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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines that

arctic peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius) are no longer a

threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of

1973, as amended. This determination is based upon evidence that arctic

peregrine falcon populations have recovered due to a reduction in

organochlorine pesticides in the environment. Section 4(g) of the Act

requires the Service to monitor recovered species for at least 5 years

following delisting. This rule includes the Service's post-delisting

monitoring plan for arctic peregrine falcons. Removal of the arctic

peregrine falcon as a threatened species under the Act will not affect

the protection provided under the similarity of appearance provision of

the Act listing all Falco peregrinus found in the wild in the

conterminous 48 States as endangered; nor will it affect the protection

provided to this species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business hours at Northern Alaska

Ecological Services, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1412 Airport Way, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Swem at the above address (907)

456-0441 or Skip Ambrose at the above address (907) 456-0239.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized brown or blue-gray raptor

that preys predominantly upon birds. Three subspecies occur in North

America--arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius); American

peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum); and Peale's peregrine falcon (F. p.

pealei). Only arctic peregrine falcons are included in this rule;

American and Peale's peregrine falcons are not affected. Arctic

peregrine falcons nest in the tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and

Greenland. They are highly migratory with most individuals wintering in

Latin America, although some may winter as far north as northern Mexico

and southern Florida.

Arctic peregrine falcon numbers declined in the period following

World War II as a result of contamination with organochlorine

pesticides. Organochlorine pesticides, used widely in the United States

and other nations in North, Central, and South America for control of

agricultural and forest pests and mosquitos, are stable, long-lived

compounds that persist in the environment. Organochlorines are

deposited in the fatty tissues of animals eating contaminated food, and

bioaccumulate in high concentrations in animals near the top of the

food chain, such as peregrine falcons. Peregrine falcons contaminated

with organochlorines can die if acutely poisoned, but a serious effect

of organochlorines upon peregrine falcons in North America resulted

from sublethal doses of the pesticide DDT. The principal metabolite of

DDT is DDE. DDE prevents normal calcium deposition during eggshell

formation, causing females to lay thin-shelled eggs that often break

before hatching. Although organochlorines were not used in areas where

arctic peregrine falcons breed, arctic peregrine falcons were

nevertheless exposed to organochlorines because they and some of their

prey species migrated through or wintered in areas of organochlorine

use. Arctic peregrine falcon populations may have declined by as much

as 75 percent as a result of organochlorine- caused mortality and

reproductive impairment.

As a result of population declines, arctic peregrine falcons were

protected in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of

1969. They were later afforded the greater protection of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 upon its passage. The Act and its implementing

regulations prohibit the take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of

these), ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. The Act also requires review of all activities

funded, permitted, or conducted by Federal agencies to consider impacts

to endangered or threatened species. As a result of the prohibitions

and requirements of the Act, harvest of peregrines for the sport of

falconry was prohibited and peregrine falcon nest sites were provided

protection. The pivotal action in aiding the recovery of peregrine

falcons, however, was regulation of the use of organochlorine

pesticides. The use of DDT was restricted in Canada in 1970 and in the

United States in 1973. Restrictions that controlled the use of other

organochlorine pesticides, including aldrin and dieldrin, were imposed

in the United States in 1974.

Following restrictions on the use of organochlorine pesticides,

reproductive rates in arctic peregrine falcon populations increased and

populations began to expand by the mid- to late-1970's. By 1984, the

recovery of arctic peregrine falcons had progressed sufficiently that

the Service reclassified the subspecies from endangered to threatened

(49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984). The number of arctic peregrine falcons

continued to increase. In 1991, the Service announced that it was

reviewing the status of the threatened arctic peregrine falcon to

determine if a proposal to delist was appropriate (56 FR 26969, June

12, 1991). On the basis of all available information and the comments

received in response to the notice of status review, the Service

proposed to delist the subspecies on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51035).

A summary of the information demonstrating the recovery of arctic

peregrine falcons follows.

Arctic peregrine falcons nest in the tundra regions of Alaska,

Canada, and the ice-free perimeter of Greenland. The exact degree of

population decline and subsequent recovery has been poorly documented

because most breeding areas are extremely remote and because there were

few population studies prior to the pesticide era, but it appears

likely that the species' population has expanded 3-fold or more since

the late 1970's. Counts of the number of pairs found breeding in one

area in Alaska and three areas in the Northwest Territories, Canada

(NWT), follow:

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

Colville

Year River, Hope Bay Coppermine Rankin Inlet

Alaska\2\ NWT\3\ NWT\3\ NWT\4\

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

1959\1\......................................... 35 .............. .............. ..............

1968\1\......................................... 32 .............. .............. ..............

1971\1\......................................... 25 .............. .............. ..............

1978............................................ 15 .............. .............. ..............

1979............................................ 16 .............. .............. ..............

1980............................................ 21 .............. .............. ..............

1981............................................ 24 .............. .............. 17

1982............................................ 27 .............. 17 19

1983............................................ 26 25 17 19

1984............................................ 32 27 28 20

1985............................................ 30 29 17 26

1986............................................ 34 18 24 25

1987............................................ 37 39 29 23

1988............................................ 47 35 25 23

1989............................................ 53 58 37 22

1990............................................ 51 61 34 26

1991............................................ 56 52 51 26

1992............................................ 57 45 42 24

1993............................................ 58 60 44 28

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

\1\From Cade et al. 1968; White and Cade 1975.

\2\1978-1993--unpublished Service data on file, Fairbanks, Alaska.

\3\Data from Shank et al. 1993; Chris Shank, Dept. of Renewable Resources, Govt. of NWT, pers. comm., 1993.

\4\Data from Court et al. 1988; C. Shank, pers. comm., 1993.

Population size has increased in these four areas, although the

rate of increase has varied among areas. Long-term, historical data are

not available from other areas within the breeding distribution of

arctic peregrine falcons; however, similar trends have been observed in

several other areas for which short-term data are available. The range-

wide population size remains unknown because so few areas have been

thoroughly sampled, but certainly the breeding population now numbers

in the thousands.

Only one local population was known to have been extirpated; this

was a small population of about 15 nesting pairs on the north slope of

the Yukon Territory (Mossop 1988). This area is apparently being

gradually recolonized by individuals from adjacent populations (Dave

Mossop, Dept. of Renewable Resources, Yukon Territory, pers. comm.,

1992).

Counts of the number of peregrine falcons seen passing fixed points

during migration also provide evidence of the rapid increase in the

number of arctic peregrine falcons since the late 1970's. Although some

of the peregrine falcons seen during migration are American peregrine

falcons, the majority seen on the east coast and near the Great Lakes

are arctic peregrine falcons (Yates et al. 1988; William S. Clark, Cape

May Bird Observatory, pers. comm., 1992; Mueller et al. 1988). The

number of migrants seen during fall migration at two well-known

concentration areas on the east coast, Assateague Island, Maryland, and

Cape May, New Jersey, reflect the overall growth of the arctic

peregrine falcon population. In the years 1970-1975, the average number

seen per year at Assateague Island was about 100; by 1976-1979 the

average number had increased to 310; and between 1990 and 1993 an

average of 564 were counted (Seegar and Yates 1991; Seegar et al. 1993;

William Seegar, U.S. Army, pers. comm., 1994). At Cape May, the average

number seen in 1976-1979 was 136; by 1990-1993, the average number seen

per year was 588 (Schultz et al. 1992; Paul Kerlinger, Cape May Bird

Observatory, pers. comm., 1994). Counts conducted at Cedar Grove,

Wisconsin, show a similar trend--the number seen decreased in the

1950's and 1960's, reached a low in the mid-1970's, increased rapidly

in the 1980's, and may now equal the numbers seen in the 1930's

(Mueller et al. 1988).

Review of Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan

Four regional recovery plans were produced by the Service for

peregrine falcons. The Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska

Population (Alaska Recovery Plan), was the only plan that established

recovery criteria for arctic peregrine falcons. The Alaska Recovery

Plan, while including both arctic and American peregrine falcons

nesting in Alaska, did not pertain to populations outside of Alaska;

recovery objectives and criteria for arctic peregrine falcon

populations in Canada and Greenland were never established. This rule

applies only to arctic peregrine falcons so only those sections of the

Alaska Recovery Plan that pertain to arctic peregrine falcons are

mentioned in this discussion.

The Alaska Recovery Plan was written in 1982 using the best

information then available. It included a strategy for population

monitoring, recovery objectives, and criteria for reclassification. The

monitoring scheme proposed that breeding surveys be conducted regularly

in the two areas in Alaska (Colville and Sagavanirktok Rivers) for

which historical population data were available. The Alaska Recovery

Plan listed four parameters to be measured in the study areas to assess

recovery status of those populations, and established an objective for

each of the parameters. The four parameters and objectives were:

(1) Number of nesting territories occupied by pairs with an

objective of 36 total pairs within the 2 specified study areas;

(2) Average number of young per nesting attempt with an

objective of 1.4 young per nesting attempt;

(3) Average organochlorine concentration in eggs with an

objective of less than 5 ppm DDE; and

(4) Average degree of eggshell thinning with an objective of

shells averaging not more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era

eggs.

The Alaska Recovery Plan based reclassification criteria upon these

objectives. It was suggested that these objectives should be met for 5

years before downlisting to threatened status, and the parameters

should remain constant or improve during the ensuing 5 years before

delisting.

Recovery plans and objectives are expected to guide and measure

recovery, but are intended to be flexible enough to adjust to new

information. Research conducted since the Alaska Recovery Plan was

written in 1982 has shown that some of the recovery objectives were

based upon incorrect assumptions. A discussion of the basis of each

objective, the current status of arctic peregrines as measured against

the objectives, and a review of recent information pertaining to the

objectives follows:

(1) The objective of 36 pairs occupying territories in the two

study areas was based on historical data and assumed that there were

51 available territories and 70 percent of these would be occupied

in a fully recovered population (70 percent x 51 = 36). The plan

suggested that 36 or more pairs should occupy territories for 10 or

more years before delisting. Thirty-six pairs occupied the areas for

the first time in 1984, and the number has increased each year since

then. Seventy-seven pairs were present in the study areas in 1993,

the tenth consecutive year in which this objective was met. The

number of pairs now occupying breeding territories (77) greatly

exceeds the original estimate of the number of available territories

(51).

(2) The objective of 1.4 young per pair was based upon early

studies of arctic peregrine falcons. Productivity exceeded 1.4 young

per pair for the first time since the pesticide-era in 1982, and

averaged about 1.6 young per pair for the 12-year period of 1982-

1993.

(3) The objective of DDE residues in eggs averaging less than 5

ppm for 10 or more years was based upon the assumption that arctic

peregrine falcons would not reproduce normally as long as residues

exceeded this measure (this assumption was based upon the

observation that peregrine falcons in the Aleutian Islands

reproduced normally in the early 1970's when residues in eggs

averaged 5 ppm). Average DDE residues declined below 5 ppm in arctic

peregrine falcons in Alaska between 1984 and 1988, but it is unclear

exactly when this threshold was crossed. It is therefore uncertain

if the objective has been met for at least 10 years.

However, it is now apparent that this objective was

inappropriate; normal reproduction was occurring for several years

before the average concentration declined to 5 ppm and may have

occurred while residues exceeded 10 ppm. The exact relationship

between DDE residues in eggs and reproductive success remains

unknown. The Service now believes that it is most appropriate to

gauge ``acceptable'' contaminant exposure by reproductive success.

Because reproductive success has been sufficient to allow population

growth since the late 1970's and the objective for the production of

young (1.4 young per pair) has been met or exceeded for 12 years,

the Service considers the desired objective for exposure to

organochlorines to have been met.

(4) The criterion requiring eggshells to average less than 10

percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells was based upon the

observation that Peale's peregrine falcons in the Aleutian Islands

reproduced normally with shells 8 percent thinner than normal in the

early 1970's. This assumed that peregrine falcons could not

reproduce normally if shells were more than 10 percent thinner than

normal. Subsequent field work has shown this to be incorrect.

Although the degree of thinning has gradually decreased over time,

shells collected in arctic Alaska still average approximately 12.5

percent thinner than pre-DDT era shells. Reproduction, however, has

been sufficient to fuel population growth since the late 1970's, and

productivity has met or exceeded the stated objective for 12 years.

The Service considers, therefore, that the basic goal that eggshell

thinning not significantly affect reproduction, population growth,

or recovery for at least 10 years, has been met.

In summary, the Alaska Recovery Plan identified four parameters to

be measured in two study areas in arctic Alaska to monitor population

health and recovery. Objectives were established for measuring recovery

and indicating when downlisting and delisting were appropriate. The

plan suggested that the four objectives were to be met or exceeded for

5 years prior to downlisting to threatened status and an additional 5

years prior to delisting. Two of the four objectives have been met for

the 10-year interval suggested as a prerequisite for delisting.

However, knowledge gained subsequent to the writing of the recovery

plan indicates that the two objectives that have not been met were

based upon incorrect assumptions. The Service concludes, based upon

current information, that the basic goals underlying all four

objectives have been reached--the number of pairs occupying territories

in two study areas surpassed the objective for the tenth consecutive

year in 1993; productivity surpassed the objective for the twelfth year

in 1993; DDE residues in eggs have not prevented population growth and

recovery since the late 1970's; and eggshell thinning has not inhibited

population growth and recovery since the late 1970's.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the September 30, 1993, proposed rule, the Service requested

that all interested parties provide information and comments on the

status of arctic peregrine falcons, on the proposed delisting of the

subspecies, and on the draft monitoring plan included in the delisting

proposal. The appropriate foreign, state and provincial governments,

Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested

parties were contacted and encouraged to comment. During the 90 day

comment period, 39 responses were received by the Service. Responses

were received from one Federal agency, 9 foreign governments, 16 State

governments, and 13 organizations or private individuals. No requests

for public hearings were received. Comments concerning the status of

arctic peregrine falcons and the proposed delisting are presented

below; comments that addressed the proposed monitoring plan are

presented in the Monitoring Plan section of this rule.

Of the 39 responses, 24 (61 percent) expressed support for

delisting, 5 (13 percent) opposed delisting, and 10 (26 percent) stated

no position. Of those expressing support for delisting, 11 (the

government of Trinidad and Tobago, 8 State governments, and 2

organizations) specifically addressed the need for the Service to

implement the proposed, post-delisting monitoring plan. Two of those

(the government of Trinidad and Tobago and the State of Pennsylvania)

stated that their support for delisting was contingent upon

implementation of the monitoring plan. One nation (France, which

governs the colony of French Guiana in South America), three

individuals and one conservation organization opposed delisting. No

position on delisting was given by the governments of Canada or

Greenland, which are the only nations other than the United States in

which arctic peregrine falcons nest.

Responses to the Service's proposal to delist arctic peregrine

falcons contained several concerns. In some cases, similar or identical

concerns were raised by more than one individual or party submitting

comments. Similar comments have been grouped; the different comments

and the Service's response to each are listed below.

Comment 1: Arctic peregrine falcons are still at risk from natural

and human-caused factors. Additionally, pesticides, in low-level

concentrations, may interact synergistically with other human-caused or

natural stresses to negatively affect arctic peregrine falcons.

Service response: The Service recognizes that little is known of

the effects of low-level pesticide contamination upon arctic peregrine

falcons and the synergistic interactions of pesticides with other

decimating factors. However, the Service must base its decision to list

or delist species upon the factors discussed in the ``Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this rule. A species is

protected if one or more of the five factors affects its continued

existence. Since the late 1970's, arctic peregrine falcon populations

have steadily increased in size, indicating that the cumulative and

synergistic effects of pesticides and other decimating factors have

been insufficient during this interval to threaten arctic peregrine

falcons at the population level. The monitoring plan included in this

rule is designed to detect any possible changes in the status of the

subspecies following delisting, regardless of what factor or

combination of factors prompts the change in status.

Comment 2: The use of pesticides may increase in Latin America as

agricultural development proceeds.

Service response: The Service is concerned that arctic peregrine

falcons and their migratory prey are exposed to pesticides during

migration and the winter. Decreasing residues in blood and eggs show

that contamination with pesticides is declining, however, despite

continued agricultural development in Latin America. As part of the

post-delisting monitoring effort, the Service will continue to monitor

pesticide residues in arctic peregrine falcon blood and eggs so an

increase in contamination can be documented.

Comment 3: The potential for over-utilization of arctic peregrine

falcons for falconry following delisting has been underestimated by the

Service.

Service response: Take of arctic peregrine falcons will remain

prohibited under the Act in the conterminous 48 States by the listing

of all Falco peregrinus wherever found in the wild due to similarity of

appearance. In Alaska take will be governed by the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). Section 2 of the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act requires that in adopting regulations for the take of

migratory birds, the Secretary of the Interior is to ensure that take

is compatible with the protection of the species. Therefore, take of

arctic peregrines, as with other migratory birds, will be regulated so

as to provide for adequate conservation of the subspecies.

Comment 4: The anatum Peregrine Recovery Team, Canadian Wildlife

Service, expressed concern about harvest for falconry following

delisting. This Team asked that the Service ensure that capture of

migrant falcons will not remove birds from breeding populations not yet

completely recovered. They suggested that this could be accomplished by

allowing take only on the breeding grounds.

Service response: Take of arctic peregrine falcons migrating

through the 48 conterminous States will be prohibited under the Act due

to the listing of all Falco peregrinus due to similarity of appearance.

Moreover, the management of migratory birds, including arctic peregrine

falcons, is governed in the United States by the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides for the cooperative

protection of migratory bird resources that are shared by the Treaty

signatory nations, including Canada. As the Service develops

regulations allowing the harvest of arctic peregrine falcons, the

concerns of other nations with which the United States shares this

resource will be addressed. In particular, the Service will work with

the appropriate Canadian officials to provide for the protection of

breeding populations that have not recovered to the satisfaction of

Canadian resource managers and recovery teams.

Comment 5: The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission pointed

out that the Service was incorrect in stating that arctic peregrine

falcons winter exclusively in Latin America. An estimated 200-300

arctic peregrine falcons over-winter in Florida each year.

Service response: The Service acknowledges that some of the

peregrine falcons over-wintering in Florida are undoubtedly of the

arctic subspecies. The Service has updated its information on the

subspecies to reflect this correction.

Comment 6: The final rule delisting arctic peregrine falcons should

be modified to include those American peregrine falcons that nest north

of 55 degrees N latitude. This is appropriate because the northern

American peregrine falcons have recovered similarly to arctic peregrine

falcons. Limiting the delisting rule to arctic peregrine falcons is

confusing, inconsistent, and ignores a large portion of a stable,

recovered, and definable population of American peregrine falcons.

Service response: The Service listed arctic and American peregrine

falcons as endangered under the Endangered Species Protection Act in

1970. They were listed separately, by subspecies, in order to

differentiate these subspecies from Peale's peregrine falcons, which

did not warrant or receive protection. Arctic and American peregrine

falcon populations were affected by pesticides differently--arctic

peregrine falcons did not decline to the same extent as American

peregrine falcons and they recovered more quickly after the use of

organochlorine pesticides was restricted. Additionally, although the

recovery of arctic peregrine falcons appears to have progressed to a

comparable degree throughout the range of the subspecies, American

peregrine falcons have recovered to dissimilar degrees and at various

rates in different portions of their range. As a result, the Service is

handling the reclassification of American peregrine falcons separately.

Comment 7: It is difficult to identify subspecies of peregrine

falcons in the wild. The conservation of listed subspecies, which may

be confused with arctic peregrine falcons, will be compromised if

arctic peregrine falcons are delisted.

Service response: The Service considers all Falco peregrinus in the

conterminous 48 States to be endangered under the similarity of

appearance provision of the Act and this consideration will not be

affected by delisting arctic peregrine falcons (see Effects of This

Rule section below). This is to ensure that protection given to

American peregrine falcons, currently considered to be endangered, is

not weakened by confusion with members of other subspecies. Although

this protection pertains only to peregrine falcons in the United

States, the Service hopes that other nations, where the subspecies

ranges overlap, will similarly regard all peregrine falcons as

endangered in order to assist the full recovery of American peregrine

falcons.

Comment 8: Delisting will affect international laws and

legislation.

Service response: This final rule applies only to United States

domestic law. All peregrine falcons are listed under Appendix I to the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES). Delisting arctic peregrine falcons under the Act

will not directly affect classification of the species or subspecies

under CITES. Separate procedures to delist the subspecies under CITES

can be pursued. Such amendments of the CITES appendices are done

cooperatively by the numerous parties to the Convention in accordance

with provisions outlined in the Convention's Articles XV and XVI. There

are no other international laws or legislation that will be affected by

this delisting.

Comment 9: The opinions of Canada and Greenland, countries

principally involved, have not been solicited, considered, or provided.

Service response: The Service announced on June 12, 1991, that it

was reviewing the status of arctic peregrine falcons and considering

whether proposing to delist the subspecies was warranted. The Service

notified the federal governments of Canada and Greenland of the status

review and asked that they provide pertinent information and comments

on whether delisting was appropriate. Neither nation stated a position

on delisting but numerous biologists and resource managers within

Canada provided the Service with information on the status of the

subspecies in Canada. On September 30, 1993, the Service proposed to

delist the subspecies and again the governments of Canada and Greenland

were asked to provide information and to comment on delisting. The

response of the anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, Canadian

Wildlife Service, stated that ``the proposal to remove the arctic

peregrine falcon from the U.S. list of endangered and threatened

wildlife seems well justified by the population increases and sustained

productivity that is documented in the September 30, 1993 Federal

Register.'' One specific concern was raised (see Comment 4 above)

concerning the harvest of arctic peregrine falcons for falconry; this

concern will be addressed by the Service when harvest regulations are

formulated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No comments were

received from the government of Greenland.

Comment 10: The data presented in the proposal indicate that

populations in some areas have declined for the last two years. The

Service attempted to discount this trend as being the result of

``exceptional years.''

Service response: Surveys of nesting peregrine falcons at Hope Bay

and Coppermine, NWT, are conducted by helicopter at about the time that

falcons in these areas are hatching (Shank et al. 1993). Failed or non-

nesting pairs may be absent at nesting cliffs during single, brief

visits to cliffs, so may go undetected in this type of survey (C.

Shank, pers. comm., 1992). As a result, annual variation in the number

of pairs counted can be greatly affected by annual variation in nesting

success. In years with good success, most pairs have viable nests and

are present when nest sites are checked. In years with poor nest

success, many pairs may have failed by the time surveys are conducted

and the adults may go undetected. Annual variation in nesting success

is large at Hope Bay and Coppermine, and is probably caused by the

extreme weather conditions found near the coast in arctic areas (C.

Shank, pers. comm., 1992).

Regression analysis provides a means of detecting and describing

trends in the number of pairs found at these areas despite annual

variation. Regression analysis shows that the number of pairs at

Coppermine and Hope Bay has increased significantly since surveys began

and that the rate of population growth has averaged about 10 percent

per year. Furthermore, surveys in 1993 showed a slight increase from

the previous year at Hope Bay and a substantial increase from 1992 at

Coppermine (see Summary section above). The Service believes,

therefore, that despite several short-term decreases in the number of

pairs detected, local populations at both Hope Bay and Coppermine have

shown considerable growth in the last 10 to 12 years. Furthermore, the

Service believes that decreases seen between 1990 and 1992 do not

indicate that populations are declining in either area.

Comment 11: The recovery plan established four criteria to be met

before delisting should be considered but only two of the four

currently have been met. The data on organochlorine concentrations in

eggs and eggshell thickness (the two criteria that have not been met)

are unpublished and as such have not been verified and validated by

scientists.

Service response: As required by the Act, the Service collected all

available information on the status of arctic peregrine falcons before

deciding whether delisting was warranted. Much of the available

information is unpublished. In using unpublished data, the Service is

able to include the most recently acquired data as well as data

collected by a broader array of sources. The Service recognizes,

however, that unpublished data have not been subjected to review by the

scientific community.

The unpublished data and the Service's interpretation of that data

were presented to the scientific community for review in the proposal

to delist, which was published in the Federal Register (September 30,

1993). Since the Federal Register is not widely read among scientists,

the Service sent copies to and requested comments from over 30

professional biologists that have worked with peregrine falcons in

Greenland, Canada, and the United States. Additionally, copies were

sent to members of the Western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, a number

of professional ornithological organizations, the appropriate natural

resource agencies in seven provinces and territories in Canada, and

every State fish and game agency in the United States. Several

professional biologists or resource managers expressed support for

delisting--none expressed opposition to delisting. Furthermore, neither

the validity of any data contained in the proposal nor the Service's

interpretation of the data were questioned.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

According to the Act and implementing regulations outlined in 50

CFR part 424, a species shall be listed if the Secretary of the

Interior determines that one or more of five factors listed in section

4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A

species may be delisted, according to Sec. 424.11(d), if the best

scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species

is neither Endangered or Threatened for one of the following reasons:

1. Extinction;

2. Recovery; or

2. Original data for classification of the species were in error.

After a thorough review of all available information, the Service

has determined that arctic peregrine falcons are no longer endangered

or threatened with extinction. A substantial recovery has taken place

since the 1970's, and none of the five factors addressed in section

4(a)(1) of the Act currently jeopardizes the continued existence of

arctic peregrine falcons. These factors and their relevance to arctic

peregrine falcons are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Arctic peregrine falcons nest in

arctic tundra regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. They migrate

through the mid-latitudes of North America across a broad front, but

concentrate in some coastal and estuarine areas along the Atlantic

coast and Gulf of Mexico. Migrants also pass through inland areas

including the Great Lakes, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains, although

the relative importance of coastal and inland habitats to migrants is

unknown. Most arctic peregrine falcons spend the winter in Latin

America, but some winter as far north as southern Florida. Although the

rate of habitat alteration in nesting, migration, and wintering

habitats is greater now than in the past, the rapid increase in the

number of arctic peregrine falcons during the last 15 years indicates

that habitat modification does not currently threaten the continued

existence of the subspecies.

B. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Delisting of the Arctic peregrine falcon will not

result in the over-utilization of the subspecies for the following

reasons. All Falco peregrinus found in the wild in the conterminous 48

States are listed as endangered due to similarity of appearance.

Therefore, take of arctic peregrine falcons migrating through the

conterminous 48 States will be prohibited by the Act. Additionally, the

take of all migratory birds, including arctic peregrine falcons, is

governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the corresponding

regulations codified in 50 CFR Part 21. Migratory bird regulations

allow for the take of wild peregrine falcons subsequent to obtaining a

permit, for recreational, scientific, and educational purposes, but

require that harvest is limited to levels that prevent over-

utilization.

C. Disease or predation. Although individuals may be vulnerable to

disease or predation, these factors are not known to affect arctic

peregrine falcons at the population level.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Arctic

peregrine falcons will remain protected by the similarity of appearance

provision of the Act while in the conterminous 48 States as long as

other subspecies occurring in this area remain listed. This protection

will not extend beyond such time that other peregrine falcons occurring

in those areas are removed from the list of endangered and threatened

wildlife.

Arctic peregrine falcons are also protected by the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act, which governs the taking, killing, possessing,

transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts,

and nests. A more thorough discussion of the protection offered by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act is included in the Effects of This Rule

section below.

In addition to Federal laws governing the taking of arctic

peregrine falcons within the United States, international agreements

govern the transport of arctic peregrine falcons across international

borders. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES) is an international agreement that regulates trade in species

threatened with extinction and those that may become threatened if

trade is not regulated. The arctic peregrine falcon is currently listed

under Appendix I of CITES, and, as a result, international trade in

arctic peregrine falcons is restricted by the United States and 122

other signatory nations. This final rule only affects United States

domestic endangered species law and does not result in removal of

arctic peregrine falcons from Appendix I of CITES.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. There is general agreement within the scientific community

that contamination with organochlorine pesticides was the principal

factor responsible for the decline of arctic peregrine falcons. The

population decline was likely a result of both reproductive impairment

from sublethal dosage and direct mortality from lethal dosage, although

the relative importance of those two factors remains unknown. Change in

population size, therefore, is the best indicator of the total impact

of pesticides because population size is affected by both direct

mortality, which is extremely difficult to measure in wild populations,

and reproductive impairment, which is more easily quantified in the

wild. The consistent growth in arctic peregrine falcon numbers since

the late 1970's, previously discussed in the Background section of this

rule, provides the strongest supporting evidence that organochlorine

pesticides no longer pose a threat at the population level.

The use of organochlorine pesticides was restricted in the United

States and Canada in the early 1970's. Their use in Latin America

continues, however, and some arctic peregrine falcons undoubtedly

winter in areas where organochlorines are currently used. It has been

shown, by comparing blood samples collected during fall and spring

migration, that migrant peregrine falcons accumulate pesticides while

wintering in Latin America (Henny et al. 1982). Additionally, some of

the avian prey utilized by arctic peregrine falcons during the summer

in arctic and subarctic areas also winter in Latin America. Many of

these prey return to their northern nesting areas with pesticide

residues accumulated during the winter (Fyfe et al. 1990). Peregrine

falcons preying upon these birds during the summer are thus further

exposed to Latin American pesticides. Pesticide use in Latin America,

however, may never have been great enough to cause a decline in the

number of arctic peregrine falcons. The widespread reproductive failure

and population crash coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine

use in the United States, and a noticeable increase in productivity

occurred in Alaska within a few years following restrictions on the use

of organochlorines in the United States.

Furthermore, the exposure of arctic peregrine falcons to

organochlorines continues to decrease. Average DDE residues in blood

collected from peregrine falcons during spring migration in Texas

decreased 38 percent between 1978-1979 and 1984 (Henny et al. 1988).

Pesticide residues in arctic peregrine falcon eggs have decreased

similarly. A sample of eggs from 9 clutches collected in arctic Alaska

in 1968 averaged (geometric mean, wet weight basis) 23.5 ppm DDE with a

maximum of 99 ppm (Jeff Lincer, BioSystems Analysis, pers. comm., in

litt., 1992). By the late 1970's to early 1980's, the average DDE

concentration in eggs collected from 19 clutches had declined to 9.3

ppm with a maximum of 46.4 ppm (unpubl. Service data, on file in

Fairbanks, Alaska). In 1990-1991, eggs from 13 clutches averaged 3.3

ppm with a maximum of 5.3 ppm (unpubl. Service data, Fairbanks,

Alaska). Similar trends were observed in Canada. Residues in eggs

collected in arctic Canada averaged 9.9 ppm DDE in 1965-1972 (maximum

72.0); 8.5 ppm in 1973-1979 (max. 19.6); and 6.8 ppm (max. 18.5) in

1980-1986 (Peakall et al. 1990). Eggs from 36 clutches collected at

Rankin Inlet, NWT, in 1981-1986 averaged 7.6 ppm DDE (Court et al.

1990). Eggs collected in Greenland between 1972 and 1978 averaged 12.8

ppm DDE (Burnham and Mattox 1984), but by 1981 and 1982 the maximum

(average not given) in 9 eggs was 9.1 ppm (Mattox and Seegar 1988). To

put these values in perspective, concentrations of DDE in peregrine

falcon eggs in excess of 15 to 20 ppm (parts per million, wet weight

basis) are associated with high rates of nesting failure; if residues

average less than this critical level, productivity is usually

sufficient to maintain population size (Peakall et al. 1975; Newton et

al. 1989). Residues of other organochlorines in arctic peregrine falcon

eggs have also decreased since the 1970's, and residues are currently

well below concentrations associated with reproductive impairment or

population declines.

Most researchers consider DDE-caused eggshell thinning to be the

proximate factor that caused peregrine falcon populations to decline in

North America. Average eggshell thickness decreased by as much as 24

percent in Alaska during the peak period of organochlorine

contamination. This decreased eggshell thickness correlated with

greatly reduced reproductive success. Eggshell thickness has increased

significantly since the use of DDT was restricted in the United States,

but pesticides accumulated in Latin America still affect shell

thickness. Shells from Rankin Inlet, NWT, collected in 1981-1986

averaged 15.8 percent thinner than pre-DDT shells (Court et al. 1990).

Alaskan shells collected in 1979-1984 averaged 13.4 percent thinner

than pre-DDT thickness measurements, and shells collected in 1988-1991

averaged about 12 percent thinner. Peregrine populations are expected

to decrease in size if eggs have shells averaging at least 17 percent

thinner than normal while populations with eggs averaging less than 17

percent thinning generally remain stable or can increase in size (Kiff

1988). Although arctic peregrine falcon eggs remain vulnerable to an

increase in exposure to organochlorines, eggshell thinning has been

insufficient to prevent widespread population recovery since the late

1970's.

Reproductive success is another parameter used in measuring the

effects of pesticide poisoning upon peregrine falcons. ``Normal''

productivity rates vary among regions; therefore, it is difficult to

assess the health of a local population based upon productivity rate

alone. In Alaska, productivity reached its lowest level of about 0.6

yg/pr in the mid 1970's. Productivity improved in the late 1970's,

reaching 0.9 yg/pr in 1979. From 1980 to 1993 it varied between 1.3 and

2.0 yg/pr, which was sufficient to support an average annual increase

in the breeding population size of about 9 percent (unpublished Service

data on file, Fairbanks, Alaska). In Canada, a decrease in the

productivity of arctic peregrine falcons was never clearly documented,

although populations decreased in size so productivity almost certainly

declined. At Rankin Inlet, NWT, productivity averaged about 1.5 yg/pr

between 1981 and 1992 (Court et al. 1988; C. Shank, pers. comm., 1991,

1992), although annual productivity varied tremendously in response to

variation in weather conditions (Court et al. 1988). Productivity in

Ungava Bay, Quebec, reached a low of 1.33 yg/pr in 1970, and exceeded

2.7 yg/pr in each of 3 surveys conducted since 1980 (Bird and Weaver

1988; David Bird, pers. comm., in litt., 1991). Reproductive rates have

remained high in Greenland since observation began in 1972. In western

Greenland productivity from 1972 to 1992 remained at least 1.80 yg/pr

(William Mattox, Greenland Peregrine Falcon Survey, pers. comm., in

litt., 1992). Similarly, in southern Greenland, production remained

high from 1981 to 1991 (Knud Falk, Ornis Consult A/S, pers. comm., in

litt., 1992).

The only recent measurable effect presumably attributable to

organochlorine use in Latin America has been found in Rankin Inlet in

the NWT. Between 1982 and 1986, pesticides caused about 10 percent of

the nesting pairs to fail, but average productivity within the

population was high, and numbers were stable at the extremely high

density of one pair per 17 square kilometers (Court et al. 1988).

Despite the effect on a small portion of the pairs, the overall impact

to the population in this area was minimal. There has been no other

recent evidence of pesticide-caused reproductive failure found in any

other arctic peregrine falcon population studied.

In summary, the reproductive failure and resultant population crash

seen in arctic peregrine falcons were likely the result of the heavy

use of organochlorines in the United States and possibly Canada.

However, arctic peregrines are still exposed to organochlorine

pesticides due to continuing use in Latin America. Because organisms at

the top of the food chain bioaccumulate environmentally stable

contaminants, arctic peregrine falcons remain vulnerable and could

suffer from an increase in the use of organochlorines or the widespread

use of other stable toxins that affect survival or reproduction. The

concentration of organochlorines in arctic peregrine falcon tissues

continues to decline, though, and is currently well below those levels

associated with population declines. The widespread recovery of arctic

peregrine falcon populations is convincing evidence that pesticides and

other contaminants do not currently threaten the continued existence of

the subspecies.

The Service has carefully reviewed all available scientific and

commercial data and concluded that the threat or threats that caused

arctic peregrine falcon populations to decline no longer pose a risk to

the continued survival of the subspecies. A widespread recovery has

followed restrictions on the use of organochlorine pesticides in the

United States and Canada. This recovery indicates that the subspecies

is no longer endangered or likely to become endangered within the

foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range. Under these

circumstances, removal from the list of threatened and endangered

wildlife is appropriate.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Service has determined that

this rule relieves an existing restriction and good cause exists to

make the effective date of this rule immediate. Delay in implementation

of this delisting would cost government agencies staff time and monies

conducting formal section 7 consultation on actions which may affect

species no longer in need of the protection under the Act. Relieving

the existing restriction associated with this listed species will

enable Federal agencies to minimize any further delays in project

planning and implementation for actions that may affect arctic

peregrine falcons.

Effects of This Rule

Pursuant to the similarity of appearance provisions of section 4(e)

of the Act, species (or subspecies or distinct vertebrate population

segments) that are not considered to be endangered or threatened may

nevertheless be treated as such for law enforcement purposes of

protecting a listed species (or subspecies or vertebrate population

segment) that is biologically endangered or threatened. Under the

similarity of appearance provision (implemented by 50 CFR 17.50), the

Service must find:

(a) that the species so closely resembles in appearance an

endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have

substantial difficulty in identifying listed from unlisted species;

(b) that the effect of the substantial difficulty is an additional

threat to the listed endangered or threatened species; and

(c) that such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially

facilitate the enforcement and further the purposes of the Act.

The Service considers ``all free-flying Falco peregrinus, not

otherwise identifiable as a listed subspecies, to be endangered under

the similarity of appearance provision in the 48 conterminous States''

(49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984). Therefore, arctic peregrine falcons will

be protected as endangered or threatened while migrating through the 48

conterminous States as long as American peregrine falcons that occur in

this area are classified as endangered or threatened. American

peregrine falcons are known to occur or could occur in all areas in

which arctic peregrine falcons are found in the 48 conterminous States,

so protection would be complete in this region. The protection of this

provision would not extend beyond such time that the American peregrine

falcon is delisted. The Service anticipates that recovery will

eventually allow the American peregrine falcon to be removed from the

list of endangered and threatened wildlife. At such time, the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act will govern the take of arctic peregrine falcons, as

will the appropriate State regulations. State regulations applying to

falconry currently vary among States and are subject to change with

time. The applicable State regulations, however, may be more but not

less restrictive than Federal regulations.

The similarity of appearance provision does not apply to arctic

peregrine falcons while they are outside the conterminous United

States. Although American peregrine falcons occur in northern areas,

such as Alaska, there is no overlap in the breeding ranges of the two

subspecies in Alaska (arctic peregrine falcons breed north of the

Brooks Range and along the west coast near Norton Sound whereas

American peregrine falcons breed south of the Brooks Range). If this

proposal is enacted, therefore, the taking of arctic peregrine falcons

within their breeding range would not be prohibited by similarity of

appearance protection and would, therefore, be governed by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Additionally, the similarity of appearance

protection is provided by United States domestic law; this protection

does not apply to arctic peregrine falcons outside the United States.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of migratory

birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes, such as

falconry. Section 2 states that the Secretary of the Interior is

authorized and directed to determine if, and by what means, the take of

migratory birds should be allowed, and to adopt suitable regulations

permitting and governing the take. In adopting regulations, the

Secretary is to consider such factors as distribution and abundance to

ensure that take is compatible with the protection of the species.

Existing regulations applying to the use of raptors for falconry and

the captive propagation of raptors are outlined in 50 CFR 21.28 to

21.30.

In addition to Federal regulations, Alaska State regulations would

apply to harvest of arctic peregrine falcons in Alaska. Alaska State

regulations outlined in 5 AAC 92.037 do not currently allow for the use

of arctic peregrine falcons for falconry, but it is likely that State

regulations will be amended to allow harvest in the near future. Alaska

State regulation 92.037(b)(3) requires that ``no person may permanently

export a raptor taken from the wild in Alaska unless the person has

legally possessed that raptor for at least one year.'' The Service

anticipates little or no pressure within Alaska to amend this latter

regulation; therefore, the take of arctic peregrine falcons in Alaska

should remain limited to the roughly 30 falconers who are permanent

residents of Alaska.

Falconry regulations in Canada and Greenland do not allow foreign

falconers to take raptors, so this delisting will not result in United

States residents taking arctic peregrine falcons within these

countries. Take of arctic peregrine falcons in Canada and Greenland by

residents of those nations is not affected by United States domestic

law; therefore, delisting will not affect regulations allowing harvest

in those countries. In addition, as mentioned above, international

trade in arctic peregrine falcons is regulated as a result of the

subspecies' inclusion on the CITES Appendix I list.

Future Conservation Measures

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the

Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, monitor species for at

least 5 years after delisting. If evidence acquired during this

monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be

reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the species, the Service

may use the emergency listing authority provided for by the Act. At the

end of the 5-year monitoring period, the Service will, based upon

results of monitoring efforts, decide if relisting, continued

monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is appropriate.

The Service included a draft monitoring plan in the September 30,

1993 (58 FR 51035) proposal to delist arctic peregrine falcons. The

public was asked to provide comments and suggestions for improving the

draft plan. Of the 39 parties responding to the proposal, 15

specifically addressed the monitoring plan, including 11 State fish and

game agencies, one Federal agency, the government of Trinidad and

Tobago, and two non-governmental organizations. Of the 15 that

addressed the plan, five supported the plan as written, five stressed

the importance of implementing the plan, two stated they supported

delisting only if the monitoring plan was implemented, and three

suggested modifications to the plan. The parties suggesting

improvements raised three different concerns; those concerns and the

Service's responses are given below:

Comment 1: The Service has chosen an inappropriate criterion for

considering relisting if population size again declines. Thirty-five

pairs found nesting along the Colville River in 1959 should be

considered the historical norm for this population, not 57 pairs found

in 1992.

Service response: The Service believes that recent survey results

provide the most accurate estimate of the number of pairs that will

nest along the Colville River when the population is in a normal,

healthy condition. Furthermore, the Service's post-delisting monitoring

plan for arctic peregrine falcons is designed to detect a change in the

status of the subspecies. The Service believes that a significant (25

percent or more) change in population size will indicate that some

factor or factors is affecting either reproductive performance or

survival within the population. A change in productivity or survival

will be more quickly detected and accurately measured if recent

population estimates are used as baseline levels.

Comment 2: The monitoring plan should be expanded to include one

nesting area in the Canadian arctic, one nesting area in Greenland, and

migration data from Assateague Island, Maryland, and Cedar Grove,

Wisconsin. Cooperative agreements should be pursued with the

governments of Canada and Greenland to ensure the continuation of

projects in those nations.

Service response: In formulating the monitoring plan, the Service

emphasized breeding surveys conducted in Alaska because surveys in

northern Alaska were designed to measure the criteria listed in the

Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, specifically, population size,

reproductive performance, and contaminant levels. These factors are the

most important in monitoring the status, trends, and threats to the

subspecies, and they are not consistently measured in any other study

area in North America. Additionally, the Service has greater influence

over the funding and implementation of monitoring efforts conducted in

the United States, and in particular, those conducted by the Service.

The Service agrees that continuation of on-going research on arctic

peregrine falcons will contribute greatly to monitoring the subspecies

following delisting. In particular, three nesting surveys in the NWT,

Canada, and one in Greenland, and counts of migrants conducted at a

number of different sites have provided data substantiating the

recovery of the subspecies. The delisting criteria have been modified

to consider information on breeding pairs gathered in Canada and

Greenland. In addition, the Service intends to utilize all available

information when reviewing the overall status of the subspecies, and

will encourage the continuation of all research efforts wherever

possible.

Comment 3: The monitoring plan should be extended to 10 years to

allow adequate measurement of the impacts of resumed falconry harvest,

to compensate for short-term variability in productivity due to weather

and other variables, and to measure long-term changes in organochlorine

contamination and eggshell thickness. This is particularly important

because the Service reevaluated criteria concerning organochlorine

concentrations in eggs and eggshell thickness in the recovery plan.

Service response: Although two of the recovery criteria in the

original recovery plan were reevaluated to reflect current information,

the Service feels that the subspecies has recovered sufficiently to

warrant delisting without reservation. At the end of the minimum 5-year

monitoring period, the Service will review all available information,

including organochlorine contamination and eggshell thickness, to

decide if continuation of monitoring is warranted for any reason. The

Service believes that this evaluation process allows for adequate

consideration of all pertinent factors.

After consideration of the comments received on the draft

monitoring plan, the Service has produced the following monitoring

plan. This plan will be revised, as appropriate, to incorporate new

knowledge of threats to the subspecies, research techniques, or other

applicable information.

Monitoring plan. As discussed above, exposure to organochlorines,

particularly DDT, was the primary factor causing the decline of arctic

peregrine falcons. Organochlorines affected populations by reducing

reproductive success, although the mortality rate of adults and

juveniles may have increased as well. As productivity and recruitment

declined to levels insufficient to replace mortality, populations

dwindled. This monitoring plan, therefore, is designed to detect

changes in the status of arctic peregrine falcons by monitoring

population size, reproductive performance, and contamination with

organochlorine pesticides and other pollutants.

In reviewing the status of arctic peregrine falcons and preparing

the proposal to delist the subspecies, the Service relied heavily on

data provided by Service biologists. However, information from research

projects conducted by non-governmental organizations and Canadian

provincial agencies was also used extensively. The Service is hopeful

that research efforts will continue and that investigators will

continue to share data with the Service for management purposes.

Monitoring efforts, therefore, will utilize to the fullest extent

possible information collected at a number of sites by a variety of

organizations and agencies. However, information on each of the

parameters to be measured is not collected in every research project. A

discussion of each parameter, how the parameter is measured or

evaluated, and likely sources of data on the parameter follows.

(1) Number of Breeding Pairs. To detect changes in population size,

the Service will rely on counts of the number of breeding pairs in

selected areas in North America. In order to detect a change in

population size in a given area, surveys must be conducted for several

years, and the survey area, methods, and timing must be consistent

among years. Surveys in four areas have met these criteria. These areas

are the Colville River in Alaska and Hope Bay, Coppermine, and Rankin

Inlet in the NWT, Canada. Results from surveys in other areas that meet

these criteria will be included in future status reviews.

(2) Reproductive Performance. To assess reproductive performance,

the Service will rely on counts of the number of young produced per

territorial pair. Such data are currently available only from the

Colville River, Rankin Inlet, and western Greenland study areas;

however, pre-DDT era data on reproductive performance are only

available for the Colville River study area. In reviewing data on

reproductive performance, the Service will utilize information from all

study areas where appropriate data are available.

(3) Contaminant Exposure. The Service will analyze arctic peregrine

falcon blood and eggs in Service-contracted laboratories to monitor

exposure to organochlorine pesticides and other environmental

contaminants. The Service will collect addled eggs along the Colville

River, Alaska, as feasible, during 1995-1999. In addition, the Service

will continue its ongoing long-term study on contamination levels by

collecting at least 10 eggs in a given year (repeated at approximately

5-year intervals), so that residues at the end of the minimum 5-year

monitoring period can be compared with residues found in earlier

periods. Additionally, the Service will encourage the collection of

eggs from Rankin Inlet, NWT, and western Greenland, near or at the end

the minimum 5-year monitoring period for comparison to earlier

collections in those areas.

Blood will be collected from migrants during spring 1999 at Padre

Island, Texas, as part of an ongoing study to track changes in the

exposure of arctic peregrine falcons to organochlorines during the

winter. Organochlorine concentrations in 1999 will be compared to those

in blood collected in 1978-1979, 1984, and 1994.

Eggs and blood will be analyzed, using gas chromatography/mass

spectroscopy, for organochlorines, other pesticides (including mirex),

and polychlorinated biphenyls and hexachlorobiphenyls. These analyses

will be modified, if appropriate, to include other contaminants that

are identified as posing a risk to arctic peregrine falcons.

(4) Migration Counts. In addition to the three factors mentioned

above, the Service will also review counts of migrating arctic

peregrine falcons. Counts of migrating peregrine falcons passing fixed

points along migration corridors provide information on gross trends in

population size. Hundreds of arctic peregrine falcons are counted

annually during fall migration at Cape May, New Jersey, Assateague

Island, Maryland, and Padre Island, Texas. Smaller numbers are counted

at a number of other locations. The Service will continue to request

count data each year from all studies.

Region 7 (Alaska) of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

responsible for coordinating the listing, recovery, and monitoring of

arctic peregrine falcons. Therefore, Region 7 will coordinate this

monitoring effort. Region 7's efforts will include three facets:

(1) Region 7 staff will continue ongoing arctic peregrine falcon

status surveys on the Colville River, Alaska, measuring population size

and reproductive performance, and collecting biological samples (eggs,

blood, feathers) for contaminant analyses as appropriate.

(2) Region 7 staff will encourage, through memoranda of agreement

or similar mechanisms, the continuation of non-Service research efforts

that have provided important data on the status of the arctic peregrine

falcon throughout its range.

(3) Region 7 staff will exchange information with parties involved

in arctic peregrine falcon studies throughout North America and

Greenland. Region 7 will compile pertinent information and conduct

annual reviews of the status of the subspecies based upon all available

information.

At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, the Service will review

all available information to determine if relisting, termination of

monitoring, or continued monitoring is appropriate. The Service will

consider relisting if during, or after, the 5-year monitoring effort,

it appears that a reversal of the recent recovery has taken place. If

one or more of the following conditions exists, the Service will deem

it an indication that a reversal of recovery has taken place and

relisting will be considered:

(1) The number of pairs occupying territories in any of the major

breeding areas declines by 25 percent or more. Baseline information

must meet the standards defined earlier in this section. For example,

reclassification would be considered if the number of pairs occupying

territories along the Colville River falls below 42 pairs (this would

be a 25 percent reduction from the 1992 breeding population of 57

pairs) in any one year;

(2) Average productivity of peregrine falcons nesting along the

Colville River drops below 1.4 young per territorial pair for two

consecutive surveys (unless other identified factors, such as abnormal

weather conditions, explain the lowered productivity). Pre-DDT data are

not available on arctic peregrine falcons for Greenland and Canada, so

no thresholds of concern for subpopulations in these countries are

identifiable;

(3) Average contaminant residues in arctic peregrine falcon eggs or

blood exceed those values associated with widespread reproductive

failure or mortality; or

(4) If the number of migrating arctic peregrine falcons declines by

25 percent or more for three consecutive years, the Service will also

consider relisting arctic peregrine falcons.

If one or more of these criteria indicate that arctic peregrine

falcon populations are declining, the Service will review all available

information to determine if arctic peregrine falcons are threatened or

endangered with extinction in accordance with listing guidelines

outlined in the Act.

The Service will monitor arctic peregrine falcons for a minimum of

5 years following delisting. If, after the 5-year period, studies show

that recovery is complete and that no factors that threaten arctic

peregrine falcons have been identified, the monitoring program may be

reduced or eliminated. If studies show that arctic peregrine falcon

populations are declining or if one or more factors that appear to have

the potential to cause decline are identified, the Service will

continue monitoring beyond the 5-year minimum period. Additionally, if

harvest of arctic peregrine falcons is implemented, the Service may

conclude that surveys and monitoring are necessary. If continuation of

the monitoring effort is warranted for any reason, the Service will

evaluate the current 5-year monitoring plan to determine if

modification of the plan is necessary.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as

defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's

reason for this determination was published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from Ted Swem (see ADDRESSES above).

Author

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

above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for ``Falcon,

Arctic peregrine, Falco peregrinus tundrius'' under ``Birds'' from the

list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Dated: September 23, 1994.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 94-24560 Filed 10-4-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P