[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34406-34409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16076]
[[Page 34405]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Species; American Peregrine Falcon; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 126 / Friday, June 30, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34406]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Advance Notice of
a Proposal To Remove the American Peregrine Falcon From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of a proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reviewing the
status of the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum),
currently classified as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act. Data currently on file with the Service indicate that this
subspecies has recovered following restrictions on the use of
organochlorine pesticides in the United States and Canada and because
of management activities including the reintroduction of captive-bred
peregrine falcons. Therefore, the Service intends to propose removal of
the subspecies from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and
the critical habitat designation. The Service will also propose to
remove the similarity of appearance provision that currently exists for
all free-flying Falco peregrinus within the 48 conterminous States.
Protection provided to American peregrine falcons by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act will not be affected. To ensure that the Service's proposal
is based on the best available scientific information, the Service
seeks data and comments from the public.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by August
29, 1995 to ensure consideration in the proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments and other materials concerning this notice should
be sent to Judy Hohman, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Field Office, 2493 Portola Road,
Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. Comments and materials received
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal
business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta at the above address
(Phone: 805/644-1766).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) occurs
throughout much of North America, from the subarctic boreal forests of
Canada and Alaska south to Mexico. It nests from central Alaska,
central Yukon Territory, and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to
the Maritimes and south (excluding coastal areas north of the Columbia
River in Washington and British Columbia) throughout Canada and the
United States to Baja California, Sonora, and the highlands of central
Mexico. The central Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba,
and the central United States, including North and South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas outside of Trans-Pecos, have
historically contained relatively few nesting American peregrine
falcons. Thus, the plains area of the continent effectively separates
the more suitable nesting habitat and historically dense nesting areas
of temperate eastern and western North America. Birds that nest in
subarctic areas generally winter in South America, while those that
nest at lower latitudes exhibit variable migratory behavior or are
nonmigratory (Yates et al. 1988).
Peregrine falcons declined precipitously in North America following
World War II (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1993). Research implicated
organochlorine pesticides, particularly the pesticide DDT (dichloro
diphenyl trichloroethane) 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
1950's and early 1960's and continued through the early 1970's.
Organochlorines can affect peregrine falcons either by causing direct
mortality or by adversely affecting 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.
During the period of DDT use in North America, shell thinning and
nesting failures were widespread in peregrine falcons, and in some
areas successful reproduction virtually ceased (Hickey 1969). As a
result, there was a rapid and significant decline in the number of
peregrine falcons in many areas of North America. The degree of
exposure to these pesticides varied by region, and peregrine falcon
numbers in more contaminated areas suffered greater declines. Those
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 and presumably all individuals ate some
migratory prey containing organochlorines (for reviews, see Hickey
1969; 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).
Due to population declines of American peregrine falcons, the
Service, in 1970, listed this subspecies as endangered under the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat.
275). American peregrine falcons were included in the list of
threatened and endangered foreign species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495),
and were included in the United States list of endangered and
threatened species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047). The subspecies
was subsequently listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Recovery Implementation
The most significant event in the recovery of the peregrine falcon
was the restriction placed on the use of organochlorine pesticides. Use
of DDT was restricted 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 teams produced
four regional recovery plans for the American peregrine falcon in the
United States. In addition, the Canadian Wildlife Service published an
Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan (Erickson et. al. 1988) for
American peregrine falcons in Canada. No recovery plan or recovery
objectives were established for Mexico.
Several of the recovery plans called for captive-rearing and
release of falcons in several regions of North America. In the eastern
United States, where American peregrines were extirpated, the initial
objective was to reestablish the peregrine through the release of
[[Page 34407]]
offspring from a variety of wild stocks. Peregrine falcons were raised
in captivity from parents of various subspecies, including subspecies
then listed as endangered (anatum, tundrius, peregrinus), unlisted
subspecies (pealei, brookei, etc.), and combinations thereof. 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, but breeding stock was limited to pure Falco peregrinus
anatum. Because the birds released into the eastern United States were
readily identifiable as peregrine falcons, but were not readily
identifiable as to subspecies or genetic background, enforcement of the
taking prohibitions of the Act for listed subspecies was a problem. The
Service found it difficult to prosecute under section 9 of the Act for
the take of a listed peregrine falcon because the released stocks of
listed, unlisted, and mixed-parentage offspring were almost
indistinguishable. To ensure the protection from illegal take of
American and arctic (F. p. tundrius) peregrine falcons that may be
nesting, migrating, or wintering in the lower 48 States, the Service
designated any free-flying peregrine (Falco peregrinus) found within
the lower 48 States as Endangered due to Similarity of Appearance in
accordance with section 4(e) of the Act (49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984),
thereby extending the taking prohibitions of section 9 to these birds.
In contrast to eastern populations, small numbers of American
peregrine falcons in western North American survived the pesticide era
and all birds released to augment wild populations were pure anatum
subspecies, maintaining the genetic integrity of the subspecies. In
Alaska and northwest Canada, populations were locally depressed but
enough individuals survived the pesticide era that populations began to
expand without the need for release of captive-bred falcons. Likewise,
in the southwest United States, very few captive-bred birds were
released, and populations recovered naturally as a result of
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., in litt.
1995).
Recovery Status
Population growth was noted in the late 1970's in Alaska (Ambrose
et al. 1988a) and by 1980 in many other areas (Enderson et al., in
litt. 1995). Although the rate of recovery varied somewhat among
regions, local populations throughout North America have increased in
size, and positive trends in all areas suggest that a very large and
extensive recovery of American peregrine falcons has taken place.
Following is a summary of the status of American peregrine falcons in
the five recovery regions.
Alaskan Recovery Plan (1982)--Recovery objectives are (1) to
establish a minimum of 28 nesting pairs in two specified study areas
(the upper Yukon and Tanana Rivers), (2) produce an average of 1.8
young per territorial pair per year (yg/pr), (3) achieve an average
organochlorine concentration in eggs of less than 5 ppm (parts per
million, wet weight basis) DDE, and (4) achieve eggshell thinning
averaging no more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era eggshells.
These objectives were to be attained for 5 years before reclassifying
to threatened status and an additional 5 years before delisting.
In 1994, 69 nesting pairs were present in the two study areas, and
biologists estimate that at least 300 pairs currently nest in Alaska
(R.E. Ambrose, pers. comm., 1995). Productivity surpassed the objective
for the 14th year in 1994. Average DDE residues decreased from 17.0 ppm
in 1967 to 4.2 ppm in 1991 (Ambrose et al. 1988b). It is now apparent
that the 5 ppm objective was very conservative because normal
reproduction occurred for several years before the average
concentration declined to 5 ppm. Eggshells were estimated to be as much
as 20-22 percent thinner statewide than pre-DDT era shells collected in
the mid-1960's. Although the degree of thinning has gradually decreased
over time, shells collected in interior Alaska still average 12.5
percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells, but reproduction has been
sufficient to allow consistent population growth since the late 1970's.
Therefore, the objective for eggshell thinning levels also may be
overly conservative.
Canadian Recovery Plan (1988)--The Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Plan for Canada divides the historical range of the American peregrine
falcon throughout Canada into three regions subdivided into nine zones.
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 (9)
Eastern Canadian Shield. The objectives of the plan are (1) to
establish by 1992 a minimum of 10 territorial 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 or more young annually,
measured as a 5-year average commencing in 1993. No recovery goals were
established for zones 7, 8, and 9.
In zones 3 through 6 in western and west central Canada, 206 pairs
were found between 1990 and 1993, with minimum targets achieved in each
zone. In east central and eastern Canada, the goal of 10 territorial
pairs has been surpassed in zone 1, the Maritime, but has not
apparently been achieved for zone 2, the Great Lakes. Both captive
releases and natural recruitment have contributed to the current number
of pairs. An assessment of productivity in these populations will not
be conducted until 1997. However, based on current population size and
productivity, with the possible exceptions of zones 2 and 3, it is
likely that this objective will be met by 1997. It is unclear whether
or not the second productivity-based goal has been met for zone 1. In
summary, it appears the goal of 10 territorial pairs has been achieved
for 5 of the 6 recovery zones.
Pacific Coast (U.S.) Recovery Plan (1982)--This plan recommends
that delisting be considered when (1) 185 wild, self-sustaining pairs
are established with the following distribution: California-120,
Oregon-30, Washington-30, Nevada-5; and (2) fledging success averages
1.5 yg/pr for a 5-year period.
The current Pacific population of American peregrine falcon totals
approximately 224 pairs, and the State-specific objectives for number
of pairs have been met. Although close, productivity objectives have
not been met throughout the Pacific population; however, reproduction
has been sufficient to maintain a positive population growth. The
release of captive bred American peregrines into this population ceased
in 1992, and the effect of releases on population growth and stability
in this region is not yet known. However, if the current population
level is maintained or continues to increase, the population could be
considered self-sustaining. Current reproduction supports an expanding
population despite high organochlorine residue concentrations and
associated eggshell thinning in some areas.
Rocky Mountain/Southwest Population Recovery Plan (revised 1984)--
The objectives for reclassification are (1) 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
[[Page 34408]]
Dakota--1, Texas--8, Utah--21, and Wyoming 14; (2) average production
of 1.25 yg/pr without manipulation; and (3) eggshell thickness within
10 percent of pre-DDT eggshells for a 5-year span. When these
objectives are reached or significant new data are obtained, the
objectives and species classification would be reassessed.
Based on 1994 surveys, the current Rocky Mountain/Southwest
population consists of 559 breeding pairs, surpassing this recovery
objective by 376 pairs. With the exception of Montana, Idaho, Nebraska,
and North and South Dakota, all States within the Rocky Mountain/
Southwest population have met their specific recovery goals for
breeding pairs. Although much of this increase is undoubtedly
attributable to natural growth, a substantial amount also resulted from
releases of captive bred young, and an increased survey effort, and a
gradual increase in the number of breeding areas that have been checked
for the presence of peregrines. The second objective of 1.25 yg/pr for
5 years has not been met in all States, but the current reproductive
level has been sufficient to support considerable population growth.
Based on degree of recovery achieved and a general trend toward thicker
eggshells, the original eggshell thickness objective appears
unnecessary for the recovery.
Eastern (U.S.) Population Recovery Plan (1979; revised 1985 and
1991)--This plan reflects some of the earliest scientific
recommendations regarding peregrine falcon recovery through
reintroduction of captive bred offspring. Release of progeny of various
listed and unlisted subspecies, and combinations thereof, commenced in
the eastern United States in 1974 and 1975. The current plan indicates
that the peregrine should be considered recovered when a minimum of 20-
25 nesting pairs are established in each of five recovery units and are
sustained for a minimum of 3 years, and, overall, a minimum of 175-200
pairs demonstrate 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.
Substantial progress has been made toward achieving the recovery
criteria, with three of the five recovery units (Mid Atlantic Coast,
Northern New York, and Great Lakes) having surpassed the identified
target of 20-25 nesting pairs for 3 years. The remaining two units--the
Southern Appalachians and southern New England/Central Appalachians
have not done so (10 pairs and 5 pairs respectively, located in 1994),
and are unlikely to reach their goal in the near future due to great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus) predation and other factors. Overall, in
excess of 150 pairs have established nesting territories in the five
units, and the recovery target of 175-200 pairs will likely be reached
by 1996 or 1997 (M. Amaral, in litt., 1995).
Mexico--None of the recovery plans written for peregrine falcons in
North America established recovery criteria for American peregrine
falcons that nest in Mexico. Furthermore, there is very little
historical or recent information on peregrine falcons in Mexico with
which to accurately assess current status in this area. Most of the
research that has been conducted took place on the Baja Peninsula and
in the Gulf of California. It is likely the status of the subpopulation
is similar to that of the subpopulation occupying similar habitat in
nearby Arizona (G. Hunt, pers. comm., 1995). There are no recent data
known to the Service that indicate local American peregrine falcon
populations in Mexico are declining, are imperiled by organochlorine
pesticides, or have not recovered in recent years similarly to local
populations in the United States and Canada.
Summary
In accordance with 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species may be delisted if
the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that
neither endangered nor threatened status is appropriate because the
species is recovered, extinct, or the original data for classification
of the species were in error, and that the five factors presented in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act are no longer applicable to the species.
Exposure to organochlorine pesticides caused drastic population
declines in American 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, has
allowed the American peregrine falcon to recover. Pesticide residues,
reproductive rates, and the rate of recovery have varied among regions
within the vast range of the subspecies. In some areas, such as
portions of California, the lingering effects of pesticides have caused
reproductive rates to remain low, and recovery may not yet be complete.
Point source contamination may cause continued reproductive problems in
these areas in California, and the recovery in these areas may not be
complete for many years. In eastern and southwestern Canada, the rate
of recovery, or onset of recovery, apparently lagged behind most other
areas within the range of this population segment; but, recent trends
suggest that historical nest sites will continue to be gradually
recolonized in this area. Although the recovery of the American
peregrine falcon is not complete throughout all parts of the historical
range, those areas in which recovery has been exceptionally slow
comprise a small portion of the range of the subspecies. 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 American peregrine falcons. The Service concludes, therefore, that
the continued existence of American peregrine falcons is no longer
threatened by exposure to organochlorine pesticides. The peregrine
would remain protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which governs
the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of
migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests.
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior, through the Service, implement a monitoring program for at
least 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. A monitoring plan for the
American peregrine will be described in the proposed rule.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends for the forthcoming proposal to remove the
American peregrine falcon from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to be based on complete and accurate information. Therefore,
the Service hereby solicits data, comments or suggestions from the
public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party, concerning such a
proposal. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to this subspecies;
(2) additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this subspecies;
[[Page 34409]]
(3) current or planned activities in the range of this subspecies
and their possible impacts on this subspecies;
(4) data on population trends in Mexico;
(5) information and comments on the potential impacts of falconry
upon peregrine falcon populations; and
(6) information and comments pertaining to a monitoring plan.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Ventura Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura, Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section), (805/644-1766), Ted Swem, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Fairbanks Ecological Services Field Office, 1412 Airport Way,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907/456-0441), and Susan Lawrence, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Washington, D.C.,
20240 (703/358-2105).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 23, 1995.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-16076 Filed 6-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P