[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24560]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 5, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC01

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Arctic 
Peregrine Falcon From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines that 
arctic peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius) are no longer a 
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 
1973, as amended. This determination is based upon evidence that arctic 
peregrine falcon populations have recovered due to a reduction in 
organochlorine pesticides in the environment. Section 4(g) of the Act 
requires the Service to monitor recovered species for at least 5 years 
following delisting. This rule includes the Service's post-delisting 
monitoring plan for arctic peregrine falcons. Removal of the arctic 
peregrine falcon as a threatened species under the Act will not affect 
the protection provided under the similarity of appearance provision of 
the Act listing all Falco peregrinus found in the wild in the 
conterminous 48 States as endangered; nor will it affect the protection 
provided to this species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at Northern Alaska 
Ecological Services, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1412 Airport Way, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Swem at the above address (907) 
456-0441 or Skip Ambrose at the above address (907) 456-0239.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized brown or blue-gray raptor 
that preys predominantly upon birds. Three subspecies occur in North 
America--arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius); American 
peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum); and Peale's peregrine falcon (F. p. 
pealei). Only arctic peregrine falcons are included in this rule; 
American and Peale's peregrine falcons are not affected. Arctic 
peregrine falcons nest in the tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and 
Greenland. They are highly migratory with most individuals wintering in 
Latin America, although some may winter as far north as northern Mexico 
and southern Florida.
    Arctic peregrine falcon numbers declined in the period following 
World War II as a result of contamination with organochlorine 
pesticides. Organochlorine pesticides, used widely in the United States 
and other nations in North, Central, and South America for control of 
agricultural and forest pests and mosquitos, are stable, long-lived 
compounds that persist in the environment. Organochlorines are 
deposited in the fatty tissues of animals eating contaminated food, and 
bioaccumulate in high concentrations in animals near the top of the 
food chain, such as peregrine falcons. Peregrine falcons contaminated 
with organochlorines can die if acutely poisoned, but a serious effect 
of organochlorines upon peregrine falcons in North America resulted 
from sublethal doses of the pesticide DDT. The principal metabolite of 
DDT is DDE. DDE prevents normal calcium deposition during eggshell 
formation, causing females to lay thin-shelled eggs that often break 
before hatching. Although organochlorines were not used in areas where 
arctic peregrine falcons breed, arctic peregrine falcons were 
nevertheless exposed to organochlorines because they and some of their 
prey species migrated through or wintered in areas of organochlorine 
use. Arctic peregrine falcon populations may have declined by as much 
as 75 percent as a result of organochlorine- caused mortality and 
reproductive impairment.
    As a result of population declines, arctic peregrine falcons were 
protected in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 
1969. They were later afforded the greater protection of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 upon its passage. The Act and its implementing 
regulations prohibit the take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these), ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. The Act also requires review of all activities 
funded, permitted, or conducted by Federal agencies to consider impacts 
to endangered or threatened species. As a result of the prohibitions 
and requirements of the Act, harvest of peregrines for the sport of 
falconry was prohibited and peregrine falcon nest sites were provided 
protection. The pivotal action in aiding the recovery of peregrine 
falcons, however, was regulation of the use of organochlorine 
pesticides. The use of DDT was restricted in Canada in 1970 and in the 
United States in 1973. Restrictions that controlled the use of other 
organochlorine pesticides, including aldrin and dieldrin, were imposed 
in the United States in 1974.
    Following restrictions on the use of organochlorine pesticides, 
reproductive rates in arctic peregrine falcon populations increased and 
populations began to expand by the mid- to late-1970's. By 1984, the 
recovery of arctic peregrine falcons had progressed sufficiently that 
the Service reclassified the subspecies from endangered to threatened 
(49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984). The number of arctic peregrine falcons 
continued to increase. In 1991, the Service announced that it was 
reviewing the status of the threatened arctic peregrine falcon to 
determine if a proposal to delist was appropriate (56 FR 26969, June 
12, 1991). On the basis of all available information and the comments 
received in response to the notice of status review, the Service 
proposed to delist the subspecies on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51035). 
A summary of the information demonstrating the recovery of arctic 
peregrine falcons follows.
    Arctic peregrine falcons nest in the tundra regions of Alaska, 
Canada, and the ice-free perimeter of Greenland. The exact degree of 
population decline and subsequent recovery has been poorly documented 
because most breeding areas are extremely remote and because there were 
few population studies prior to the pesticide era, but it appears 
likely that the species' population has expanded 3-fold or more since 
the late 1970's. Counts of the number of pairs found breeding in one 
area in Alaska and three areas in the Northwest Territories, Canada 
(NWT), follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Colville                                                   
                      Year                            River,         Hope Bay       Coppermine     Rankin Inlet 
                                                     Alaska\2\        NWT\3\          NWT\3\          NWT\4\    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1959\1\.........................................              35  ..............  ..............  ..............
1968\1\.........................................              32  ..............  ..............  ..............
1971\1\.........................................              25  ..............  ..............  ..............
1978............................................              15  ..............  ..............  ..............
1979............................................              16  ..............  ..............  ..............
1980............................................              21  ..............  ..............  ..............
1981............................................              24  ..............  ..............              17
1982............................................              27  ..............              17              19
1983............................................              26              25              17              19
1984............................................              32              27              28              20
1985............................................              30              29              17              26
1986............................................              34              18              24              25
1987............................................              37              39              29              23
1988............................................              47              35              25              23
1989............................................              53              58              37              22
1990............................................              51              61              34              26
1991............................................              56              52              51              26
1992............................................              57              45              42              24
1993............................................              58              60              44             28 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From Cade et al. 1968; White and Cade 1975.                                                                  
\2\1978-1993--unpublished Service data on file, Fairbanks, Alaska.                                              
\3\Data from Shank et al. 1993; Chris Shank, Dept. of Renewable Resources, Govt. of NWT, pers. comm., 1993.     
\4\Data from Court et al. 1988; C. Shank, pers. comm., 1993.                                                    

    Population size has increased in these four areas, although the 
rate of increase has varied among areas. Long-term, historical data are 
not available from other areas within the breeding distribution of 
arctic peregrine falcons; however, similar trends have been observed in 
several other areas for which short-term data are available. The range-
wide population size remains unknown because so few areas have been 
thoroughly sampled, but certainly the breeding population now numbers 
in the thousands.
    Only one local population was known to have been extirpated; this 
was a small population of about 15 nesting pairs on the north slope of 
the Yukon Territory (Mossop 1988). This area is apparently being 
gradually recolonized by individuals from adjacent populations (Dave 
Mossop, Dept. of Renewable Resources, Yukon Territory, pers. comm., 
1992).
    Counts of the number of peregrine falcons seen passing fixed points 
during migration also provide evidence of the rapid increase in the 
number of arctic peregrine falcons since the late 1970's. Although some 
of the peregrine falcons seen during migration are American peregrine 
falcons, the majority seen on the east coast and near the Great Lakes 
are arctic peregrine falcons (Yates et al. 1988; William S. Clark, Cape 
May Bird Observatory, pers. comm., 1992; Mueller et al. 1988). The 
number of migrants seen during fall migration at two well-known 
concentration areas on the east coast, Assateague Island, Maryland, and 
Cape May, New Jersey, reflect the overall growth of the arctic 
peregrine falcon population. In the years 1970-1975, the average number 
seen per year at Assateague Island was about 100; by 1976-1979 the 
average number had increased to 310; and between 1990 and 1993 an 
average of 564 were counted (Seegar and Yates 1991; Seegar et al. 1993; 
William Seegar, U.S. Army, pers. comm., 1994). At Cape May, the average 
number seen in 1976-1979 was 136; by 1990-1993, the average number seen 
per year was 588 (Schultz et al. 1992; Paul Kerlinger, Cape May Bird 
Observatory, pers. comm., 1994). Counts conducted at Cedar Grove, 
Wisconsin, show a similar trend--the number seen decreased in the 
1950's and 1960's, reached a low in the mid-1970's, increased rapidly 
in the 1980's, and may now equal the numbers seen in the 1930's 
(Mueller et al. 1988).

Review of Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan

    Four regional recovery plans were produced by the Service for 
peregrine falcons. The Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska 
Population (Alaska Recovery Plan), was the only plan that established 
recovery criteria for arctic peregrine falcons. The Alaska Recovery 
Plan, while including both arctic and American peregrine falcons 
nesting in Alaska, did not pertain to populations outside of Alaska; 
recovery objectives and criteria for arctic peregrine falcon 
populations in Canada and Greenland were never established. This rule 
applies only to arctic peregrine falcons so only those sections of the 
Alaska Recovery Plan that pertain to arctic peregrine falcons are 
mentioned in this discussion.
    The Alaska Recovery Plan was written in 1982 using the best 
information then available. It included a strategy for population 
monitoring, recovery objectives, and criteria for reclassification. The 
monitoring scheme proposed that breeding surveys be conducted regularly 
in the two areas in Alaska (Colville and Sagavanirktok Rivers) for 
which historical population data were available. The Alaska Recovery 
Plan listed four parameters to be measured in the study areas to assess 
recovery status of those populations, and established an objective for 
each of the parameters. The four parameters and objectives were:

    (1) Number of nesting territories occupied by pairs with an 
objective of 36 total pairs within the 2 specified study areas;
    (2) Average number of young per nesting attempt with an 
objective of 1.4 young per nesting attempt;
    (3) Average organochlorine concentration in eggs with an 
objective of less than 5 ppm DDE; and
    (4) Average degree of eggshell thinning with an objective of 
shells averaging not more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era 
eggs.

    The Alaska Recovery Plan based reclassification criteria upon these 
objectives. It was suggested that these objectives should be met for 5 
years before downlisting to threatened status, and the parameters 
should remain constant or improve during the ensuing 5 years before 
delisting.
    Recovery plans and objectives are expected to guide and measure 
recovery, but are intended to be flexible enough to adjust to new 
information. Research conducted since the Alaska Recovery Plan was 
written in 1982 has shown that some of the recovery objectives were 
based upon incorrect assumptions. A discussion of the basis of each 
objective, the current status of arctic peregrines as measured against 
the objectives, and a review of recent information pertaining to the 
objectives follows:

    (1) The objective of 36 pairs occupying territories in the two 
study areas was based on historical data and assumed that there were 
51 available territories and 70 percent of these would be occupied 
in a fully recovered population (70 percent  x  51 = 36). The plan 
suggested that 36 or more pairs should occupy territories for 10 or 
more years before delisting. Thirty-six pairs occupied the areas for 
the first time in 1984, and the number has increased each year since 
then. Seventy-seven pairs were present in the study areas in 1993, 
the tenth consecutive year in which this objective was met. The 
number of pairs now occupying breeding territories (77) greatly 
exceeds the original estimate of the number of available territories 
(51).
    (2) The objective of 1.4 young per pair was based upon early 
studies of arctic peregrine falcons. Productivity exceeded 1.4 young 
per pair for the first time since the pesticide-era in 1982, and 
averaged about 1.6 young per pair for the 12-year period of 1982-
1993.
    (3) The objective of DDE residues in eggs averaging less than 5 
ppm for 10 or more years was based upon the assumption that arctic 
peregrine falcons would not reproduce normally as long as residues 
exceeded this measure (this assumption was based upon the 
observation that peregrine falcons in the Aleutian Islands 
reproduced normally in the early 1970's when residues in eggs 
averaged 5 ppm). Average DDE residues declined below 5 ppm in arctic 
peregrine falcons in Alaska between 1984 and 1988, but it is unclear 
exactly when this threshold was crossed. It is therefore uncertain 
if the objective has been met for at least 10 years.
    However, it is now apparent that this objective was 
inappropriate; normal reproduction was occurring for several years 
before the average concentration declined to 5 ppm and may have 
occurred while residues exceeded 10 ppm. The exact relationship 
between DDE residues in eggs and reproductive success remains 
unknown. The Service now believes that it is most appropriate to 
gauge ``acceptable'' contaminant exposure by reproductive success. 
Because reproductive success has been sufficient to allow population 
growth since the late 1970's and the objective for the production of 
young (1.4 young per pair) has been met or exceeded for 12 years, 
the Service considers the desired objective for exposure to 
organochlorines to have been met.
    (4) The criterion requiring eggshells to average less than 10 
percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells was based upon the 
observation that Peale's peregrine falcons in the Aleutian Islands 
reproduced normally with shells 8 percent thinner than normal in the 
early 1970's. This assumed that peregrine falcons could not 
reproduce normally if shells were more than 10 percent thinner than 
normal. Subsequent field work has shown this to be incorrect. 
Although the degree of thinning has gradually decreased over time, 
shells collected in arctic Alaska still average approximately 12.5 
percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells. Reproduction, however, has 
been sufficient to fuel population growth since the late 1970's, and 
productivity has met or exceeded the stated objective for 12 years. 
The Service considers, therefore, that the basic goal that eggshell 
thinning not significantly affect reproduction, population growth, 
or recovery for at least 10 years, has been met.

    In summary, the Alaska Recovery Plan identified four parameters to 
be measured in two study areas in arctic Alaska to monitor population 
health and recovery. Objectives were established for measuring recovery 
and indicating when downlisting and delisting were appropriate. The 
plan suggested that the four objectives were to be met or exceeded for 
5 years prior to downlisting to threatened status and an additional 5 
years prior to delisting. Two of the four objectives have been met for 
the 10-year interval suggested as a prerequisite for delisting. 
However, knowledge gained subsequent to the writing of the recovery 
plan indicates that the two objectives that have not been met were 
based upon incorrect assumptions. The Service concludes, based upon 
current information, that the basic goals underlying all four 
objectives have been reached--the number of pairs occupying territories 
in two study areas surpassed the objective for the tenth consecutive 
year in 1993; productivity surpassed the objective for the twelfth year 
in 1993; DDE residues in eggs have not prevented population growth and 
recovery since the late 1970's; and eggshell thinning has not inhibited 
population growth and recovery since the late 1970's.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the September 30, 1993, proposed rule, the Service requested 
that all interested parties provide information and comments on the 
status of arctic peregrine falcons, on the proposed delisting of the 
subspecies, and on the draft monitoring plan included in the delisting 
proposal. The appropriate foreign, state and provincial governments, 
Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested 
parties were contacted and encouraged to comment. During the 90 day 
comment period, 39 responses were received by the Service. Responses 
were received from one Federal agency, 9 foreign governments, 16 State 
governments, and 13 organizations or private individuals. No requests 
for public hearings were received. Comments concerning the status of 
arctic peregrine falcons and the proposed delisting are presented 
below; comments that addressed the proposed monitoring plan are 
presented in the Monitoring Plan section of this rule.
    Of the 39 responses, 24 (61 percent) expressed support for 
delisting, 5 (13 percent) opposed delisting, and 10 (26 percent) stated 
no position. Of those expressing support for delisting, 11 (the 
government of Trinidad and Tobago, 8 State governments, and 2 
organizations) specifically addressed the need for the Service to 
implement the proposed, post-delisting monitoring plan. Two of those 
(the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the State of Pennsylvania) 
stated that their support for delisting was contingent upon 
implementation of the monitoring plan. One nation (France, which 
governs the colony of French Guiana in South America), three 
individuals and one conservation organization opposed delisting. No 
position on delisting was given by the governments of Canada or 
Greenland, which are the only nations other than the United States in 
which arctic peregrine falcons nest.
    Responses to the Service's proposal to delist arctic peregrine 
falcons contained several concerns. In some cases, similar or identical 
concerns were raised by more than one individual or party submitting 
comments. Similar comments have been grouped; the different comments 
and the Service's response to each are listed below.
    Comment 1: Arctic peregrine falcons are still at risk from natural 
and human-caused factors. Additionally, pesticides, in low-level 
concentrations, may interact synergistically with other human-caused or 
natural stresses to negatively affect arctic peregrine falcons.
    Service response: The Service recognizes that little is known of 
the effects of low-level pesticide contamination upon arctic peregrine 
falcons and the synergistic interactions of pesticides with other 
decimating factors. However, the Service must base its decision to list 
or delist species upon the factors discussed in the ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this rule. A species is 
protected if one or more of the five factors affects its continued 
existence. Since the late 1970's, arctic peregrine falcon populations 
have steadily increased in size, indicating that the cumulative and 
synergistic effects of pesticides and other decimating factors have 
been insufficient during this interval to threaten arctic peregrine 
falcons at the population level. The monitoring plan included in this 
rule is designed to detect any possible changes in the status of the 
subspecies following delisting, regardless of what factor or 
combination of factors prompts the change in status.
    Comment 2: The use of pesticides may increase in Latin America as 
agricultural development proceeds.
    Service response: The Service is concerned that arctic peregrine 
falcons and their migratory prey are exposed to pesticides during 
migration and the winter. Decreasing residues in blood and eggs show 
that contamination with pesticides is declining, however, despite 
continued agricultural development in Latin America. As part of the 
post-delisting monitoring effort, the Service will continue to monitor 
pesticide residues in arctic peregrine falcon blood and eggs so an 
increase in contamination can be documented.
    Comment 3: The potential for over-utilization of arctic peregrine 
falcons for falconry following delisting has been underestimated by the 
Service.
    Service response: Take of arctic peregrine falcons will remain 
prohibited under the Act in the conterminous 48 States by the listing 
of all Falco peregrinus wherever found in the wild due to similarity of 
appearance. In Alaska take will be governed by the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). Section 2 of the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act requires that in adopting regulations for the take of 
migratory birds, the Secretary of the Interior is to ensure that take 
is compatible with the protection of the species. Therefore, take of 
arctic peregrines, as with other migratory birds, will be regulated so 
as to provide for adequate conservation of the subspecies.
    Comment 4: The anatum Peregrine Recovery Team, Canadian Wildlife 
Service, expressed concern about harvest for falconry following 
delisting. This Team asked that the Service ensure that capture of 
migrant falcons will not remove birds from breeding populations not yet 
completely recovered. They suggested that this could be accomplished by 
allowing take only on the breeding grounds.
    Service response: Take of arctic peregrine falcons migrating 
through the 48 conterminous States will be prohibited under the Act due 
to the listing of all Falco peregrinus due to similarity of appearance. 
Moreover, the management of migratory birds, including arctic peregrine 
falcons, is governed in the United States by the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for the cooperative 
protection of migratory bird resources that are shared by the Treaty 
signatory nations, including Canada. As the Service develops 
regulations allowing the harvest of arctic peregrine falcons, the 
concerns of other nations with which the United States shares this 
resource will be addressed. In particular, the Service will work with 
the appropriate Canadian officials to provide for the protection of 
breeding populations that have not recovered to the satisfaction of 
Canadian resource managers and recovery teams.
    Comment 5: The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission pointed 
out that the Service was incorrect in stating that arctic peregrine 
falcons winter exclusively in Latin America. An estimated 200-300 
arctic peregrine falcons over-winter in Florida each year.
    Service response: The Service acknowledges that some of the 
peregrine falcons over-wintering in Florida are undoubtedly of the 
arctic subspecies. The Service has updated its information on the 
subspecies to reflect this correction.
    Comment 6: The final rule delisting arctic peregrine falcons should 
be modified to include those American peregrine falcons that nest north 
of 55 degrees N latitude. This is appropriate because the northern 
American peregrine falcons have recovered similarly to arctic peregrine 
falcons. Limiting the delisting rule to arctic peregrine falcons is 
confusing, inconsistent, and ignores a large portion of a stable, 
recovered, and definable population of American peregrine falcons.
    Service response: The Service listed arctic and American peregrine 
falcons as endangered under the Endangered Species Protection Act in 
1970. They were listed separately, by subspecies, in order to 
differentiate these subspecies from Peale's peregrine falcons, which 
did not warrant or receive protection. Arctic and American peregrine 
falcon populations were affected by pesticides differently--arctic 
peregrine falcons did not decline to the same extent as American 
peregrine falcons and they recovered more quickly after the use of 
organochlorine pesticides was restricted. Additionally, although the 
recovery of arctic peregrine falcons appears to have progressed to a 
comparable degree throughout the range of the subspecies, American 
peregrine falcons have recovered to dissimilar degrees and at various 
rates in different portions of their range. As a result, the Service is 
handling the reclassification of American peregrine falcons separately.
    Comment 7: It is difficult to identify subspecies of peregrine 
falcons in the wild. The conservation of listed subspecies, which may 
be confused with arctic peregrine falcons, will be compromised if 
arctic peregrine falcons are delisted.
    Service response: The Service considers all Falco peregrinus in the 
conterminous 48 States to be endangered under the similarity of 
appearance provision of the Act and this consideration will not be 
affected by delisting arctic peregrine falcons (see Effects of This 
Rule section below). This is to ensure that protection given to 
American peregrine falcons, currently considered to be endangered, is 
not weakened by confusion with members of other subspecies. Although 
this protection pertains only to peregrine falcons in the United 
States, the Service hopes that other nations, where the subspecies 
ranges overlap, will similarly regard all peregrine falcons as 
endangered in order to assist the full recovery of American peregrine 
falcons.
    Comment 8: Delisting will affect international laws and 
legislation.
    Service response: This final rule applies only to United States 
domestic law. All peregrine falcons are listed under Appendix I to the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). Delisting arctic peregrine falcons under the Act 
will not directly affect classification of the species or subspecies 
under CITES. Separate procedures to delist the subspecies under CITES 
can be pursued. Such amendments of the CITES appendices are done 
cooperatively by the numerous parties to the Convention in accordance 
with provisions outlined in the Convention's Articles XV and XVI. There 
are no other international laws or legislation that will be affected by 
this delisting.
    Comment 9: The opinions of Canada and Greenland, countries 
principally involved, have not been solicited, considered, or provided.
    Service response: The Service announced on June 12, 1991, that it 
was reviewing the status of arctic peregrine falcons and considering 
whether proposing to delist the subspecies was warranted. The Service 
notified the federal governments of Canada and Greenland of the status 
review and asked that they provide pertinent information and comments 
on whether delisting was appropriate. Neither nation stated a position 
on delisting but numerous biologists and resource managers within 
Canada provided the Service with information on the status of the 
subspecies in Canada. On September 30, 1993, the Service proposed to 
delist the subspecies and again the governments of Canada and Greenland 
were asked to provide information and to comment on delisting. The 
response of the anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, Canadian 
Wildlife Service, stated that ``the proposal to remove the arctic 
peregrine falcon from the U.S. list of endangered and threatened 
wildlife seems well justified by the population increases and sustained 
productivity that is documented in the September 30, 1993 Federal 
Register.'' One specific concern was raised (see Comment 4 above) 
concerning the harvest of arctic peregrine falcons for falconry; this 
concern will be addressed by the Service when harvest regulations are 
formulated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No comments were 
received from the government of Greenland.
    Comment 10: The data presented in the proposal indicate that 
populations in some areas have declined for the last two years. The 
Service attempted to discount this trend as being the result of 
``exceptional years.''
    Service response: Surveys of nesting peregrine falcons at Hope Bay 
and Coppermine, NWT, are conducted by helicopter at about the time that 
falcons in these areas are hatching (Shank et al. 1993). Failed or non-
nesting pairs may be absent at nesting cliffs during single, brief 
visits to cliffs, so may go undetected in this type of survey (C. 
Shank, pers. comm., 1992). As a result, annual variation in the number 
of pairs counted can be greatly affected by annual variation in nesting 
success. In years with good success, most pairs have viable nests and 
are present when nest sites are checked. In years with poor nest 
success, many pairs may have failed by the time surveys are conducted 
and the adults may go undetected. Annual variation in nesting success 
is large at Hope Bay and Coppermine, and is probably caused by the 
extreme weather conditions found near the coast in arctic areas (C. 
Shank, pers. comm., 1992).
    Regression analysis provides a means of detecting and describing 
trends in the number of pairs found at these areas despite annual 
variation. Regression analysis shows that the number of pairs at 
Coppermine and Hope Bay has increased significantly since surveys began 
and that the rate of population growth has averaged about 10 percent 
per year. Furthermore, surveys in 1993 showed a slight increase from 
the previous year at Hope Bay and a substantial increase from 1992 at 
Coppermine (see Summary section above). The Service believes, 
therefore, that despite several short-term decreases in the number of 
pairs detected, local populations at both Hope Bay and Coppermine have 
shown considerable growth in the last 10 to 12 years. Furthermore, the 
Service believes that decreases seen between 1990 and 1992 do not 
indicate that populations are declining in either area.
    Comment 11: The recovery plan established four criteria to be met 
before delisting should be considered but only two of the four 
currently have been met. The data on organochlorine concentrations in 
eggs and eggshell thickness (the two criteria that have not been met) 
are unpublished and as such have not been verified and validated by 
scientists.
    Service response: As required by the Act, the Service collected all 
available information on the status of arctic peregrine falcons before 
deciding whether delisting was warranted. Much of the available 
information is unpublished. In using unpublished data, the Service is 
able to include the most recently acquired data as well as data 
collected by a broader array of sources. The Service recognizes, 
however, that unpublished data have not been subjected to review by the 
scientific community.
    The unpublished data and the Service's interpretation of that data 
were presented to the scientific community for review in the proposal 
to delist, which was published in the Federal Register (September 30, 
1993). Since the Federal Register is not widely read among scientists, 
the Service sent copies to and requested comments from over 30 
professional biologists that have worked with peregrine falcons in 
Greenland, Canada, and the United States. Additionally, copies were 
sent to members of the Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, a number 
of professional ornithological organizations, the appropriate natural 
resource agencies in seven provinces and territories in Canada, and 
every State fish and game agency in the United States. Several 
professional biologists or resource managers expressed support for 
delisting--none expressed opposition to delisting. Furthermore, neither 
the validity of any data contained in the proposal nor the Service's 
interpretation of the data were questioned.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    According to the Act and implementing regulations outlined in 50 
CFR part 424, a species shall be listed if the Secretary of the 
Interior determines that one or more of five factors listed in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A 
species may be delisted, according to Sec. 424.11(d), if the best 
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species 
is neither Endangered or Threatened for one of the following reasons:
    1. Extinction;
    2. Recovery; or
    2. Original data for classification of the species were in error.
    After a thorough review of all available information, the Service 
has determined that arctic peregrine falcons are no longer endangered 
or threatened with extinction. A substantial recovery has taken place 
since the 1970's, and none of the five factors addressed in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act currently jeopardizes the continued existence of 
arctic peregrine falcons. These factors and their relevance to arctic 
peregrine falcons are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. Arctic peregrine falcons nest in 
arctic tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. They migrate 
through the mid-latitudes of North America across a broad front, but 
concentrate in some coastal and estuarine areas along the Atlantic 
coast and Gulf of Mexico. Migrants also pass through inland areas 
including the Great Lakes, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains, although 
the relative importance of coastal and inland habitats to migrants is 
unknown. Most arctic peregrine falcons spend the winter in Latin 
America, but some winter as far north as southern Florida. Although the 
rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration, and wintering 
habitats is greater now than in the past, the rapid increase in the 
number of arctic peregrine falcons during the last 15 years indicates 
that habitat modification does not currently threaten the continued 
existence of the subspecies.
    B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. Delisting of the Arctic peregrine falcon will not 
result in the over-utilization of the subspecies for the following 
reasons. All Falco peregrinus found in the wild in the conterminous 48 
States are listed as endangered due to similarity of appearance. 
Therefore, take of arctic peregrine falcons migrating through the 
conterminous 48 States will be prohibited by the Act. Additionally, the 
take of all migratory birds, including arctic peregrine falcons, is 
governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the corresponding 
regulations codified in 50 CFR Part 21. Migratory bird regulations 
allow for the take of wild peregrine falcons subsequent to obtaining a 
permit, for recreational, scientific, and educational purposes, but 
require that harvest is limited to levels that prevent over-
utilization.
    C. Disease or predation. Although individuals may be vulnerable to 
disease or predation, these factors are not known to affect arctic 
peregrine falcons at the population level.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Arctic 
peregrine falcons will remain protected by the similarity of appearance 
provision of the Act while in the conterminous 48 States as long as 
other subspecies occurring in this area remain listed. This protection 
will not extend beyond such time that other peregrine falcons occurring 
in those areas are removed from the list of endangered and threatened 
wildlife.
    Arctic peregrine falcons are also protected by the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, which governs the taking, killing, possessing, 
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, 
and nests. A more thorough discussion of the protection offered by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act is included in the Effects of This Rule 
section below.
    In addition to Federal laws governing the taking of arctic 
peregrine falcons within the United States, international agreements 
govern the transport of arctic peregrine falcons across international 
borders. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
(CITES) is an international agreement that regulates trade in species 
threatened with extinction and those that may become threatened if 
trade is not regulated. The arctic peregrine falcon is currently listed 
under Appendix I of CITES, and, as a result, international trade in 
arctic peregrine falcons is restricted by the United States and 122 
other signatory nations. This final rule only affects United States 
domestic endangered species law and does not result in removal of 
arctic peregrine falcons from Appendix I of CITES.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. There is general agreement within the scientific community 
that contamination with organochlorine pesticides was the principal 
factor responsible for the decline of arctic peregrine falcons. The 
population decline was likely a result of both reproductive impairment 
from sublethal dosage and direct mortality from lethal dosage, although 
the relative importance of those two factors remains unknown. Change in 
population size, therefore, is the best indicator of the total impact 
of pesticides because population size is affected by both direct 
mortality, which is extremely difficult to measure in wild populations, 
and reproductive impairment, which is more easily quantified in the 
wild. The consistent growth in arctic peregrine falcon numbers since 
the late 1970's, previously discussed in the Background section of this 
rule, provides the strongest supporting evidence that organochlorine 
pesticides no longer pose a threat at the population level.
    The use of organochlorine pesticides was restricted in the United 
States and Canada in the early 1970's. Their use in Latin America 
continues, however, and some arctic peregrine falcons undoubtedly 
winter in areas where organochlorines are currently used. It has been 
shown, by comparing blood samples collected during fall and spring 
migration, that migrant peregrine falcons accumulate pesticides while 
wintering in Latin America (Henny et al. 1982). Additionally, some of 
the avian prey utilized by arctic peregrine falcons during the summer 
in arctic and subarctic areas also winter in Latin America. Many of 
these prey return to their northern nesting areas with pesticide 
residues accumulated during the winter (Fyfe et al. 1990). Peregrine 
falcons preying upon these birds during the summer are thus further 
exposed to Latin American pesticides. Pesticide use in Latin America, 
however, may never have been great enough to cause a decline in the 
number of arctic peregrine falcons. The widespread reproductive failure 
and population crash coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine 
use in the United States, and a noticeable increase in productivity 
occurred in Alaska within a few years following restrictions on the use 
of organochlorines in the United States.
    Furthermore, the exposure of arctic peregrine falcons to 
organochlorines continues to decrease. Average DDE residues in blood 
collected from peregrine falcons during spring migration in Texas 
decreased 38 percent between 1978-1979 and 1984 (Henny et al. 1988). 
Pesticide residues in arctic peregrine falcon eggs have decreased 
similarly. A sample of eggs from 9 clutches collected in arctic Alaska 
in 1968 averaged (geometric mean, wet weight basis) 23.5 ppm DDE with a 
maximum of 99 ppm (Jeff Lincer, BioSystems Analysis, pers. comm., in 
litt., 1992). By the late 1970's to early 1980's, the average DDE 
concentration in eggs collected from 19 clutches had declined to 9.3 
ppm with a maximum of 46.4 ppm (unpubl. Service data, on file in 
Fairbanks, Alaska). In 1990-1991, eggs from 13 clutches averaged 3.3 
ppm with a maximum of 5.3 ppm (unpubl. Service data, Fairbanks, 
Alaska). Similar trends were observed in Canada. Residues in eggs 
collected in arctic Canada averaged 9.9 ppm DDE in 1965-1972 (maximum 
72.0); 8.5 ppm in 1973-1979 (max. 19.6); and 6.8 ppm (max. 18.5) in 
1980-1986 (Peakall et al. 1990). Eggs from 36 clutches collected at 
Rankin Inlet, NWT, in 1981-1986 averaged 7.6 ppm DDE (Court et al. 
1990). Eggs collected in Greenland between 1972 and 1978 averaged 12.8 
ppm DDE (Burnham and Mattox 1984), but by 1981 and 1982 the maximum 
(average not given) in 9 eggs was 9.1 ppm (Mattox and Seegar 1988). To 
put these values in perspective, concentrations of DDE in peregrine 
falcon eggs in excess of 15 to 20 ppm (parts per million, wet weight 
basis) are associated with high rates of nesting failure; if residues 
average less than this critical level, productivity is usually 
sufficient to maintain population size (Peakall et al. 1975; Newton et 
al. 1989). Residues of other organochlorines in arctic peregrine falcon 
eggs have also decreased since the 1970's, and residues are currently 
well below concentrations associated with reproductive impairment or 
population declines.
    Most researchers consider DDE-caused eggshell thinning to be the 
proximate factor that caused peregrine falcon populations to decline in 
North America. Average eggshell thickness decreased by as much as 24 
percent in Alaska during the peak period of organochlorine 
contamination. This decreased eggshell thickness correlated with 
greatly reduced reproductive success. Eggshell thickness has increased 
significantly since the use of DDT was restricted in the United States, 
but pesticides accumulated in Latin America still affect shell 
thickness. Shells from Rankin Inlet, NWT, collected in 1981-1986 
averaged 15.8 percent thinner than pre-DDT shells (Court et al. 1990). 
Alaskan shells collected in 1979-1984 averaged 13.4 percent thinner 
than pre-DDT thickness measurements, and shells collected in 1988-1991 
averaged about 12 percent thinner. Peregrine populations are expected 
to decrease in size if eggs have shells averaging at least 17 percent 
thinner than normal while populations with eggs averaging less than 17 
percent thinning generally remain stable or can increase in size (Kiff 
1988). Although arctic peregrine falcon eggs remain vulnerable to an 
increase in exposure to organochlorines, eggshell thinning has been 
insufficient to prevent widespread population recovery since the late 
1970's.
    Reproductive success is another parameter used in measuring the 
effects of pesticide poisoning upon peregrine falcons. ``Normal'' 
productivity rates vary among regions; therefore, it is difficult to 
assess the health of a local population based upon productivity rate 
alone. In Alaska, productivity reached its lowest level of about 0.6 
yg/pr in the mid 1970's. Productivity improved in the late 1970's, 
reaching 0.9 yg/pr in 1979. From 1980 to 1993 it varied between 1.3 and 
2.0 yg/pr, which was sufficient to support an average annual increase 
in the breeding population size of about 9 percent (unpublished Service 
data on file, Fairbanks, Alaska). In Canada, a decrease in the 
productivity of arctic peregrine falcons was never clearly documented, 
although populations decreased in size so productivity almost certainly 
declined. At Rankin Inlet, NWT, productivity averaged about 1.5 yg/pr 
between 1981 and 1992 (Court et al. 1988; C. Shank, pers. comm., 1991, 
1992), although annual productivity varied tremendously in response to 
variation in weather conditions (Court et al. 1988). Productivity in 
Ungava Bay, Quebec, reached a low of 1.33 yg/pr in 1970, and exceeded 
2.7 yg/pr in each of 3 surveys conducted since 1980 (Bird and Weaver 
1988; David Bird, pers. comm., in litt., 1991). Reproductive rates have 
remained high in Greenland since observation began in 1972. In western 
Greenland productivity from 1972 to 1992 remained at least 1.80 yg/pr 
(William Mattox, Greenland Peregrine Falcon Survey, pers. comm., in 
litt., 1992). Similarly, in southern Greenland, production remained 
high from 1981 to 1991 (Knud Falk, Ornis Consult A/S, pers. comm., in 
litt., 1992).
    The only recent measurable effect presumably attributable to 
organochlorine use in Latin America has been found in Rankin Inlet in 
the NWT. Between 1982 and 1986, pesticides caused about 10 percent of 
the nesting pairs to fail, but average productivity within the 
population was high, and numbers were stable at the extremely high 
density of one pair per 17 square kilometers (Court et al. 1988). 
Despite the effect on a small portion of the pairs, the overall impact 
to the population in this area was minimal. There has been no other 
recent evidence of pesticide-caused reproductive failure found in any 
other arctic peregrine falcon population studied.
    In summary, the reproductive failure and resultant population crash 
seen in arctic peregrine falcons were likely the result of the heavy 
use of organochlorines in the United States and possibly Canada. 
However, arctic peregrines are still exposed to organochlorine 
pesticides due to continuing use in Latin America. Because organisms at 
the top of the food chain bioaccumulate environmentally stable 
contaminants, arctic peregrine falcons remain vulnerable and could 
suffer from an increase in the use of organochlorines or the widespread 
use of other stable toxins that affect survival or reproduction. The 
concentration of organochlorines in arctic peregrine falcon tissues 
continues to decline, though, and is currently well below those levels 
associated with population declines. The widespread recovery of arctic 
peregrine falcon populations is convincing evidence that pesticides and 
other contaminants do not currently threaten the continued existence of 
the subspecies.
    The Service has carefully reviewed all available scientific and 
commercial data and concluded that the threat or threats that caused 
arctic peregrine falcon populations to decline no longer pose a risk to 
the continued survival of the subspecies. A widespread recovery has 
followed restrictions on the use of organochlorine pesticides in the 
United States and Canada. This recovery indicates that the subspecies 
is no longer endangered or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range. Under these 
circumstances, removal from the list of threatened and endangered 
wildlife is appropriate.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Service has determined that 
this rule relieves an existing restriction and good cause exists to 
make the effective date of this rule immediate. Delay in implementation 
of this delisting would cost government agencies staff time and monies 
conducting formal section 7 consultation on actions which may affect 
species no longer in need of the protection under the Act. Relieving 
the existing restriction associated with this listed species will 
enable Federal agencies to minimize any further delays in project 
planning and implementation for actions that may affect arctic 
peregrine falcons.

Effects of This Rule

    Pursuant to the similarity of appearance provisions of section 4(e) 
of the Act, species (or subspecies or distinct vertebrate population 
segments) that are not considered to be endangered or threatened may 
nevertheless be treated as such for law enforcement purposes of 
protecting a listed species (or subspecies or vertebrate population 
segment) that is biologically endangered or threatened. Under the 
similarity of appearance provision (implemented by 50 CFR 17.50), the 
Service must find:
    (a) that the species so closely resembles in appearance an 
endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have 
substantial difficulty in identifying listed from unlisted species;
    (b) that the effect of the substantial difficulty is an additional 
threat to the listed endangered or threatened species; and
    (c) that such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially 
facilitate the enforcement and further the purposes of the Act.
    The Service considers ``all free-flying Falco peregrinus, not 
otherwise identifiable as a listed subspecies, to be endangered under 
the similarity of appearance provision in the 48 conterminous States'' 
(49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984). Therefore, arctic peregrine falcons will 
be protected as endangered or threatened while migrating through the 48 
conterminous States as long as American peregrine falcons that occur in 
this area are classified as endangered or threatened. American 
peregrine falcons are known to occur or could occur in all areas in 
which arctic peregrine falcons are found in the 48 conterminous States, 
so protection would be complete in this region. The protection of this 
provision would not extend beyond such time that the American peregrine 
falcon is delisted. The Service anticipates that recovery will 
eventually allow the American peregrine falcon to be removed from the 
list of endangered and threatened wildlife. At such time, the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act will govern the take of arctic peregrine falcons, as 
will the appropriate State regulations. State regulations applying to 
falconry currently vary among States and are subject to change with 
time. The applicable State regulations, however, may be more but not 
less restrictive than Federal regulations.
    The similarity of appearance provision does not apply to arctic 
peregrine falcons while they are outside the conterminous United 
States. Although American peregrine falcons occur in northern areas, 
such as Alaska, there is no overlap in the breeding ranges of the two 
subspecies in Alaska (arctic peregrine falcons breed north of the 
Brooks Range and along the west coast near Norton Sound whereas 
American peregrine falcons breed south of the Brooks Range). If this 
proposal is enacted, therefore, the taking of arctic peregrine falcons 
within their breeding range would not be prohibited by similarity of 
appearance protection and would, therefore, be governed by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally, the similarity of appearance 
protection is provided by United States domestic law; this protection 
does not apply to arctic peregrine falcons outside the United States.
    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of migratory 
birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes, such as 
falconry. Section 2 states that the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized and directed to determine if, and by what means, the take of 
migratory birds should be allowed, and to adopt suitable regulations 
permitting and governing the take. In adopting regulations, the 
Secretary is to consider such factors as distribution and abundance to 
ensure that take is compatible with the protection of the species. 
Existing regulations applying to the use of raptors for falconry and 
the captive propagation of raptors are outlined in 50 CFR 21.28 to 
21.30.
    In addition to Federal regulations, Alaska State regulations would 
apply to harvest of arctic peregrine falcons in Alaska. Alaska State 
regulations outlined in 5 AAC 92.037 do not currently allow for the use 
of arctic peregrine falcons for falconry, but it is likely that State 
regulations will be amended to allow harvest in the near future. Alaska 
State regulation 92.037(b)(3) requires that ``no person may permanently 
export a raptor taken from the wild in Alaska unless the person has 
legally possessed that raptor for at least one year.'' The Service 
anticipates little or no pressure within Alaska to amend this latter 
regulation; therefore, the take of arctic peregrine falcons in Alaska 
should remain limited to the roughly 30 falconers who are permanent 
residents of Alaska.
    Falconry regulations in Canada and Greenland do not allow foreign 
falconers to take raptors, so this delisting will not result in United 
States residents taking arctic peregrine falcons within these 
countries. Take of arctic peregrine falcons in Canada and Greenland by 
residents of those nations is not affected by United States domestic 
law; therefore, delisting will not affect regulations allowing harvest 
in those countries. In addition, as mentioned above, international 
trade in arctic peregrine falcons is regulated as a result of the 
subspecies' inclusion on the CITES Appendix I list.

Future Conservation Measures

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, monitor species for at 
least 5 years after delisting. If evidence acquired during this 
monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be 
reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the species, the Service 
may use the emergency listing authority provided for by the Act. At the 
end of the 5-year monitoring period, the Service will, based upon 
results of monitoring efforts, decide if relisting, continued 
monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is appropriate.
    The Service included a draft monitoring plan in the September 30, 
1993 (58 FR 51035) proposal to delist arctic peregrine falcons. The 
public was asked to provide comments and suggestions for improving the 
draft plan. Of the 39 parties responding to the proposal, 15 
specifically addressed the monitoring plan, including 11 State fish and 
game agencies, one Federal agency, the government of Trinidad and 
Tobago, and two non-governmental organizations. Of the 15 that 
addressed the plan, five supported the plan as written, five stressed 
the importance of implementing the plan, two stated they supported 
delisting only if the monitoring plan was implemented, and three 
suggested modifications to the plan. The parties suggesting 
improvements raised three different concerns; those concerns and the 
Service's responses are given below:
    Comment 1: The Service has chosen an inappropriate criterion for 
considering relisting if population size again declines. Thirty-five 
pairs found nesting along the Colville River in 1959 should be 
considered the historical norm for this population, not 57 pairs found 
in 1992.
    Service response: The Service believes that recent survey results 
provide the most accurate estimate of the number of pairs that will 
nest along the Colville River when the population is in a normal, 
healthy condition. Furthermore, the Service's post-delisting monitoring 
plan for arctic peregrine falcons is designed to detect a change in the 
status of the subspecies. The Service believes that a significant (25 
percent or more) change in population size will indicate that some 
factor or factors is affecting either reproductive performance or 
survival within the population. A change in productivity or survival 
will be more quickly detected and accurately measured if recent 
population estimates are used as baseline levels.
    Comment 2: The monitoring plan should be expanded to include one 
nesting area in the Canadian arctic, one nesting area in Greenland, and 
migration data from Assateague Island, Maryland, and Cedar Grove, 
Wisconsin. Cooperative agreements should be pursued with the 
governments of Canada and Greenland to ensure the continuation of 
projects in those nations.
    Service response: In formulating the monitoring plan, the Service 
emphasized breeding surveys conducted in Alaska because surveys in 
northern Alaska were designed to measure the criteria listed in the 
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, specifically, population size, 
reproductive performance, and contaminant levels. These factors are the 
most important in monitoring the status, trends, and threats to the 
subspecies, and they are not consistently measured in any other study 
area in North America. Additionally, the Service has greater influence 
over the funding and implementation of monitoring efforts conducted in 
the United States, and in particular, those conducted by the Service.
    The Service agrees that continuation of on-going research on arctic 
peregrine falcons will contribute greatly to monitoring the subspecies 
following delisting. In particular, three nesting surveys in the NWT, 
Canada, and one in Greenland, and counts of migrants conducted at a 
number of different sites have provided data substantiating the 
recovery of the subspecies. The delisting criteria have been modified 
to consider information on breeding pairs gathered in Canada and 
Greenland. In addition, the Service intends to utilize all available 
information when reviewing the overall status of the subspecies, and 
will encourage the continuation of all research efforts wherever 
possible.
    Comment 3: The monitoring plan should be extended to 10 years to 
allow adequate measurement of the impacts of resumed falconry harvest, 
to compensate for short-term variability in productivity due to weather 
and other variables, and to measure long-term changes in organochlorine 
contamination and eggshell thickness. This is particularly important 
because the Service reevaluated criteria concerning organochlorine 
concentrations in eggs and eggshell thickness in the recovery plan.
    Service response: Although two of the recovery criteria in the 
original recovery plan were reevaluated to reflect current information, 
the Service feels that the subspecies has recovered sufficiently to 
warrant delisting without reservation. At the end of the minimum 5-year 
monitoring period, the Service will review all available information, 
including organochlorine contamination and eggshell thickness, to 
decide if continuation of monitoring is warranted for any reason. The 
Service believes that this evaluation process allows for adequate 
consideration of all pertinent factors.
    After consideration of the comments received on the draft 
monitoring plan, the Service has produced the following monitoring 
plan. This plan will be revised, as appropriate, to incorporate new 
knowledge of threats to the subspecies, research techniques, or other 
applicable information.
    Monitoring plan. As discussed above, exposure to organochlorines, 
particularly DDT, was the primary factor causing the decline of arctic 
peregrine falcons. Organochlorines affected populations by reducing 
reproductive success, although the mortality rate of adults and 
juveniles may have increased as well. As productivity and recruitment 
declined to levels insufficient to replace mortality, populations 
dwindled. This monitoring plan, therefore, is designed to detect 
changes in the status of arctic peregrine falcons by monitoring 
population size, reproductive performance, and contamination with 
organochlorine pesticides and other pollutants.
    In reviewing the status of arctic peregrine falcons and preparing 
the proposal to delist the subspecies, the Service relied heavily on 
data provided by Service biologists. However, information from research 
projects conducted by non-governmental organizations and Canadian 
provincial agencies was also used extensively. The Service is hopeful 
that research efforts will continue and that investigators will 
continue to share data with the Service for management purposes. 
Monitoring efforts, therefore, will utilize to the fullest extent 
possible information collected at a number of sites by a variety of 
organizations and agencies. However, information on each of the 
parameters to be measured is not collected in every research project. A 
discussion of each parameter, how the parameter is measured or 
evaluated, and likely sources of data on the parameter follows.
    (1) Number of Breeding Pairs. To detect changes in population size, 
the Service will rely on counts of the number of breeding pairs in 
selected areas in North America. In order to detect a change in 
population size in a given area, surveys must be conducted for several 
years, and the survey area, methods, and timing must be consistent 
among years. Surveys in four areas have met these criteria. These areas 
are the Colville River in Alaska and Hope Bay, Coppermine, and Rankin 
Inlet in the NWT, Canada. Results from surveys in other areas that meet 
these criteria will be included in future status reviews.
    (2) Reproductive Performance. To assess reproductive performance, 
the Service will rely on counts of the number of young produced per 
territorial pair. Such data are currently available only from the 
Colville River, Rankin Inlet, and western Greenland study areas; 
however, pre-DDT era data on reproductive performance are only 
available for the Colville River study area. In reviewing data on 
reproductive performance, the Service will utilize information from all 
study areas where appropriate data are available.
    (3) Contaminant Exposure. The Service will analyze arctic peregrine 
falcon blood and eggs in Service-contracted laboratories to monitor 
exposure to organochlorine pesticides and other environmental 
contaminants. The Service will collect addled eggs along the Colville 
River, Alaska, as feasible, during 1995-1999. In addition, the Service 
will continue its ongoing long-term study on contamination levels by 
collecting at least 10 eggs in a given year (repeated at approximately 
5-year intervals), so that residues at the end of the minimum 5-year 
monitoring period can be compared with residues found in earlier 
periods. Additionally, the Service will encourage the collection of 
eggs from Rankin Inlet, NWT, and western Greenland, near or at the end 
the minimum 5-year monitoring period for comparison to earlier 
collections in those areas.
    Blood will be collected from migrants during spring 1999 at Padre 
Island, Texas, as part of an ongoing study to track changes in the 
exposure of arctic peregrine falcons to organochlorines during the 
winter. Organochlorine concentrations in 1999 will be compared to those 
in blood collected in 1978-1979, 1984, and 1994.
    Eggs and blood will be analyzed, using gas chromatography/mass 
spectroscopy, for organochlorines, other pesticides (including mirex), 
and polychlorinated biphenyls and hexachlorobiphenyls. These analyses 
will be modified, if appropriate, to include other contaminants that 
are identified as posing a risk to arctic peregrine falcons.
    (4) Migration Counts. In addition to the three factors mentioned 
above, the Service will also review counts of migrating arctic 
peregrine falcons. Counts of migrating peregrine falcons passing fixed 
points along migration corridors provide information on gross trends in 
population size. Hundreds of arctic peregrine falcons are counted 
annually during fall migration at Cape May, New Jersey, Assateague 
Island, Maryland, and Padre Island, Texas. Smaller numbers are counted 
at a number of other locations. The Service will continue to request 
count data each year from all studies.
    Region 7 (Alaska) of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 
responsible for coordinating the listing, recovery, and monitoring of 
arctic peregrine falcons. Therefore, Region 7 will coordinate this 
monitoring effort. Region 7's efforts will include three facets:
    (1) Region 7 staff will continue ongoing arctic peregrine falcon 
status surveys on the Colville River, Alaska, measuring population size 
and reproductive performance, and collecting biological samples (eggs, 
blood, feathers) for contaminant analyses as appropriate.
    (2) Region 7 staff will encourage, through memoranda of agreement 
or similar mechanisms, the continuation of non-Service research efforts 
that have provided important data on the status of the arctic peregrine 
falcon throughout its range.
    (3) Region 7 staff will exchange information with parties involved 
in arctic peregrine falcon studies throughout North America and 
Greenland. Region 7 will compile pertinent information and conduct 
annual reviews of the status of the subspecies based upon all available 
information.
    At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, the Service will review 
all available information to determine if relisting, termination of 
monitoring, or continued monitoring is appropriate. The Service will 
consider relisting if during, or after, the 5-year monitoring effort, 
it appears that a reversal of the recent recovery has taken place. If 
one or more of the following conditions exists, the Service will deem 
it an indication that a reversal of recovery has taken place and 
relisting will be considered:
    (1) The number of pairs occupying territories in any of the major 
breeding areas declines by 25 percent or more. Baseline information 
must meet the standards defined earlier in this section. For example, 
reclassification would be considered if the number of pairs occupying 
territories along the Colville River falls below 42 pairs (this would 
be a 25 percent reduction from the 1992 breeding population of 57 
pairs) in any one year;
    (2) Average productivity of peregrine falcons nesting along the 
Colville River drops below 1.4 young per territorial pair for two 
consecutive surveys (unless other identified factors, such as abnormal 
weather conditions, explain the lowered productivity). Pre-DDT data are 
not available on arctic peregrine falcons for Greenland and Canada, so 
no thresholds of concern for subpopulations in these countries are 
identifiable;
    (3) Average contaminant residues in arctic peregrine falcon eggs or 
blood exceed those values associated with widespread reproductive 
failure or mortality; or
    (4) If the number of migrating arctic peregrine falcons declines by 
25 percent or more for three consecutive years, the Service will also 
consider relisting arctic peregrine falcons.
    If one or more of these criteria indicate that arctic peregrine 
falcon populations are declining, the Service will review all available 
information to determine if arctic peregrine falcons are threatened or 
endangered with extinction in accordance with listing guidelines 
outlined in the Act.
    The Service will monitor arctic peregrine falcons for a minimum of 
5 years following delisting. If, after the 5-year period, studies show 
that recovery is complete and that no factors that threaten arctic 
peregrine falcons have been identified, the monitoring program may be 
reduced or eliminated. If studies show that arctic peregrine falcon 
populations are declining or if one or more factors that appear to have 
the potential to cause decline are identified, the Service will 
continue monitoring beyond the 5-year minimum period. Additionally, if 
harvest of arctic peregrine falcons is implemented, the Service may 
conclude that surveys and monitoring are necessary. If continuation of 
the monitoring effort is warranted for any reason, the Service will 
evaluate the current 5-year monitoring plan to determine if 
modification of the plan is necessary.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's 
reason for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from Ted Swem (see ADDRESSES above).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Ted Swem (see ADDRESSES 
above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    (1) The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for ``Falcon, 
Arctic peregrine, Falco peregrinus tundrius'' under ``Birds'' from the 
list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

    Dated: September 23, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-24560 Filed 10-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P