and Midwestern United States. Overall productivity goals in
four American peregrine falcon recovery plans were met or exceeded, and
most recovery goals for the eastern peregrine falcon population have
been met. The proposed action, if finalized, would remove the American
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) as an endangered species
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and would remove
the designation of endangered due to similarity of appearance for any
free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous States. It
would remove all Endangered Species Act protections from all subspecies
and populations of North American Falco peregrinus. It would not affect
protection provided to this species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES). It would not affect the endangered listing status of the
Eurasian peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus peregrinus) under the
Endangered Species Act.
This proposed rule includes a proposed 5-year post-delisting
monitoring plan as required for species that are delisted due to
recovery. Monitoring will include population trends, productivity, and
contaminant exposure. This proposed rule also provides notice that the
collection of information from the public expected to be associated
with the monitoring has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties on the peregrine delisting
proposal must be received by November 24, 1998. Public hearing requests
must be received by October 13, 1998.
Comments from all interested parties on the collection of
information from the public during the 5-year monitoring period will be
considered if received on or before October 26, 1998. OMB has up to 60
days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond
after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should
receive public comments by September 25, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments and other information concerning this proposal to
remove the peregrine falcon from the endangered species list should be
sent to Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,
California 93003 (facsimile: (805)644-3958). Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the above address.
Comments and suggestions on specific information collection
requirements should be sent to the Desk Officer for the Interior
Department, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. The comments and
suggestions should also be directed to Rebecca Mullin, Service
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS 224 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta at the above Ventura,
California, address, or at (805) 644-1766, for further information on
the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the endangered
species list. To request a copy of the information collection request,
explanatory information and related forms, contact Rebecca Mullin at
(703) 358-2287.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized raptor weighing
approximately 1000 grams (36 ounces) and having a wing span of 112
centimeters (44 inches). The adult peregrine falcon has a dark gray
back and crown, dark bars or streaks on a pale chest and abdomen, and
heavy malar (cheek) stripes on the face. Immature falcons are buff-
colored in front and have dark brown backs; adults are white or buff in
front and bluish-gray on their backs. Peregrines prey almost entirely
on other birds, and occasionally on bats, caught in midair.
The peregrine falcon has an almost worldwide distribution, with
three subspecies recognized in North America (Brown and Amadon 1968).
The Peale's falcon (F.p. pealei) is a year-round resident of the
northwest Pacific coast from northern Washington through British
Columbia to the Aleutian Islands. The Arctic peregrine falcon (F.p.
tundrius) nests in the tundra of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and is
typically a long-distance migrant, wintering as far south as South
America. The American peregrine falcon occurs throughout much of North
America from the subarctic boreal forests of Alaska and Canada south to
Mexico. The American peregrine falcon nests from central Alaska,
central Yukon Territory, and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to
the Maritimes and
[[Page 45447]]
south (excluding coastal areas north of the Columbia River in
Washington and British Columbia) throughout western Canada and the
United States to Baja California, Sonora, and the highlands of central
Mexico (48 FR 8799, March 1, 1983). American peregrine falcons that
nest in subarctic areas generally winter in South America, while those
that nest at lower latitudes exhibit variable migratory behavior; some
are nonmigratory (Yates et al. 1988).
Since the early 1970s, efforts to reestablish peregrine falcons in
the Eastern and Midwestern United States have successfully returned
this species to areas from which it had been extirpated (See ``Eastern
United States'' under ``Peregrine Falcon Recovery''). Peregrine falcons
are now found nesting in all States within their historical range east
of the 100th meridian, except for Rhode Island and Arkansas.
Peregrine falcons declined precipitously in North America following
World War II (Kiff 1988). Research implicated organochlorine
pesticides, mainly 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethane
(DDT), applied in the United States and Canada during this same period,
as causing the decline (for a review, see Risebrough and Peakall 1988).
Use of these chemicals peaked in the 1950s and early 1960s and
continued through the early 1970s. Organochlorines and their
metabolites, including DDT and its principal metabolite DDE (1,1-
dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethylene), aldrin, dieldrin, and
others, are stable, persistent compounds that are stored in the fatty
tissues of animals ingesting contaminated food (Fyfe et al. 1988).
Peregrine falcons and other animals near the top of the food web,
including ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), and brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), gradually
accumulated these toxins by eating contaminated prey.
Organochlorines can affect peregrine falcons either by causing
direct mortality or by adversely affecting reproduction. Because
mortality in wild birds is difficult to study, the effect of
organochlorines on mortality is not as well known as the effects on
reproduction. Organochlorines can adversely affect reproduction by
causing egg breakage, addling, hatching failure, and abnormal
reproductive behavior by the parent birds (Risebrough and Peakall
1988). DDE, a metabolite of DDT, prevents normal calcium deposition
during eggshell formation, resulting in thin-shelled eggs that are
susceptible to breakage during incubation. In general, populations
laying eggs with shells that averaged greater than 17 percent thinner
than normal, pre-DDT eggs had such high rates of reproductive failure
that the number of peregrine falcon pairs declined (Peakall and Kiff
1988).
During the period of DDT use in North America, eggshell thinning
and nesting failures were widespread in peregrine falcons, and in some
areas, successful reproduction virtually ceased (Hickey and Anderson
1969). As a result, there was a slow but drastic decline in the number
of peregrine falcons in many areas of North America. The degree of
exposure to these pesticides varied among different regions, and
peregrine falcon numbers in more contaminated areas suffered greater
declines. Peregrine falcons that nested outside of agricultural and
forested areas where DDT was heavily used were affected less, although
some individuals wintered in areas of pesticide use. Presumably all
individuals ate some migratory prey containing organochlorines (for
reviews, see Hickey and Anderson 1969; Kiff 1988; Peakall and Kiff
1988).
Peregrine falcons nesting in the agricultural and forested areas
east of the Mississippi River in the United States and in Eastern
Canada south of the boreal forest were the most heavily contaminated
and were essentially extirpated by the mid-1960's (Berger et al. 1969).
Peregrine falcons in the Great Plains States east of the Rocky
Mountains and south of the boreal forest in Canada and the United
States were also extirpated in the DDT era (Cade 1975, Enderson et al.
1995). No active eyries were found in surveys of 133 formerly used
peregrine falcon eyries in the latter part of the 1964 nesting season
in the Eastern United States and the Maritime Provinces in Canada
(Berger et al. 1969). By 1975, there were only three peregrine falcon
pairs in Alberta, and no other peregrine falcon pairs were found south
of latitude 60 deg. North and east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada
(Erickson et al. 1988).
West of the 100th meridian, peregrine falcons were not extirpated,
but were significantly reduced. Only 33 percent of historical nest
sites in the Rocky Mountains were still occupied by 1965 (Enderson
1969). The peregrine falcon disappeared as a breeding species from
southern California, and major declines also occurred in other parts of
the western United States and in much of southern Canada and the
Northwest Territories (Kiff 1988). In contrast, peregrine falcons in
most areas of the Pacific coast of Alaska remained fairly stable during
this period, owing to their lower exposure to organochlorine
pesticides. Throughout much of western North America, the exact degree
of most local declines remains somewhat speculative due to a lack of
accurate pre-pesticide era census data. For example, in the
southwestern United States and mainland Mexico, peregrine falcons were
not censused until after the beginning of the use of organochlorines
(Kiff 1988).
Previous Federal Actions
Population declines due to negative impacts of DDT and its
metabolites on peregrine falcon reproduction and survival led the
Service to list two of the three North American subspecies, the Arctic
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) and the American peregrine
falcon, as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation
Act of 1969 (Pub.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). Arctic and American
peregrine falcons were included in the list of threatened and
endangered foreign species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495), and the native
list of endangered and threatened species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR
16047). Upon passage of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, the
native and foreign species lists were combined into a single list of
endangered and threatened species. Both the American and Arctic
peregrine falcon subspecies were listed as endangered throughout their
respective ranges. Only the Peale's peregrine falcon was reproducing at
near normal levels with only traces of DDT.
On March 1, 1983 (48 FR 8796), the Service published a proposed
rule to (1) reclassify the Arctic peregrine falcon from endangered to
threatened, (2) clarify that the peregrines nesting in western
Washington were to be considered American peregrine falcons for
purposes of the Act, and (3) designate all free-flying peregrine
falcons in the 48 conterminous States as endangered under similarity of
appearance provisions under section 4(e) of the Act. A rule finalizing
the proposal was published on March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10520). Pursuant to
the similarity of appearance provisions, species that are not
considered to be endangered or threatened may nevertheless be treated
as such for the purpose of providing protection to a species that is
biologically endangered or threatened.
On June 12, 1991, the Service announced in the Federal Register (56
FR 26969) a notice of status review of the American peregrine falcon
and the Arctic peregrine falcon. The Arctic peregrine falcon was
subsequently removed as a threatened species from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on October 5, 1994 (59 FR 50796) but
was still protected from
[[Page 45448]]
direct take in the lower 48 States due to the similarity of appearance
provision because the American peregrine falcon was still listed as
endangered.
The Service published an Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove
the American Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (60 FR 34406) on June 30, 1995, based on data
indicating this subspecies was recovered following restrictions on the
use of organochlorine pesticides in the United States and Canada and
because of successful management activities, including the
reintroduction of captive-bred and relocated wild hatchling peregrine
falcons. Current data provides additional support for recovery of all
North American peregrine falcons, including the American peregrine
falcon subspecies (Table 1).
Table 1. American Peregrine Falcon and Eastern Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan Goals and Current (1997) Recovery
Status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments/degree to which
Recovery plan Delisting goal Current status delisting goals are met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska:
Pairs.......................... 28 pairs.............. 301 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 273 pairs.
Productivity (young/pair)...... 1.8 yg/pr............. 2.0 yg/pr............. Exceeded goal.
DDT (parts per million)........ less than 5 ppm....... 3.5 ppm............... Exceeded goal.
Eggshell thinning.............. less than 10%......... 12.1%................. Goal not met, but has not
prevented recovery; goal
probably too conservative.
Canada:
Pairs.......................... 60 pairs (10 each in 6 319 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 259 pairs.
zones).
Productivity................... 1.5 yg/pr............. 1.8 yg/pr............. Exceeded goal.
Pacific Coast:
Pairs.......................... 185 pairs............. 239 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 54 pairs.
Productivity................... 1.5 yg/pr............. 1.5 yg/pr............. Goal met.
Rocky Mountain/Southwest:
Pairs.......................... 183 pairs............. 529 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 346 pairs.
Productivity................... 1.25 yg/pr............ 1.4 yg/pr............. Exceeded goal.
Eggshell thinning.............. less than 10%......... ...................... Goal measured by only a few
States; cannot be
assessed.
Eastern:
Pairs.............................. 175-200 pairs (with no 174 pairs............. Exceeded goal in 3 zones;
fewer than 20-25 in goals in other 2 zones
each of 5 recovery probably have been met; an
zones). additional 31 peregrine
falcon pairs occur in
several Midwestern States
not included under the
Eastern Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Falcon Recovery
The most significant factor in the recovery of the peregrine falcon
was the restriction placed on the use of organochlorine pesticides. Use
of DDT was banned in Canada in 1970 and in the United States in 1972
(37 FR 13369, July 7, 1972). Restrictions that controlled the use of
aldrin and dieldrin were imposed in the United States in 1974 (39 FR
37246, October 18, 1974). Since implementation of these restrictions,
residues of the pesticides have significantly decreased in many regions
where they were formerly used. Consequently, reproductive rates in most
surviving peregrine falcon populations in North America improved, and
numbers began to increase (Kiff 1988).
Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for listed species. Recovery plans for
peregrine falcons called for captive rearing and release of birds in
several areas of North America. In the Eastern United States where
peregrine falcons were extirpated, the initial recovery objective was
to reestablish peregrine falcons through the release of offspring from
a variety of wild stocks being held in captivity by falconers. The
first experimental releases of captive-produced young occurred in 1974
and 1975 in the United States.
Later, reintroduction was also pursued in Eastern Canada using only
Falco peregrinus anatum breeding stock from the boreal part of the
species' range. All peregrine falcons released to augment wild
populations in western North America west of the 100th meridian, where
small numbers of American peregrines survived the pesticide era, were
derived from western F. p. anatum stock.
In Alaska and northwest Canada, American peregrine falcon
populations were locally depressed, but enough individuals survived the
pesticide era to allow populations to expand without the need for
release of captive-bred falcons. Likewise, in the Southwestern United
States, very few captive-bred birds were released, and populations
recovered naturally following restrictions on the use of organochlorine
pesticides. In southwest Canada, the northern Rocky Mountain States,
and the Pacific Coast States, however, local populations were greatly
depressed or extirpated, and over 3400 young American peregrine falcons
were released to promote recovery in those areas (Enderson et al.
1995).
American peregrine falcon population growth was noted in Alaska in
the late 1970s (Ambrose et al. 1988b) and by 1980 in many other areas
(Enderson et al. 1995). The rate of increase varied among regions of
North America, undoubtedly influenced by variation in patterns of
pesticide use, potential differences in the rate of pesticide
degradation, and the degree to which local populations had declined.
Populations in some portions of the range of American peregrine
falcons, such as Alaska and northwest Canada and Southwestern United
States, reached densities several years ago that suggested recovery was
approaching completion (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Mossop 1988; G. Holroyd,
Canadian Wildlife Service, in litt. 1993; Enderson et al. 1995).
Residual organochlorine pesticide contamination continues to affect
eggshells in some areas, such as portions of coastal California (Jarman
1994) and western Texas (Bonnie R. Mckinney, Texas Parks and Wildlife
[[Page 45449]]
Department, pers. comm. 1997), but these effects are localized. Despite
these localized effects and the variation in the rate of increase among
regions, local populations throughout North America have increased in
size, and positive trends in nearly all areas suggest that an extensive
recovery of American peregrine falcons has taken place.
Eastern Peregrine Population
The Eastern peregrine population has a relatively unique history
and complex status under the Act. As stated previously, peregrine
falcons were extirpated in the eastern United States and southeastern
Canada by the mid-1960s. In 1974, shortly after the passage of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Audubon Society sponsored
a meeting of experts in peregrine biology, including representatives
from the Service, to address the conservation of the species in North
America. This sparked the beginning of an effort to reestablish the
peregrine in the East through the introduction of offspring from
parents of multiple subspecies. Peregrine falcons were raised in
captivity from parent subspecies then listed as endangered (Falco
peregrinus anatum, F. p. tundrius, F. p. peregrinus), unlisted
subspecies (F. p. pealei, F. p. brookei, etc.), and combinations of
these subspecies. The first experimental releases of captive-produced
young in the eastern States occurred in 1974 and 1975. These and future
releases, coordinated by the Service, State fish and wildlife agencies,
and representatives of The Peregrine Fund, demonstrated that hacking,
the practice of retaining and feeding young captive-bred birds in
partial captivity until they learn to fly and hunt on their own, was an
effective method of introducing captive-bred peregrines to the wild
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Releases, primarily of Falco
peregrinus anatum, continue on a small scale today.
In 1978, the Director of the Service issued a policy statement
confirming support for the use of North American peregrines to
establish an Eastern peregrine falcon population, supported with
endangered species funds, and the use of peregrines from other
geographic areas for specific research purposes. The policy applied
only to peregrine falcons in the east.
In 1979, the Service published the first Eastern Peregrine Falcon
Recovery Plan, the first of four U.S. regional plans to be developed,
to guide the restoration of the peregrine in the East. The Eastern Plan
covered the areas extending to the western borders of the States of
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and included the Gulf
Coast of Texas. The primary objective of the Plan was to restore a new
self-sustaining population of peregrine falcons in the eastern United
States through preservation and management of essential habitat,
captive propagation and release, protection of the population from
take, elimination of harmful environmental pollutants, and public
education.
Reflecting a 1983 Department of the Interior Solicitor opinion that
progeny of intercrosses between listed and unlisted species were not
covered under the Act, the Service modified the regulatory status of
mixed heritage birds. Through the rulemaking process reclassifying the
Arctic peregrine falcon from threatened to endangered status (48 FR
8796, March 1, 1983; 49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984), all free-flying
Falco peregrinus in the lower 48 States were designated as Endangered
due to Similarity of Appearance to ``pure'' listed American and Arctic
peregrines (F. p. anatum and F. p. tundrius). This was done because the
intercrossed birds were not readily distinguishable from American and
Arctic peregrines, making enforcement of the taking prohibitions of the
Act for listed subspecies difficult. The Similarity of Appearance
provision of section 4(e) of the Act provides that species (or
subspecies or other groups of wildlife) that are not considered to be
biologically Endangered or Threatened may nevertheless be treated as
such for the purpose of providing protection to a species that is.
Accordingly, to ensure protection from illegal take of American and
Arctic peregrine falcons that may be nesting, migrating, or wintering
in the lower 48 States, the Service extended the taking prohibitions of
section 9 of the Act to all free-flying peregrines in the lower 48
States through the Similarity of Appearance provision.
The 1983 Solicitor opinion that progeny of intercrosses were not
covered by the Act was subsequently withdrawn by the Solicitor's Office
in 1990. Thus, notwithstanding the Similarity of Appearance
designation, the Service has continued to fully support the restoration
of the Eastern peregrine under the 1991 revised Eastern recovery plan.
The Eastern peregrine falcon is being considered on a par with the
American peregrine falcon.
Recovery Status
Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, the Service
appoints recovery teams of experts to assist in the writing of recovery
plans. In cooperation with the Service, recovery teams produced four
regional peregrine falcon recovery plans, including three recovery
plans for the American peregrine falcon in Alaska and the Western
United States, and one for the peregrine in the Eastern United States.
Although no United States recovery plans established recovery criteria
for peregrine falcons nesting outside of the United States, the
Canadian Wildlife Service published an Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Plan (Erickson et. al. 1988) for American peregrine falcons in Canada.
The current status of the subspecies in Mexico is discussed below,
although no recovery plan or recovery objectives were established for
Mexico.
To aid in assessing peregrine falcon recovery, the current status
is compared to specific recovery plan objectives for American peregrine
falcons in (1) Alaska, (2) Canada, (3) the Pacific Coast, and (4) the
Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, and for (5) the peregrine falcons in
the Eastern United States.
Alaska
The Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska Population (Alaska
Recovery Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982a) includes both
Arctic and American peregrine falcons nesting in Alaska. The following
discussion relates only to provisions regarding the American peregrine
falcon, as the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on October 5, 1994
(59 FR 50796).
The Alaskan Recovery Plan established recovery objectives based on
four measurements for assessing the status of American peregrine
falcons including (1) population size, (2) reproductive performance,
(3) pesticide residues in eggs, and (4) eggshell thickness. The
recovery objectives included (1) 28 nesting pairs in 2 specified study
areas (16 in upper Yukon and 12 in upper Tanana), (2) an average of 1.8
young per territorial pair, (3) average organochlorine concentration in
eggs of less than 5 ppm (parts per million ppm, wet weight basis DDE),
and (4) eggshells no more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era
eggshells. The Alaska Recovery Plan suggested that these objectives be
maintained in the specified study areas for 5 years before
reclassifying from endangered to threatened status and remain constant
or improve for an additional 5 years before delisting.
Surveys were conducted in the two study areas, the upper Yukon and
Tanana Rivers, for which historical population data were available
using consistent methodology from 1973 to
[[Page 45450]]
the present so trends would be discernable. Surveys conducted between
1966 and 1997 along the upper Yukon River demonstrated increases in the
number of occupied nesting territories from a low of 11 known pairs in
1973 to 44 pairs in 1997 (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Robert Ambrose, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997a). Similarly, along the upper
Tanana River, the number of occupied nesting territories increased from
2 in 1975 to 27 in 1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). The recovery
objective of 28 occupied nesting territories in the 2 study areas was
first achieved (post-DDT) in 1982 and the number has increased steadily
since that time to the current level of 71 occupied nesting territories
in 1997 (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997). Thus, the recovery objective of
28 occupied nesting territories has been achieved and surpassed for 15
years.
Productivity measured along the upper Yukon and Tanana Rivers fell
to a low of about 1.0 young per territorial pair per year (yg/pr) in
the late 1960s, but began to increase in the mid-1970s. By 1982,
productivity exceeded the objective of 1.8 yg/pr and varied between
approximately 1.6 and 3.0 yg/pr each year since then; the annual
average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=283 nests/pairs) between 1994 and
1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). From the late 1970s to the present,
productivity was sufficient to allow an average annual increase of
approximately 8 percent in the number of breeding pairs. Productivity
was similar in several other areas in interior Alaska (R. Ambrose,
pers. comm. 1997). A minimum of 301 breeding pairs of American
peregrine falcons currently nest in Alaska.
Mean concentrations of DDE in peregrine falcon eggs in excess of
15-20 ppm are associated with high rates of nesting failure, whereas
productivity is usually sufficient to maintain population size if
residues average less than this concentration (Peakall et al. 1975,
Newton et al. 1989). In Alaska, average DDE residues in American
peregrine falcons averaged 12.2 ppm from 1979 to 1984, 5.8 ppm from
1988 to 1991, and 3.5 ppm from 1993 to 1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt.
1997b) and probably declined below the recovery objective of 5 ppm
sometime between 1984 and 1988 (Ambrose et al. 1988a).
In Alaska, eggshells were estimated to be as much as 20-22 percent
thinner than pre-DDT era shells in the mid-1960s (Cade et al. 1968). By
the early 1980s, shells were about 14 percent thinner than before the
DDT era (Ambrose et al. 1988a; R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1995). Eggshell
thickness averaged 13.0 percent from 1979 to 1984, 13.1 from 1988 to
1991 and 12.1 from 1993 to 1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997b). The
average thickness of pre-DDT American peregrine falcon eggs from Alaska
is not precisely known, so current estimates of thinning could be
inaccurate to some degree. Reproduction has been sufficient, however,
to allow consistent population growth since the late 1970's, and
productivity has, on average, exceeded its stated recovery objective
for 15 years.
In summary, based on the most current information (1997 survey and
early 1990 contamination data) the Service concludes that the basic
goals underlying all four objectives have been met or exceeded. The
number of pairs occupying nesting territories in the two study areas
and productivity exceeded, on average, the recovery objectives for the
past 15 years. Neither DDE residues in eggs nor eggshell thinning has
prevented a dramatic population growth since the late 1970's.
Canada
The 1988 Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan for Canada (Canadian
Recovery Plan) (Erickson et al. 1988) categorizes the historical range
of the American peregrine falcon throughout Canada into three regions,
which include the Western Mountains, Interior Plains, and the Eastern
Seaboard and Great Lakes. These regions are subdivided into nine zones
on the basis of historical population levels, habitat, political
boundaries, and restoration needs. The zones are (1) Maritime, (2)
Great Lakes, (3) Prairies, (4) Mackenzie River Valley, (5) Northern
Mountains, (6) Southern Mountains, (7) Eastern Mackenzie Watershed, (8)
Western Canadian Shield, and the (9) Eastern Canadian Shield. Coastal
British Columbia is excluded from consideration in the Canadian
Recovery Plan since this area is considered to be occupied by F. p.
pealei.
The goal of the Canadian Recovery Plan is to increase the wild
American peregrine falcon population in Canada so the subspecies is no
longer considered endangered or threatened by the Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The proposed objectives are
(1) to establish by 1992 a minimum of 10 territorial American peregrine
falcon pairs in each of Zones 1 to 6 and (2) to establish by 1997, in
each of 5 of these 6 zones, a minimum of 10 pairs naturally fledging 15
(1.5 yg/yr) or more young annually, measured as a 5-year average
beginning in 1993. No recovery goals were established for Zones 7, 8,
and 9. The Canadian Recovery Plan does not contain separate objectives
for reclassification of the subspecies in Canada from its current
endangered status to threatened.
The Canadian Wildlife Service has coordinated and published a
national range-wide peregrine falcon population survey once every 5
years starting in 1990. The results of the 1995 national population
survey were used in the following status summary of the American
peregrine falcon in Canada (Ursula Banasch, Canadian Wildlife Service,
in litt. 1997).
There are 98 known nest sites in Zones 1 and 2 (southern Ontario
and Quebec, northern Great Lakes, Bay of Fundy and Labrador), and
surveys located 64 pairs. There are 98 known nest sites in Zone 3
(Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta), and surveys located 41 pairs.
There are 117 known nest sites in Zone 4 (eastern N.W. Territories),
and surveys located 83 pairs. There are 125 known nest sites in Zone 5
(Yukon), and surveys located 113 pairs. There are 50 known nest sites
in Zone 6 (Interior British Columbia), and surveys located 18 pairs.
The total known number of pairs for all six zones in 1995 was 319, with
minimum goals achieved for every recovery zone.
The only comprehensive range-wide productivity surveys available to
the Service were the national population surveys coordinated by the
Canadian Wildlife Service in 1990 and 1995 (U. Banasch, in litt. 1997;
Holroyd and Banasch 1996). Surveys conducted in the intervening years
were not nationally coordinated and therefore were not complete. Thus,
the Service used the combined average annual productivity data
collected in the 1990 and 1995 surveys to address this recovery
objective.
In Zones 1 and 2, average productivity was 1.7 yg/pr (N=104 nests)
. In Zone 3, average productivity was 1.5 yg/pr (N=55). In Zone 4,
average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=171). In Zone 5, average
productivity was 1.8 yg/pr (N=626). No productivity data were available
for Zone 6. The 2-year average annual productivity for the Canadian
population of American peregrine falcons was 1.8 yg/pr.
In summary, the Canadian Recovery Plan identified two objectives to
determine recovery for the American peregrine falcon population in
Canada. Based on current available information, it is apparent that
both objectives have been met. The total number of pairs for all 6
zones in 1995 was 319, with minimum goals achieved for every recovery
zone. This count exceeds the total recovery goal of 60 pairs by 259.
The average annual productivity data
[[Page 45451]]
for 1990 and 1995 either met or exceeded objectives in 5 of the 6 zones
with an average annual productivity of 1.8 yg/pr for the Canadian
American peregrine falcon population.
Although the Canadian Recovery Plan did not identify pesticide
residue or eggshell thinning levels as recovery objectives, 205 eggs
and 62 samples from 28 specimens of peregrine falcons were collected in
Canada between 1965 and 1987 to assess organochlorine residue
concentrations. In all three subspecies (Falco peregrinus anatum, F. p.
tundrius, F. p. pealei) the proportion of specimens having residue
concentrations above established critical values (concentration at
which egg failure occurs, which varies among organochlorine
contaminants) has decreased and can be correlated with improvements in
the reproductive success of the population (Peakall et al. 1990).
Pacific Coast
The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1982b) for the American Peregrine Falcon, Pacific Population,
recommends that (1) 122 pairs be established in a specified
distribution spanning California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada and
that (2) these pairs achieve an average fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr
for consideration of reclassification to threatened status. It further
recommends that with attainment of (3) 185 wild, self-sustaining pairs
(California 120, Oregon 30, Washington 30, Nevada 5) and (4) an average
fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr for a 5-year period the subspecies can be
considered for delisting. Only the latter two objectives regarding
delisting are discussed in this proposal. The Pacific Population Plan
defines a ``self-sustaining'' population as one whose natural
productivity without human management is equal to or greater than its
mortality.
By 1976, because of DDT, no American peregrine falcons could be
found at 14 historical sites in Washington; Oregon had also lost most
of its peregrine falcons. In addition, only 1 or 2 pairs remained on
the California coast, with no more than 10 nest sites known to be
occupied in the entire State (Cade 1994). A steadily increasing number
of American peregrine falcon pairs breeding in Washington, Oregon, and
Nevada were indicated by surveys from 1991 to 1997; known pairs in
Washington increased from 17 to 44, in Oregon from 23 to 42, and in
Nevada from 3 to 6 (Gary Herron, Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers.
comm. 1997; Martin Nugent, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in
litt. 1997; David Anderson, Washington Department of Fish and Game, in
litt. 1997). The number of American peregrine falcons in California
increased from an estimated low of 5-10 breeding pairs in the early
1970's (Herman 1971) to a minimum of 147 occupied sites in 1997 (Santa
Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group 1997). The increase in California
has been concurrent with the restriction of DDT and management that
included the release of over 750 American peregrine falcons, including
captive-reared and relocated wild hatchlings, through 1997 (Walton
1997). Recovery of American peregrine falcons in some areas of
California, however, has been impeded by continuing elevated DDT levels
(Jarman 1994, Walton 1997). Based on currently available information,
it is evident that the first recovery objective has been met; a minimum
known population of 239 pairs exceeds the delisting goal of 185 by 54
pairs, and the distribution goals also have been met in all four
States. Surveys conducted from 1991 to 1997 demonstrate a steadily
increasing number of American peregrine falcon pairs, indicating that
natural productivity is greater than mortality in this recovery region.
Productivity measured in Washington between 1993 and 1997 ranged
from 1.3 to 1.8 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=159) (D.
Anderson, in litt. 1997). In Oregon, productivity between 1993 and 1997
ranged from 0.8 to 1.9 yg/pr, with an average of 1.3 yg/pr (N=127) (M.
Nugent, in litt. 1997). Between 1993 and 1997, productivity in
California ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 yg/pr, (N=356) with an average of 1.6
yg/pr (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1997). No productivity data were
available for Nevada.
Productivity, an important measure of population health, can be
difficult to determine in wide-ranging species nesting in remote
landscapes that are often difficult to access. However, data available
indicate that the average productivity from 1993 to 1997 in Washington,
Oregon and California was 1.5 yg/pr; therefore, the Service considers
this objective to be met.
The release of captive-bred American peregrine falcons was
suspended in Nevada in 1989, in California in 1992 (although the
relocation of wild hatchlings continued), and in Oregon and Washington
in 1995. The effect of these releases on population growth and
stability in this region are not yet completely known. As a result of
lower than expected first-year mortality of released birds, the
augmentation program accelerated the growth of the Pacific population
(Brian Walton, Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, pers. comm.
1997).
The Pacific Population Plan did not identify pesticide residue or
eggshell thinning levels as recovery objectives. However,
organochlorine residues and eggshell thinning have been measured in
California since the early 1970's. Jarman (1994) reported DDE
concentrations in 105 peregrine eggs collected in 1987-1992 from
California, and 11 eggs from Oregon from 1990 to 1993. Data collected
in 9 study regions in California (Jarman 1994) indicated the highest
concentrations of DDE were found in California eggs from the Channel
Islands and midcoast with 21 and 13 ppm, respectively. The southern
coast and San Francisco regions had the lowest concentrations of 5.5
and 4.3 ppm, respectively. The DDE concentrations in eggs collected
along the coast of California (between San Francisco Bay and 34 deg. N)
did not decrease between 1969 and 1992 (Jarman 1994). Eggs from Oregon
contained DDE levels of 10 ppm.
Eggshells from coastal California continue to show thinning. In
northern and central coastal California, eggshells collected between
1975 and 1995 averaged 17.7 and 19.1 percent thinner than pre-DDT era,
respectively (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). In northern interior
California, where 104 of the 186 sites known to be active at least once
since 1975 (1975-1993), eggshells averaged 15.6 percent thinner than
pre-DDT era shells (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). Eggshells collected
on the Channel Islands off the southern coast of California in 1992-
1995 averaged 19.4 percent thinner than those collected in California
prior to 1947 (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). In montane California, the
average has been 15 percent thinner than normal, and in eggshells from
the southern interior (coastal mountains) sites the average has been
17.9 percent thinner than normal (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). Urban
pairs experienced eggshell thinning averaging 8.7 percent in the San
Francisco area and 10.9 in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. A
summary of 633 clutch mean measurements representing 1,237 samples of
one or more eggshells collected between 1975 and 1995 from the
historical range of the American peregrine falcon in California
averaged 16.1 percent thinning (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). However,
current reproduction supports an expanding population in most areas
despite high organochlorine residue concentrations and associated
eggshell thinning that still occurs in some areas of the Pacific
population.
[[Page 45452]]
Rocky Mountain/Southwest
The American Peregrine Falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest Population
Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984) established three
recovery objectives for reclassification, including (1) increasing the
Falco peregrinus anatum population in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest
region to a minimum of 183 breeding pairs with the following
distribution: Arizona (46), Colorado (31), Idaho (17), Montana (20),
Nebraska (1), New Mexico (23), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (1),
Texas (8), Utah (21), and Wyoming (14); (2) sustaining a long-term
average production of 1.25 yg/pr without manipulation by 1995; and (3)
observing eggshell thickness within 10 percent of pre-DDT eggshells for
a 5-year span.
The prairie States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
and Oklahoma contain little peregrine falcon habitat, and historical
data are incomplete. No recovery goals for a specific number of
peregrine falcon pairs were set for Kansas or Oklahoma; peregrine
falcons are not known to have nested in Oklahoma. Currently, Nebraska
and Kansas each have one peregrine falcon pair (Tordoff, Martell, and
Redig 1997); no peregrine falcon pairs are known to occur in North
Dakota, South Dakota, or Oklahoma.
The Rocky Mountain/Southwest population of the American peregrine
falcon has made a profound comeback since the late 1970's when surveys
showed no occupied nest sites in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming and few
pairs in Colorado, New Mexico, and the Colorado Plateau, including
parts of southern Utah and Arizona (Cade 1994). Surveys conducted from
1991 to 1997 indicate that the number of American peregrine falcon
pairs in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest population is steadily
increasing. In 1991, this population supported 367 known pairs; in 1997
the number of pairs increased to 575 (Greg Beatty, Arizona Game and
Fish Department, in litt. 1997). Surveys conducted from 1992 to 1997
showed that, with the exception of Idaho, North Dakota, and South
Dakota, all States within the Rocky Mountain/Southwest population have
met their specific recovery goals for breeding pairs.
The current minimum known number of peregrine falcon pairs for each
State include Arizona 159, Colorado 81, Idaho 15, Montana 23, Nebraska
1, New Mexico 40, North Dakota 0, South Dakota 0, Texas 15, Utah 154,
Wyoming 40, and Kansas 1 (Jennifer Fowler-Propst, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1996; G. Beatty, in litt. 1997; James H.
Enderson, Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, pers. comm. 1997;
Frank Howe, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, in litt. 1997; John
Beals, Idaho Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1997; Bill Heinrich, The
Peregrine Fund, pers. comm. 1997; Mckinney 1994; B. R. Mckinney, pers.
comm. 1997; Dennis Flath, Montana Department of Fish and Parks, in
litt. 1977). The current Rocky Mountain/Southwest population is 529,
which surpasses the recovery objective of 183 by 346 pairs.
Between 1989 and 1997 the average productivity in Arizona was 1.1
yg/pr (N=294) (Ward and Siemens 1995; Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and
Fish Dept., in litt. 1996; G. Beatty, in litt. 1997). Although recent
productivity averages have fallen below the 1.25 yg/pr recovery goal,
Arizona has sustained a 24-year average of 1.4 yg/pr.
In 1973, 1974, and 1975, productivity in Colorado was 0.2, 1.9, and
0.7 yg/pr respectively, reflecting the irregular and generally poor
productivity typical of the 1970's (Platt and Enderson 1988). From 1990
to 1997, production averaged 1.5 yg/pr (Gerry Craig, Colorado Division
of Wildlife, in litt. 1995; J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1997).
Productivity measured in Colorado from 1972 to 1997 ranged from 0 to
2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=611) for the 26-year period
(G. Craig, in litt. 1995; J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1997).
In Idaho, productivity recorded from 1988 to 1997 ranged from 0 to
2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for this 10-year period (N=103)
(Wayne Melquist, Idaho Fish and Game, in litt. 1996; J. Beals, pers.
comm. 1997). In Montana, productivity between 1984 and 1997 ranged from
0.3 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 14-year period
(N=119) (D. Flath, pers. comm. 1997; Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and
Fish Department, in litt. 1996). In Nebraska, productivity between 1992
and 1997 for a single pair ranged from 0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average
of 1.0 yg/pr for the 6-year period (N=6) (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).
New Mexico has sustained an 11-year (1986-1997) average
productivity of 1.71 yg/pr (N=246) (Sartor O. Williams, New Mexico
Dept. of Game & Fish, in litt. 1997). Productivity in 1995, 1996, and
1997 was 1.3 (N=43), 1.5 (N=44), and 1.6 (N=40) yg/pr, respectively (J.
Fowler-Propst, in litt. 1997). New Mexico has maintained a 22-year
average productivity of 1.6 yg/pr.
In Texas, productivity recorded from 1975 to 1997 ranged from 0 to
2.3 yg/pr, with an average of 0.9 yg/pr for the 23-year period
(Mckinney 1994; B. Mckinney, pers. comm. 1997). Peregrine falcon
surveys conducted in the Big Bend National Park, Texas, between 1986
and 1989 recorded an average productivity of 1.08 yg/pr (Moore 1989).
In Utah, between 1985 and 1987, productivity averaged 0.8 yg/pr.
From 1991 to 1996, productivity ranged from 0.9 to 2.0 yg/pr, with an
average of 1.3 yg/pr for the 6-year period (Bunnell 1994; F.H. Howe, in
litt. 1997). In Wyoming, productivity between 1984 and 1997 ranged from
0.9 to 3.0 yg/pr with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 14-year period
(Joe White, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in litt. 1995; B.H.
Heinrich, pers. comm. 1997). In Kansas, productivity between 1993 and
1997 ranged from 0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.0 yg/pr for the
4-year period (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).
With the exception of Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas, the long-term
productivity goal of 1.25 yg/pr for the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region
has been exceeded by all States with breeding American peregrine
falcons. Although Texas has exceeded its goal for number of pairs,
heavy metal contamination, particularly mercury, in adults and
nestlings may be depressing productivity (Andrew Sansom, Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, in litt. 1995). Residual mercury contamination
from mines operated along the Rio Grande River in the early 1900's are
the suspected source of this contamination (B. Mckinney, pers. comm.
1997). Nebraska and Kansas have had only one peregrine falcon pair each
since 1992, and breeding has been sporadic in both States.
The average productivity for the nine States supporting breeding
populations is 1.4 yg/pr, well above the goal of 1.25 yg/pr goal. Even
though Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas have not yet met the productivity
goal, productivity throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region has
been more than sufficient for recruitment to exceed mortality, so
dramatic population growth has resulted.
In Arizona, eggshells collected between 1978 and 1983 averaged 14.2
percent thinner, and 20 eggshell replicates collected from 1989 to 1994
averaged 13 percent thinner than pre-DDT era eggshells (Ellis et al.
1989, Ward and Siemens 1995). In Colorado and New Mexico, shells from
260 eggs laid between 1977 and 1985 averaged 12 percent thinner than
pre-DDT eggshells (Enderson et al. 1988). In another analysis of eggs
from New Mexico, eggshells collected in 1977 averaged 20 percent
thinner than pre-DDT eggshells, but in 1985 averaged only 14 percent
thinner (Ponton et al. 1988). Eggshell thickness measurements for
Colorado from 1973 to 1997 included a maximum
[[Page 45453]]
of 25.1 percent thinner and a minimum of 6.0 percent thinner than pre-
DDT eggshells, with an average thinning of 13.5 percent. Only in
Colorado has the objective for eggshell thickness been achieved. In
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 measurements of 10.6, 11.7, 8.6, 8.1,
and 6.0 percent thinning, respectively, the average of the annual means
was 9.0 percent thinning for this period (G. Craig, in litt. 1995).
Although the recovery objective was not met in other States in the
region, there is a general trend toward thicker eggshells in
measurements taken since the mid-1970's (L. Kiff, pers. comm. 1995).
In summary, the first recovery objective in the Rocky Mountain/
Southwest Recovery Plan has been met; the current population of 529
pairs exceeds the goal of 183 pairs by 346 pairs. These pairs are
distributed throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States. By the mid-
1980's the practice of fostering chicks into active nests was
terminated; therefore, the long-term average productivity this recovery
region has demonstrated has been accomplished without nest
manipulation. The second objective of 1.25 yg/pr for 5 years has been
met by all Rocky Mountain/Southwest States that have breeding American
peregrine falcons except Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas. The current
reproductive level of the 10 States with breeding populations
(including Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas) is 1.4 yg/pr, exceeding the
second objective. Therefore, the Service considers the intent of this
objective met. Based on the degree of recovery achieved, the third
objective, that average eggshell thickness is within 10 percent of the
pre-DDT era average for 5 years, appears to be conservative. The
increase in numbers of American peregrine falcons indicates the
subspecies has recovered without the necessity of reaching this
specific recovery objective.
The Rocky Mountain/Southwest Recovery Plan did not identify
pesticide residue levels as a recovery objective. However,
organochlorine pesticide residues in American peregrine falcon eggs
measured in Colorado and New Mexico between 1973 and 1979 averaged 26
ppm DDE, but the average declined to 15 ppm by 1980-1983 (Enderson et
al. 1988). The average concentration in eggs collected in Colorado from
1986 to 1989 was 11 ppm; however, the sample included only 5 eggs
(Jarman et al. 1993).
Eastern United States
The Peregrine Falcon, Eastern Population Recovery Plan, first
published in 1979 (Eastern Plan) and revised in 1985 and 1991 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1991), addressed the recovery of the
peregrine falcon in the Eastern United States, which was established
beginning in 1974 and 1975 by releasing captive-bred peregrine falcons
of mixed genetic heritage. The recovery plan established two recovery
objectives including (1) a minimum of 20-25 nesting pairs in each of 5
recovery units to be established and sustained for a minimum of 3
years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-200 pairs demonstrating
successful, sustained nesting. The five recovery units are (1) Mid-
Atlantic Coast, (2) Northern New York and New England, (3) Southern
Appalachians, (4) Great Lakes, and (5) Southern New England/Central
Appalachians.
The first recovery objective has been substantially achieved, with
3 of the 5 recovery units (Mid-Atlantic Coast, Northern New York and
New England, and Great Lakes) surpassing 20-25 nesting pairs of
peregrine falcons for 3 years. The Mid-Atlantic Coast unit had 58 pairs
fledging 76 young in 1997 and averaged 60 pairs and 90 fledglings
annually from 1995 to 1997. The Northern New York and New England unit
had 49 pairs fledging 65 young in 1997 and averaged 43 pairs and 59
fledglings annually from 1995 to 1997 (Mike Amaral, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997). The Great Lakes unit had 42 pairs
fledging 78 young in 1997 and averaged 36 pairs and 63 fledglings from
1995 to 1997 (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997). The Southern Appalachians unit
had 11 pairs fledging 23 young in 1997, and the Southern New England
and Central Appalachians unit had 14 pairs fledging 20 young in 1997
(L. Kiff, in litt. 1997; David Flemming, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, in litt. 1997). In 1997, there was a total of 174 pairs
counted in the 5 Eastern State recovery units, almost the minimum
recovery level of the Eastern Plan. The recovery goal, however, may
already have been exceeded because up to 10 percent of territorial
pairs in any given year escape detection and are not counted (Cade et
al. 1988a). Importantly, the number of territorial pairs recorded in
the eastern peregrine falcon recovery area has increased an average of
10 per cent annually for the past 5 years (1992-1997). Equally
important is that the productivity of these pairs during the same 5-
year period has averaged 1.5 fledged young per territorial pair.
As of 1997, there were at least 31 peregrine pairs in 6 Midwestern
States nesting outside the recovery area delineated for those States in
the 1991 recovery plan--the birds are nesting successfully in a greater
area than believed likely in 1991. Peregrine falcons now found in
Midwestern States are the result of captive-reared and released birds
and others that probably came from the peregrine falcons released in
the eastern States. Although there appears to be a zone of no nesting
in the northeastern Great Plains that separates the western native
American peregrine falcons from the introduced eastern peregrine
falcons (C. Kjos, pers. comm. 1997), the genetic origins of the
midwestern peregrine falcons are unknown, and the potential for
interchange of individuals between the two areas cannot be dismissed.
There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the
Midwestern and Eastern States where peregrine falcons had been
extirpated.
Mexico
None of the existing recovery plans written for peregrine falcons
in North America established recovery criteria for birds that nest in
Mexico. There is very little historical or recent information on
peregrine falcons in Mexico for accurately assessing their current
status in Mexico.
Porter et al. (1988) reported 42 known nesting territories on the
western side of the Baja California Peninsula. From 1966 through 1971,
only three pairs occurred in this region and none were found in 1976
(Porter et al. 1988), indicating a substantial decline had occurred by
the mid-1970's. Most of these territories apparently have not been
checked since that time, but seven pairs were located in 1985-1992 in
areas not occupied in the years just before (Massey and Palacios 1994).
In 1993, three active American peregrine falcon nests were
discovered in Ojo de Liebre (Scammon's) Lagoon on the western side of
the Baja California Peninsula in an area without historical nesting
records (Castellanos et al. 1994). The central west coast of the Baja
California Peninsula was an important breeding area with an historical
population of about 13 pairs (Banks 1969). Between 1980 and 1994,
Castellanos et al. (1997) conducted breeding surveys of American
peregrine falcons in this area of the coast and found 10 nesting pairs.
Castellanos et al. (1997) studied the reproductive success of three
pairs in 1993 and five pairs in 1994 located at Ojo de Liebre and San
Ignacio Lagoons. An average of three eggs, 1.8 nestlings, and 1.6
fledglings were produced per nest. This productivity appears to be
within the range of normal productivity for healthy populations (Cade
et al. 1988b). These observations suggest some recent
[[Page 45454]]
recovery on the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula.
On the western (Gulf of California) side of mainland Mexico, Porter
et al. (1988) reported 23 historical nest sites. A number of new nest
sites were found in this area in 1966-1984, increasing the number of
known nest sites to 51. Territory occupancy averaged about 82 percent
in 1967-1971 and 77 percent in 1971-1975, indicating that territory
occupancy in that area never declined as significantly as on the west
side of the Baja California Peninsula. Porter and Jenkins (1988)
believed that the number of occupied territories in the Gulf area
increased after 1967 following a reduction in DDE residues in prey.
Between 1989 and 1997, Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (in litt. 1997) found three pairs of American peregrine
falcons, one pair on the Rio Aros and two on the Rio Yaqui, Sonora.
Hunt et al. (1988) found 14 occupied American peregrine falcon nesting
territories in the highlands of northeast Mexico in 1982. In this area
and adjacent West Texas, territory occupancy averaged about 70 percent
during 1973-1985.
Most of what is known about productivity and pesticide residues in
Mexico comes from the western mainland near the Gulf of California.
Porter et al. (1988) found that productivity along the Gulf of
California in 1965-1984 was ``somewhat less than normal,'' and 5 addled
eggs collected in 1976-1984 averaged 12.8 ppm DDE with a range of 2.4
``25.0 ppm (Porter and Jenkins 1988). DDE residues in prey in the Gulf
area declined from the 1960's to the 1980's, and this decline
correlated with increases in productivity and the number of breeding
pairs (Porter and Jenkins 1988). Some prey, however, still contained
high pesticide residues, and reproduction appeared to be affected by
organochlorine at 3 of 15 nests examined (Porter and Jenkins 1988).
Hunt et al. (1988) found that only 5 of 14 pairs produced young in
northeast Mexico in 1982. Hunt et al. (1988) reported significant DDE
residues in peregrine falcon prey species in western Texas in the mid
1980's, but prey species in Mexico were not sampled.
In summary, there has been little research on the distribution,
numbers, and status of American peregrine falcons in Mexico, and most
research took place in the Baja California Peninsula and the Gulf of
California regions. Numbers on the west coast of the Baja California
Peninsula declined significantly (Porter et al. 1988), but observations
suggest that numbers may have increased in recent years (Massey and
Palacios 1994, Castellanos et al. 1994, Castellanos et al. 1997). In
the Gulf of California area, territory occupancy never was known to
drop below 77 percent (Porter et al. 1988), but it increased in the
1970's and 1980's (Porter and Jenkins 1988). An unknown number of pairs
inhabit the Chihauhuan Desert and the Sierra Madre Occidental in the
interior of Mexico.
No information on population trends for American peregrine falcons
in Mexico is available; however, the status of the Mexican population
may be similar to that of the population occupying similar habitat in
nearby Arizona (G. Hunt, pers. comm. 1997). Exposure to organochlorine-
based pesticides continues to be a threat to Mexican-nesting
populations. In 1997, as part of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
established a North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT, which
proposes a phased reduction, resulting in the eventual elimination of
DDT used for malaria control in Mexico. Specific goals of the NARAP are
to (1) reduce the use of DDT for malaria control in Mexico by 80
percent in 5 years (beginning in 1997); (2) eliminate the illegal use
of DDT in agriculture in Mexico; (3) develop a cooperative approach to
minimize movement of malaria-infected mosquitos across borders and
reduce the illegal importation of DDT; and (4) advance global controls
on DDT production, export and use.
Eliminating protection for peregrine falcons under the Act is
unlikely to increase the risk to American peregrine falcons nesting in
Mexico. Adverse effects of organochlorine pesticides in the environment
remains an international concern, not only for peregrine falcons
nesting in Mexico, but for peregrine falcons wintering in or migrating
through Latin America. By undertaking the steps proposed in the NARAP,
the United States, Canada, and Mexico are committing to ongoing
cooperative activities and yearly reporting on progress made on these
initiatives and objectives. Annual reports will be submitted to the
North American Working Group for the Sound Management of Chemicals, and
subsequently disseminated to the Council of the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation and the public.
Summary of Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Five regional peregrine falcon recovery plans, four for American
peregrine falcons in Canada and the Western United States and one for
the Eastern United States introduced peregrine falcon population, were
written to guide recovery efforts and establish criteria to be used in
measuring recovery. These recovery plans included objectives using
population size and reproductive performance to measure recovery. Only
two of the recovery plans included specific objectives that applied to
pesticide residues in eggs and eggshell thinning. The combined
population size goal for the 4 American peregrine falcon recovery plans
is 456 pairs. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 pairs occupy the range of
the American peregrine falcon in Alaska, Canada, and the Western United
States, 174 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the 5 recovery units
included in the Eastern Plan, and an additional 31 peregrine falcon
pairs occur in Midwestern States in areas not included in the Eastern
Plan recovery units.
Other objectives, including those for pesticide residues in eggs
and the degree to which eggshells are thinner than pre-pesticide era
eggshells, vary among the plans. In the case of eggshell thinning,
current measurements obtained in some areas fall short of recovery
objectives. Eggshell thinning was originally suggested by recovery
teams as an indicator of whether organochlorine contamination was
preventing species recovery. Despite the failure of populations in
localized areas to meet recovery objectives, overall, populations of
American peregrine falcons have increased considerably. This increase
continues to occur even after reintroduction efforts have been
curtailed. The consistent and geographically widespread trends in
increasing population size demonstrate that current levels of
reproductive failure, pesticide residues, and eggshell thinning still
affecting American peregrine falcons in some areas have not prevented
recovery of the subspecies in most of North America. Exposure to
environmental contaminants remains a concern that must continue to be
addressed internationally in order to protect nesting, migrating, and
wintering populations of American peregrine falcons outside the United
States.
Summary of Issues and Recommendations
In the Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove the American
Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(60 FR 34406, June 30, 1995), the Service requested that all interested
parties provide data and comments on the status and possible proposal
to delist the American
[[Page 45455]]
peregrine falcon. The Service provided the governments of Canada and
Mexico with the Advanced Notice. Canada responded and provided data but
gave no position on the proposal, and Mexico did not respond. The
Service received a total of 171 comment letters from 43 States and
Canada, which included 12 Federal resource and 32 State resource
agencies, 41 falconry associations or falconers, 13 conservation
organizations, and 45 private individuals. Of the responses received,
92 supported the proposal to delist, 46 opposed the proposal, 13
supported downlisting, and 20 expressed no opinion. These comments and
responses are available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours (see ``Addresses''). Those responses objecting to
the Service's proposal contained several concerns, presented below with
the Service's response.
Issue 1: The data do not support delisting the American peregrine
falcon throughout its range in the continental United States. There
should be a combination of downlisting, delisting, and no change in
status for individual recovery areas based on the degree of attainment
of recovery plan objectives regarding not only numbers of peregrine
falcons, but also productivity and eggshell thinning goals. The Service
should consider downlisting the American peregrine falcon to threatened
rather than delisting.
Service Response: Data for 1996-1997, which were not available at
the time of the advanced delisting notice, have been included in this
proposed rule. These more recent data show improvements in numbers of
breeding pairs of peregrine falcons and productivity since 1994 (Refer
to Table 1, ``Recovery Status,'' and ``Summary of American Peregrine
Falcon Recovery''), and demonstrate that goals set for numbers and
productivity by the four American peregrine falcon recovery plans have
been met or exceeded. The combined population size goal for the 4
American peregrine falcon recovery plans is 456 pairs. Currently, a
minimum of 1,388 known pairs occupy sites in Alaska, Canada, and the
Western United States. A number of additional pairs have probably been
undetected.
Only the Alaska recovery plan set a goal for DDT levels, and only
two recovery plans (Alaska and Rocky Mountain/Southwest) specified
objectives for eggshell thinning. The Alaska Plan set a delisting goal
of less than 5 ppm DDT and less than 10 percent eggshell thinning.
Recent data for American peregrine falcon eggs indicate DDT levels at
less than 3.5 ppm, exceeding that goal, and eggshell thinning is at
12.5 percent. Measurements for eggshell thinning have not been
consistently taken in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States. Colorado has
met the recovery plan eggshell thinning goal of less than 10 percent;
the average of the annual means for 1990-1994 was 9.0 percent. Data for
other States show a general trend toward thicker eggshells since the
mid-1970's (refer to ``Rocky Mountain/Southwest'' under ``Recovery
Status''). Overall productivity goals were met or exceeded in the four
American peregrine falcon recovery plans using productivity as a
recovery criterion.
Three of five peregrine falcon recovery units in the Eastern United
States have met recovery goals, and 174 pairs documented in 1997
indicate the overall recovery goal of 175-200 pairs has probably been
met when considering that up to 10 percent of territorial pairs in any
given year escape detection (Cade et al. 1988a). In addition, another
31 pairs are nesting in areas of the Midwest outside the recovery units
specified in the eastern plan but nevertheless contribute to overall
restoration goals.
The Service believes that the species has essentially achieved the
goals established for recovery and, in many areas, has exceeded the
goals. The Service believes the available information supports full
delisting of the species throughout its range, although some recovery
plan areas are experiencing slower recovery due to fluxes in
productivity or residual DDT/DDE impacts. The trends in productivity,
however, as well as DDT/DDE reduction, clearly indicate continued
population increases. The Service believes that, when viewed on a
range-wide or even region-wide basis, the species clearly is not in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range and
warrants full delisting.
Issue 2: American peregrine falcons should not be delisted because
they have not been restored throughout the historical range.
Service Response: Restoration of the American peregrine falcon
throughout the historical range was not a goal of any of the recovery
plans written for this subspecies and is not required for recovery.
Generally, the goal of a recovery program is to restore the species to
a point at which protection under the Act is no longer required. To be
recovered, a species must not be endangered with extinction, or be
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. As a species
recovers in numbers and populations expand, more of the historical
range can be reoccupied where appropriate habitat remains. In the case
of the peregrine falcon, a significant amount of unoccupied but
suitable habitat remains, so continued expansion is expected.
Issue 3: There are gaps in the scientific knowledge about American
peregrine biology. A population viability analysis has not been done;
genetic diversity, viable population size, knowledge of population
dynamics, and long-term stability of populations have not been
determined.
Service Response: A complete understanding of the biology of a
species is not required to determine a species' conservation status
under the Act. Population viability analyses are important tools for
attempting to quantify threats to a species, particularly those facing
loss and fragmentation of habitat, and the consequences of conservation
actions, as well as aiding in identifying critical factors for study,
management, and monitoring. These analyses are not essential, however,
to determine when a species has achieved recovery, particularly in the
case of the American peregrine falcon. It is evident that recovery of
this subspecies has been largely achieved by eliminating the use of DDT
and by successful management activities, including the reintroduction
of captive-bred American peregrine falcons. Recovery goals established
for the species have been met or exceeded, with few exceptions.
Issue 4: Organochlorine pesticides still persist within the
breeding range of the American peregrine falcon and continue to depress
natural productivity.
Service Response: Continued exposure to organochlorines in areas
outside the U.S. remains a concern that must be addressed
internationally. The North American Regional Action Plan on DDT, an
ongoing effort under the North American Working Group for the Sound
Management of Chemicals, has specific goals to reduce and eliminate the
use of DDT and advance global controls on DDT production, export and
use. Monitoring organochlorine exposure and productivity of American
peregrine falcon populations breeding and nesting in Mexico and Latin
America could potentially be funded and part of post-delisting
monitoring for this subspecies. American peregrine falcons have
increased throughout their historical range in the U.S. despite the
continued presence of organochlorine residues in certain populations
(e.g., coastal California). American peregrine falcon populations have
met or
[[Page 45456]]
exceeded recovery goals in the four recovery plans (Table 1), and the
Service believes removing the endangered status of this subspecies is
appropriate. Bioaccumulation of organochlorine residues will be
monitored in the United States during the minimum 5-year post-delisting
monitoring period. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence''
for an in-depth discussion. See also Service response to issue 9.
Issue 5: The continued unrestricted use of organochlorine
pesticides in Latin America places the American peregrine falcon at
risk of contamination while on migration and on its wintering grounds.
Service Response: Comparisons of blood samples collected during
fall and spring migration indicate that, although migrant peregrine
falcons accumulate pesticides while wintering in Latin America, DDE
residues in the blood taken from female peregrine falcons captured
during spring migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased between 1978
and 1994 below levels that would affect reproduction (Henny et al.
1996). Despite the continued use of organochlorines in Latin America,
the American peregrine falcon has recovered over most of its historic
range, and Arctic peregrine falcons, which also winter in Latin
America, have been delisted. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species, E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence'' for an in-depth discussion. The North American
Working Group for the Sound Management of Chemicals promotes a regional
perspective that encourages the active involvement of Central and South
American countries in the implementation of the North American Regional
Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT, and is facilitating international
cooperation on combating malaria in these regions without the continued
use of organochlorine pesticides.
Issue 6: The take of American peregrine falcons for falconry after
its delisting will create an additional threat to the subspecies.
Service Response: Delisting the American peregrine falcon will not
affect the protection given to all migratory bird species, including
the peregrine falcon, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The
regulations issued pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allow for
issuance of permits to take raptors for falconry provided the taking
will not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR 21.28 and 13.21(b)). The
Service will establish biological criteria for the issuance of permits
for take of peregrine falcons for falconry to ensure the taking does
not negatively impact wild populations, particularly those in need of
further recovery. These criteria will pertain to all wild North
American peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future
falconry and raptor propagation permit holders. Until such time as
these criteria are in place, take for falconry and raptor propagation
purposes under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will not be authorized.
The Service expects to finalize the criteria before it issues a final
decision on this delisting proposal. The effects of take for falconry
will be assessed during the minimum 5-year post-delisting monitoring
period following delisting. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' (paragraph D) and ``Effects of this Rule'' for further
information.
Issue 7: The Service cannot consider delisting the American
peregrine falcon until all recovery goals in the four existing recovery
plans for this subspecies have been met or exceeded.
Service Response: Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to
develop and implement recovery plans for species of animals or plants
listed as endangered or threatened. Recovery is the process by which
the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or
reversed and threats to its survival are neutralized so that long-term
survival in nature can be ensured. The goal of this process is the
maintenance of secure, self-sustaining wild populations of species with
the minimum investment of resources. One of the main purposes of the
recovery plan is to enumerate goals (guidelines) that will help the
Service to determine when recovery for a particular species has been
achieved. The Act does not require that all of the specific recovery
goals for a listed species must be met or exceeded before it can be
delisted.
The Service determines whether recovery has been achieved based on
a species' performance relative to the goals set in its recovery plan
and the best available scientific information. A species is recovered
when it is no longer endangered with extinction (i.e., endangered), or
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., threatened). The
peregrine falcon meets these requirements for removal from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
The American peregrine falcon has either met, exceeded, or is very
close to meeting the recovery goals set for this subspecies throughout
its range, and the specific goals not met are not factors preventing
recovery. The Service considers that the intent of all the objectives
have been met and that the recovery of the species justifies a proposal
to delist.
Issue 8: The eastern peregrine falcon population has not met the
recovery goals set for it in the Eastern Recovery Plan and, therefore,
should not be delisted.
Service Response: Current data, through 1997, on the status of the
eastern peregrine falcon population indicate that the intent of the
recovery goals set for this population have been met. The recovery plan
established two recovery objectives including (1) a minimum of 20-25
nesting pairs in each of five recovery units to be established and
sustained for a minimum of 3 years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-
200 pairs demonstrating successful, sustained nesting. Three of the
five recovery units (Mid-Atlantic Coast, Northern New York and New
England, and Great Lakes) have surpassed the nesting pair goal for 3
years. The Southern Appalachians and Southern New England/Central
Appalachians units may not yet have achieved the recommended number of
breeding pair goals established for those areas. However, the overall
minimum of 175-200 successful pairs in the eastern region has been
largely achieved, and over the past 5 years (1992-1997), the number of
territorial pairs has increased an average of 10 per cent annually.
There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the
midwestern and eastern States where falcons had been extirpated, and
pairs are successfully nesting throughout a greater range that
anticipated in 1991. The Service believes the intent of the recovery
objectives have been satisfied and that recovery of the peregrine in
the eastern United States is sufficiently established. Refer to
``Recovery Status'' for additional discussion on this subject.
Issue 9: The status of the American peregrine falcon in Mexico has
not been adequately addressed.
Service Response: While population status and trends for falcons
nesting in Sonora and the highlands of Central Mexico is not known,
American peregrine falcon populations in the United States and Canada,
including those migrating from Latin America to nest, have met or
exceeded the criteria for delisting. Removing protection for the
species under United States domestic law is not anticipated to either
benefit or harm American peregrine falcons in Mexico. Environmental
exposure to organochlorine pesticides continues to be a concern for
resident nesting American peregrine falcons in Sonora and the highlands
of Central
[[Page 45457]]
Mexico, because it is likely that productivity in these local
populations is being adversely affected. Delisting does not eliminate
the need for continued international efforts regarding contaminants
monitoring in Mexico. Current DDT production is restricted to one
facility in Mexico, which supplies DDT for authorized government use in
malaria vector control. DDT is registered only for use in government-
sponsored public health campaigns, and continues to be an important
tool in the fight against malaria transmission, although new, less
environmentally harmful measures are being investigated. Sixty percent
of Mexico's territory, from sea level to 1,800 meters above sea level,
presents favorable conditions for malaria transmission. This includes
the Pacific coast, the Gulf of Mexico slopes, the Yucatan peninsula and
interior basins of the high plateau. In some cases, targeted malaria
control areas may overlap with nesting American peregrine falcons.
Refer to ``Mexico'' under ``Recovery Status'' for additional discussion
on this subject.
Issue 10: Post-declassification monitoring for 5 years is
essential.
Service Response: The Service agrees. The Endangered Species Act
requires the Secretary to implement a system in cooperation with the
States to monitor effectively for not less than 5 years the status of
all species which have recovered to the point that protection of the
Act is no longer required (section 4(g)). If it becomes evident during
the course of the post-delisting monitoring that the species again
required protection of the Act, it would be relisted. Refer to
``Monitoring'' under ``Future Conservation Measures'' for the proposed
development of a post-delisting monitoring program for the peregrine
falcon, and the conditions under which this subspecies might be
relisted.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR
Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act,
set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting
species on the Federal lists. A species may be listed if one or more of
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the
continued existence of the species. A species may be delisted,
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial
data available substantiate that the species is neither endangered or
threatened because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) because the
original data for classification of the species were in error.
After a thorough review of all available information, the Service
has determined a substantial peregrine falcon recovery has taken place
since the early 1980's. The Service determines that none of the five
factors addressed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and discussed below,
is currently affecting the species, including the American peregrine
falcon subspecies and introduced peregrine falcon populations, such
that the species is endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range). These factors and their application to the
peregrine falcon in North America are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Peregrine falcons occupy a variety of habitat types and nest from
the boreal forest region of Alaska and Canada, through much of Canada
and the western United States, south to parts of central and western
Mexico. Nesting habitat includes cliffs and bluffs in boreal forests,
coastal cliffs and islands, urban skyscrapers and other structures, and
cliffs and buttes in southwestern deserts. In some breeding areas, such
as the southern United States, some or all of the birds remain year-
round on their nesting territories. In other breeding areas,
particularly in high latitudes, many or all of the individuals are
highly migratory; these individuals occupy a number of regions and
habitat types throughout the year as they nest, migrate to and from
wintering areas, and occupy their wintering ranges. Due to the
extensive geographic distribution of the peregrine falcon, the wide
variety of habitat types in which the species nests, and the immense
area that some of the more migratory individuals occupy during a year,
the peregrine falcon occupies an extremely broad array of areas and
habitats throughout its range. As a result, the degree to which
peregrine falcons have been affected by human-caused habitat
modification varies widely by region, habitat type, and individual
falcons within the population.
As human population has grown in North America, the rate of habitat
alteration has unquestionably increased. Certainly some peregrine
falcon habitat has been destroyed, such as the many wetlands drained in
recent years that were previously used by peregrine falcons for
foraging or as migratory staging areas during spring and fall. But
peregrine falcons have colonized many cities in North America due to
the abundance of nest sites on buildings and the abundance of prey,
such as feral rock doves (Columba livia), that thrive in urban areas.
Therefore, some forms of habitat modification have negatively affected
peregrine falcons while other forms have benefited them. It would be
difficult to estimate the net, overall effect of habitat modification
on the species throughout North America.
Although the rate of habitat modification in North America has
increased in recent decades, the number of American peregrine falcons
occupying the region has increased substantially since the late 1970's
or early 1980's. In several parts of their range, including parts of
Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, California, and the
southwestern United States, the number of breeding pairs has increased
rapidly in recent years, and some local populations now occur at very
high densities (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997; G. Holroyd, pers. comm.
1997; Enderson et al. 1995). Because these rapid population growth
rates and high densities were achieved despite considerable habitat
modification in North America, the Service concludes that habitat
modification or destruction has not been a limiting factor in peregrine
recovery. It does not currently threaten the existence of the American
peregrine falcon nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Delisting the peregrine falcon will not result in overutilization
because the delisting will not affect protection provided to all
subspecies of the peregrine falcon by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The take of all migratory birds, including peregrine falcons, is
governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act's regulation of the taking of
migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes
and requiring harvest be limited to levels that prevent overutilization
(See ``D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'').
C. Disease or Predation
Although individuals are vulnerable to disease and predation, these
factors are not known to affect the peregrine falcon at the population
level. Great horned owls are natural predators of peregrine falcons
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) and may be responsible for the
slow recovery of peregrine falcons in two recovery areas
[[Page 45458]]
in the reestablished eastern population (M. Amaral in litt. 1995).
Great horned owl predation was not documented as a significant cause of
the decline in peregrine falcons and has not affected the species'
overall recovery.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Upon delisting, peregrine falcons will no longer be protected from
take and commerce by the Endangered Species Act. However, peregrine
falcons will still be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16
U.S.C. 703). Section 704 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 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.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its implementing regulations (50
CFR Parts 20 and 21) prohibit take, possession, import, export,
transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase or
barter, any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as
authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Certain exceptions
apply to employees of the Department of the Interior to enforce the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to Federal Government employees, and to
State game departments, municipal game farms or parks, and public
museums, public zoological parks, accredited institutional members of
the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (now called
the American Zoo and Aquarium Association) and public scientific or
educational institutions.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and implementing regulations allow
for the taking and use of migratory birds, but require that such use
not adversely affect populations. Regulations at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.30
specifically authorize the issuance of permits to take, possess,
transport and engage in commerce with raptors for falconry purposes and
for propagation purposes. Certain criteria must be met prior to
issuance of these permits, including a requirement that the issuance
will not threaten a wildlife population (50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)). The
Service will develop specific biological criteria to govern the take of
peregrine falcons prior to authorizing take for falconry and raptor
propagation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No take of wild North
American peregrines will be authorized until these criteria are in
place. The criteria will apply to all current and future falconry and
raptor propagation permit holders. In addition to considering the
effect on wild populations, issuance of raptor propagation permits
requires that the Service consider whether suitable captive stock is
available and whether wild stock is needed to enhance the genetic
variability of captive stock (50 CFR 21.30(c)(4)). These regulatory
provisions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will adequately protect
against excessive take of peregrine falcons (see additional discussion
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the Effects of this Rule section
below). Protective measures could be expanded, if necessary, by
promulgation of a regulation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the
Service following or during the assessment of the effects of this take
on peregrine falcons during the 5-year post-listing monitoring period.
Therefore, in the event the peregrine falcon is delisted under the
Endangered Species Act, the Service has authority under the Migratory
Bird Treat Act to ensure the conservation of the species.
In the absence of habitat protection under the Endangered Species
Act, there are no other existing Federal laws that specifically protect
the habitat of this species (see ``Critical Habitat''); however, loss
of habitat has not been identified as a threat to the species and was
not a factor identified as contributing to the species original
decline.
An important regulatory mechanism affecting peregrine falcons is
the requirement that pesticides be registered with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Under the authority of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136), the
Environmental Protection Agency requires environmental testing of all
new pesticides. Testing the effects of pesticides on representative
wildlife species prior to pesticide registration is specifically
required. This protection from effects of pesticides would not be
altered by delisting the peregrine falcon.
On July 1, 1975, peregrine falcons were included in Appendix I of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). This treaty was established to prevent
international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants
and animals. Generally, both import and export permits are required by
the importing and exporting countries before an Appendix I species may
be shipped, and Appendix I species may not be imported for primarily
commercial purposes. Although CITES does not itself regulate take or
domestic trade, CITES permits may not be issued if the export will be
detrimental to the survival of the species or if the specimens were not
legally acquired. This protection would not be altered by delisting the
peregrine falcon under the Act.
Peregrine falcons will still be afforded some protection by land
management agencies under laws such as the National Forest Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1600) and the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (43
U.S.C. 1701). National Forest Management Act regulations specify that
``fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable
populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate
species in the planning area.'' (36 CFR 219.19). Guidelines for each
planning area must provide for a diversity of plant and animal
communities based on the suitability of a specific land area. Regional
Foresters are responsible for identifying sensitive species occurring
within their Region. Sensitive species are those that may require
special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude
trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal
listing. In the event the peregrine falcon is delisted, Regional
Foresters will consider the need for designating the peregrine falcon
as a sensitive species to ensure that forest management activities do
not contribute to a need for relisting. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act requires that public lands be managed to protect the
quality of scientific, ecological, and environmental qualities, among
others, and to preserve and protect certain lands in their natural
condition to provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife.
Federal delisting of the peregrine falcon will not remove the
peregrine falcon from State threatened and endangered species lists, or
suspend any other legal protections provided by State law. States may
have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife, including restrictions
on falconry, and may retain State threatened or endangered status for
the peregrine falcon. Falconry permits will still be required under
Federal migratory bird regulations, which are administered by
cooperating States under a Federal/State permit application program (50
CFR 21.28).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Egg collecting, shooting, harvest for falconry, habitat
destruction, climate change, and the extinction of passenger pigeons
were all proposed as possible
[[Page 45459]]
factors causing or contributing to the decline in peregrine falcon
populations in North America; however, no evidence supports any of
these factors as causing the widespread reproductive failure and
population decline that occurred. In contrast, an overwhelming body of
evidence has been accumulated showing that organochlorine pesticides
affected survival and reproductive performance sufficiently to cause
the decline. There currently is no question within the scientific
community that contamination with organochlorines was the principal
cause for the drastic declines and extirpations in peregrine falcon
populations that took place in most parts of North America.
Although the use of organochlorine pesticides has been restricted
in the United States and Canada since the early 1970s, use continues in
areas of Latin America. It has been shown, by comparing blood samples
collected during fall and spring migration, that migrant peregrine
falcons bioaccumulate organochlorines while wintering in Latin America
(Henny et al. 1982). Henny et al. (1996) demonstrated that DDE residues
in the blood taken from female peregrine falcons captured during spring
migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased between 1978 and 1994. In
second-year peregrines, residues dropped from 1.43 ppm in 1978-1979 to
only 0.25 ppm in 1994 and from 0.88 to 0.41 ppm for older peregrines;
these levels are well below those that would affect reproduction.
The widespread reproductive failure and population crash in North
America coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine use in the
United States. Although there was not an immediate lowering of
pesticide residues in eggs following restrictions on the use of
organochlorines north of Mexico (Enderson et al. 1995), residues
gradually declined following the restrictions (Ambrose et al. 1988b,
Enderson et al. 1988, Peakall et al. 1990), and most surviving
populations began to increase in numbers thereafter. Despite the
continued use of organochlorines in Latin America, populations of
American peregrine falcons in North America have recovered
substantially in recent years. In fact, Arctic peregrine falcons that
winter predominantly in Latin America recovered to the point that the
subspecies was removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50796).
Additionally, some of the avian prey used during the nesting season
by peregrine falcons throughout North America also winter in Latin
America. Many of these prey return to their nesting areas with
pesticide residues accumulated during the winter (Fyfe et al. 1990).
Peregrine falcons preying upon these birds during the summer are
further exposed to Latin American pesticides. While overall, pesticide
use in Latin America has apparently not adversely affected reproductive
success and productivity in American peregrine falcon populations in
North America, monitoring levels of organochlorines in the subspecies
must continue, and more effort must be placed in monitoring and
remediating organochlorine exposure in populations nesting and
migrating outside the United States.
The Service recognizes that certain populations of American
peregrine falcons have recovered to a lesser degree and that in some of
these populations organochlorine residues are still high and
reproductive rates remain lower than normal. The Channel Islands off
southern California are still plagued by high organochlorine residues
and eggshell thinning (Jarman 1994). Despite the residual effects of
organochlorines on the Channel Islands, this population is continuing
to increase, although some of the increase could be the result of the
release of a significant number of captive-bred young (B. Walton, pers.
comm. 1997) or dispersal from other areas where recovery is greater.
Based on published values in the literature, detected concentrations of
DDT in peregrine falcon eggs collected in New Jersey were sufficient to
impact reproduction. Productivity and eggshell thinning data, however,
did not support a conclusion of reproductive impairment due to DDT
contamination (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection 1997). Jarman (1994) suggested that these
locally higher egg residues result from a local point source of DDT or
DDE. As a result, the effects are localized, and the observations do
not reflect the current status of peregrine falcons as a whole. In
general, numbers of peregrine falcons have increased throughout their
historical ranges despite the effects of localized organochlorine
residues.
Similarly, American peregrine falcons in southwest Canada have not
recovered as well as in most other regions of North America. Despite
the release of several hundred captive-bred young in the prairie
Provinces and western Canada (Holroyd and Banasch 1990), the number of
pairs occupying territories is still well below the number of known
historical nest sites (G. Holroyd, in litt. 1993), which is probably an
underestimate of the actual number of historical nest sites. In
southern Canada, including the prairie region, the proportion of
reintroduced young that entered the breeding population has been
considerably lower than in the United States (Peakall 1990, Enderson et
al. 1995). The factor or factors causing this lower recruitment rate
remain unknown, but survivorship of peregrine falcons released into
this area may be lower than in adjacent portions of the subspecies'
range. Pesticide residues in American peregrine falcon eggs do not
appear to be higher in southwest Canada than in the United States
(Peakall et al. 1990). Therefore, higher residual organochlorine
contamination is apparently not responsible, and the number of pairs
occupying this region continues to increase.
In summary, exposure to organochlorine pesticides caused drastic
population declines in peregrine falcons. Following restrictions on the
use of organochlorines in the United States and Canada, residues in
eggs declined and reproduction rates improved. Improved reproduction,
combined with the release of thousands of captive-reared young and
relocated wild hatchlings, allowed the American peregrine falcon to
recover and peregrine falcons to be successfully reestablished in those
areas of the historical range from which the species had been
extirpated. Pesticide residues, reproductive rates, and the rate of
recovery have varied among regions within the vast range of this
species. In some areas, such as portions of California, the lingering
effects of DDT have caused reproductive rates to remain low. Point
source contamination may even cause continued reproductive problems in
these areas in California. In southwest Canada, the rate of recovery,
or onset of recovery, apparently lagged behind most other areas, but
recent trends suggest that historical nest sites will continue to be
gradually recolonized. Although the recovery of the peregrine falcon is
not complete throughout all parts of the historical range in North
America, those areas in which recovery has been slow represent a small
portion of the species' range. Furthermore, evidence collected in
recent years shows that a combination of lingering residues of
organochlorines in North America and contamination resulting from the
continued use of organochlorines in Latin America has not prevented a
widespread and substantial recovery of peregrine falcons as numbers of
peregrine falcons continue to increase. The Service concludes,
therefore, that the continued existence of the American peregrine
falcon and the reestablished peregrine
[[Page 45460]]
populations in the eastern and Midwestern States are no longer
threatened by exposure to organochlorine pesticides.
Due to the reduction in the effects of pesticides and widespread
positive trends in population size, the Service believes that the
American peregrine falcon has recovered and is no longer endangered
with extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
Service proposes to remove the peregrine falcon from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, removing endangered status for the
American peregrine falcon and the Similarity of Appearance provision
for all free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous
States.
Effects of This Rule
Finalization of this proposed rule will affect the protection
afforded to peregrine falcons under the Endangered Species Act. It will
not affect the status of the Eurasian peregrine falcon (F. p.
peregrinus), currently listed under the Act as endangered wherever it
occurs. The endangered designation under the Act for the American
peregrine falcon will be removed and the designation of ``Endangered
due to Similarity of Appearance'' designation for all free-flying
peregrine falcons found within the 48 conterminous United States,
including the Arctic and Peale's peregrine falcons and the
reestablished eastern and midwestern populations, will be removed.
Therefore, taking, interstate commerce, import, and export of North
American peregrine falcons will no longer be prohibited under the Act.
In addition, Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult
with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event activities
they authorize, fund or carry out adversely affect peregrine falcons.
However, removal of the protection of the Endangered Species Act will
not affect the protection afforded all migratory bird species,
including all peregrine falcons, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act governs the taking, killing,
possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their
eggs, parts, and nests. Implementing regulations (50 CFR 20 and 21)
include provisions for the taking of migratory birds for educational,
scientific, and recreational purposes. Special regulations pertaining
to raptors are found in 50 CFR 21.28 to 21.30. These regulations allow
for the taking, possession, transport, import, purchase, and barter of
raptors for purposes of falconry and captive propagation pursuant to
State and Federal permits. If this delisting proposal is finalized, the
taking of peregrine falcons from the wild for falconry and propagation
will be allowable. Unpermitted take of peregrine falcons for falconry
and raptor propagation will be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. In accordance with general permit regulation requirements that the
issuance of permits not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR
13.21(b)), authorization to take peregrines under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria that will be issued
by the Service. The criteria will pertain to all wild North American
peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future falconry and
raptor propagation permit holders. Take of peregrines will not be
authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act until these biological
criteria are in place. The Service expects to issue final criteria
prior to finalizing a decision on this proposal to delist the
peregrine.
The take and use of peregrine falcons must comply with appropriate
State regulations. State regulations applying to falconry currently
vary among States and are subject to change over time. The applicable
State regulations may be more but not less restrictive than Federal
regulations.
This rule will not affect the peregrine falcon's Appendix I status
under CITES, and CITES permits will still be required to import and
export peregrine falcons to and from the United States. CITES permits
will not be granted if the export will be detrimental to the survival
of the species or if the falcon was not legally acquired.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for the American peregrine falcon includes five
areas in northern California (50 CFR 17.95). The Act defines critical
habitat as ``specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the species, at the time it is listed on which are found those physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.''
Since critical habitat can be designated only for species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Act, existing critical habitat will
lose this current designation when the American peregrine falcon is
delisted.
Future Conservation Measures
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior, through the Service, implement a monitoring program for not
less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered and
delisted. The purpose of this requirement is to develop a program that
detects the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without
the protective measures provided by the Act. If at any time during the
5-year monitoring program, data indicate that protective status under
the Act should be reinstated, the Service can initiate listing
procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At the
conclusion of the monitoring period, the Service will review all
available information to determine if relisting, the continuation of
monitoring, or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.
Monitoring
The Service's Region 1 in consultation with Service biologists in
Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will coordinate with existing recovery
teams, working groups, State resource agencies, and interested
scientific organizations to develop and implement an effective 5-year
monitoring program to track the population status of the peregrine
falcon. The Service will encourage Canada and Mexico to establish
monitoring plans that will produce comparable data.
The Service will use, to the fullest extent possible, information
routinely collected by researchers and land managers in a variety of
organizations and agencies. This data, however, will only supplement
data collected under a systematic monitoring program. Sites or areas
will be specifically selected for monitoring to provide a subset of
data that is representative of the species' status throughout its
range. The following minimum measures will be used to track the status
of the peregrine falcon, although the specific approaches to monitoring
may vary among regions.
1. Annual Occupancy Surveys
To detect changes in the use of nesting territories, samples of
breeding pairs will be surveyed each breeding season in a statistically
valid manner. Survey areas, timing, and survey methods must be
consistent among surveys conducted over several years.
2. Productivity
To assess productivity, the number of young produced per
territorial pair will be recorded in the survey areas. The Service will
also use information from all study areas where appropriate data are
available in addition to systematic monitoring of productivity of
selected sites.
[[Page 45461]]
3. Contaminants
In areas where depressed reproduction may be caused by residual
organochlorine pesticides, eggshell thickness and contaminant
concentrations in addled eggs will be analyzed to monitor
organochlorines pesticides and other environmental contaminants.
Additional sampling to detect contaminants may include blood analysis
and collection of egg and blood samples from peregrine falcons in
selected areas where reproduction is not depressed by environmental
contaminants to detect changes in contaminant levels on a broader scale
in the United States, as well as to continue to evaluate the effects of
contaminants on American peregrines migrating to Latin America in
winter.
The North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT was
developed by parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), working with the Secretariat for the (North American)
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), under Council
Resolution #95-05. This tri-lateral forum between the United States,
Canada, and Mexico, may provide funding opportunities for monitoring
organochlorine exposure, and productivity in American peregrine falcon
populations nesting in Mexico.
4. Take for Falconry
Authorization to take peregrine falcons for falconry purposes under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria
established by the Service. The Service will work with the States to
monitor levels of actual take of peregrine falcons authorized under
State/Federal falconry and raptor propagation permits.
After completion of the mandated 5-year monitoring program, the
Service will review all available monitoring data to determine whether
relisting, continuation of monitoring, or termination of monitoring is
appropriate. The Service will consider relisting if, during or after
the 5-year monitoring effort, the Service determines a reversal of
recovery has taken place. The Service will consider relisting the
peregrine falcon if (1) major breeding areas do not maintain 60 percent
occupancy of sites, as measured by the number of sites documented as
occupied by peregrine pairs in the first year of monitoring; (2) there
is a clear and substantial trend of reduced productivity below that of
growing or stable populations (i.e., average productivity drops below
1.0 young per territorial pair for two consecutive surveys, without
mitigating circumstances, such as abnormal weather conditions); (3)
exposure to organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, or
other environmental contaminants increases to levels shown to be
deleterious to the species in more than a few, isolated populations; or
(4) in the case of other extenuating circumstances that would warrant
relisting.
If the Service determines at the end of the mandatory 5-year
monitoring period that recovery is complete, and factors that led to
the listing of subspecies of peregrine falcon, or any new factors, have
been sufficiently reduced or eliminated, monitoring may be reduced or
terminated. If data show that peregrine falcon populations are
declining or if one or more factors that have the potential to cause
decline are identified, the Service will continue monitoring beyond the
5-year period and may modify the monitoring program based on an
evaluation of the results of the initial 5-year monitoring program.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service requests comments on three aspects of this proposed
rulemaking: (1) the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, (2) the clarity of this
proposal, pursuant to Executive Order 12866, which requires agencies to
write clear regulations, and (3) the collection of information from the
public during the 5-year monitoring period, which requires Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Proposed Delisting
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal to remove the peregrine falcon from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife will be as accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.
Comments should be sent to the Service's Ventura, California, Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section). Comments particularly are sought
concerning:
(1) biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species;
(3) current or planned activities in the range of this subspecies
and their possible impacts on this species;
(4) data on population trends in Mexico;
(5) information and comments on the potential impacts of falconry
on peregrine falcon populations; and
(6) information and comments pertaining to the proposed monitoring
program contained in this proposal.
The final decision on this proposal for the peregrine falcon will
take into consideration the comments and any additional information
received by the Service during the comment period.
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of
publication of this proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and
sent to the Ventura Field Office address in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that
are easy to understand. The Service invites your comments on how to
make this proposal easier to understand including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce its clarity? What else could the Service do to make the
proposal easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how the Service could make
this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Paperwork Reduction Act
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public
and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency
information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR
1320.8(d)). The Service intends to collect information from the public
during the mandatory 5-year monitoring period following delisting of
the peregrine falcon. A description of the information collection
burden and the comments requested on this
[[Page 45462]]
collection are included in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Section 4(g) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all
species that are delisted due to recovery be monitored for a minimum of
5 years. A general description of the information that will be
collected during the monitoring period was provided above in the
Monitoring section of this proposal. Implementation of the monitoring
plan will include collections of information from the public that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Simultaneous to publication of this
proposed delisting rule, the Service is initiating the process of
information collection approval from OMB. The Service may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Service intends to collect information from researchers and
land managers in a variety of organizations and agencies. Some of the
information gathered will be part of already ongoing State, Federal, or
private monitoring programs. The Service also will use information from
other study areas where appropriate data are available. The information
collected will allow the Service to detect any failure of the species
to sustain itself following delisting. If during this monitoring period
the Service determines that the species is not sufficiently maintaining
its recovered status, the species could be relisted as endangered or
threatened under the Act.
The Service estimates approximately 20 respondents to requests for
information on the status of peregrine falcon per year. Different
respondents may provide one or more types of information. A total of
12.5 burden hours per year are estimated for the potential 20
respondents, as indicated in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average time
Number of required per Annual
Type of information requests response burden hours
annually * (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nest occupancy.................................................... 20 15 5
Productivity...................................................... 20 15 5
Contaminants...................................................... 10 15 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total number of individual respondents anticipated is 20. The figures in this column should not be viewed
cumulatively.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public
and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). Comments
are invited on--(1) whether the collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy
of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and, (4) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on respondents, including through the
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Comments on information collection should be sent to OMB
and to the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer at the
addresses included in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement, 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
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Listing Priority Guidance
The Service has implemented a series of listing priority guidance
since 1996 to clarify the order in which it will process rulemaking
actions. The need for this guidance arose following major disruptions
in the Service's listing budget beginning in Fiscal Year 1995 and a
moratorium on certain listing actions during parts of Fiscal Years 1995
and 1996. The intent of the guidance is to focus Service efforts on
listing actions that will provide the greatest conservation benefits to
imperiled species in the most expeditious and biologically sound
manner. The Service's Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998
and 1999 was published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502) and reflects the
significant progress the Service has made in addressing its backlog.
The Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority Guidance gives highest
priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority
(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species
to the lists, processing new proposals to add species to the Lists,
processing administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the
lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a
limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify
species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final
rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this delisting
proposal is a Tier 2 action.
Processing of this proposed delisting conforms with the guidance
for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. The processing of certain high-priority
delisting actions will result in significant, albeit indirect,
conservation benefits. As long as a species remains on the endangered
and threatened list, Service funds are expended reviewing regulated
activities pursuant to section 10 (prohibited activities) and engaging
in consultations with other Federal agencies under section 7
(interagency cooperation) of the Act. Following delisting, resources
currently devoted to these activities will be redirected to other
listed species more deserving of conservation efforts. Moreover, the
Service is obligated to keep the lists of endangered and threatened
species accurate.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
[[Page 45463]]
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section), (805/644-1766).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Service hereby
proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, Title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations 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 proposed to be amended by removing the
entries for the ``Falcon, American peregrine, Falco peregrinus anatum''
and ``Falcon, peregrine, Falco peregrinus'' under ``BIRDS'', from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. [Note--This rule does not
affect the entry for ``Falcon, Eurasian peregrine, Falco peregrinus
peregrinus.]
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
3. Amend section 17.95(b) by removing the critical habitat entry
for ``American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum).''
Dated: July 31, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-22934 Filed 8-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
