Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the American Peregrine Falcon From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and To Remove the Similarity of Appearance Provision for Free-Flying Peregrines in the Conterminous United States

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have

determined that the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

is no longer an endangered or threatened species pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination is

based on available data indicating that this subspecies has recovered

following restrictions on organochlorine pesticides in the United

States and Canada, and following the implementation of successful

management activities. This action will remove the American peregrine

falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) throughout its range as an endangered

species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,

thereby removing all protections provided by the Act. It also will

remove the designation of ``endangered due to similarity of

appearance'' for any free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48

conterminous United States. It will not affect protection provided to

this species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES), or state laws and regulations, nor will it affect the

endangered listing status of the Eurasian peregrine falcon (Falco

peregrinus peregrinus) under the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The administrative file for this rule is available for

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone (805) 644-

1766/facsimile 805/644-3958).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta at the above address for

further information on the removal of the peregrine falcon from the

endangered species list.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a medium-sized raptor

weighing approximately 1,000 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 (Hickey and

Anderson 1969).

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 (F. p. anatum) 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 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). 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 was 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, West Virginia, 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).

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 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 more than 17 percent thinner than 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 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 of these

individuals were still exposed to DDT when wintering in areas of

pesticide use. Presumably all peregrine falcon individuals have eaten

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

[[Page 46543]]

extirpated by the mid-1960s (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 (nests)

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 degrees North

and east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada (Erickson et al. 1988).

West of the 100th meridian, peregrine falcons 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, due

to their lower exposure to organochlorine pesticides. The exact degree

of local declines in much of western North America 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 us to

list two of the three North American subspecies, the Arctic peregrine

falcon and the American peregrine falcon, as endangered in 1970 under

the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-135, 83

Stat. 275). Arctic and American peregrine falcons were included in the

United States' list of endangered foreign species on June 2, 1970 (35

FR 8491) under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and the

native list of endangered species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047).

Upon passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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. The Peale's peregrine

falcon was not listed because it was reproducing at near normal levels

with only traces of DDT.

On March 1, 1983, we published a proposed rule to (1) reclassify

the Arctic peregrine falcon from endangered to threatened; (2) clarify

the status of the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

in some areas of its range; and (3) designate all free-flying peregrine

falcons in the 48 conterminous United States as endangered under the

similarity of appearance provisions of section 4(e) of the Act (48 FR

8796). A final rule 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 are treated as such for

the purpose of providing protection to a species that is biologically

endangered or threatened.

On June 12, 1991, we announced in the Federal Register a Notice of

Status Review of American and Arctic peregrines (56 FR 26969). The

Arctic peregrine was removed as a threatened species from the Federal

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on October 5, 1994 (59 FR

50796) but was still regulated under the Act in the lower 48 United

States due to the similarity of appearance provision for all Falco

peregrinus peregrine falcons. The similarity of appearance provision

was maintained because the American peregrine falcon was still listed

as endangered.

We published an Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove the

American Peregrine Falcon from the Federal List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife on June 30, 1995 (60 FR 34406). This was 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. We published a proposed rule to remove the peregrine

falcon in North America from the Federal List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife on August 26, 1998, based on continuing data

indicating this species was recovered (63 FR 45446).

The processing of this final rule conforms with our listing

priority guidance published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). This guidance

clarifies the order in which we will process rulemakings, giving

highest priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) and second

highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of

outstanding proposed listings, resolving the conservation status of

candidate species, processing administrative findings on petitions to

add species to the lists or reclassify species from threatened to

endangered status, and delisting or reclassifying actions. The lowest

priority actions, processing critical habitat designations, are in Tier

3. Processing of this final rule is a Tier 2 action.

Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement

recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, we appoint experts to

recovery teams to assist in the writing of recovery plans. Between 1974

and 1975 we formed recovery teams consisting of Service, State, and

other experts. In cooperation with us, these recovery teams produced

four regional recovery plans: three for the American peregrine falcon

(Alaska, Rocky Mountains/Southwest United States, and the Pacific Coast

of the United States), and one for the peregrine falcon 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) establishing recovery

criteria for American peregrine falcons in Canada. 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. Since then, approximately 6,000 falcons

were released throughout its historic range in North America. These

releases helped to re-establish breeding pairs in areas where the

species was extirpated, and accelerated the recovery of the species.

Later, reintroduction was also pursued in eastern Canada using only

F. p. anatum breeding stock from the boreal regions of the subspecies'

range. All peregrine falcons released to augment wild populations in

western North America west of the 100th meridian, where small numbers

of

[[Page 46544]]

American peregrines survived the pesticide era, were derived from

western anatum stock (Enderson et al. 1995).

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). Restrictions that controlled the use of aldrin and

dieldrin were imposed in the United States in 1974 (39 FR 37246). 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; Enderson et al. 1995).

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 3,400 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, population growth

was found 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, northwest Canada, and

southwestern United States, reached densities several years ago that

suggested recovery was approaching completion (Ambrose et al. 1988b;

Mossop 1988; Geoff 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 McKinney,

Texas Parks and Wildlife 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.

Recovery Status

To aid in assessing peregrine falcon recovery, the current status

was compared to specific recovery plan objectives for American

peregrine falcons in (1) Alaska, (2) Canada, (3) the Pacific Coast, (4)

the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, and for the peregrine falcon in,

and (5) the eastern United States. The current status of the subspecies

in Mexico is discussed below, although no recovery plan or recovery

objectives are established for Mexico.

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 Alaska Recovery Plan established recovery objectives based on

four measurements for assessing the status of American peregrine

falcons including population size, reproductive performance, pesticide

residues in eggs, and 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

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 upper Yukon and Tanana Rivers, for

which historical population data were available, using consistent

methodology from 1973 to the present so trends would be discernable.

Surveys conducted between 1966 and 1998 along the upper Yukon River

demonstrated increases in the number of occupied nesting territories

from a low of 11 known pairs in 1973 to 46 pairs in 1998 (Ambrose et

al. 1988b; Robert Ambrose, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt.

1997a, 1999). Similarly, along the upper Tanana River, the number of

occupied nesting territories increased from 2 in 1975 to 33 in 1998

(R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a; 1999). The recovery objective of 28

occupied nesting territories in the two study areas was first achieved

(post-DDT) in 1988, with 23 nesting territories on the Yukon River and

12 on the Tanana River. The number has increased steadily since that

time to the current level of 79 occupied nesting territories in 1998,

with 46 pairs on the Yukon River and 33 pairs on the Tanana River (R.

Ambrose, in litt. 1999). Thus, the recovery objective of 28 occupied

nesting territories was achieved and surpassed for 10 years. A minimum

of 301 breeding pairs of American peregrine falcons currently nest in

Alaska.

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

1.6 and 3.0 yg/pr in the years since. Between 1994 and 1998,

productivity averaged 2.0 yg/pr (sample size (N) = 362 nests/pairs).

Overall, between 1982 and 1998, the Yukon River study area averaged

1.79 yg/pr, and the Tanana River study area averaged 1.85 yg/pr (R.

Ambrose, in litt. 1999). It is expected that there are yearly

variations in productivity, which most wildlife species experience.

However, average productivity for the peregrine falcon was constant or

improving, thus meeting the goal of at least 1.8 yg/pr over the last 10

years as recommended by the Alaska Recovery Plan.

Mean concentrations of DDE in peregrine falcon eggs in excess of

15-20 ppm are associated with nesting failure, whereas productivity is

usually sufficient to maintain population size if residues average less

than this concentration (Peakall et al. 1975, as cited in Peakall and

Kiff 1988; Newton et al. 1989). In Alaska, average DDE residues in

American peregrine falcons averaged 12.2 ppm from 1979 through 1984,

5.8 ppm from 1988 through 1991, and 3.5 ppm from 1993 through 1995 (R.

Ambrose, in litt. 1997b). Current data suggest that the concentrations

of less than 5 ppm DDE residue levels in peregrine falcon eggs have

improved in the last 10 years (R. Ambrose in litt. 1997b). As a result

of lowered DDE

[[Page 46545]]

concentrations, there was consistent population growth during that

time.

In Alaska, eggshells were as much as 20-22 percent thinner than

pre-DDT era shells in the mid-1960s (Cade et al. 1988). By the early

1980s, shells were about 14 percent thinner than before the DDT era

(Ambrose et al. 1988a). Eggshells averaged 13.0 percent thinner from

1979 through 1984, 13.1 percent thinner from 1988 through 1991, and

12.1 percent thinner from 1993 through 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. While average eggshell thinning has not yet

reached the level of 10 percent or less of the pre-DDT era, it has

improved over the last 10 years. Also, reproduction was sufficient to

allow consistent population growth since the late 1970s, and

productivity has, on average, exceeded its stated recovery objective

for 17 years.

In summary, based on the most current information (1998 survey and

early 1990s contamination data), we conclude that goals underlying all

four objectives were met or exceeded. On average, the number of pairs

occupying nesting territories in the two study areas and productivity

exceeded the recovery objectives for the past 17 years. Neither DDE

residues in eggs nor eggshell thinning has prevented a dramatic

population growth since the late 1970s.

Canada

The 1988 Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan for Canada (Canadian

Recovery Plan) (Erickson et al. 1988) categorized 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 were 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 was excluded from consideration in the Canadian

Recovery Plan because that area is occupied by F.p. pealei.

The goal of the Canadian Recovery Plan was 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 were

(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/pr) or more young annually, measured as a 5-year average

beginning in 1993. No recovery objectives were established for Zones 7,

8, and 9. The Canadian Recovery Plan did not contain separate

objectives for reclassification of the subspecies in Canada from its

current endangered status to threatened.

Starting in 1990, the Canadian Wildlife Service has coordinated and

published a national range-wide peregrine falcon population survey once

every 5 years. 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 were 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 were 98 known nest sites in Zone 3

(Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta), and surveys located 41 pairs.

There were 117 known nest sites in Zone 4 (eastern N.W. Territories),

and surveys located 83 pairs. There were 125 known nest sites in Zone 5

(Yukon), and surveys located 113 pairs. There were 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 objectives achieved for every recovery zone.

The only comprehensive range-wide productivity surveys available to

us 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 not complete. Thus, we 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.

Although the Canadian Recovery Plan did not identify recovery

objectives for pesticide residue or eggshell thinning levels, 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 (F.p. 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) had decreased

and was inversely correlated with improvements in the reproductive

success of the population (Peakall et al. 1990).

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, both objectives were

met. The total number of pairs for all six zones in 1995 was 319, with

minimum objectives achieved for every recovery zone. This count exceeds

the total recovery objective of 60 pairs by 259 pairs. The average

annual productivity data for 1990 and 1995 either met or exceeded

objectives in five of the six zones with an average annual productivity

of 1.8 yg/pr for the American peregrine falcon population in Canada.

Pacific Coast

To reclassify the American peregrine falcon from endangered to

threatened, the Pacific Coast Recovery Plan (Pacific Population Plan)

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982b) recommended that 122 pairs be

established in a specified distribution spanning California,

Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. The distribution goals were based on 22

management units distributed throughout the historic range of the

Pacific Coast peregrine falcon population. For each management unit,

the population must achieve a specified minimum number of active pairs

before downlisting can be considered. The Pacific Population Plan also

recommended that with attainment of 185 wild, self-sustaining pairs

(California 120, Oregon 30, Washington 30, and Nevada 5 pairs) and an

average productivity of 1.5 yg/pr for a 5-year period, the subspecies

could be considered for delisting. Since this final rule addresses the

delisting of the peregrine falcon, only the latter two objectives are

discussed in this section. The Pacific Population Plan defined a

``self-sustaining'' population as one whose natural productivity

without human management is equal to or greater than its mortality.

[[Page 46546]]

By 1976, no American peregrine falcons were found at 14 historical

nest sites in Washington, and 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 was indicated by surveys from 1991 through 1998. Known pairs in

Washington increased from 17 to 45, in Oregon from 23 to 51, 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. 1999; 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 to 10 breeding pairs in the early

1970s (Herman 1971), to a minimum of 167 occupied sites in 1998 (Janet

Linthicum, Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, in litt. 1999).

The increase in California was 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, was impeded by continuing elevated

DDT levels (Jarman 1994; Walton 1997).

The recovery of the peregrine falcon could be the result of a lower

than expected first-year mortality of released birds from the

augmentation program, which accelerated the growth of the Pacific

population (Brian Walton, Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group,

pers. comm. 1997). As a result, intensive human management has

essentially ended, and the release of captive-bred American peregrine

falcons was suspended in Nevada in 1989, in California in 1992

(although the relocation of wild hatchlings continues), and in Oregon

and Washington in 1995. Based on available information, the first

recovery objective was met; a minimum known population of 270 pairs

exceeds the delisting goal of 185 by 85 pairs. Also, the distribution

goals for the Pacific Coast population was met in all four States.

Surveys conducted from 1991 through 1998 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 1998 ranged

from 1.3 to 1.8 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=204) (D.

Anderson, in litt. 1999). In Oregon, productivity between 1993 and 1998

ranged from 0.8 to 1.9 yg/pr, with an average of 1.3 yg/pr (N=178) (M.

Nugent, in litt. 1997; David Peterson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

in litt. 1999). Between 1993 and 1998, productivity in California

ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 yg/pr (N=523), with an average of 1.6 yg/pr (J.

Linthicum in litt. 1999). 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, available data

indicate that the average productivity from 1993 through 1998 in

Washington, Oregon and California was 1.5 yg/pr (D. Anderson, in litt.

1999; M. Nugent, in litt. 1997; David Peterson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, in litt. 1999; J. Linthicum in litt. 1999). Therefore, we

consider this objective to be met.

The Pacific Population Plan did not identify recovery objectives

for pesticide residue or eggshell thinning levels. However,

organochlorine residues and eggshell thinning were measured in

California starting in the early 1970s. Jarman (1994) reported DDE

concentrations in 105 peregrine eggs collected from California from

1987 to 1992, and 11 eggs from Oregon from 1990 through 1993. Data

collected in nine study regions in California (Jarman 1994) indicated

the highest concentrations of DDE were found in California eggs from

the Channel Islands and mid-coast 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 continued 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 were active at least once from

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 was 15 percent thinner than normal, and in the southern

interior (coastal mountains) the average was 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

percent 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 thinner

(J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). However, current reproduction indicates

an expanding population in most areas despite high organochlorine

residue concentrations and associated eggshell thinning in some areas

of the Pacific population.

Rocky Mountain/Southwest

The American Peregrine Falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest Population

Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984) established three

objectives for delisting, including (1) increasing the Falco peregrinus

anatum population in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region to a minimum

of 183 breeding pairs and 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 thinning of no

more than 10 percent from the pre-DDT era 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; nesting

peregrine falcons are not known from Oklahoma. Currently, South Dakota,

Nebraska and Kansas each have one peregrine falcon pair (Mark Martell,

The Raptor Center, pers. comm. 1998; Tordoff et al. 1997); no peregrine

falcon pairs are currently known to occur in North Dakota or Oklahoma.

The Rocky Mountain/Southwest population of the American peregrine

falcon has made a profound comeback since the late 1970s 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 through 1998 indicated that the number of American peregrine

falcon pairs in the

[[Page 46547]]

Rocky Mountain/Southwest population is steadily increasing. In 1991,

this population supported 367 known pairs; in 1998 the number of pairs

increased to 535 (Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in

litt. 1999). Surveys conducted from 1992 through 1998 showed that, with

the exception of North Dakota, all States within the Rocky Mountain/

Southwest population have met or exceeded their specific delisting

goals for breeding pairs.

The current minimum known number of peregrine falcon pairs for each

State include Arizona 159, Colorado 89, Idaho 17, Montana 18, Nebraska

1, New Mexico 32, North Dakota 0, South Dakota 1, Texas 11, Utah 164,

Wyoming 42, and Kansas 1 (Greg Beatty, Arizona Game and Fish

Department, in litt. 1997; James Enderson, Western Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Team, pers. comm. 1999; Dennis Flath, Montana Department of

Fish and Parks, in litt. 1999; Frank Howe, Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources, in litt. 1999; Levine et al. 1998; McKinney 1994; B.

McKinney, pers. comm. 1999; Robert Oakleaf, Wyoming Game and Fish

Department, in litt. 1999; Sator O. Williams III, New Mexico Department

of Game and Fish, in litt. 1999). The current Rocky Mountain/Southwest

population is 535, which surpasses the objective of 183 by 352 pairs.

In Arizona , productivity from 1989 through 1997 ranged from 0.9 to

1.8

yg/yr, with an average productivity of 1.1 yg/pr (N=294). Recent

average productivity (1994-1997) is 0.9 yg/pr (N=194) (Ward and Siemens

1995; G. Beatty, in litt. 1997).

In 1973, 1974, and 1975, productivity in Colorado was 0.2 (N=11),

1.9 (N=8), and 0.7 yg/pr (N=8), respectively, reflecting the irregular

and generally poor productivity typical of the 1970s (Platt and

Enderson 1988). Long term productivity measured in Colorado from 1985

through 1998 ranged from 1.2 to 1.9 yg/pr, with an average of 1.6 yg/pr

(N=753) (Gerry Craig, Colorado Division of Wildlife, in litt. 1999;

J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1999). Recent productivity from 1994 through

1998, averaged 1.6 yg/pr (N=395) (G. Craig, in litt. 1999).

In Idaho, productivity recorded from 1989 through 1998 ranged from

0 to 2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.6 yg/pr for this 10-year period

(N=120). Recent productivity from 1994 through 1998 averaged 1.4 yg/pr

(N=75) (Levine et al. 1998). In Montana, productivity between 1984 and

1998 ranged from 0.3 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7

yg/pr for the 15-year period (N=137). Recent productivity from 1994

through 1998 averaged 1.5 yg/pr (N=91) (D. Flath, in litt. 1999). In

Nebraska, productivity between 1992 and 1998 for a single pair ranged

from 0 to 5.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 7-year period

(N=7) (Lloyd Kiff, The Peregrine Fund, in litt. 1997; Tordoff et al.

1998).

For the period 1986 through 1998, New Mexico experienced a 12-year

average productivity of 1.6 yg/pr (N=278). Recent productivity from

1995 through 1998 averaged 1.4 yg/pr (N=131) (S. Williams, in litt.

1997, 1999). In Texas, long term productivity recorded from 1975

through 1998 ranged from 0 to 2.3 yg/pr, with an average of 0.9 yg/pr

(N=185) for the 23-year period. Recent productivity from 1994 through

1998 averaged 0.5 yg/pr (N=69) (McKinney 1994; B. McKinney, pers. comm.

1999).

In Utah, between 1985 and 1987, productivity averaged 0.8 yg/pr

(N=117). From 1991 through 1996, productivity ranged from 0.9 to 2.0

yg/pr, with an average of 1.3 yg/pr (N=629) for the 6-year period

(Bunnell 1994; F. Howe, in litt. 1997). In Wyoming, productivity

between 1984 and 1998 ranged from 0.9 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of

1.7 yg/pr (N=282) for the 15-year period. Recent productivity between

1994 and 1998 averaged 1.8

yg/pr (N=179) (Joe White, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in litt.

1995; R. Oakleaf, in litt. 1999).

In Kansas, productivity between 1993 and 1998 ranged from 0 to 3.0

yg/pr, with an average of 1.0 yg/pr (N=6) for the 4-year period (L.

Kiff, in litt. 1997; Tordoff et al. 1998). In 1998, the first pair of

peregrine falcons were located in South Dakota; they produced no young.

Although Texas and Arizona have exceeded their goals for number of

pairs, current productivity is below the goal of 1.25 yg/pr and below

their long term productivity averages by 44 and 18 percent

respectively. Heavy metal contamination, particularly mercury, in

adults and nestlings may be depressing productivity in Texas (Andrew

Sansom, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, in litt. 1995). Residual

mercury contamination from mines operated along the Rio Grande River in

the early 1900s is the suspected cause (B. McKinney, pers. comm. 1997).

The current productivity level in Arizona is not fully understood, but

may be a continuation of the variability exhibited in productivity

between 1989 and 1995 (Garrison and Spencer 1996; Bruce Taubert,

Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1999).

Kansas and South Dakota are two more States that currently have not

met the productivity goal of 1.25 yg/pr. Kansas has had only one

peregrine falcon pair since 1992, and breeding is sporadic each year.

Average productivity for the 11 States supporting breeding

populations is 1.3 yg/pr, exceeding the goal of 1.25 yg/pr goal. Even

though Texas, Kansas, South Dakota and Arizona currently have not met

the productivity goal, productivity throughout the Rocky Mountain/

Southwest region is 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 through

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). Eggshells collected in Colorado from 1973

through 1997 were as much as 25.1 percent thinner and at least 6.0

percent thinner than pre-DDT eggshells, with an average thinning of

13.5 percent. Only Colorado has achieved the objective for eggshell

thickness. Sampling in Colorado in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994

produced measurements of 10.6, 11.7, 8.6, 8.1, and 6.0 percent thinning

respectively, with an average annual mean of 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-1970s (L.

Kiff, pers. comm. 1995).

The Rocky Mountain/Southwest Recovery Plan did not identify a

recovery objective for pesticide residue levels. 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 DDE concentration in 5 eggs collected in

Colorado from 1986 through 1989 was 11 ppm (Jarman et al. 1993).

In summary, the first recovery objective in the Rocky Mountain/

Southwest Recovery Plan was met; the current population of 535 pairs

exceeds the goal of 183 pairs by 352 pairs. These pairs are distributed

throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States, meeting or exceeding

the population goals in 10 of the 13 States in this

[[Page 46548]]

region. The second objective of sustaining a long-term average

production of 1.25 yg/pr without manipulation by 1995 was met by all

Rocky Mountain/Southwest States that have breeding American peregrine

falcons except Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, and Arizona. By the mid-

1980s the practice of fostering young into active nests was terminated,

therefore, the long-term average productivity this recovery region has

experienced was accomplished without nest manipulation. The current

reproductive level in the 11 States with breeding populations is 1.3

yg/pr, exceeding the second objective of 1.25 yg/pr. Therefore, we

consider the intent of this objective met. Based on the degree of

recovery achieved, the third objective, that average eggshell thinning

be no more than 10 percent from 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.

Eastern United States

The eastern peregrine population has a 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 Act, 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 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991).

This sparked the beginning of an effort to reestablish the peregrine in

the eastern United States 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 (Cade 1994).

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).

In 1978, we 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

(Keith M. Schreiner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1978).

Thus, notwithstanding the similarity of appearance designation, we

have continued to fully support the restoration of the eastern

peregrine falcon under the 1991 revised Peregrine Falcon Eastern

Population Recovery Plan. We have given the eastern peregrine falcon

equal consideration with the American peregrine falcon with respect to

recovery.

The Peregrine Falcon Eastern Population Recovery Plan (Eastern

Plan), first published in 1979, 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, a population re-established

beginning in 1974 and 1975 by releasing captive-bred peregrine falcons

of mixed genetic heritage. The recovery plan established two recovery

objectives (1) establish a minimum of 20-25 nesting pairs in each of 5

recovery units and sustained them 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 is nearly achieved, with three of the

five recovery units (Mid-Atlantic Coast, Northern New York and New

England, and Great Lakes) surpassing 20 to 25 nesting pairs of

peregrine falcons for 3 years. The Mid-Atlantic Coast unit had 65 pairs

fledging 110 young in 1998 and averaged 62 pairs and 90 fledglings

annually from 1996 through 1998. The Northern New York and New England

unit had 50 pairs fledging 70 young in 1998 and averaged 47 pairs and

61 fledglings annually from 1996 through 1998. The Great Lakes unit had

44 pairs fledging 95 young in 1998 and averaged 40 pairs and 74

fledglings from 1996 through 1998. The Southern Appalachians unit had

14 pairs fledging seven young in 1998, and averaged 11 pairs fledging

14 young from 1996 through 1998. The Southern New England and Central

Appalachians unit had 20 pairs fledging 26 young in 1998 and averaged

15 pairs fledging 22 young from 1996 through 1998 (L. Kiff, in litt.

1997; David Flemming, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997;

Mike Amaral, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1999). In 1998,

there was a total of 193 pairs counted in the five eastern State

recovery units, which was the upper minimum recovery level of the

Eastern Plan. The recovery goal, however, was probably met in 1997,

because up to 10 percent of territorial pairs in any given year are

believed to escape detection and are not counted (Cade et al. 1988).

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 7 years (1992-1998). Equally important is that

the productivity of these pairs during the same 7-year period has

averaged 1.5

yg/pr, thus demonstrating sustained successful nesting.

As of 1998, there were at least 32 nesting peregrine pairs in six

midwestern States, which is outside the recovery area delineated in the

1991 Eastern Plan. The birds are nesting successfully in a larger area

than was 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. However, there appears to be a zone of no nesting

in the northeastern Great Plains that separates the western American

peregrine falcons from the introduced eastern peregrine falcons (Chuck

Kjos, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1997). There are now

more than 225 pairs of peregrine falcons in the midwestern and eastern

States where peregrine falcons were 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 to accurately assess 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-1970s. Most of these territories apparently were checked since

that time, but seven pairs were located between 1985 and 1992 in areas

not occupied in previous years (Massey and Palacios 1994).

[[Page 46549]]

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 a 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. 1988). These observations suggest some recent 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 between 1966 and 1984, increasing the

number of known nest sites to 51. Territory occupancy averaged about 82

percent between 1967 and 1971 and 77 percent between 1971 through 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, (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 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 between 1965 and 1984 was ``somewhat less than normal,'' and

five addled eggs collected between 1976 and 1984 averaged 12.8 ppm DDE

with a range of 2.4 to 25.0 ppm (Porter and Jenkins 1988). DDE residues

in prey in the Gulf area declined from the 1960s to the 1980s, 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 three of 15 nests examined (Porter and

Jenkins 1988).

Hunt et al. (1988) found that only five 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 1980s, but prey species in Mexico were not sampled.

In summary, there was 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; and Castellanos et al. 1997). In the

Gulf of California area, territory occupancy never was known to drop

below 77 percent (Porter et al. 1988), and it increased in the 1970s

and 1980s (Porter and Jenkins 1988).

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 by Mexico nesting populations continues to be a

concern. In 1997, as part of the North American Agreement for

Environmental Cooperation, a parallel agreement to the North American

Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) established a North

American Regional Action Plan (NARA) on DDT. Mexico, a member nation of

the CEC, proposes a phased reduction of DDT (Philip Johnson, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). Specific goals of this

reduction are: (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.

Adverse effects of organochlorine pesticides in the environment

remains an international concern for peregrine falcons nesting in

Mexico, and for peregrine falcons wintering in or migrating through

Latin America. By undertaking the steps proposed in the NARA, 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 for

population size and reproductive performance. Only two of the recovery

plans included specific objectives that applied to pesticide residues

in eggs and eggshell thinning. The combined breeding population size

goal for the four American peregrine falcon recovery plans is 456

pairs. Currently, a minimum of 1,425 pairs occupy the range of the

American peregrine falcon in Alaska, Canada, and the western United

States. There are 193 peregrine falcon pairs in the five recovery units

included in the Eastern Plan, and an additional 32 peregrine falcon

pairs occur in midwestern States in areas not included in the Eastern

Plan recovery units. In 1998, the total known breeding population of

peregrine falcons was 1,650 pairs in the United States and Canada.

Productivity is an important measure of population health, and each

of the four American peregrine falcon recovery regions met or exceeded

their respective productivity goals, as did the eastern peregrine

population.

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

[[Page 46550]]

falcons have increased considerably. This increase continues to occur

even after reintroduction efforts were 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

North America.

Table 1 summarizes the recovery plan goals for each of the regions

and Canada, as well as the current recovery status.

Table 1.--American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan Goals and Current (1998) Recovery Status.

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

Comments/degree to which delisting goals

Recovery plan Delisting goal Current status are met

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

Alaska:

Pairs..................... 28 pairs in study 79 pairs in study Exceeded goal by 51 pairs in study areas.

areas. areas. Approximately 301 pairs known State-wide.

Productivity (young/pair). 1.8 yg/pr........ 1.9 yg/pr........ Exceeded goal.

DDT (parts per million)... less than 5 ppm.. 3.5 ppm.......... Exceeded goal.

Eggshell thinning......... less than 10 12.1 percent..... Goal not met, but has not prevented

percent. recovery; goal probably too conservative.

Canada:

Pairs..................... 60 pairs (10 each 319 pairs........ Exceeded goal by 259 pairs.

in 6 zones).

Productivity.............. 1.5 yg/pr........ 1.8 yg/pr........ Exceeded goal.

Pacific Coast:

Pairs..................... 185 pairs........ 270 pairs........ Exceeded goal by 85 pairs.

Productivity.............. 1.5 yg/pr........ 1.5 yg/pr........ Goal met.

Rocky Mountain/Southwest:

Pairs..................... 183 pairs........ 535 pairs........ Exceeded goal by 352 pairs.

Productivity.............. 1.25 yg/pr....... 1.3 yg/pr........ Exceeded goal.

Eggshell thinning......... less than 10 ................. Goal measured by only a few States; cannot

percent. be assessed.

Eastern/Great Lakes:

Pairs..................... 175-200 pairs 193 pairs........ Exceeded goal in 3 zones; goals in other 2

(with no fewer zones probably were met; an additional 32

than 20-25 in peregrine falcon pairs occur in several

each of 5 Midwestern States not included under the

recovery zones). Eastern Plan.

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

Summary of Issues and Recommendations

In the August 26, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 45446), we requested

that all interested parties provide information and comments on the

status of and proposal to delist the American peregrine falcon.

Announcements of the proposed rule were sent to Federal, State, county,

and city-elected officials, Federal and State agencies, interested

private citizens, and local area newspapers and radio stations. We

provided the governments of Canada and Mexico with the proposed rule,

and both countries responded with comments. We held public hearings on

December 3, 1998, in Wisconsin and December 8, 1998, in New Hampshire.

In addition, we solicited formal scientific peer review of the proposal

in accordance with our July 1, 1994, Interagency Cooperative Policy for

Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270). We

requested three individuals, who possess expertise in peregrine falcon

biology, to review the proposed rule by the close of the comment

period. All three individuals responded to our request and their

comments were incorporated into this final rule.

We considered all comments, including oral testimony at the public

hearings. We received a total of 29 oral comments and 893 comment

letters from 49 States, and the District of Columbia, Canada, Mexico,

Germany, Bali, four Federal agencies, 27 State resource agencies, 305

falconry associations or individual falconers, and 40 conservation

organizations. Of the comments received, 633 supported the proposal to

delist, 266 opposed the proposal, 11 supported downlisting, and 12

letters duplicated comments from individuals who previously provided

oral comments.

Because many respondents offered similar comments, those comments

of a similar nature are grouped. These comments, and our responses, are

presented below.

Issue 1: In the Midwest, delisting will result in less cooperation

by building owners and managers to protect peregrine falcons nesting on

their buildings.

Our Response: Currently, 28 States in the midwestern and eastern

United States support nesting peregrine falcons. Approximately 87

percent of the midwestern pairs and 33 percent of the eastern pairs are

nesting on manmade structures: bridges, buildings and smokestacks

(Martell and McNicoll 1999). Currently, there are 117 nests on nest

boxes or trays in 19 States and the District of Columbia. Should

delisting the peregrine falcon act as a disincentive for owners and

managers to protect nesting peregrine falcons on their buildings, the

long-term security of this urban population could be threatened

(Martell and McNicoll 1999).

Between January and March of 1999, 75 people with information on 95

of the 117 nest sites were asked if delisting would affect their

current management strategies. Responses were overwhelmingly in favor

of continuing to manage for the presence of nesting pairs for some of

the following reasons: pigeon control, good public relations, positive

effect on building employees, and good environmental stewardship

(Martell and McNicoll 1999). Survey results do not suggest that

delisting of the peregrine falcon would result in widespread removal of

nest boxes and trays or discouragement of nesting on manmade

structures. Furthermore, the survey found the public widely appreciated

and accommodated

[[Page 46551]]

peregrines at the manmade structures on which they nest (Martell and

McNicoll 1999).

Issue 2: Disturbance due to recreational rock climbing poses a

threat to nesting peregrine falcons.

Our Response: The increasing popularity of rock climbing throughout

North America, particularly in the northeast, is becoming a serious

problem for land managers trying to protect nesting peregrine falcons.

Unlike the western landscape that provides rock climbers with more and

larger cliffs and thus some alternatives to conflicts with nesting

peregrine falcons, the smaller and limited cliffs of the northeast

present fewer alternatives to peregrine/climber conflicts.

The peregrine falcon will still be protected by the MBTA.

Additional protection is provided by other 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). These continued protections are

adequate to address this threat. See Factor D under Summary of Factors

Affecting the Species.

In addition, we are aware of several very effective raptor

management plans that were cooperatively developed by land managers,

representatives of the climbing community, and other interested parties

(plans that contain effective public education components). Some

examples include plans developed by the Prescott National Forest in

Arizona, Yosemite National Park in California, Adirondack State Park in

New York, Zion National Park in Utah, Smith Rock State Park in Oregon,

the Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina, and the Colorado

National Monument in Colorado. All of these plans include seasonal rock

climbing restrictions to prevent disturbance of raptor nests from rock

climbing activities. The development of more of these partnerships is

essential to the preservation of the peregrine falcon and the sport of

rock climbing. Organizations like the Access Fund which represent the

climbing community have continued to express a strong desire to work

with both private and public land managers to resolve any conflicts

originating from the use of cliffs by climbers.

Issue 3: The Act's section 6 funds currently being used by States

to support peregrine falcon monitoring programs will not be available

once the peregrine is delisted.

Our Response: We are authorized through the Secretary of the

Interior to provide grants to States to assist in monitoring the status

of recovered species pursuant to section 4(g) under section 6 of the

Act. Existing and future Federal assistance in the form of section 6

funding to States for conservation work will not be affected by the

delisting, as long as States continue to identify monitoring peregrine

falcons as a high priority.

Issue 4: The data do not support delisting the American peregrine

falcon throughout its range in the United States. The Service should

consider downlisting the American peregrine falcon to threatened rather

than delisting.

Our Response: Recent data show improvements in numbers of breeding

pairs of peregrine falcons and productivity (Refer to Table 1,

``Recovery Status,'' and ``Summary of Peregrine Falcon Recovery''), and

demonstrate that goals set for numbers and productivity for the

American peregrine falcon recovery plans were met or exceeded. The

combined population size goal for the four American peregrine falcon

recovery plans is 456 pairs. Currently, a minimum of 1,425 known pairs

occupy sites in Alaska, Canada, and the western United States, and a

number of additional pairs have probably gone undetected. Overall

average productivity goals in all four American peregrine falcon

recovery plans, using productivity as a recovery criterion, were met or

exceeded.

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 Recovery 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 in Alaska

indicate DDT levels at less than 3.5 ppm, exceeding that goal, and

eggshell thinning is at 12.1 percent. Measurements for eggshell

thinning were not 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-1970s (refer to Rocky Mountain/Southwest

section under Recovery Status).

Three of 5 peregrine falcon recovery units in the eastern United

States have met recovery goals, and 193 pairs documented in 1998

indicate the overall recovery goal of 175-200 pairs was met. In

addition, another 32 pairs are nesting in areas of the Midwest outside

the recovery units specified in the Eastern Plan but nevertheless

contribute to overall restoration goals.

We believe that the species has essentially achieved the goals

established for recovery and, in many areas, has exceeded the goals. We

believe the available information supports full delisting of the

species throughout its range, and the species clearly is not in danger

of extinction, is not likely to become endangered within the

foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range, and

warrants full delisting.

Issue 5: American peregrine falcons should not be delisted because

they are not restored throughout the historical range.

Our Response: We have determined the American peregrine falcon has

recovered throughout its historical range. Restoration of the American

peregrine falcon within every area throughout its historical range is

not required by the Act, is not required for recovery, nor was it a

goal of any of the recovery plans. 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. Although a few, localized areas have not quite

met their numerical recovery goals, the overall status of the American

peregrine falcon has improved significantly such that it is considered

recovered and warrants delisting. As a species recovers in numbers and

populations expand, more of the historical range can be re-occupied

where appropriate habitat remains.

Issue 6: There are gaps in the scientific knowledge about American

peregrine falcon biology. A population viability analysis was not done,

and genetic diversity, viable population size, population dynamics, and

long-term stability of populations have not been determined.

Our 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 always essential,

however, to determine when a species has achieved recovery,

particularly in the case of the American peregrine falcon. It is

evident that

[[Page 46552]]

recovery of this subspecies was 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 were met or exceeded, with few

exceptions.

Issue 7: Organochlorine pesticides still persist within the

breeding range of the American peregrine falcon and continue to depress

natural productivity.

Our Response: We recognize that although the peregrine falcon has

made a dramatic recovery throughout its historical range in the United

States, the presence of environmental contaminants is still affecting

the productivity of certain regional populations. Eggs collected on the

eastern shore of Virginia and Maryland had slightly elevated levels of

DDE, dieldrin, and mercury, which was associated with reproductive

problems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). On the Channel Islands

in California, particularly Catalina, populations are still affected by

organochlorine residues and eggshell thinning (Jarman 1994). In west

Texas, heavy metal contamination, particularly mercury may be

depressing productivity (A. Sansom, in litt.1995). Residual mercury

from mines operated along the Rio Grande River in the early 1900s is

the suspected source of this contamination (B. McKinney, pers. comm.

1997). We recognize the possible threat that environmental contaminants

pose to the sustained recovery of this species and therefore, will

include a contaminant monitoring component in the post-delisting

monitoring plan. Refer to Factor E under Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species, for an in-depth discussion of contaminants. See also our

response to issue 8.

Issue 8: 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.

Our Response: Comparisons of blood samples collected during fall

and spring migration indicate that, although migrant peregrine falcons

are known to 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 use of organochlorines in Latin America, the

American peregrine falcon has recovered over its historical range, and

Arctic peregrine falcons, which also winter in Latin America, were

delisted due to their recovery. Refer to Factor E under Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species 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 on DDT, and is facilitating international

cooperation on combating malaria in these regions without the continued

use of organochlorine pesticides. This effort could eventually

eliminate or reduce one source of DDT in Central and South American

countries.

Issue 9: The take of American peregrine falcons for falconry after

its delisting will create an additional threat to the subspecies.

Our Response: Delisting the American peregrine falcon will not

affect the protection given to all migratory bird species, including

the peregrine falcon, under the MBTA. The regulations issued pursuant

to the MBTA allow for issuance of permits to take raptors for falconry

and other purposes provided the taking will not threaten wildlife

populations (50 CFR 21.28 and 13.21(b)). Currently we are working with

State wildlife agencies to develop biological criteria and two

management plans to govern the issuance of permits for take of

peregrine falcons to ensure the taking does not negatively impact wild

populations, particularly those in need of further restoration. The

first management plan will deal with the take of eyas (nestling)

peregrines. A second management plan will deal with the take of passage

(migrating first-year) peregrines. The management plans will include

criteria for harvest, implementation criteria, and procedures for

evaluating effects of the harvest. They will pertain to the take of all

wild peregrine falcons in the U.S., including the American peregrine

falcon, and will apply to all falconry, raptor propagation, and

scientific collecting permits. Take will not be permitted under the

MBTA until the draft management plans undergo public review, are

approved, finalized, and published in the Federal Register. Some

exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis for scientific purposes.

The effects of take for all purposes will be assessed during the

monitoring period following delisting. Refer to Factor D under the

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section and the Effects of

This Rule section for further information.

Issue 10: The Canadian Wildlife Service has expressed concern that

American peregrine falcons breeding in Canada but migrating to or

through the United States will be taken for falconry purposes.

Our Response: Canada's recovery program for American peregrine

falcons is still in progress and the Canadian government is concerned

that any take of American peregrines migrating from Canada could impact

recovery. We are working with the governments of Canada and Greenland

in considering the appropriateness of harvest of peregrines migrating

through the United States. If take of these passage birds is approved,

it would be designed to avoid take of American peregrines originating

in Canada and instead target the more abundant Arctic peregrines from

northern Alaska, Canada, and Greenland.

Issue 11: The Service cannot consider delisting the American

peregrine falcon until all recovery goals in the four existing recovery

plans for this subspecies are met or exceeded.

Our Response: Section 4(f) of the Act directs us 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 us to determine when

recovery for a particular species is achieved. Meeting or exceeding all

of the specific recovery goals for a listed species is not required by

the Act before delisting can occur.

We determine whether recovery is achieved based on a species'

performance relative to the goals set in its recovery plan and the best

available scientific information. A species is considered recovered

when it is no longer in danger of 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

American peregrine falcon has either met, exceeded, or is very close to

meeting the recovery goals set for this subspecies throughout its

range. We believe that the intent of all the objectives are met and

that the recovery of the subspecies justifies delisting.

Issue 12: The eastern peregrine falcon population has not met the

recovery goals set forth in the Eastern Recovery

[[Page 46553]]

Plan and, therefore, should remain on the endangered species list.

Our Response: The eastern peregrine falcon population is protected

only due to the similarity of appearance to F. p. anatum, which has

protected individual eastern peregrine falcons from direct take. Thus,

their status with respect to recovery has no direct impact on the

decision to delist the American peregrine falcon. Nevertheless, we have

supported and still fully support the restoration of this population.

Data through 1998 on the status of the eastern peregrine falcon

population indicate that the intent of the recovery goals set for this

population are met. The recovery plan established 2 recovery objectives

including (1) a minimum of 20-25 nesting pairs in each of 5 recovery

units which are 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 goals established for the number of breeding pairs for

those areas. However, the overall minimum of 175-200 successful pairs

in the eastern region was achieved, and over the past 6 years (1992-

1998), the number of territorial pairs has increased an average of 10

percent annually. There are now at least 193 pairs of peregrine falcons

in the eastern States where falcons were extirpated, and pairs are

successfully nesting throughout a greater range than was anticipated.

We believe the intent of the recovery objectives are satisfied and that

recovery of the peregrine in the eastern United States is sufficiently

established. Refer to the Recovery Status section for additional

discussion on this subject.

Issue 13: The status of the American peregrine falcon in Mexico was

not adequately addressed.

Our Response: While population status and trends for falcons

nesting in Mexico are not well known, American peregrine falcon

populations in the United States and Canada, including those migrating

to and from Latin America, have met or exceeded their criteria for

delisting. Restoration of the American peregrine falcon within every

area throughout its historical range is not required by the Act, nor is

it required for recovery. Mexico's proposed phased reduction of DDT

under the North American Regional Action Plan will make a significant

contribution toward increasing peregrine falcon populations in Mexico.

Refer to the Mexico section under Recovery Status for additional

discussion on this subject.

Issue 14: The Service's delisting proposal is not supported by an

adequate scientific review.

Our Response: The proposed rule to remove the peregrine falcon in

North America from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife received reviews from a variety of scientific institutions and

individual scientists. Two examples are the Ornithological Council and

the Raptor Research Foundation. The Ornithological Council consists of

nine leading scientific ornithological societies: the American

Ornithologists' Union, Association of Field Ornithologists, Consejo

Internacional para la Preservacion de las Aves, Cooper Ornithological

Society, Colonial Waterbird Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor

Research Foundation, Society of Caribbean Ornithology, and Wilson

Ornithological Society. Together it has a membership of approximately

6,500 ornithologists. One of its primary missions is to provide

scientific information about birds to legislators, regulatory agencies,

industry decision makers, conservation organizations and others, and to

promote the use of scientific information in the making of policies

that affect birds.

The task of evaluating the proposed rule on behalf of the

Ornithological Council was accepted by a committee of Raptor Research

Foundation scientists. The Raptor Research Foundation is a scientific

society that represents professional raptor scientists and managers

throughout North America and around the world. This committee of raptor

scientists reviewed the available data and submitted a report that was

endorsed by both the Ornithological Council and the Raptor Research

Foundation as their position on the proposed rule. This report

underwent peer review and was published in the Wildlife Society

Bulletin (Millsap et al., 1998, WSB 26(3); 522-538). While expressing

some concern about the status of the eastern peregrine population, the

authors concurred with our position that the peregrine falcon warranted

delisting range-wide.

Issue 15: Recovery plans used to evaluate the recovery of the

peregrine falcon are out of date and need to be revised to reflect more

accurate contemporary goals and the Service should not misrepresent the

goals in the current plans.

Our Response: As addressed in our response to Issue 11, section

4(f) of the Act directs us 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.

One of the main purposes of the recovery plan is to enumerate goals

(guidelines) that will help us to determine when recovery of a

particular species is achieved. Meeting or exceeding all of the

specific recovery goals for a listed species before it can be delisted

is not required by the Act. Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50

CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the

Act, establish the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting

species. We may list a species 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) the original data for

classification of the species were in error. We have determined that

substantial peregrine falcon recovery has taken place, and none of the

five factors addressed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is currently

negatively affecting the peregrine falcon to the degree that the

species is endangered or threatened.

Issue 16: Post-delisting monitoring for at least 5 years is

essential.

Our Response: We agree. Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the

Secretary to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to

monitor 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 requires the protection of

the Act, it would be relisted.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the 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. We may list a species 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

[[Page 46554]]

best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the

species is neither endangered or threatened because of (1) extinction,

(2) recovery, or (3) the original data for classification of the

species were in error.

After a thorough review of all available information, we have

determined that substantial peregrine falcon recovery has taken place

since the early 1980s. We determined 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 no longer 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 were affected by human-caused habitat modification

varies widely by region, habitat type, and individual falcons within

the population.

As the human population has grown in North America, the rate of

habitat alteration has unquestionably increased. Certainly some

peregrine falcon habitat was 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 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

burdensome 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 1970s

or early 1980s. 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 habitat modification in

North America, we conclude that habitat modification or destruction was

not 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 the peregrine

falcon by the MBTA. The take of all migratory birds, including

peregrine falcons, is governed by the MBTA's regulations on the taking

of migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational

purposes and requiring harvest be limited to levels that prevent

overutilization (See Factor D).

C. Disease or Predation

Peregrine falcons are susceptible to a number of diseases and

parasites such as tapeworms, mites, ticks, botulism, fowl pox, and

viral encephalitis (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982b; Trainer

(1969) as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). However, these

organisms are not known to affect the peregrine falcon at the

population level.

Mammals and other raptors are known to prey on peregrine falcons,

including such species as the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), red-

tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and coyote

(Canis latrans) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982b, 1984). For

example, great horned owls are natural predators of peregrine falcons

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) and are possibly responsible for

the slow recovery of peregrine falcons in the two northern recovery

areas 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.

Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are also known to prey on young

peregrine falcons. Barbara Behan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers.

comm. 1999) witnessed a golden eagle prey on young peregrine falcons at

a hack site in Colorado, stooping and footing one of the falcons, and

leaving the area with it in its talons. The same eagle, or another,

returned numerous times over the next several days, and the other four

falcons disappeared in that time, despite efforts by the hack site

attendants to scare the eagles away from the site.

Though the peregrine falcon is occasionally preyed upon, this

factor is not known to affect the peregrine falcon at the population

level.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Protection from take and commerce for the peregrine falcons under

the Endangered Species Act will be removed upon delisting. However,

peregrine falcons are still protected by the MBTA. Section 704 of the

MBTA states that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and

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

birds is 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 MBTA 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). Regulations at 50 CFR 21.28 and

21.30 authorize the issuance of permits to take, possess, transport and

engage in

[[Page 46555]]

commerce with raptors for falconry and for propagation. Other

regulations authorize the issuance of permits for scientific collecting

(50 CFR 21.23), special purposes such as rehabilitation or education

(50 CFR 21.27), and depredation (50 CFR 21.41). Prior to issuance of

these permits, meeting certain criteria is required, including a

requirement that the issuance will not threaten a wildlife population

(50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)). In cooperation with State wildlife agencies we

will develop draft biological criteria for management of take of wild

peregrines under the MBTA. The resulting management plans will include

biological criteria for take, implementation criteria, and procedures

for evaluating the effects of the taking. It will pertain to the take

of peregrines in the United States for falconry and other purposes.

With limited exceptions, take will not be permitted under MBTA until

the draft management plans undergo public review, are approved,

finalized, and published in the Federal Register. In addition to

considering the effect on wild populations, issuance of raptor

propagation permits requires that we 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 existing regulatory provisions will adequately protect

against excessive take of peregrine falcons. If necessary, protective

measures could be expanded by promulgation of a regulation under the

MBTA. We have both the legal authority and the obligation to regulate

take of peregrines under the MBTA (see additional discussion of the

MBTA in the Effects of this Rule section below).

In the absence of habitat protection under the Act, there are no

other existing Federal laws that specifically protect the habitat of

this species (see ``Critical Habitat''). However, loss of habitat was

not identified as a threat to the species and was not a factor

identified as contributing to the species' listing.

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 EPA

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 are not 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. 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 is not be altered by delisting the

peregrine falcon under the Act.

Peregrine falcons are still 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. United

States Forest Service 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. The delisting of the

peregrine falcon will require Federal land managers to 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 use for falconry, and may retain State threatened or endangered

status for the peregrine falcon (see 50 CFR 21.28). Depending on the

biological status, States generally list peregrine falcons as

endangered, threatened, critically imperiled or as a species of

concern. Currently, the peregrine falcon is State-listed in 38 of the

40 States that have nesting pairs. The two States that do not have the

species listed--Colorado and Arizona--removed the peregrine falcon from

their lists due to its recovery in those States. However, both will

continue to regulate take for falconry and other purposes. In many

States, falconry is administered cooperatively by the Service and the

States.

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 considered as possible 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 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 (Kiff 1988).

Although the use of all organochlorine pesticides causing

reproductive failure in peregrine falcons was restricted in the United

States and Canada in the early 1970s, their use continues in some areas

of Latin America. It was shown, by comparing blood samples collected

during fall and spring migration, that migrant peregrine falcons

accumulate 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 between 1978 and

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 (Henny et al. 1996).

The widespread reproductive failure and population decline of

peregrine

[[Page 46556]]

falcons 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 size 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 Federal 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. Overall, pesticide use in

Latin America does not appear to have adversely affected reproductive

success in American peregrine falcon populations in North America.

We recognize 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. Populations on the Channel Islands off

southern California are still affected by high organochlorine residues

and eggshell thinning (Jarman 1994). This is a localized threat, and

the result of using offshore islands as DDT disposal areas during the

1940s. 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 or dispersal from other areas where recovery is

greater (B. Walton, pers. comm. 1997). 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 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 recent years, numbers of

peregrine falcons have increased significantly throughout their

historical range 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). In southern Canada,

including the prairie region, the proportion of reintroduced young that

entered the breeding population was 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.

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 was 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 the Channel Islands off the southern coast of

California, the lingering effects of DDT have caused reproductive rates

to remain low. Local source contamination may even cause continued

reproductive problems in the Channel Islands. 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 re-colonized.

The peregrine falcon has recovered throughout its historical range.

Although the recovery is slow in a few parts of the historical range,

these areas represent a small portion of the species' overall 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. We conclude, therefore, that the continued existence of

the American peregrine falcon is no longer threatened by exposure to

organochlorine pesticides.

In summary, due to the reduction in the effects of pesticides and

widespread positive trends in population size, we have determined 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. We

considered the alternative of downlisting the species, but recent data

show improvements in breeding pair numbers and productivity,

demonstrating that the delisting goals set for the American peregrine

falcon in recovery plans were met or exceeded. We believe this

available information supports the full delisting of the species

throughout its range. Therefore, we are removing the peregrine falcon

from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, thus,

removing endangered status for the American peregrine falcon throughout

its range, and the similarity of appearance provision for all free-

flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous United States.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), we have 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 protections 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 peregrine

falcons.

[[Page 46557]]

Effects of This Rule

This final rule will affect the protection afforded to North

American peregrine falcons under the 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 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, as previously discussed, removal of the protection of

the Act will not affect the protection afforded all peregrine falcons

under the MBTA.

The take and use of peregrine falcons must comply with appropriate

State regulations. State regulations applying to falconry 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, all currently designated

American peregrine falcon critical habitat will be removed upon

publication of this final rule.

Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor a species for at

least 5 years after delisting. A monitoring plan was provided in the

proposed delisting rule on August 26, 1998 (63 FR 45446). We are

currently developing a revised monitoring plan which will be made

available for public review in the Federal Register in the near future.

Take for Falconry and Other Purposes

Wild American and Arctic peregrine falcons were unavailable for

falconry and raptor propagation in the contiguous United States since

these two subspecies of peregrine falcons were listed under the Act in

1970. In Alaska, the Arctic peregrine became available for take in 1994

when it was delisted, but take of this subspecies was still restricted

in the contiguous United States pursuant to the similarity of

appearance provision of the Act. Take of Peale's peregrines also was

restricted in the contiguous United States since 1984 pursuant to the

similarity of appearance provisions of the Act.

With this delisting, which removes protection of the Act,

regulation and management of peregrine falcons in the United States

will fall primarily under the MBTA and State regulations. In

anticipation of delisting, we are working with the State wildlife

agencies to develop draft biological criteria for management of take of

peregrines. These criteria will serve as the basis for discussions with

authorities in Canada and Greenland to identify appropriate limits for

take of passage birds. We will then prepare environmental assessments

on the management of nestlings and passage birds and solicit public

comment. The resulting management plans will include biological

criteria for harvest, implementation criteria, and procedures for

evaluating the harvest. One objective of the plans is to allow a level

of take that does not compromise continuing restoration of peregrine

falcons in North America. We expect to complete the management plan for

nestlings by the Spring of 2000, and the management plan for passage

birds by the Fall of 2000. Take of peregrine falcons in the

conterminous United States is not permitted under the MBTA until the

management plans undergo public review and are finalized, approved, and

published in the Federal Register. Some permit exceptions may be made

for scientific research. In Alaska, take of American peregrine falcons

is not permitted but take of Peale's and Arctic peregrines may be

authorized.

Executive Order 12866

This rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Office of Management and Budget (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)). We cannot conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of

information, unless we are in possession of a current OMB Control

Number. We intend to collect information from the public during the

post-delisting monitoring period. A description of the information that

will be collected was provided in the proposed delisting rule. We are

revising the monitoring plan that was described in the proposed

delisting rule, and will obtain a revised OMB Control Number for, and

request public comment on, the revised monitoring plan in the Federal

Register in the near future.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have 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. We published a notice

outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A list of all references cited herein is available upon request

from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

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).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we hereby amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, Title 50 of the

[[Page 46558]]

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 amended by removing the entries for

``Falcon, American peregrine, Falco peregrinus anatum'' and ``Falcon,

peregrine, Falco peregrinus'' under ``BIRDS'' from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Sec. 17.95 [Amended]

3. Section 17.95(b) is amended by removing the critical habitat

entry for ``American Peregrine Falcon.''

Dated: August 17, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-21959 Filed 8-20-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P