[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45446-45463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF04


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To 
Remove the Peregrine Falcon in North America From the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to 
remove the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) in North America from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service proposes 
this action because the available data indicate that this species has 
recovered following restrictions on organochlorine pesticides in the 
United States and Canada and following implementation of successful 
management activities. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 American peregrine 
falcon pairs are found in Alaska, Canada, and the Western United 
States, and a minimum of 205 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the 
Eastern and Midwestern United States. Overall productivity goals in 
four American peregrine falcon recovery plans were met or exceeded, and 
most recovery goals for the eastern peregrine falcon population have 
been met. The proposed action, if finalized, would remove the American 
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) as an endangered species 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and would remove 
the designation of endangered due to similarity of appearance for any 
free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous States. It 
would remove all Endangered Species Act protections from all subspecies 
and populations of North American Falco peregrinus. It would not affect 
protection provided to this species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
(MBTA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
(CITES). It would not affect the endangered listing status of the 
Eurasian peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus peregrinus) under the 
Endangered Species Act.
    This proposed rule includes a proposed 5-year post-delisting 
monitoring plan as required for species that are delisted due to 
recovery. Monitoring will include population trends, productivity, and 
contaminant exposure. This proposed rule also provides notice that the 
collection of information from the public expected to be associated 
with the monitoring has been submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties on the peregrine delisting 
proposal must be received by November 24, 1998. Public hearing requests 
must be received by October 13, 1998.
    Comments from all interested parties on the collection of 
information from the public during the 5-year monitoring period will be 
considered if received on or before October 26, 1998. OMB has up to 60 
days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond 
after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should 
receive public comments by September 25, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and other information concerning this proposal to 
remove the peregrine falcon from the endangered species list should be 
sent to Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, 
California 93003 (facsimile: (805)644-3958). Comments and materials 
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, 
during normal business hours at the above address.
    Comments and suggestions on specific information collection 
requirements should be sent to the Desk Officer for the Interior 
Department, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. The comments and 
suggestions should also be directed to Rebecca Mullin, Service 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS 224 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta at the above Ventura, 
California, address, or at (805) 644-1766, for further information on 
the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the endangered 
species list. To request a copy of the information collection request, 
explanatory information and related forms, contact Rebecca Mullin at 
(703) 358-2287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized raptor weighing 
approximately 1000 grams (36 ounces) and having a wing span of 112 
centimeters (44 inches). The adult peregrine falcon has a dark gray 
back and crown, dark bars or streaks on a pale chest and abdomen, and 
heavy malar (cheek) stripes on the face. Immature falcons are buff-
colored in front and have dark brown backs; adults are white or buff in 
front and bluish-gray on their backs. Peregrines prey almost entirely 
on other birds, and occasionally on bats, caught in midair.
    The peregrine falcon has an almost worldwide distribution, with 
three subspecies recognized in North America (Brown and Amadon 1968). 
The Peale's falcon (F.p. pealei) is a year-round resident of the 
northwest Pacific coast from northern Washington through British 
Columbia to the Aleutian Islands. The Arctic peregrine falcon (F.p. 
tundrius) nests in the tundra of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and is 
typically a long-distance migrant, wintering as far south as South 
America. The American peregrine falcon occurs throughout much of North 
America from the subarctic boreal forests of Alaska and Canada south to 
Mexico. The American peregrine falcon nests from central Alaska, 
central Yukon Territory, and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to 
the Maritimes and

[[Page 45447]]

south (excluding coastal areas north of the Columbia River in 
Washington and British Columbia) throughout western Canada and the 
United States to Baja California, Sonora, and the highlands of central 
Mexico (48 FR 8799, March 1, 1983). American peregrine falcons that 
nest in subarctic areas generally winter in South America, while those 
that nest at lower latitudes exhibit variable migratory behavior; some 
are nonmigratory (Yates et al. 1988).
    Since the early 1970s, efforts to reestablish peregrine falcons in 
the Eastern and Midwestern United States have successfully returned 
this species to areas from which it had been extirpated (See ``Eastern 
United States'' under ``Peregrine Falcon Recovery''). Peregrine falcons 
are now found nesting in all States within their historical range east 
of the 100th meridian, except for Rhode Island and Arkansas.
    Peregrine falcons declined precipitously in North America following 
World War II (Kiff 1988). Research implicated organochlorine 
pesticides, mainly 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethane 
(DDT), applied in the United States and Canada during this same period, 
as causing the decline (for a review, see Risebrough and Peakall 1988). 
Use of these chemicals peaked in the 1950s and early 1960s and 
continued through the early 1970s. Organochlorines and their 
metabolites, including DDT and its principal metabolite DDE (1,1-
dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethylene), aldrin, dieldrin, and 
others, are stable, persistent compounds that are stored in the fatty 
tissues of animals ingesting contaminated food (Fyfe et al. 1988). 
Peregrine falcons and other animals near the top of the food web, 
including ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), bald eagles (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus), and brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), gradually 
accumulated these toxins by eating contaminated prey.
    Organochlorines can affect peregrine falcons either by causing 
direct mortality or by adversely affecting reproduction. Because 
mortality in wild birds is difficult to study, the effect of 
organochlorines on mortality is not as well known as the effects on 
reproduction. Organochlorines can adversely affect reproduction by 
causing egg breakage, addling, hatching failure, and abnormal 
reproductive behavior by the parent birds (Risebrough and Peakall 
1988). DDE, a metabolite of DDT, prevents normal calcium deposition 
during eggshell formation, resulting in thin-shelled eggs that are 
susceptible to breakage during incubation. In general, populations 
laying eggs with shells that averaged greater than 17 percent thinner 
than normal, pre-DDT eggs had such high rates of reproductive failure 
that the number of peregrine falcon pairs declined (Peakall and Kiff 
1988).
    During the period of DDT use in North America, eggshell thinning 
and nesting failures were widespread in peregrine falcons, and in some 
areas, successful reproduction virtually ceased (Hickey and Anderson 
1969). As a result, there was a slow but drastic decline in the number 
of peregrine falcons in many areas of North America. The degree of 
exposure to these pesticides varied among different regions, and 
peregrine falcon numbers in more contaminated areas suffered greater 
declines. Peregrine falcons that nested outside of agricultural and 
forested areas where DDT was heavily used were affected less, although 
some individuals wintered in areas of pesticide use. Presumably all 
individuals ate some migratory prey containing organochlorines (for 
reviews, see Hickey and Anderson 1969; Kiff 1988; Peakall and Kiff 
1988).
    Peregrine falcons nesting in the agricultural and forested areas 
east of the Mississippi River in the United States and in Eastern 
Canada south of the boreal forest were the most heavily contaminated 
and were essentially extirpated by the mid-1960's (Berger et al. 1969). 
Peregrine falcons in the Great Plains States east of the Rocky 
Mountains and south of the boreal forest in Canada and the United 
States were also extirpated in the DDT era (Cade 1975, Enderson et al. 
1995). No active eyries were found in surveys of 133 formerly used 
peregrine falcon eyries in the latter part of the 1964 nesting season 
in the Eastern United States and the Maritime Provinces in Canada 
(Berger et al. 1969). By 1975, there were only three peregrine falcon 
pairs in Alberta, and no other peregrine falcon pairs were found south 
of latitude 60 deg. North and east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada 
(Erickson et al. 1988).
    West of the 100th meridian, peregrine falcons were not extirpated, 
but were significantly reduced. Only 33 percent of historical nest 
sites in the Rocky Mountains were still occupied by 1965 (Enderson 
1969). The peregrine falcon disappeared as a breeding species from 
southern California, and major declines also occurred in other parts of 
the western United States and in much of southern Canada and the 
Northwest Territories (Kiff 1988). In contrast, peregrine falcons in 
most areas of the Pacific coast of Alaska remained fairly stable during 
this period, owing to their lower exposure to organochlorine 
pesticides. Throughout much of western North America, the exact degree 
of most local declines remains somewhat speculative due to a lack of 
accurate pre-pesticide era census data. For example, in the 
southwestern United States and mainland Mexico, peregrine falcons were 
not censused until after the beginning of the use of organochlorines 
(Kiff 1988).

Previous Federal Actions

    Population declines due to negative impacts of DDT and its 
metabolites on peregrine falcon reproduction and survival led the 
Service to list two of the three North American subspecies, the Arctic 
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) and the American peregrine 
falcon, as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation 
Act of 1969 (Pub.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). Arctic and American 
peregrine falcons were included in the list of threatened and 
endangered foreign species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495), and the native 
list of endangered and threatened species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 
16047). Upon passage of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, the 
native and foreign species lists were combined into a single list of 
endangered and threatened species. Both the American and Arctic 
peregrine falcon subspecies were listed as endangered throughout their 
respective ranges. Only the Peale's peregrine falcon was reproducing at 
near normal levels with only traces of DDT.
    On March 1, 1983 (48 FR 8796), the Service published a proposed 
rule to (1) reclassify the Arctic peregrine falcon from endangered to 
threatened, (2) clarify that the peregrines nesting in western 
Washington were to be considered American peregrine falcons for 
purposes of the Act, and (3) designate all free-flying peregrine 
falcons in the 48 conterminous States as endangered under similarity of 
appearance provisions under section 4(e) of the Act. A rule finalizing 
the proposal was published on March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10520). Pursuant to 
the similarity of appearance provisions, species that are not 
considered to be endangered or threatened may nevertheless be treated 
as such for the purpose of providing protection to a species that is 
biologically endangered or threatened.
    On June 12, 1991, the Service announced in the Federal Register (56 
FR 26969) a notice of status review of the American peregrine falcon 
and the Arctic peregrine falcon. The Arctic peregrine falcon was 
subsequently removed as a threatened species from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on October 5, 1994 (59 FR 50796) but 
was still protected from

[[Page 45448]]

direct take in the lower 48 States due to the similarity of appearance 
provision because the American peregrine falcon was still listed as 
endangered.
    The Service published an Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove 
the American Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (60 FR 34406) on June 30, 1995, based on data 
indicating this subspecies was recovered following restrictions on the 
use of organochlorine pesticides in the United States and Canada and 
because of successful management activities, including the 
reintroduction of captive-bred and relocated wild hatchling peregrine 
falcons. Current data provides additional support for recovery of all 
North American peregrine falcons, including the American peregrine 
falcon subspecies (Table 1).

 Table 1. American Peregrine Falcon and Eastern Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan Goals and Current (1997) Recovery
                                                     Status.                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Comments/degree to which 
           Recovery plan                 Delisting goal          Current status        delisting goals are met  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska:                                                                                                         
    Pairs..........................  28 pairs..............  301 pairs.............  Exceeded goal by 273 pairs.
    Productivity (young/pair)......  1.8 yg/pr.............  2.0 yg/pr.............  Exceeded goal.             
    DDT (parts per million)........  less than 5 ppm.......  3.5 ppm...............  Exceeded goal.             
    Eggshell thinning..............  less than 10%.........  12.1%.................  Goal not met, but has not  
                                                                                      prevented recovery; goal  
                                                                                      probably too conservative.
Canada:                                                                                                         
    Pairs..........................  60 pairs (10 each in 6  319 pairs.............  Exceeded goal by 259 pairs.
                                      zones).                                                                   
    Productivity...................  1.5 yg/pr.............  1.8 yg/pr.............  Exceeded goal.             
Pacific Coast:                                                                                                  
    Pairs..........................  185 pairs.............  239 pairs.............  Exceeded goal by 54 pairs. 
    Productivity...................  1.5 yg/pr.............  1.5 yg/pr.............  Goal met.                  
Rocky Mountain/Southwest:                                                                                       
    Pairs..........................  183 pairs.............  529 pairs.............  Exceeded goal by 346 pairs.
    Productivity...................  1.25 yg/pr............  1.4 yg/pr.............  Exceeded goal.             
    Eggshell thinning..............  less than 10%.........  ......................  Goal measured by only a few
                                                                                      States; cannot be         
                                                                                      assessed.                 
Eastern:                                                                                                        
Pairs..............................  175-200 pairs (with no  174 pairs.............  Exceeded goal in 3 zones;  
                                      fewer than 20-25 in                             goals in other 2 zones    
                                      each of 5 recovery                              probably have been met; an
                                      zones).                                         additional 31 peregrine   
                                                                                      falcon pairs occur in     
                                                                                      several Midwestern States 
                                                                                      not included under the    
                                                                                      Eastern Plan.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peregrine Falcon Recovery

    The most significant factor in the recovery of the peregrine falcon 
was the restriction placed on the use of organochlorine pesticides. Use 
of DDT was banned in Canada in 1970 and in the United States in 1972 
(37 FR 13369, July 7, 1972). Restrictions that controlled the use of 
aldrin and dieldrin were imposed in the United States in 1974 (39 FR 
37246, October 18, 1974). Since implementation of these restrictions, 
residues of the pesticides have significantly decreased in many regions 
where they were formerly used. Consequently, reproductive rates in most 
surviving peregrine falcon populations in North America improved, and 
numbers began to increase (Kiff 1988).
    Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for listed species. Recovery plans for 
peregrine falcons called for captive rearing and release of birds in 
several areas of North America. In the Eastern United States where 
peregrine falcons were extirpated, the initial recovery objective was 
to reestablish peregrine falcons through the release of offspring from 
a variety of wild stocks being held in captivity by falconers. The 
first experimental releases of captive-produced young occurred in 1974 
and 1975 in the United States.
    Later, reintroduction was also pursued in Eastern Canada using only 
Falco peregrinus anatum breeding stock from the boreal part of the 
species' range. All peregrine falcons released to augment wild 
populations in western North America west of the 100th meridian, where 
small numbers of American peregrines survived the pesticide era, were 
derived from western F. p. anatum stock.
    In Alaska and northwest Canada, American peregrine falcon 
populations were locally depressed, but enough individuals survived the 
pesticide era to allow populations to expand without the need for 
release of captive-bred falcons. Likewise, in the Southwestern United 
States, very few captive-bred birds were released, and populations 
recovered naturally following restrictions on the use of organochlorine 
pesticides. In southwest Canada, the northern Rocky Mountain States, 
and the Pacific Coast States, however, local populations were greatly 
depressed or extirpated, and over 3400 young American peregrine falcons 
were released to promote recovery in those areas (Enderson et al. 
1995).
    American peregrine falcon population growth was noted in Alaska in 
the late 1970s (Ambrose et al. 1988b) and by 1980 in many other areas 
(Enderson et al. 1995). The rate of increase varied among regions of 
North America, undoubtedly influenced by variation in patterns of 
pesticide use, potential differences in the rate of pesticide 
degradation, and the degree to which local populations had declined. 
Populations in some portions of the range of American peregrine 
falcons, such as Alaska and northwest Canada and Southwestern United 
States, reached densities several years ago that suggested recovery was 
approaching completion (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Mossop 1988; G. Holroyd, 
Canadian Wildlife Service, in litt. 1993; Enderson et al. 1995). 
Residual organochlorine pesticide contamination continues to affect 
eggshells in some areas, such as portions of coastal California (Jarman 
1994) and western Texas (Bonnie R. Mckinney, Texas Parks and Wildlife

[[Page 45449]]

Department, pers. comm. 1997), but these effects are localized. Despite 
these localized effects and the variation in the rate of increase among 
regions, local populations throughout North America have increased in 
size, and positive trends in nearly all areas suggest that an extensive 
recovery of American peregrine falcons has taken place.

Eastern Peregrine Population

     The Eastern peregrine population has a relatively unique history 
and complex status under the Act. As stated previously, peregrine 
falcons were extirpated in the eastern United States and southeastern 
Canada by the mid-1960s. In 1974, shortly after the passage of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Audubon Society sponsored 
a meeting of experts in peregrine biology, including representatives 
from the Service, to address the conservation of the species in North 
America. This sparked the beginning of an effort to reestablish the 
peregrine in the East through the introduction of offspring from 
parents of multiple subspecies. Peregrine falcons were raised in 
captivity from parent subspecies then listed as endangered (Falco 
peregrinus anatum, F. p. tundrius, F. p. peregrinus), unlisted 
subspecies (F. p. pealei, F. p. brookei, etc.), and combinations of 
these subspecies. The first experimental releases of captive-produced 
young in the eastern States occurred in 1974 and 1975. These and future 
releases, coordinated by the Service, State fish and wildlife agencies, 
and representatives of The Peregrine Fund, demonstrated that hacking, 
the practice of retaining and feeding young captive-bred birds in 
partial captivity until they learn to fly and hunt on their own, was an 
effective method of introducing captive-bred peregrines to the wild 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Releases, primarily of Falco 
peregrinus anatum, continue on a small scale today.
    In 1978, the Director of the Service issued a policy statement 
confirming support for the use of North American peregrines to 
establish an Eastern peregrine falcon population, supported with 
endangered species funds, and the use of peregrines from other 
geographic areas for specific research purposes. The policy applied 
only to peregrine falcons in the east.
    In 1979, the Service published the first Eastern Peregrine Falcon 
Recovery Plan, the first of four U.S. regional plans to be developed, 
to guide the restoration of the peregrine in the East. The Eastern Plan 
covered the areas extending to the western borders of the States of 
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and included the Gulf 
Coast of Texas. The primary objective of the Plan was to restore a new 
self-sustaining population of peregrine falcons in the eastern United 
States through preservation and management of essential habitat, 
captive propagation and release, protection of the population from 
take, elimination of harmful environmental pollutants, and public 
education.
    Reflecting a 1983 Department of the Interior Solicitor opinion that 
progeny of intercrosses between listed and unlisted species were not 
covered under the Act, the Service modified the regulatory status of 
mixed heritage birds. Through the rulemaking process reclassifying the 
Arctic peregrine falcon from threatened to endangered status (48 FR 
8796, March 1, 1983; 49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984), all free-flying 
Falco peregrinus in the lower 48 States were designated as Endangered 
due to Similarity of Appearance to ``pure'' listed American and Arctic 
peregrines (F. p. anatum and F. p. tundrius). This was done because the 
intercrossed birds were not readily distinguishable from American and 
Arctic peregrines, making enforcement of the taking prohibitions of the 
Act for listed subspecies difficult. The Similarity of Appearance 
provision of section 4(e) of the Act provides that species (or 
subspecies or other groups of wildlife) that are not considered to be 
biologically Endangered or Threatened may nevertheless be treated as 
such for the purpose of providing protection to a species that is. 
Accordingly, to ensure protection from illegal take of American and 
Arctic peregrine falcons that may be nesting, migrating, or wintering 
in the lower 48 States, the Service extended the taking prohibitions of 
section 9 of the Act to all free-flying peregrines in the lower 48 
States through the Similarity of Appearance provision.
    The 1983 Solicitor opinion that progeny of intercrosses were not 
covered by the Act was subsequently withdrawn by the Solicitor's Office 
in 1990. Thus, notwithstanding the Similarity of Appearance 
designation, the Service has continued to fully support the restoration 
of the Eastern peregrine under the 1991 revised Eastern recovery plan. 
The Eastern peregrine falcon is being considered on a par with the 
American peregrine falcon.

Recovery Status

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, the Service 
appoints recovery teams of experts to assist in the writing of recovery 
plans. In cooperation with the Service, recovery teams produced four 
regional peregrine falcon recovery plans, including three recovery 
plans for the American peregrine falcon in Alaska and the Western 
United States, and one for the peregrine in the Eastern United States. 
Although no United States recovery plans established recovery criteria 
for peregrine falcons nesting outside of the United States, the 
Canadian Wildlife Service published an Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery 
Plan (Erickson et. al. 1988) for American peregrine falcons in Canada. 
The current status of the subspecies in Mexico is discussed below, 
although no recovery plan or recovery objectives were established for 
Mexico.
    To aid in assessing peregrine falcon recovery, the current status 
is compared to specific recovery plan objectives for American peregrine 
falcons in (1) Alaska, (2) Canada, (3) the Pacific Coast, and (4) the 
Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, and for (5) the peregrine falcons in 
the Eastern United States.

Alaska

    The Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska Population (Alaska 
Recovery Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982a) includes both 
Arctic and American peregrine falcons nesting in Alaska. The following 
discussion relates only to provisions regarding the American peregrine 
falcon, as the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on October 5, 1994 
(59 FR 50796).
    The Alaskan Recovery Plan established recovery objectives based on 
four measurements for assessing the status of American peregrine 
falcons including (1) population size, (2) reproductive performance, 
(3) pesticide residues in eggs, and (4) eggshell thickness. The 
recovery objectives included (1) 28 nesting pairs in 2 specified study 
areas (16 in upper Yukon and 12 in upper Tanana), (2) an average of 1.8 
young per territorial pair, (3) average organochlorine concentration in 
eggs of less than 5 ppm (parts per million ppm, wet weight basis DDE), 
and (4) eggshells no more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era 
eggshells. The Alaska Recovery Plan suggested that these objectives be 
maintained in the specified study areas for 5 years before 
reclassifying from endangered to threatened status and remain constant 
or improve for an additional 5 years before delisting.
    Surveys were conducted in the two study areas, the upper Yukon and 
Tanana Rivers, for which historical population data were available 
using consistent methodology from 1973 to

[[Page 45450]]

the present so trends would be discernable. Surveys conducted between 
1966 and 1997 along the upper Yukon River demonstrated increases in the 
number of occupied nesting territories from a low of 11 known pairs in 
1973 to 44 pairs in 1997 (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Robert Ambrose, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997a). Similarly, along the upper 
Tanana River, the number of occupied nesting territories increased from 
2 in 1975 to 27 in 1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). The recovery 
objective of 28 occupied nesting territories in the 2 study areas was 
first achieved (post-DDT) in 1982 and the number has increased steadily 
since that time to the current level of 71 occupied nesting territories 
in 1997 (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997). Thus, the recovery objective of 
28 occupied nesting territories has been achieved and surpassed for 15 
years.
    Productivity measured along the upper Yukon and Tanana Rivers fell 
to a low of about 1.0 young per territorial pair per year (yg/pr) in 
the late 1960s, but began to increase in the mid-1970s. By 1982, 
productivity exceeded the objective of 1.8 yg/pr and varied between 
approximately 1.6 and 3.0 yg/pr each year since then; the annual 
average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=283 nests/pairs) between 1994 and 
1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). From the late 1970s to the present, 
productivity was sufficient to allow an average annual increase of 
approximately 8 percent in the number of breeding pairs. Productivity 
was similar in several other areas in interior Alaska (R. Ambrose, 
pers. comm. 1997). A minimum of 301 breeding pairs of American 
peregrine falcons currently nest in Alaska.
    Mean concentrations of DDE in peregrine falcon eggs in excess of 
15-20 ppm are associated with high rates of nesting failure, whereas 
productivity is usually sufficient to maintain population size if 
residues average less than this concentration (Peakall et al. 1975, 
Newton et al. 1989). In Alaska, average DDE residues in American 
peregrine falcons averaged 12.2 ppm from 1979 to 1984, 5.8 ppm from 
1988 to 1991, and 3.5 ppm from 1993 to 1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 
1997b) and probably declined below the recovery objective of 5 ppm 
sometime between 1984 and 1988 (Ambrose et al. 1988a).
    In Alaska, eggshells were estimated to be as much as 20-22 percent 
thinner than pre-DDT era shells in the mid-1960s (Cade et al. 1968). By 
the early 1980s, shells were about 14 percent thinner than before the 
DDT era (Ambrose et al. 1988a; R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1995). Eggshell 
thickness averaged 13.0 percent from 1979 to 1984, 13.1 from 1988 to 
1991 and 12.1 from 1993 to 1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997b). The 
average thickness of pre-DDT American peregrine falcon eggs from Alaska 
is not precisely known, so current estimates of thinning could be 
inaccurate to some degree. Reproduction has been sufficient, however, 
to allow consistent population growth since the late 1970's, and 
productivity has, on average, exceeded its stated recovery objective 
for 15 years.
    In summary, based on the most current information (1997 survey and 
early 1990 contamination data) the Service concludes that the basic 
goals underlying all four objectives have been met or exceeded. The 
number of pairs occupying nesting territories in the two study areas 
and productivity exceeded, on average, the recovery objectives for the 
past 15 years. Neither DDE residues in eggs nor eggshell thinning has 
prevented a dramatic population growth since the late 1970's.

Canada

    The 1988 Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan for Canada (Canadian 
Recovery Plan) (Erickson et al. 1988) categorizes the historical range 
of the American peregrine falcon throughout Canada into three regions, 
which include the Western Mountains, Interior Plains, and the Eastern 
Seaboard and Great Lakes. These regions are subdivided into nine zones 
on the basis of historical population levels, habitat, political 
boundaries, and restoration needs. The zones are (1) Maritime, (2) 
Great Lakes, (3) Prairies, (4) Mackenzie River Valley, (5) Northern 
Mountains, (6) Southern Mountains, (7) Eastern Mackenzie Watershed, (8) 
Western Canadian Shield, and the (9) Eastern Canadian Shield. Coastal 
British Columbia is excluded from consideration in the Canadian 
Recovery Plan since this area is considered to be occupied by F. p. 
pealei.
    The goal of the Canadian Recovery Plan is to increase the wild 
American peregrine falcon population in Canada so the subspecies is no 
longer considered endangered or threatened by the Committee on the 
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The proposed objectives are 
(1) to establish by 1992 a minimum of 10 territorial American peregrine 
falcon pairs in each of Zones 1 to 6 and (2) to establish by 1997, in 
each of 5 of these 6 zones, a minimum of 10 pairs naturally fledging 15 
(1.5 yg/yr) or more young annually, measured as a 5-year average 
beginning in 1993. No recovery goals were established for Zones 7, 8, 
and 9. The Canadian Recovery Plan does not contain separate objectives 
for reclassification of the subspecies in Canada from its current 
endangered status to threatened.
    The Canadian Wildlife Service has coordinated and published a 
national range-wide peregrine falcon population survey once every 5 
years starting in 1990. The results of the 1995 national population 
survey were used in the following status summary of the American 
peregrine falcon in Canada (Ursula Banasch, Canadian Wildlife Service, 
in litt. 1997).
    There are 98 known nest sites in Zones 1 and 2 (southern Ontario 
and Quebec, northern Great Lakes, Bay of Fundy and Labrador), and 
surveys located 64 pairs. There are 98 known nest sites in Zone 3 
(Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta), and surveys located 41 pairs. 
There are 117 known nest sites in Zone 4 (eastern N.W. Territories), 
and surveys located 83 pairs. There are 125 known nest sites in Zone 5 
(Yukon), and surveys located 113 pairs. There are 50 known nest sites 
in Zone 6 (Interior British Columbia), and surveys located 18 pairs. 
The total known number of pairs for all six zones in 1995 was 319, with 
minimum goals achieved for every recovery zone.
    The only comprehensive range-wide productivity surveys available to 
the Service were the national population surveys coordinated by the 
Canadian Wildlife Service in 1990 and 1995 (U. Banasch, in litt. 1997; 
Holroyd and Banasch 1996). Surveys conducted in the intervening years 
were not nationally coordinated and therefore were not complete. Thus, 
the Service used the combined average annual productivity data 
collected in the 1990 and 1995 surveys to address this recovery 
objective.
    In Zones 1 and 2, average productivity was 1.7 yg/pr (N=104 nests) 
. In Zone 3, average productivity was 1.5 yg/pr (N=55). In Zone 4, 
average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=171). In Zone 5, average 
productivity was 1.8 yg/pr (N=626). No productivity data were available 
for Zone 6. The 2-year average annual productivity for the Canadian 
population of American peregrine falcons was 1.8 yg/pr.
    In summary, the Canadian Recovery Plan identified two objectives to 
determine recovery for the American peregrine falcon population in 
Canada. Based on current available information, it is apparent that 
both objectives have been met. The total number of pairs for all 6 
zones in 1995 was 319, with minimum goals achieved for every recovery 
zone. This count exceeds the total recovery goal of 60 pairs by 259. 
The average annual productivity data

[[Page 45451]]

for 1990 and 1995 either met or exceeded objectives in 5 of the 6 zones 
with an average annual productivity of 1.8 yg/pr for the Canadian 
American peregrine falcon population.
    Although the Canadian Recovery Plan did not identify pesticide 
residue or eggshell thinning levels as recovery objectives, 205 eggs 
and 62 samples from 28 specimens of peregrine falcons were collected in 
Canada between 1965 and 1987 to assess organochlorine residue 
concentrations. In all three subspecies (Falco peregrinus anatum, F. p. 
tundrius, F. p. pealei) the proportion of specimens having residue 
concentrations above established critical values (concentration at 
which egg failure occurs, which varies among organochlorine 
contaminants) has decreased and can be correlated with improvements in 
the reproductive success of the population (Peakall et al. 1990).

Pacific Coast

    The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1982b) for the American Peregrine Falcon, Pacific Population, 
recommends that (1) 122 pairs be established in a specified 
distribution spanning California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada and 
that (2) these pairs achieve an average fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr 
for consideration of reclassification to threatened status. It further 
recommends that with attainment of (3) 185 wild, self-sustaining pairs 
(California 120, Oregon 30, Washington 30, Nevada 5) and (4) an average 
fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr for a 5-year period the subspecies can be 
considered for delisting. Only the latter two objectives regarding 
delisting are discussed in this proposal. The Pacific Population Plan 
defines a ``self-sustaining'' population as one whose natural 
productivity without human management is equal to or greater than its 
mortality.
    By 1976, because of DDT, no American peregrine falcons could be 
found at 14 historical sites in Washington; Oregon had also lost most 
of its peregrine falcons. In addition, only 1 or 2 pairs remained on 
the California coast, with no more than 10 nest sites known to be 
occupied in the entire State (Cade 1994). A steadily increasing number 
of American peregrine falcon pairs breeding in Washington, Oregon, and 
Nevada were indicated by surveys from 1991 to 1997; known pairs in 
Washington increased from 17 to 44, in Oregon from 23 to 42, and in 
Nevada from 3 to 6 (Gary Herron, Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers. 
comm. 1997; Martin Nugent, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in 
litt. 1997; David Anderson, Washington Department of Fish and Game, in 
litt. 1997). The number of American peregrine falcons in California 
increased from an estimated low of 5-10 breeding pairs in the early 
1970's (Herman 1971) to a minimum of 147 occupied sites in 1997 (Santa 
Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group 1997). The increase in California 
has been concurrent with the restriction of DDT and management that 
included the release of over 750 American peregrine falcons, including 
captive-reared and relocated wild hatchlings, through 1997 (Walton 
1997). Recovery of American peregrine falcons in some areas of 
California, however, has been impeded by continuing elevated DDT levels 
(Jarman 1994, Walton 1997). Based on currently available information, 
it is evident that the first recovery objective has been met; a minimum 
known population of 239 pairs exceeds the delisting goal of 185 by 54 
pairs, and the distribution goals also have been met in all four 
States. Surveys conducted from 1991 to 1997 demonstrate a steadily 
increasing number of American peregrine falcon pairs, indicating that 
natural productivity is greater than mortality in this recovery region.
    Productivity measured in Washington between 1993 and 1997 ranged 
from 1.3 to 1.8 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=159) (D. 
Anderson, in litt. 1997). In Oregon, productivity between 1993 and 1997 
ranged from 0.8 to 1.9 yg/pr, with an average of 1.3 yg/pr (N=127) (M. 
Nugent, in litt. 1997). Between 1993 and 1997, productivity in 
California ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 yg/pr, (N=356) with an average of 1.6 
yg/pr (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1997). No productivity data were 
available for Nevada.
    Productivity, an important measure of population health, can be 
difficult to determine in wide-ranging species nesting in remote 
landscapes that are often difficult to access. However, data available 
indicate that the average productivity from 1993 to 1997 in Washington, 
Oregon and California was 1.5 yg/pr; therefore, the Service considers 
this objective to be met.
    The release of captive-bred American peregrine falcons was 
suspended in Nevada in 1989, in California in 1992 (although the 
relocation of wild hatchlings continued), and in Oregon and Washington 
in 1995. The effect of these releases on population growth and 
stability in this region are not yet completely known. As a result of 
lower than expected first-year mortality of released birds, the 
augmentation program accelerated the growth of the Pacific population 
(Brian Walton, Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, pers. comm. 
1997).
    The Pacific Population Plan did not identify pesticide residue or 
eggshell thinning levels as recovery objectives. However, 
organochlorine residues and eggshell thinning have been measured in 
California since the early 1970's. Jarman (1994) reported DDE 
concentrations in 105 peregrine eggs collected in 1987-1992 from 
California, and 11 eggs from Oregon from 1990 to 1993. Data collected 
in 9 study regions in California (Jarman 1994) indicated the highest 
concentrations of DDE were found in California eggs from the Channel 
Islands and midcoast with 21 and 13 ppm, respectively. The southern 
coast and San Francisco regions had the lowest concentrations of 5.5 
and 4.3 ppm, respectively. The DDE concentrations in eggs collected 
along the coast of California (between San Francisco Bay and 34 deg. N) 
did not decrease between 1969 and 1992 (Jarman 1994). Eggs from Oregon 
contained DDE levels of 10 ppm.
    Eggshells from coastal California continue to show thinning. In 
northern and central coastal California, eggshells collected between 
1975 and 1995 averaged 17.7 and 19.1 percent thinner than pre-DDT era, 
respectively (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). In northern interior 
California, where 104 of the 186 sites known to be active at least once 
since 1975 (1975-1993), eggshells averaged 15.6 percent thinner than 
pre-DDT era shells (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). Eggshells collected 
on the Channel Islands off the southern coast of California in 1992-
1995 averaged 19.4 percent thinner than those collected in California 
prior to 1947 (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). In montane California, the 
average has been 15 percent thinner than normal, and in eggshells from 
the southern interior (coastal mountains) sites the average has been 
17.9 percent thinner than normal (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). Urban 
pairs experienced eggshell thinning averaging 8.7 percent in the San 
Francisco area and 10.9 in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. A 
summary of 633 clutch mean measurements representing 1,237 samples of 
one or more eggshells collected between 1975 and 1995 from the 
historical range of the American peregrine falcon in California 
averaged 16.1 percent thinning (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). However, 
current reproduction supports an expanding population in most areas 
despite high organochlorine residue concentrations and associated 
eggshell thinning that still occurs in some areas of the Pacific 
population.

[[Page 45452]]

Rocky Mountain/Southwest

    The American Peregrine Falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest Population 
Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984) established three 
recovery objectives for reclassification, including (1) increasing the 
Falco peregrinus anatum population in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest 
region to a minimum of 183 breeding pairs with the following 
distribution: Arizona (46), Colorado (31), Idaho (17), Montana (20), 
Nebraska (1), New Mexico (23), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (1), 
Texas (8), Utah (21), and Wyoming (14); (2) sustaining a long-term 
average production of 1.25 yg/pr without manipulation by 1995; and (3) 
observing eggshell thickness within 10 percent of pre-DDT eggshells for 
a 5-year span.
    The prairie States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, 
and Oklahoma contain little peregrine falcon habitat, and historical 
data are incomplete. No recovery goals for a specific number of 
peregrine falcon pairs were set for Kansas or Oklahoma; peregrine 
falcons are not known to have nested in Oklahoma. Currently, Nebraska 
and Kansas each have one peregrine falcon pair (Tordoff, Martell, and 
Redig 1997); no peregrine falcon pairs are known to occur in North 
Dakota, South Dakota, or Oklahoma.
    The Rocky Mountain/Southwest population of the American peregrine 
falcon has made a profound comeback since the late 1970's when surveys 
showed no occupied nest sites in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming and few 
pairs in Colorado, New Mexico, and the Colorado Plateau, including 
parts of southern Utah and Arizona (Cade 1994). Surveys conducted from 
1991 to 1997 indicate that the number of American peregrine falcon 
pairs in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest population is steadily 
increasing. In 1991, this population supported 367 known pairs; in 1997 
the number of pairs increased to 575 (Greg Beatty, Arizona Game and 
Fish Department, in litt. 1997). Surveys conducted from 1992 to 1997 
showed that, with the exception of Idaho, North Dakota, and South 
Dakota, all States within the Rocky Mountain/Southwest population have 
met their specific recovery goals for breeding pairs.
    The current minimum known number of peregrine falcon pairs for each 
State include Arizona 159, Colorado 81, Idaho 15, Montana 23, Nebraska 
1, New Mexico 40, North Dakota 0, South Dakota 0, Texas 15, Utah 154, 
Wyoming 40, and Kansas 1 (Jennifer Fowler-Propst, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1996; G. Beatty, in litt. 1997; James H. 
Enderson, Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, pers. comm. 1997; 
Frank Howe, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, in litt. 1997; John 
Beals, Idaho Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1997; Bill Heinrich, The 
Peregrine Fund, pers. comm. 1997; Mckinney 1994; B. R. Mckinney, pers. 
comm. 1997; Dennis Flath, Montana Department of Fish and Parks, in 
litt. 1977). The current Rocky Mountain/Southwest population is 529, 
which surpasses the recovery objective of 183 by 346 pairs.
    Between 1989 and 1997 the average productivity in Arizona was 1.1 
yg/pr (N=294) (Ward and Siemens 1995; Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and 
Fish Dept., in litt. 1996; G. Beatty, in litt. 1997). Although recent 
productivity averages have fallen below the 1.25 yg/pr recovery goal, 
Arizona has sustained a 24-year average of 1.4 yg/pr.
    In 1973, 1974, and 1975, productivity in Colorado was 0.2, 1.9, and 
0.7 yg/pr respectively, reflecting the irregular and generally poor 
productivity typical of the 1970's (Platt and Enderson 1988). From 1990 
to 1997, production averaged 1.5 yg/pr (Gerry Craig, Colorado Division 
of Wildlife, in litt. 1995; J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1997). 
Productivity measured in Colorado from 1972 to 1997 ranged from 0 to 
2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=611) for the 26-year period 
(G. Craig, in litt. 1995; J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1997).
    In Idaho, productivity recorded from 1988 to 1997 ranged from 0 to 
2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for this 10-year period (N=103) 
(Wayne Melquist, Idaho Fish and Game, in litt. 1996; J. Beals, pers. 
comm. 1997). In Montana, productivity between 1984 and 1997 ranged from 
0.3 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 14-year period 
(N=119) (D. Flath, pers. comm. 1997; Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and 
Fish Department, in litt. 1996). In Nebraska, productivity between 1992 
and 1997 for a single pair ranged from 0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average 
of 1.0 yg/pr for the 6-year period (N=6) (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).
    New Mexico has sustained an 11-year (1986-1997) average 
productivity of 1.71 yg/pr (N=246) (Sartor O. Williams, New Mexico 
Dept. of Game & Fish, in litt. 1997). Productivity in 1995, 1996, and 
1997 was 1.3 (N=43), 1.5 (N=44), and 1.6 (N=40) yg/pr, respectively (J. 
Fowler-Propst, in litt. 1997). New Mexico has maintained a 22-year 
average productivity of 1.6 yg/pr.
    In Texas, productivity recorded from 1975 to 1997 ranged from 0 to 
2.3 yg/pr, with an average of 0.9 yg/pr for the 23-year period 
(Mckinney 1994; B. Mckinney, pers. comm. 1997). Peregrine falcon 
surveys conducted in the Big Bend National Park, Texas, between 1986 
and 1989 recorded an average productivity of 1.08 yg/pr (Moore 1989).
    In Utah, between 1985 and 1987, productivity averaged 0.8 yg/pr. 
From 1991 to 1996, productivity ranged from 0.9 to 2.0 yg/pr, with an 
average of 1.3 yg/pr for the 6-year period (Bunnell 1994; F.H. Howe, in 
litt. 1997). In Wyoming, productivity between 1984 and 1997 ranged from 
0.9 to 3.0 yg/pr with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 14-year period 
(Joe White, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in litt. 1995; B.H. 
Heinrich, pers. comm. 1997). In Kansas, productivity between 1993 and 
1997 ranged from 0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.0 yg/pr for the 
4-year period (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).
    With the exception of Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas, the long-term 
productivity goal of 1.25 yg/pr for the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region 
has been exceeded by all States with breeding American peregrine 
falcons. Although Texas has exceeded its goal for number of pairs, 
heavy metal contamination, particularly mercury, in adults and 
nestlings may be depressing productivity (Andrew Sansom, Texas Parks 
and Wildlife Department, in litt. 1995). Residual mercury contamination 
from mines operated along the Rio Grande River in the early 1900's are 
the suspected source of this contamination (B. Mckinney, pers. comm. 
1997). Nebraska and Kansas have had only one peregrine falcon pair each 
since 1992, and breeding has been sporadic in both States.
    The average productivity for the nine States supporting breeding 
populations is 1.4 yg/pr, well above the goal of 1.25 yg/pr goal. Even 
though Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas have not yet met the productivity 
goal, productivity throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region has 
been more than sufficient for recruitment to exceed mortality, so 
dramatic population growth has resulted.
    In Arizona, eggshells collected between 1978 and 1983 averaged 14.2 
percent thinner, and 20 eggshell replicates collected from 1989 to 1994 
averaged 13 percent thinner than pre-DDT era eggshells (Ellis et al. 
1989, Ward and Siemens 1995). In Colorado and New Mexico, shells from 
260 eggs laid between 1977 and 1985 averaged 12 percent thinner than 
pre-DDT eggshells (Enderson et al. 1988). In another analysis of eggs 
from New Mexico, eggshells collected in 1977 averaged 20 percent 
thinner than pre-DDT eggshells, but in 1985 averaged only 14 percent 
thinner (Ponton et al. 1988). Eggshell thickness measurements for 
Colorado from 1973 to 1997 included a maximum

[[Page 45453]]

of 25.1 percent thinner and a minimum of 6.0 percent thinner than pre-
DDT eggshells, with an average thinning of 13.5 percent. Only in 
Colorado has the objective for eggshell thickness been achieved. In 
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 measurements of 10.6, 11.7, 8.6, 8.1, 
and 6.0 percent thinning, respectively, the average of the annual means 
was 9.0 percent thinning for this period (G. Craig, in litt. 1995). 
Although the recovery objective was not met in other States in the 
region, there is a general trend toward thicker eggshells in 
measurements taken since the mid-1970's (L. Kiff, pers. comm. 1995).
    In summary, the first recovery objective in the Rocky Mountain/
Southwest Recovery Plan has been met; the current population of 529 
pairs exceeds the goal of 183 pairs by 346 pairs. These pairs are 
distributed throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States. By the mid-
1980's the practice of fostering chicks into active nests was 
terminated; therefore, the long-term average productivity this recovery 
region has demonstrated has been accomplished without nest 
manipulation. The second objective of 1.25 yg/pr for 5 years has been 
met by all Rocky Mountain/Southwest States that have breeding American 
peregrine falcons except Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas. The current 
reproductive level of the 10 States with breeding populations 
(including Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas) is 1.4 yg/pr, exceeding the 
second objective. Therefore, the Service considers the intent of this 
objective met. Based on the degree of recovery achieved, the third 
objective, that average eggshell thickness is within 10 percent of the 
pre-DDT era average for 5 years, appears to be conservative. The 
increase in numbers of American peregrine falcons indicates the 
subspecies has recovered without the necessity of reaching this 
specific recovery objective.
    The Rocky Mountain/Southwest Recovery Plan did not identify 
pesticide residue levels as a recovery objective. However, 
organochlorine pesticide residues in American peregrine falcon eggs 
measured in Colorado and New Mexico between 1973 and 1979 averaged 26 
ppm DDE, but the average declined to 15 ppm by 1980-1983 (Enderson et 
al. 1988). The average concentration in eggs collected in Colorado from 
1986 to 1989 was 11 ppm; however, the sample included only 5 eggs 
(Jarman et al. 1993).

Eastern United States

    The Peregrine Falcon, Eastern Population Recovery Plan, first 
published in 1979 (Eastern Plan) and revised in 1985 and 1991 (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1991), addressed the recovery of the 
peregrine falcon in the Eastern United States, which was established 
beginning in 1974 and 1975 by releasing captive-bred peregrine falcons 
of mixed genetic heritage. The recovery plan established two recovery 
objectives including (1) a minimum of 20-25 nesting pairs in each of 5 
recovery units to be established and sustained for a minimum of 3 
years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-200 pairs demonstrating 
successful, sustained nesting. The five recovery units are (1) Mid-
Atlantic Coast, (2) Northern New York and New England, (3) Southern 
Appalachians, (4) Great Lakes, and (5) Southern New England/Central 
Appalachians.
    The first recovery objective has been substantially achieved, with 
3 of the 5 recovery units (Mid-Atlantic Coast, Northern New York and 
New England, and Great Lakes) surpassing 20-25 nesting pairs of 
peregrine falcons for 3 years. The Mid-Atlantic Coast unit had 58 pairs 
fledging 76 young in 1997 and averaged 60 pairs and 90 fledglings 
annually from 1995 to 1997. The Northern New York and New England unit 
had 49 pairs fledging 65 young in 1997 and averaged 43 pairs and 59 
fledglings annually from 1995 to 1997 (Mike Amaral, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997). The Great Lakes unit had 42 pairs 
fledging 78 young in 1997 and averaged 36 pairs and 63 fledglings from 
1995 to 1997 (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997). The Southern Appalachians unit 
had 11 pairs fledging 23 young in 1997, and the Southern New England 
and Central Appalachians unit had 14 pairs fledging 20 young in 1997 
(L. Kiff, in litt. 1997; David Flemming, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, in litt. 1997). In 1997, there was a total of 174 pairs 
counted in the 5 Eastern State recovery units, almost the minimum 
recovery level of the Eastern Plan. The recovery goal, however, may 
already have been exceeded because up to 10 percent of territorial 
pairs in any given year escape detection and are not counted (Cade et 
al. 1988a). Importantly, the number of territorial pairs recorded in 
the eastern peregrine falcon recovery area has increased an average of 
10 per cent annually for the past 5 years (1992-1997). Equally 
important is that the productivity of these pairs during the same 5-
year period has averaged 1.5 fledged young per territorial pair.
    As of 1997, there were at least 31 peregrine pairs in 6 Midwestern 
States nesting outside the recovery area delineated for those States in 
the 1991 recovery plan--the birds are nesting successfully in a greater 
area than believed likely in 1991. Peregrine falcons now found in 
Midwestern States are the result of captive-reared and released birds 
and others that probably came from the peregrine falcons released in 
the eastern States. Although there appears to be a zone of no nesting 
in the northeastern Great Plains that separates the western native 
American peregrine falcons from the introduced eastern peregrine 
falcons (C. Kjos, pers. comm. 1997), the genetic origins of the 
midwestern peregrine falcons are unknown, and the potential for 
interchange of individuals between the two areas cannot be dismissed. 
There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the 
Midwestern and Eastern States where peregrine falcons had been 
extirpated.

Mexico

    None of the existing recovery plans written for peregrine falcons 
in North America established recovery criteria for birds that nest in 
Mexico. There is very little historical or recent information on 
peregrine falcons in Mexico for accurately assessing their current 
status in Mexico.
    Porter et al. (1988) reported 42 known nesting territories on the 
western side of the Baja California Peninsula. From 1966 through 1971, 
only three pairs occurred in this region and none were found in 1976 
(Porter et al. 1988), indicating a substantial decline had occurred by 
the mid-1970's. Most of these territories apparently have not been 
checked since that time, but seven pairs were located in 1985-1992 in 
areas not occupied in the years just before (Massey and Palacios 1994).
    In 1993, three active American peregrine falcon nests were 
discovered in Ojo de Liebre (Scammon's) Lagoon on the western side of 
the Baja California Peninsula in an area without historical nesting 
records (Castellanos et al. 1994). The central west coast of the Baja 
California Peninsula was an important breeding area with an historical 
population of about 13 pairs (Banks 1969). Between 1980 and 1994, 
Castellanos et al. (1997) conducted breeding surveys of American 
peregrine falcons in this area of the coast and found 10 nesting pairs. 
Castellanos et al. (1997) studied the reproductive success of three 
pairs in 1993 and five pairs in 1994 located at Ojo de Liebre and San 
Ignacio Lagoons. An average of three eggs, 1.8 nestlings, and 1.6 
fledglings were produced per nest. This productivity appears to be 
within the range of normal productivity for healthy populations (Cade 
et al. 1988b). These observations suggest some recent

[[Page 45454]]

recovery on the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula.
    On the western (Gulf of California) side of mainland Mexico, Porter 
et al. (1988) reported 23 historical nest sites. A number of new nest 
sites were found in this area in 1966-1984, increasing the number of 
known nest sites to 51. Territory occupancy averaged about 82 percent 
in 1967-1971 and 77 percent in 1971-1975, indicating that territory 
occupancy in that area never declined as significantly as on the west 
side of the Baja California Peninsula. Porter and Jenkins (1988) 
believed that the number of occupied territories in the Gulf area 
increased after 1967 following a reduction in DDE residues in prey.
    Between 1989 and 1997, Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, (in litt. 1997) found three pairs of American peregrine 
falcons, one pair on the Rio Aros and two on the Rio Yaqui, Sonora. 
Hunt et al. (1988) found 14 occupied American peregrine falcon nesting 
territories in the highlands of northeast Mexico in 1982. In this area 
and adjacent West Texas, territory occupancy averaged about 70 percent 
during 1973-1985.
    Most of what is known about productivity and pesticide residues in 
Mexico comes from the western mainland near the Gulf of California. 
Porter et al. (1988) found that productivity along the Gulf of 
California in 1965-1984 was ``somewhat less than normal,'' and 5 addled 
eggs collected in 1976-1984 averaged 12.8 ppm DDE with a range of 2.4 
``25.0 ppm (Porter and Jenkins 1988). DDE residues in prey in the Gulf 
area declined from the 1960's to the 1980's, and this decline 
correlated with increases in productivity and the number of breeding 
pairs (Porter and Jenkins 1988). Some prey, however, still contained 
high pesticide residues, and reproduction appeared to be affected by 
organochlorine at 3 of 15 nests examined (Porter and Jenkins 1988).
    Hunt et al. (1988) found that only 5 of 14 pairs produced young in 
northeast Mexico in 1982. Hunt et al. (1988) reported significant DDE 
residues in peregrine falcon prey species in western Texas in the mid 
1980's, but prey species in Mexico were not sampled.
    In summary, there has been little research on the distribution, 
numbers, and status of American peregrine falcons in Mexico, and most 
research took place in the Baja California Peninsula and the Gulf of 
California regions. Numbers on the west coast of the Baja California 
Peninsula declined significantly (Porter et al. 1988), but observations 
suggest that numbers may have increased in recent years (Massey and 
Palacios 1994, Castellanos et al. 1994, Castellanos et al. 1997). In 
the Gulf of California area, territory occupancy never was known to 
drop below 77 percent (Porter et al. 1988), but it increased in the 
1970's and 1980's (Porter and Jenkins 1988). An unknown number of pairs 
inhabit the Chihauhuan Desert and the Sierra Madre Occidental in the 
interior of Mexico.
    No information on population trends for American peregrine falcons 
in Mexico is available; however, the status of the Mexican population 
may be similar to that of the population occupying similar habitat in 
nearby Arizona (G. Hunt, pers. comm. 1997). Exposure to organochlorine-
based pesticides continues to be a threat to Mexican-nesting 
populations. In 1997, as part of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 
established a North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT, which 
proposes a phased reduction, resulting in the eventual elimination of 
DDT used for malaria control in Mexico. Specific goals of the NARAP are 
to (1) reduce the use of DDT for malaria control in Mexico by 80 
percent in 5 years (beginning in 1997); (2) eliminate the illegal use 
of DDT in agriculture in Mexico; (3) develop a cooperative approach to 
minimize movement of malaria-infected mosquitos across borders and 
reduce the illegal importation of DDT; and (4) advance global controls 
on DDT production, export and use.
    Eliminating protection for peregrine falcons under the Act is 
unlikely to increase the risk to American peregrine falcons nesting in 
Mexico. Adverse effects of organochlorine pesticides in the environment 
remains an international concern, not only for peregrine falcons 
nesting in Mexico, but for peregrine falcons wintering in or migrating 
through Latin America. By undertaking the steps proposed in the NARAP, 
the United States, Canada, and Mexico are committing to ongoing 
cooperative activities and yearly reporting on progress made on these 
initiatives and objectives. Annual reports will be submitted to the 
North American Working Group for the Sound Management of Chemicals, and 
subsequently disseminated to the Council of the Commission for 
Environmental Cooperation and the public.

Summary of Peregrine Falcon Recovery

    Five regional peregrine falcon recovery plans, four for American 
peregrine falcons in Canada and the Western United States and one for 
the Eastern United States introduced peregrine falcon population, were 
written to guide recovery efforts and establish criteria to be used in 
measuring recovery. These recovery plans included objectives using 
population size and reproductive performance to measure recovery. Only 
two of the recovery plans included specific objectives that applied to 
pesticide residues in eggs and eggshell thinning. The combined 
population size goal for the 4 American peregrine falcon recovery plans 
is 456 pairs. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 pairs occupy the range of 
the American peregrine falcon in Alaska, Canada, and the Western United 
States, 174 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the 5 recovery units 
included in the Eastern Plan, and an additional 31 peregrine falcon 
pairs occur in Midwestern States in areas not included in the Eastern 
Plan recovery units.
    Other objectives, including those for pesticide residues in eggs 
and the degree to which eggshells are thinner than pre-pesticide era 
eggshells, vary among the plans. In the case of eggshell thinning, 
current measurements obtained in some areas fall short of recovery 
objectives. Eggshell thinning was originally suggested by recovery 
teams as an indicator of whether organochlorine contamination was 
preventing species recovery. Despite the failure of populations in 
localized areas to meet recovery objectives, overall, populations of 
American peregrine falcons have increased considerably. This increase 
continues to occur even after reintroduction efforts have been 
curtailed. The consistent and geographically widespread trends in 
increasing population size demonstrate that current levels of 
reproductive failure, pesticide residues, and eggshell thinning still 
affecting American peregrine falcons in some areas have not prevented 
recovery of the subspecies in most of North America. Exposure to 
environmental contaminants remains a concern that must continue to be 
addressed internationally in order to protect nesting, migrating, and 
wintering populations of American peregrine falcons outside the United 
States.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations

    In the Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove the American 
Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
(60 FR 34406, June 30, 1995), the Service requested that all interested 
parties provide data and comments on the status and possible proposal 
to delist the American

[[Page 45455]]

peregrine falcon. The Service provided the governments of Canada and 
Mexico with the Advanced Notice. Canada responded and provided data but 
gave no position on the proposal, and Mexico did not respond. The 
Service received a total of 171 comment letters from 43 States and 
Canada, which included 12 Federal resource and 32 State resource 
agencies, 41 falconry associations or falconers, 13 conservation 
organizations, and 45 private individuals. Of the responses received, 
92 supported the proposal to delist, 46 opposed the proposal, 13 
supported downlisting, and 20 expressed no opinion. These comments and 
responses are available for public inspection, by appointment, during 
normal business hours (see ``Addresses''). Those responses objecting to 
the Service's proposal contained several concerns, presented below with 
the Service's response.
    Issue 1: The data do not support delisting the American peregrine 
falcon throughout its range in the continental United States. There 
should be a combination of downlisting, delisting, and no change in 
status for individual recovery areas based on the degree of attainment 
of recovery plan objectives regarding not only numbers of peregrine 
falcons, but also productivity and eggshell thinning goals. The Service 
should consider downlisting the American peregrine falcon to threatened 
rather than delisting.
    Service Response: Data for 1996-1997, which were not available at 
the time of the advanced delisting notice, have been included in this 
proposed rule. These more recent data show improvements in numbers of 
breeding pairs of peregrine falcons and productivity since 1994 (Refer 
to Table 1, ``Recovery Status,'' and ``Summary of American Peregrine 
Falcon Recovery''), and demonstrate that goals set for numbers and 
productivity by the four American peregrine falcon recovery plans have 
been met or exceeded. The combined population size goal for the 4 
American peregrine falcon recovery plans is 456 pairs. Currently, a 
minimum of 1,388 known pairs occupy sites in Alaska, Canada, and the 
Western United States. A number of additional pairs have probably been 
undetected.
    Only the Alaska recovery plan set a goal for DDT levels, and only 
two recovery plans (Alaska and Rocky Mountain/Southwest) specified 
objectives for eggshell thinning. The Alaska Plan set a delisting goal 
of less than 5 ppm DDT and less than 10 percent eggshell thinning. 
Recent data for American peregrine falcon eggs indicate DDT levels at 
less than 3.5 ppm, exceeding that goal, and eggshell thinning is at 
12.5 percent. Measurements for eggshell thinning have not been 
consistently taken in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States. Colorado has 
met the recovery plan eggshell thinning goal of less than 10 percent; 
the average of the annual means for 1990-1994 was 9.0 percent. Data for 
other States show a general trend toward thicker eggshells since the 
mid-1970's (refer to ``Rocky Mountain/Southwest'' under ``Recovery 
Status''). Overall productivity goals were met or exceeded in the four 
American peregrine falcon recovery plans using productivity as a 
recovery criterion.
    Three of five peregrine falcon recovery units in the Eastern United 
States have met recovery goals, and 174 pairs documented in 1997 
indicate the overall recovery goal of 175-200 pairs has probably been 
met when considering that up to 10 percent of territorial pairs in any 
given year escape detection (Cade et al. 1988a). In addition, another 
31 pairs are nesting in areas of the Midwest outside the recovery units 
specified in the eastern plan but nevertheless contribute to overall 
restoration goals.
    The Service believes that the species has essentially achieved the 
goals established for recovery and, in many areas, has exceeded the 
goals. The Service believes the available information supports full 
delisting of the species throughout its range, although some recovery 
plan areas are experiencing slower recovery due to fluxes in 
productivity or residual DDT/DDE impacts. The trends in productivity, 
however, as well as DDT/DDE reduction, clearly indicate continued 
population increases. The Service believes that, when viewed on a 
range-wide or even region-wide basis, the species clearly is not in 
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range and 
warrants full delisting.
    Issue 2: American peregrine falcons should not be delisted because 
they have not been restored throughout the historical range.
    Service Response: Restoration of the American peregrine falcon 
throughout the historical range was not a goal of any of the recovery 
plans written for this subspecies and is not required for recovery. 
Generally, the goal of a recovery program is to restore the species to 
a point at which protection under the Act is no longer required. To be 
recovered, a species must not be endangered with extinction, or be 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. As a species 
recovers in numbers and populations expand, more of the historical 
range can be reoccupied where appropriate habitat remains. In the case 
of the peregrine falcon, a significant amount of unoccupied but 
suitable habitat remains, so continued expansion is expected.
    Issue 3: There are gaps in the scientific knowledge about American 
peregrine biology. A population viability analysis has not been done; 
genetic diversity, viable population size, knowledge of population 
dynamics, and long-term stability of populations have not been 
determined.
    Service Response: A complete understanding of the biology of a 
species is not required to determine a species' conservation status 
under the Act. Population viability analyses are important tools for 
attempting to quantify threats to a species, particularly those facing 
loss and fragmentation of habitat, and the consequences of conservation 
actions, as well as aiding in identifying critical factors for study, 
management, and monitoring. These analyses are not essential, however, 
to determine when a species has achieved recovery, particularly in the 
case of the American peregrine falcon. It is evident that recovery of 
this subspecies has been largely achieved by eliminating the use of DDT 
and by successful management activities, including the reintroduction 
of captive-bred American peregrine falcons. Recovery goals established 
for the species have been met or exceeded, with few exceptions.
    Issue 4: Organochlorine pesticides still persist within the 
breeding range of the American peregrine falcon and continue to depress 
natural productivity.
    Service Response: Continued exposure to organochlorines in areas 
outside the U.S. remains a concern that must be addressed 
internationally. The North American Regional Action Plan on DDT, an 
ongoing effort under the North American Working Group for the Sound 
Management of Chemicals, has specific goals to reduce and eliminate the 
use of DDT and advance global controls on DDT production, export and 
use. Monitoring organochlorine exposure and productivity of American 
peregrine falcon populations breeding and nesting in Mexico and Latin 
America could potentially be funded and part of post-delisting 
monitoring for this subspecies. American peregrine falcons have 
increased throughout their historical range in the U.S. despite the 
continued presence of organochlorine residues in certain populations 
(e.g., coastal California). American peregrine falcon populations have 
met or

[[Page 45456]]

exceeded recovery goals in the four recovery plans (Table 1), and the 
Service believes removing the endangered status of this subspecies is 
appropriate. Bioaccumulation of organochlorine residues will be 
monitored in the United States during the minimum 5-year post-delisting 
monitoring period. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, 
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence'' 
for an in-depth discussion. See also Service response to issue 9.
    Issue 5: The continued unrestricted use of organochlorine 
pesticides in Latin America places the American peregrine falcon at 
risk of contamination while on migration and on its wintering grounds.
    Service Response: Comparisons of blood samples collected during 
fall and spring migration indicate that, although migrant peregrine 
falcons accumulate pesticides while wintering in Latin America, DDE 
residues in the blood taken from female peregrine falcons captured 
during spring migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased between 1978 
and 1994 below levels that would affect reproduction (Henny et al. 
1996). Despite the continued use of organochlorines in Latin America, 
the American peregrine falcon has recovered over most of its historic 
range, and Arctic peregrine falcons, which also winter in Latin 
America, have been delisted. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species, E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence'' for an in-depth discussion. The North American 
Working Group for the Sound Management of Chemicals promotes a regional 
perspective that encourages the active involvement of Central and South 
American countries in the implementation of the North American Regional 
Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT, and is facilitating international 
cooperation on combating malaria in these regions without the continued 
use of organochlorine pesticides.
    Issue 6: The take of American peregrine falcons for falconry after 
its delisting will create an additional threat to the subspecies.
    Service Response: Delisting the American peregrine falcon will not 
affect the protection given to all migratory bird species, including 
the peregrine falcon, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The 
regulations issued pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allow for 
issuance of permits to take raptors for falconry provided the taking 
will not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR 21.28 and 13.21(b)). The 
Service will establish biological criteria for the issuance of permits 
for take of peregrine falcons for falconry to ensure the taking does 
not negatively impact wild populations, particularly those in need of 
further recovery. These criteria will pertain to all wild North 
American peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future 
falconry and raptor propagation permit holders. Until such time as 
these criteria are in place, take for falconry and raptor propagation 
purposes under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will not be authorized. 
The Service expects to finalize the criteria before it issues a final 
decision on this delisting proposal. The effects of take for falconry 
will be assessed during the minimum 5-year post-delisting monitoring 
period following delisting. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' (paragraph D) and ``Effects of this Rule'' for further 
information.
    Issue 7: The Service cannot consider delisting the American 
peregrine falcon until all recovery goals in the four existing recovery 
plans for this subspecies have been met or exceeded.
    Service Response: Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to 
develop and implement recovery plans for species of animals or plants 
listed as endangered or threatened. Recovery is the process by which 
the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or 
reversed and threats to its survival are neutralized so that long-term 
survival in nature can be ensured. The goal of this process is the 
maintenance of secure, self-sustaining wild populations of species with 
the minimum investment of resources. One of the main purposes of the 
recovery plan is to enumerate goals (guidelines) that will help the 
Service to determine when recovery for a particular species has been 
achieved. The Act does not require that all of the specific recovery 
goals for a listed species must be met or exceeded before it can be 
delisted.
    The Service determines whether recovery has been achieved based on 
a species' performance relative to the goals set in its recovery plan 
and the best available scientific information. A species is recovered 
when it is no longer endangered with extinction (i.e., endangered), or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., threatened). The 
peregrine falcon meets these requirements for removal from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
    The American peregrine falcon has either met, exceeded, or is very 
close to meeting the recovery goals set for this subspecies throughout 
its range, and the specific goals not met are not factors preventing 
recovery. The Service considers that the intent of all the objectives 
have been met and that the recovery of the species justifies a proposal 
to delist.
    Issue 8: The eastern peregrine falcon population has not met the 
recovery goals set for it in the Eastern Recovery Plan and, therefore, 
should not be delisted.
    Service Response: Current data, through 1997, on the status of the 
eastern peregrine falcon population indicate that the intent of the 
recovery goals set for this population have been met. The recovery plan 
established two recovery objectives including (1) a minimum of 20-25 
nesting pairs in each of five recovery units to be established and 
sustained for a minimum of 3 years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-
200 pairs demonstrating successful, sustained nesting. Three of the 
five recovery units (Mid-Atlantic Coast, Northern New York and New 
England, and Great Lakes) have surpassed the nesting pair goal for 3 
years. The Southern Appalachians and Southern New England/Central 
Appalachians units may not yet have achieved the recommended number of 
breeding pair goals established for those areas. However, the overall 
minimum of 175-200 successful pairs in the eastern region has been 
largely achieved, and over the past 5 years (1992-1997), the number of 
territorial pairs has increased an average of 10 per cent annually. 
There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the 
midwestern and eastern States where falcons had been extirpated, and 
pairs are successfully nesting throughout a greater range that 
anticipated in 1991. The Service believes the intent of the recovery 
objectives have been satisfied and that recovery of the peregrine in 
the eastern United States is sufficiently established. Refer to 
``Recovery Status'' for additional discussion on this subject.
    Issue 9: The status of the American peregrine falcon in Mexico has 
not been adequately addressed.
    Service Response: While population status and trends for falcons 
nesting in Sonora and the highlands of Central Mexico is not known, 
American peregrine falcon populations in the United States and Canada, 
including those migrating from Latin America to nest, have met or 
exceeded the criteria for delisting. Removing protection for the 
species under United States domestic law is not anticipated to either 
benefit or harm American peregrine falcons in Mexico. Environmental 
exposure to organochlorine pesticides continues to be a concern for 
resident nesting American peregrine falcons in Sonora and the highlands 
of Central

[[Page 45457]]

Mexico, because it is likely that productivity in these local 
populations is being adversely affected. Delisting does not eliminate 
the need for continued international efforts regarding contaminants 
monitoring in Mexico. Current DDT production is restricted to one 
facility in Mexico, which supplies DDT for authorized government use in 
malaria vector control. DDT is registered only for use in government-
sponsored public health campaigns, and continues to be an important 
tool in the fight against malaria transmission, although new, less 
environmentally harmful measures are being investigated. Sixty percent 
of Mexico's territory, from sea level to 1,800 meters above sea level, 
presents favorable conditions for malaria transmission. This includes 
the Pacific coast, the Gulf of Mexico slopes, the Yucatan peninsula and 
interior basins of the high plateau. In some cases, targeted malaria 
control areas may overlap with nesting American peregrine falcons. 
Refer to ``Mexico'' under ``Recovery Status'' for additional discussion 
on this subject.
    Issue 10: Post-declassification monitoring for 5 years is 
essential.
    Service Response: The Service agrees. The Endangered Species Act 
requires the Secretary to implement a system in cooperation with the 
States to monitor effectively for not less than 5 years the status of 
all species which have recovered to the point that protection of the 
Act is no longer required (section 4(g)). If it becomes evident during 
the course of the post-delisting monitoring that the species again 
required protection of the Act, it would be relisted. Refer to 
``Monitoring'' under ``Future Conservation Measures'' for the proposed 
development of a post-delisting monitoring program for the peregrine 
falcon, and the conditions under which this subspecies might be 
relisted.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR 
Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act, 
set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting 
species on the Federal lists. A species may be listed if one or more of 
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the 
continued existence of the species. A species may be delisted, 
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial 
data available substantiate that the species is neither endangered or 
threatened because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) because the 
original data for classification of the species were in error.
    After a thorough review of all available information, the Service 
has determined a substantial peregrine falcon recovery has taken place 
since the early 1980's. The Service determines that none of the five 
factors addressed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and discussed below, 
is currently affecting the species, including the American peregrine 
falcon subspecies and introduced peregrine falcon populations, such 
that the species is endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range). These factors and their application to the 
peregrine falcon in North America are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Peregrine falcons occupy a variety of habitat types and nest from 
the boreal forest region of Alaska and Canada, through much of Canada 
and the western United States, south to parts of central and western 
Mexico. Nesting habitat includes cliffs and bluffs in boreal forests, 
coastal cliffs and islands, urban skyscrapers and other structures, and 
cliffs and buttes in southwestern deserts. In some breeding areas, such 
as the southern United States, some or all of the birds remain year-
round on their nesting territories. In other breeding areas, 
particularly in high latitudes, many or all of the individuals are 
highly migratory; these individuals occupy a number of regions and 
habitat types throughout the year as they nest, migrate to and from 
wintering areas, and occupy their wintering ranges. Due to the 
extensive geographic distribution of the peregrine falcon, the wide 
variety of habitat types in which the species nests, and the immense 
area that some of the more migratory individuals occupy during a year, 
the peregrine falcon occupies an extremely broad array of areas and 
habitats throughout its range. As a result, the degree to which 
peregrine falcons have been affected by human-caused habitat 
modification varies widely by region, habitat type, and individual 
falcons within the population.
    As human population has grown in North America, the rate of habitat 
alteration has unquestionably increased. Certainly some peregrine 
falcon habitat has been destroyed, such as the many wetlands drained in 
recent years that were previously used by peregrine falcons for 
foraging or as migratory staging areas during spring and fall. But 
peregrine falcons have colonized many cities in North America due to 
the abundance of nest sites on buildings and the abundance of prey, 
such as feral rock doves (Columba livia), that thrive in urban areas. 
Therefore, some forms of habitat modification have negatively affected 
peregrine falcons while other forms have benefited them. It would be 
difficult to estimate the net, overall effect of habitat modification 
on the species throughout North America.
    Although the rate of habitat modification in North America has 
increased in recent decades, the number of American peregrine falcons 
occupying the region has increased substantially since the late 1970's 
or early 1980's. In several parts of their range, including parts of 
Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, California, and the 
southwestern United States, the number of breeding pairs has increased 
rapidly in recent years, and some local populations now occur at very 
high densities (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997; G. Holroyd, pers. comm. 
1997; Enderson et al. 1995). Because these rapid population growth 
rates and high densities were achieved despite considerable habitat 
modification in North America, the Service concludes that habitat 
modification or destruction has not been a limiting factor in peregrine 
recovery. It does not currently threaten the existence of the American 
peregrine falcon nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Delisting the peregrine falcon will not result in overutilization 
because the delisting will not affect protection provided to all 
subspecies of the peregrine falcon by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 
The take of all migratory birds, including peregrine falcons, is 
governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act's regulation of the taking of 
migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes 
and requiring harvest be limited to levels that prevent overutilization 
(See ``D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'').

C. Disease or Predation

    Although individuals are vulnerable to disease and predation, these 
factors are not known to affect the peregrine falcon at the population 
level. Great horned owls are natural predators of peregrine falcons 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) and may be responsible for the 
slow recovery of peregrine falcons in two recovery areas

[[Page 45458]]

in the reestablished eastern population (M. Amaral in litt. 1995). 
Great horned owl predation was not documented as a significant cause of 
the decline in peregrine falcons and has not affected the species' 
overall recovery.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Upon delisting, peregrine falcons will no longer be protected from 
take and commerce by the Endangered Species Act. However, peregrine 
falcons will still be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 
U.S.C. 703). Section 704 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act states that 
the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine 
if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds should be allowed 
and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take. In 
adopting regulations, the Secretary is to consider such factors as 
distribution and abundance to ensure that take is compatible with the 
protection of the species.
    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its implementing regulations (50 
CFR Parts 20 and 21) prohibit take, possession, import, export, 
transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase or 
barter, any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as 
authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Certain exceptions 
apply to employees of the Department of the Interior to enforce the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to Federal Government employees, and to 
State game departments, municipal game farms or parks, and public 
museums, public zoological parks, accredited institutional members of 
the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (now called 
the American Zoo and Aquarium Association) and public scientific or 
educational institutions.
    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and implementing regulations allow 
for the taking and use of migratory birds, but require that such use 
not adversely affect populations. Regulations at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.30 
specifically authorize the issuance of permits to take, possess, 
transport and engage in commerce with raptors for falconry purposes and 
for propagation purposes. Certain criteria must be met prior to 
issuance of these permits, including a requirement that the issuance 
will not threaten a wildlife population (50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)). The 
Service will develop specific biological criteria to govern the take of 
peregrine falcons prior to authorizing take for falconry and raptor 
propagation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No take of wild North 
American peregrines will be authorized until these criteria are in 
place. The criteria will apply to all current and future falconry and 
raptor propagation permit holders. In addition to considering the 
effect on wild populations, issuance of raptor propagation permits 
requires that the Service consider whether suitable captive stock is 
available and whether wild stock is needed to enhance the genetic 
variability of captive stock (50 CFR 21.30(c)(4)). These regulatory 
provisions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will adequately protect 
against excessive take of peregrine falcons (see additional discussion 
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the Effects of this Rule section 
below). Protective measures could be expanded, if necessary, by 
promulgation of a regulation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the 
Service following or during the assessment of the effects of this take 
on peregrine falcons during the 5-year post-listing monitoring period. 
Therefore, in the event the peregrine falcon is delisted under the 
Endangered Species Act, the Service has authority under the Migratory 
Bird Treat Act to ensure the conservation of the species.
    In the absence of habitat protection under the Endangered Species 
Act, there are no other existing Federal laws that specifically protect 
the habitat of this species (see ``Critical Habitat''); however, loss 
of habitat has not been identified as a threat to the species and was 
not a factor identified as contributing to the species original 
decline.
    An important regulatory mechanism affecting peregrine falcons is 
the requirement that pesticides be registered with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). Under the authority of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136), the 
Environmental Protection Agency requires environmental testing of all 
new pesticides. Testing the effects of pesticides on representative 
wildlife species prior to pesticide registration is specifically 
required. This protection from effects of pesticides would not be 
altered by delisting the peregrine falcon.
    On July 1, 1975, peregrine falcons were included in Appendix I of 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES). This treaty was established to prevent 
international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants 
and animals. Generally, both import and export permits are required by 
the importing and exporting countries before an Appendix I species may 
be shipped, and Appendix I species may not be imported for primarily 
commercial purposes. Although CITES does not itself regulate take or 
domestic trade, CITES permits may not be issued if the export will be 
detrimental to the survival of the species or if the specimens were not 
legally acquired. This protection would not be altered by delisting the 
peregrine falcon under the Act.
    Peregrine falcons will still be afforded some protection by land 
management agencies under laws such as the National Forest Management 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1600) and the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (43 
U.S.C. 1701). National Forest Management Act regulations specify that 
``fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable 
populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 
species in the planning area.'' (36 CFR 219.19). Guidelines for each 
planning area must provide for a diversity of plant and animal 
communities based on the suitability of a specific land area. Regional 
Foresters are responsible for identifying sensitive species occurring 
within their Region. Sensitive species are those that may require 
special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude 
trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal 
listing. In the event the peregrine falcon is delisted, Regional 
Foresters will consider the need for designating the peregrine falcon 
as a sensitive species to ensure that forest management activities do 
not contribute to a need for relisting. The Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act requires that public lands be managed to protect the 
quality of scientific, ecological, and environmental qualities, among 
others, and to preserve and protect certain lands in their natural 
condition to provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife.
    Federal delisting of the peregrine falcon will not remove the 
peregrine falcon from State threatened and endangered species lists, or 
suspend any other legal protections provided by State law. States may 
have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife, including restrictions 
on falconry, and may retain State threatened or endangered status for 
the peregrine falcon. Falconry permits will still be required under 
Federal migratory bird regulations, which are administered by 
cooperating States under a Federal/State permit application program (50 
CFR 21.28).

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Egg collecting, shooting, harvest for falconry, habitat 
destruction, climate change, and the extinction of passenger pigeons 
were all proposed as possible

[[Page 45459]]

factors causing or contributing to the decline in peregrine falcon 
populations in North America; however, no evidence supports any of 
these factors as causing the widespread reproductive failure and 
population decline that occurred. In contrast, an overwhelming body of 
evidence has been accumulated showing that organochlorine pesticides 
affected survival and reproductive performance sufficiently to cause 
the decline. There currently is no question within the scientific 
community that contamination with organochlorines was the principal 
cause for the drastic declines and extirpations in peregrine falcon 
populations that took place in most parts of North America.
    Although the use of organochlorine pesticides has been restricted 
in the United States and Canada since the early 1970s, use continues in 
areas of Latin America. It has been shown, by comparing blood samples 
collected during fall and spring migration, that migrant peregrine 
falcons bioaccumulate organochlorines while wintering in Latin America 
(Henny et al. 1982). Henny et al. (1996) demonstrated that DDE residues 
in the blood taken from female peregrine falcons captured during spring 
migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased between 1978 and 1994. In 
second-year peregrines, residues dropped from 1.43 ppm in 1978-1979 to 
only 0.25 ppm in 1994 and from 0.88 to 0.41 ppm for older peregrines; 
these levels are well below those that would affect reproduction.
    The widespread reproductive failure and population crash in North 
America coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine use in the 
United States. Although there was not an immediate lowering of 
pesticide residues in eggs following restrictions on the use of 
organochlorines north of Mexico (Enderson et al. 1995), residues 
gradually declined following the restrictions (Ambrose et al. 1988b, 
Enderson et al. 1988, Peakall et al. 1990), and most surviving 
populations began to increase in numbers thereafter. Despite the 
continued use of organochlorines in Latin America, populations of 
American peregrine falcons in North America have recovered 
substantially in recent years. In fact, Arctic peregrine falcons that 
winter predominantly in Latin America recovered to the point that the 
subspecies was removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50796).
    Additionally, some of the avian prey used during the nesting season 
by peregrine falcons throughout North America also winter in Latin 
America. Many of these prey return to their nesting areas with 
pesticide residues accumulated during the winter (Fyfe et al. 1990). 
Peregrine falcons preying upon these birds during the summer are 
further exposed to Latin American pesticides. While overall, pesticide 
use in Latin America has apparently not adversely affected reproductive 
success and productivity in American peregrine falcon populations in 
North America, monitoring levels of organochlorines in the subspecies 
must continue, and more effort must be placed in monitoring and 
remediating organochlorine exposure in populations nesting and 
migrating outside the United States.
    The Service recognizes that certain populations of American 
peregrine falcons have recovered to a lesser degree and that in some of 
these populations organochlorine residues are still high and 
reproductive rates remain lower than normal. The Channel Islands off 
southern California are still plagued by high organochlorine residues 
and eggshell thinning (Jarman 1994). Despite the residual effects of 
organochlorines on the Channel Islands, this population is continuing 
to increase, although some of the increase could be the result of the 
release of a significant number of captive-bred young (B. Walton, pers. 
comm. 1997) or dispersal from other areas where recovery is greater. 
Based on published values in the literature, detected concentrations of 
DDT in peregrine falcon eggs collected in New Jersey were sufficient to 
impact reproduction. Productivity and eggshell thinning data, however, 
did not support a conclusion of reproductive impairment due to DDT 
contamination (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey Department 
of Environmental Protection 1997). Jarman (1994) suggested that these 
locally higher egg residues result from a local point source of DDT or 
DDE. As a result, the effects are localized, and the observations do 
not reflect the current status of peregrine falcons as a whole. In 
general, numbers of peregrine falcons have increased throughout their 
historical ranges despite the effects of localized organochlorine 
residues.
    Similarly, American peregrine falcons in southwest Canada have not 
recovered as well as in most other regions of North America. Despite 
the release of several hundred captive-bred young in the prairie 
Provinces and western Canada (Holroyd and Banasch 1990), the number of 
pairs occupying territories is still well below the number of known 
historical nest sites (G. Holroyd, in litt. 1993), which is probably an 
underestimate of the actual number of historical nest sites. In 
southern Canada, including the prairie region, the proportion of 
reintroduced young that entered the breeding population has been 
considerably lower than in the United States (Peakall 1990, Enderson et 
al. 1995). The factor or factors causing this lower recruitment rate 
remain unknown, but survivorship of peregrine falcons released into 
this area may be lower than in adjacent portions of the subspecies' 
range. Pesticide residues in American peregrine falcon eggs do not 
appear to be higher in southwest Canada than in the United States 
(Peakall et al. 1990). Therefore, higher residual organochlorine 
contamination is apparently not responsible, and the number of pairs 
occupying this region continues to increase.
    In summary, exposure to organochlorine pesticides caused drastic 
population declines in peregrine falcons. Following restrictions on the 
use of organochlorines in the United States and Canada, residues in 
eggs declined and reproduction rates improved. Improved reproduction, 
combined with the release of thousands of captive-reared young and 
relocated wild hatchlings, allowed the American peregrine falcon to 
recover and peregrine falcons to be successfully reestablished in those 
areas of the historical range from which the species had been 
extirpated. Pesticide residues, reproductive rates, and the rate of 
recovery have varied among regions within the vast range of this 
species. In some areas, such as portions of California, the lingering 
effects of DDT have caused reproductive rates to remain low. Point 
source contamination may even cause continued reproductive problems in 
these areas in California. In southwest Canada, the rate of recovery, 
or onset of recovery, apparently lagged behind most other areas, but 
recent trends suggest that historical nest sites will continue to be 
gradually recolonized. Although the recovery of the peregrine falcon is 
not complete throughout all parts of the historical range in North 
America, those areas in which recovery has been slow represent a small 
portion of the species' range. Furthermore, evidence collected in 
recent years shows that a combination of lingering residues of 
organochlorines in North America and contamination resulting from the 
continued use of organochlorines in Latin America has not prevented a 
widespread and substantial recovery of peregrine falcons as numbers of 
peregrine falcons continue to increase. The Service concludes, 
therefore, that the continued existence of the American peregrine 
falcon and the reestablished peregrine

[[Page 45460]]

populations in the eastern and Midwestern States are no longer 
threatened by exposure to organochlorine pesticides.
    Due to the reduction in the effects of pesticides and widespread 
positive trends in population size, the Service believes that the 
American peregrine falcon has recovered and is no longer endangered 
with extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The 
Service proposes to remove the peregrine falcon from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, removing endangered status for the 
American peregrine falcon and the Similarity of Appearance provision 
for all free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous 
States.

Effects of This Rule

    Finalization of this proposed rule will affect the protection 
afforded to peregrine falcons under the Endangered Species Act. It will 
not affect the status of the Eurasian peregrine falcon (F. p. 
peregrinus), currently listed under the Act as endangered wherever it 
occurs. The endangered designation under the Act for the American 
peregrine falcon will be removed and the designation of ``Endangered 
due to Similarity of Appearance'' designation for all free-flying 
peregrine falcons found within the 48 conterminous United States, 
including the Arctic and Peale's peregrine falcons and the 
reestablished eastern and midwestern populations, will be removed. 
Therefore, taking, interstate commerce, import, and export of North 
American peregrine falcons will no longer be prohibited under the Act. 
In addition, Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event activities 
they authorize, fund or carry out adversely affect peregrine falcons. 
However, removal of the protection of the Endangered Species Act will 
not affect the protection afforded all migratory bird species, 
including all peregrine falcons, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act governs the taking, killing, 
possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their 
eggs, parts, and nests. Implementing regulations (50 CFR 20 and 21) 
include provisions for the taking of migratory birds for educational, 
scientific, and recreational purposes. Special regulations pertaining 
to raptors are found in 50 CFR 21.28 to 21.30. These regulations allow 
for the taking, possession, transport, import, purchase, and barter of 
raptors for purposes of falconry and captive propagation pursuant to 
State and Federal permits. If this delisting proposal is finalized, the 
taking of peregrine falcons from the wild for falconry and propagation 
will be allowable. Unpermitted take of peregrine falcons for falconry 
and raptor propagation will be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act. In accordance with general permit regulation requirements that the 
issuance of permits not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR 
13.21(b)), authorization to take peregrines under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria that will be issued 
by the Service. The criteria will pertain to all wild North American 
peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future falconry and 
raptor propagation permit holders. Take of peregrines will not be 
authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act until these biological 
criteria are in place. The Service expects to issue final criteria 
prior to finalizing a decision on this proposal to delist the 
peregrine.
    The take and use of peregrine falcons must comply with appropriate 
State regulations. State regulations applying to falconry currently 
vary among States and are subject to change over time. The applicable 
State regulations may be more but not less restrictive than Federal 
regulations.
    This rule will not affect the peregrine falcon's Appendix I status 
under CITES, and CITES permits will still be required to import and 
export peregrine falcons to and from the United States. CITES permits 
will not be granted if the export will be detrimental to the survival 
of the species or if the falcon was not legally acquired.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat for the American peregrine falcon includes five 
areas in northern California (50 CFR 17.95). The Act defines critical 
habitat as ``specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species, at the time it is listed on which are found those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection.'' 
Since critical habitat can be designated only for species listed as 
endangered or threatened under the Act, existing critical habitat will 
lose this current designation when the American peregrine falcon is 
delisted.

Future Conservation Measures

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior, through the Service, implement a monitoring program for not 
less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered and 
delisted. The purpose of this requirement is to develop a program that 
detects the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without 
the protective measures provided by the Act. If at any time during the 
5-year monitoring program, data indicate that protective status under 
the Act should be reinstated, the Service can initiate listing 
procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At the 
conclusion of the monitoring period, the Service will review all 
available information to determine if relisting, the continuation of 
monitoring, or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.

Monitoring

    The Service's Region 1 in consultation with Service biologists in 
Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will coordinate with existing recovery 
teams, working groups, State resource agencies, and interested 
scientific organizations to develop and implement an effective 5-year 
monitoring program to track the population status of the peregrine 
falcon. The Service will encourage Canada and Mexico to establish 
monitoring plans that will produce comparable data.
    The Service will use, to the fullest extent possible, information 
routinely collected by researchers and land managers in a variety of 
organizations and agencies. This data, however, will only supplement 
data collected under a systematic monitoring program. Sites or areas 
will be specifically selected for monitoring to provide a subset of 
data that is representative of the species' status throughout its 
range. The following minimum measures will be used to track the status 
of the peregrine falcon, although the specific approaches to monitoring 
may vary among regions.
1. Annual Occupancy Surveys
    To detect changes in the use of nesting territories, samples of 
breeding pairs will be surveyed each breeding season in a statistically 
valid manner. Survey areas, timing, and survey methods must be 
consistent among surveys conducted over several years.
2. Productivity
    To assess productivity, the number of young produced per 
territorial pair will be recorded in the survey areas. The Service will 
also use information from all study areas where appropriate data are 
available in addition to systematic monitoring of productivity of 
selected sites.

[[Page 45461]]

3. Contaminants
    In areas where depressed reproduction may be caused by residual 
organochlorine pesticides, eggshell thickness and contaminant 
concentrations in addled eggs will be analyzed to monitor 
organochlorines pesticides and other environmental contaminants. 
Additional sampling to detect contaminants may include blood analysis 
and collection of egg and blood samples from peregrine falcons in 
selected areas where reproduction is not depressed by environmental 
contaminants to detect changes in contaminant levels on a broader scale 
in the United States, as well as to continue to evaluate the effects of 
contaminants on American peregrines migrating to Latin America in 
winter.
    The North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT was 
developed by parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA), working with the Secretariat for the (North American) 
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), under Council 
Resolution #95-05. This tri-lateral forum between the United States, 
Canada, and Mexico, may provide funding opportunities for monitoring 
organochlorine exposure, and productivity in American peregrine falcon 
populations nesting in Mexico.
4. Take for Falconry
    Authorization to take peregrine falcons for falconry purposes under 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria 
established by the Service. The Service will work with the States to 
monitor levels of actual take of peregrine falcons authorized under 
State/Federal falconry and raptor propagation permits.
    After completion of the mandated 5-year monitoring program, the 
Service will review all available monitoring data to determine whether 
relisting, continuation of monitoring, or termination of monitoring is 
appropriate. The Service will consider relisting if, during or after 
the 5-year monitoring effort, the Service determines a reversal of 
recovery has taken place. The Service will consider relisting the 
peregrine falcon if (1) major breeding areas do not maintain 60 percent 
occupancy of sites, as measured by the number of sites documented as 
occupied by peregrine pairs in the first year of monitoring; (2) there 
is a clear and substantial trend of reduced productivity below that of 
growing or stable populations (i.e., average productivity drops below 
1.0 young per territorial pair for two consecutive surveys, without 
mitigating circumstances, such as abnormal weather conditions); (3) 
exposure to organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, or 
other environmental contaminants increases to levels shown to be 
deleterious to the species in more than a few, isolated populations; or 
(4) in the case of other extenuating circumstances that would warrant 
relisting.
    If the Service determines at the end of the mandatory 5-year 
monitoring period that recovery is complete, and factors that led to 
the listing of subspecies of peregrine falcon, or any new factors, have 
been sufficiently reduced or eliminated, monitoring may be reduced or 
terminated. If data show that peregrine falcon populations are 
declining or if one or more factors that have the potential to cause 
decline are identified, the Service will continue monitoring beyond the 
5-year period and may modify the monitoring program based on an 
evaluation of the results of the initial 5-year monitoring program.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service requests comments on three aspects of this proposed 
rulemaking: (1) the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, (2) the clarity of this 
proposal, pursuant to Executive Order 12866, which requires agencies to 
write clear regulations, and (3) the collection of information from the 
public during the 5-year monitoring period, which requires Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Proposed Delisting

    The Service intends that any final action resulting from this 
proposal to remove the peregrine falcon from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife will be as accurate and as effective as possible. 
Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. 
Comments should be sent to the Service's Ventura, California, Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section). Comments particularly are sought 
concerning:
    (1) biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
    (2) additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this species;
    (3) current or planned activities in the range of this subspecies 
and their possible impacts on this species;
    (4) data on population trends in Mexico;
    (5) information and comments on the potential impacts of falconry 
on peregrine falcon populations; and
    (6) information and comments pertaining to the proposed monitoring 
program contained in this proposal.
    The final decision on this proposal for the peregrine falcon will 
take into consideration the comments and any additional information 
received by the Service during the comment period.
    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of 
publication of this proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and 
sent to the Ventura Field Office address in the ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this proposed rule.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that 
are easy to understand. The Service invites your comments on how to 
make this proposal easier to understand including answers to questions 
such as the following: (1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) 
aid or reduce its clarity? What else could the Service do to make the 
proposal easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how the Service could make 
this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to: E[email protected].

Paperwork Reduction Act

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public 
and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency 
information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 
1320.8(d)). The Service intends to collect information from the public 
during the mandatory 5-year monitoring period following delisting of 
the peregrine falcon. A description of the information collection 
burden and the comments requested on this

[[Page 45462]]

collection are included in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Section 4(g) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all 
species that are delisted due to recovery be monitored for a minimum of 
5 years. A general description of the information that will be 
collected during the monitoring period was provided above in the 
Monitoring section of this proposal. Implementation of the monitoring 
plan will include collections of information from the public that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Simultaneous to publication of this 
proposed delisting rule, the Service is initiating the process of 
information collection approval from OMB. The Service may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The Service intends to collect information from researchers and 
land managers in a variety of organizations and agencies. Some of the 
information gathered will be part of already ongoing State, Federal, or 
private monitoring programs. The Service also will use information from 
other study areas where appropriate data are available. The information 
collected will allow the Service to detect any failure of the species 
to sustain itself following delisting. If during this monitoring period 
the Service determines that the species is not sufficiently maintaining 
its recovered status, the species could be relisted as endangered or 
threatened under the Act.
    The Service estimates approximately 20 respondents to requests for 
information on the status of peregrine falcon per year. Different 
respondents may provide one or more types of information. A total of 
12.5 burden hours per year are estimated for the potential 20 
respondents, as indicated in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Average time               
                                                                       Number of     required per      Annual   
                        Type of information                            requests        response     burden hours
                                                                      annually *       (minutes)                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nest occupancy....................................................              20              15           5  
Productivity......................................................              20              15           5  
Contaminants......................................................              10              15           2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The total number of individual respondents anticipated is 20. The figures in this column should not be viewed 
  cumulatively.                                                                                                 

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public 
and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information 
collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). Comments 
are invited on--(1) whether the collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy 
of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of 
information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected; and, (4) ways to minimize the burden 
of the collection of information on respondents, including through the 
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other 
technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. Comments on information collection should be sent to OMB 
and to the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer at the 
addresses included in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment or 
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the 
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Listing Priority Guidance

    The Service has implemented a series of listing priority guidance 
since 1996 to clarify the order in which it will process rulemaking 
actions. The need for this guidance arose following major disruptions 
in the Service's listing budget beginning in Fiscal Year 1995 and a 
moratorium on certain listing actions during parts of Fiscal Years 1995 
and 1996. The intent of the guidance is to focus Service efforts on 
listing actions that will provide the greatest conservation benefits to 
imperiled species in the most expeditious and biologically sound 
manner. The Service's Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 
and 1999 was published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502) and reflects the 
significant progress the Service has made in addressing its backlog. 
The Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority Guidance gives highest 
priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority 
(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species 
to the lists, processing new proposals to add species to the Lists, 
processing administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the 
lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a 
limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify 
species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final 
rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this delisting 
proposal is a Tier 2 action.
    Processing of this proposed delisting conforms with the guidance 
for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. The processing of certain high-priority 
delisting actions will result in significant, albeit indirect, 
conservation benefits. As long as a species remains on the endangered 
and threatened list, Service funds are expended reviewing regulated 
activities pursuant to section 10 (prohibited activities) and engaging 
in consultations with other Federal agencies under section 7 
(interagency cooperation) of the Act. Following delisting, resources 
currently devoted to these activities will be redirected to other 
listed species more deserving of conservation efforts. Moreover, the 
Service is obligated to keep the lists of endangered and threatened 
species accurate.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

[[Page 45463]]

Author

    The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES 
section), (805/644-1766).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Service hereby 
proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, Title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11(h) is proposed to be amended by removing the 
entries for the ``Falcon, American peregrine, Falco peregrinus anatum'' 
and ``Falcon, peregrine, Falco peregrinus'' under ``BIRDS'', from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. [Note--This rule does not 
affect the entry for ``Falcon, Eurasian peregrine, Falco peregrinus 
peregrinus.]


Sec. 17.95  [Amended]

    3. Amend section 17.95(b) by removing the critical habitat entry 
for ``American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum).''

    Dated: July 31, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-22934 Filed 8-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P