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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF04

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To

Remove the Peregrine Falcon in North America From the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to

remove the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) in North America from

the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The Service proposes

this action because the available data indicate that this species has

recovered following restrictions on organochlorine pesticides in the

United States and Canada and following implementation of successful

management activities. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 American peregrine

falcon pairs are found in Alaska, Canada, and the Western United

States, and a minimum of 205 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the

Eastern and Midwestern United States. Overall productivity goals in

four American peregrine falcon recovery plans were met or exceeded, and

most recovery goals for the eastern peregrine falcon population have

been met. The proposed action, if finalized, would remove the American

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) as an endangered species

from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and would remove

the designation of endangered due to similarity of appearance for any

free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous States. It

would remove all Endangered Species Act protections from all subspecies

and populations of North American Falco peregrinus. It would not affect

protection provided to this species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES). It would not affect the endangered listing status of the

Eurasian peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus peregrinus) under the

Endangered Species Act

ections from all subspecies

and populations of North American Falco peregrinus. It would not affect

protection provided to this species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES). It would not affect the endangered listing status of the

Eurasian peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus peregrinus) under the

Endangered Species Act.

This proposed rule includes a proposed 5-year post-delisting

monitoring plan as required for species that are delisted due to

recovery. Monitoring will include population trends, productivity, and

contaminant exposure. This proposed rule also provides notice that the

collection of information from the public expected to be associated

with the monitoring has been submitted to the Office of Management and

Budget for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties on the peregrine delisting

proposal must be received by November 24, 1998. Public hearing requests

must be received by October 13, 1998.

Comments from all interested parties on the collection of

information from the public during the 5-year monitoring period will be

considered if received on or before October 26, 1998. OMB has up to 60

days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond

after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should

receive public comments by September 25, 1998.

, 1998.

Comments from all interested parties on the collection of

information from the public during the 5-year monitoring period will be

considered if received on or before October 26, 1998. OMB has up to 60

days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond

after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should

receive public comments by September 25, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and other information concerning this proposal to

remove the peregrine falcon from the endangered species list should be

sent to Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,

California 93003 (facsimile: (805)644-3958). Comments and materials

received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the above address.

Comments and suggestions on specific information collection

requirements should be sent to the Desk Officer for the Interior

Department, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. The comments and

suggestions should also be directed to Rebecca Mullin, Service

Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, MS 224 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta at the above Ventura,

California, address, or at (805) 644-1766, for further information on

the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the endangered

species list. To request a copy of the information collection request,

explanatory information and related forms, contact Rebecca Mullin at

4 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mesta at the above Ventura,

California, address, or at (805) 644-1766, for further information on

the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the endangered

species list. To request a copy of the information collection request,

explanatory information and related forms, contact Rebecca Mullin at

(703) 358-2287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized raptor weighing

approximately 1000 grams (36 ounces) and having a wing span of 112

centimeters (44 inches). The adult peregrine falcon has a dark gray

back and crown, dark bars or streaks on a pale chest and abdomen, and

heavy malar (cheek) stripes on the face. Immature falcons are buff-

colored in front and have dark brown backs; adults are white or buff in

front and bluish-gray on their backs. Peregrines prey almost entirely

on other birds, and occasionally on bats, caught in midair.

The peregrine falcon has an almost worldwide distribution, with

three subspecies recognized in North America (Brown and Amadon 1968).

The Peale's falcon (F.p. pealei) is a year-round resident of the

northwest Pacific coast from northern Washington through British

Columbia to the Aleutian Islands. The Arctic peregrine falcon (F.p.

tundrius) nests in the tundra of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland and is

typically a long-distance migrant, wintering as far south as South

America. The American peregrine falcon occurs throughout much of North

America from the subarctic boreal forests of Alaska and Canada south to

Mexico. The American peregrine falcon nests from central Alaska,

central Yukon Territory, and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to

the Maritimes and

Canada, and Greenland and is

typically a long-distance migrant, wintering as far south as South

America. The American peregrine falcon occurs throughout much of North

America from the subarctic boreal forests of Alaska and Canada south to

Mexico. The American peregrine falcon nests from central Alaska,

central Yukon Territory, and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to

the Maritimes and

south (excluding coastal areas north of the Columbia River in

Washington and British Columbia) throughout western Canada and the

United States to Baja California, Sonora, and the highlands of central

Mexico (48 FR 8799, March 1, 1983). American peregrine falcons that

nest in subarctic areas generally winter in South America, while those

that nest at lower latitudes exhibit variable migratory behavior; some

are nonmigratory (Yates et al. 1988).

Since the early 1970s, efforts to reestablish peregrine falcons in

the Eastern and Midwestern United States have successfully returned

this species to areas from which it had been extirpated (See ``Eastern

United States'' under ``Peregrine Falcon Recovery''). Peregrine falcons

are now found nesting in all States within their historical range east

of the 100th meridian, except for Rhode Island and Arkansas.

Peregrine falcons declined precipitously in North America following

World War II (Kiff 1988). Research implicated organochlorine

pesticides, mainly 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethane

(DDT), applied in the United States and Canada during this same period,

as causing the decline (for a review, see Risebrough and Peakall 1988).

Use of these chemicals peaked in the 1950s and early 1960s and

continued through the early 1970s. Organochlorines and their

metabolites, including DDT and its principal metabolite DDE (1,1-

dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethylene), aldrin, dieldrin, and

others, are stable, persistent compounds that are stored in the fatty

tissues of animals ingesting contaminated food (Fyfe et al. 1988)

8).

Use of these chemicals peaked in the 1950s and early 1960s and

continued through the early 1970s. Organochlorines and their

metabolites, including DDT and its principal metabolite DDE (1,1-

dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethylene), aldrin, dieldrin, and

others, are stable, persistent compounds that are stored in the fatty

tissues of animals ingesting contaminated food (Fyfe et al. 1988).

Peregrine falcons and other animals near the top of the food web,

including ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), bald eagles (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), and brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), gradually

accumulated these toxins by eating contaminated prey.

Organochlorines can affect peregrine falcons either by causing

direct mortality or by adversely affecting reproduction. Because

mortality in wild birds is difficult to study, the effect of

organochlorines on mortality is not as well known as the effects on

reproduction. Organochlorines can adversely affect reproduction by

causing egg breakage, addling, hatching failure, and abnormal

reproductive behavior by the parent birds (Risebrough and Peakall

1988). DDE, a metabolite of DDT, prevents normal calcium deposition

during eggshell formation, resulting in thin-shelled eggs that are

susceptible to breakage during incubation. In general, populations

laying eggs with shells that averaged greater than 17 percent thinner

than normal, pre-DDT eggs had such high rates of reproductive failure

that the number of peregrine falcon pairs declined (Peakall and Kiff

1988).

During the period of DDT use in North America, eggshell thinning

and nesting failures were widespread in peregrine falcons, and in some

areas, successful reproduction virtually ceased (Hickey and Anderson

1969). As a result, there was a slow but drastic decline in the number

of peregrine falcons in many areas of North America. The degree of

exposure to these pesticides varied among different regions, and

peregrine falcon numbers in more contaminated areas suffered greater

declines

widespread in peregrine falcons, and in some

areas, successful reproduction virtually ceased (Hickey and Anderson

1969). As a result, there was a slow but drastic decline in the number

of peregrine falcons in many areas of North America. The degree of

exposure to these pesticides varied among different regions, and

peregrine falcon numbers in more contaminated areas suffered greater

declines. Peregrine falcons that nested outside of agricultural and

forested areas where DDT was heavily used were affected less, although

some individuals wintered in areas of pesticide use. Presumably all

individuals ate some migratory prey containing organochlorines (for

reviews, see Hickey and Anderson 1969; Kiff 1988; Peakall and Kiff

1988).

Peregrine falcons nesting in the agricultural and forested areas

east of the Mississippi River in the United States and in Eastern

Canada south of the boreal forest were the most heavily contaminated

and were essentially extirpated by the mid-1960's (Berger et al. 1969).

Peregrine falcons in the Great Plains States east of the Rocky

Mountains and south of the boreal forest in Canada and the United

States were also extirpated in the DDT era (Cade 1975, Enderson et al.

1995). No active eyries were found in surveys of 133 formerly used

peregrine falcon eyries in the latter part of the 1964 nesting season

in the Eastern United States and the Maritime Provinces in Canada

(Berger et al. 1969). By 1975, there were only three peregrine falcon

pairs in Alberta, and no other peregrine falcon pairs were found south

of latitude 60 deg. North and east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada

(Erickson et al. 1988).

West of the 100th meridian, peregrine falcons were not extirpated,

but were significantly reduced. Only 33 percent of historical nest

sites in the Rocky Mountains were still occupied by 1965 (Enderson

1969)

three peregrine falcon

pairs in Alberta, and no other peregrine falcon pairs were found south

of latitude 60 deg. North and east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada

(Erickson et al. 1988).

West of the 100th meridian, peregrine falcons were not extirpated,

but were significantly reduced. Only 33 percent of historical nest

sites in the Rocky Mountains were still occupied by 1965 (Enderson

1969). The peregrine falcon disappeared as a breeding species from

southern California, and major declines also occurred in other parts of

the western United States and in much of southern Canada and the

Northwest Territories (Kiff 1988). In contrast, peregrine falcons in

most areas of the Pacific coast of Alaska remained fairly stable during

this period, owing to their lower exposure to organochlorine

pesticides. Throughout much of western North America, the exact degree

of most local declines remains somewhat speculative due to a lack of

accurate pre-pesticide era census data. For example, in the

southwestern United States and mainland Mexico, peregrine falcons were

not censused until after the beginning of the use of organochlorines

(Kiff 1988).

Previous Federal Actions

Population declines due to negative impacts of DDT and its

metabolites on peregrine falcon reproduction and survival led the

Service to list two of the three North American subspecies, the Arctic

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) and the American peregrine

falcon, as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation

Act of 1969 (Pub.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). Arctic and American

peregrine falcons were included in the list of threatened and

endangered foreign species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495), and the native

list of endangered and threatened species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR

16047). Upon passage of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, the

native and foreign species lists were combined into a single list of

endangered and threatened species

rctic and American

peregrine falcons were included in the list of threatened and

endangered foreign species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495), and the native

list of endangered and threatened species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR

16047). Upon passage of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, the

native and foreign species lists were combined into a single list of

endangered and threatened species. Both the American and Arctic

peregrine falcon subspecies were listed as endangered throughout their

respective ranges. Only the Peale's peregrine falcon was reproducing at

near normal levels with only traces of DDT.

On March 1, 1983 (48 FR 8796), the Service published a proposed

rule to (1) reclassify the Arctic peregrine falcon from endangered to

threatened, (2) clarify that the peregrines nesting in western

Washington were to be considered American peregrine falcons for

purposes of the Act, and (3) designate all free-flying peregrine

falcons in the 48 conterminous States as endangered under similarity of

appearance provisions under section 4(e) of the Act. A rule finalizing

the proposal was published on March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10520). Pursuant to

the similarity of appearance provisions, species that are not

considered to be endangered or threatened may nevertheless be treated

as such for the purpose of providing protection to a species that is

biologically endangered or threatened.

On June 12, 1991, the Service announced in the Federal Register (56

FR 26969) a notice of status review of the American peregrine falcon

and the Arctic peregrine falcon. The Arctic peregrine falcon was

subsequently removed as a threatened species from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on October 5, 1994 (59 FR 50796) but

was still protected from

gically endangered or threatened.

On June 12, 1991, the Service announced in the Federal Register (56

FR 26969) a notice of status review of the American peregrine falcon

and the Arctic peregrine falcon. The Arctic peregrine falcon was

subsequently removed as a threatened species from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on October 5, 1994 (59 FR 50796) but

was still protected from

direct take in the lower 48 States due to the similarity of appearance

provision because the American peregrine falcon was still listed as

endangered.

The Service published an Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove

the American Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife (60 FR 34406) on June 30, 1995, based on data

indicating this subspecies was recovered following restrictions on the

use of organochlorine pesticides in the United States and Canada and

because of successful management activities, including the

reintroduction of captive-bred and relocated wild hatchling peregrine

falcons. Current data provides additional support for recovery of all

North American peregrine falcons, including the American peregrine

falcon subspecies (Table 1).

Table 1. American Peregrine Falcon and Eastern Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan Goals and Current (1997) Recovery

Status.

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

Comments/degree to which

Recovery plan Delisting goal Current status delisting goals are met

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

Alaska:

Pairs.......................... 28 pairs.............. 301 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 273 pairs.

Productivity (young/pair)...... 1.8 yg/pr............. 2.0 yg/pr............. Exceeded goal.

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

Eggshell thinning.............. less than 10%......... 12.1%................

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

Alaska:

Pairs.......................... 28 pairs.............. 301 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 273 pairs.

Productivity (young/pair)...... 1.8 yg/pr............. 2.0 yg/pr............. Exceeded goal.

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

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

prevented recovery; goal

probably too conservative.

Canada:

Pairs.......................... 60 pairs (10 each in 6 319 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 259 pairs.

zones).

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

Pacific Coast:

Pairs.......................... 185 pairs............. 239 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 54 pairs.

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

Rocky Mountain/Southwest:

Pairs.......................... 183 pairs............. 529 pairs............. Exceeded goal by 346 pairs.

Productivity................... 1.25 yg/pr............ 1.4 yg/pr............. Exceeded goal.

Eggshell thinning.............. less than 10%......... ...................... Goal measured by only a few

States; cannot be

assessed.

Eastern:

Pairs.............................. 175-200 pairs (with no 174 pairs............. Exceeded goal in 3 zones;

fewer than 20-25 in goals in other 2 zones

each of 5 recovery probably have been met; an

zones). additional 31 peregrine

falcon pairs occur in

several Midwestern States

not included under the

Eastern Plan.

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

Peregrine Falcon Recovery

s............. Exceeded goal in 3 zones;

fewer than 20-25 in goals in other 2 zones

each of 5 recovery probably have been met; an

zones). additional 31 peregrine

falcon pairs occur in

several Midwestern States

not included under the

Eastern Plan.

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

Peregrine Falcon Recovery

The most significant factor in the recovery of the peregrine falcon

was the restriction placed on the use of organochlorine pesticides. Use

of DDT was banned in Canada in 1970 and in the United States in 1972

(37 FR 13369, July 7, 1972). Restrictions that controlled the use of

aldrin and dieldrin were imposed in the United States in 1974 (39 FR

37246, October 18, 1974). Since implementation of these restrictions,

residues of the pesticides have significantly decreased in many regions

where they were formerly used. Consequently, reproductive rates in most

surviving peregrine falcon populations in North America improved, and

numbers began to increase (Kiff 1988).

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

implement recovery plans for listed species. Recovery plans for

peregrine falcons called for captive rearing and release of birds in

several areas of North America. In the Eastern United States where

peregrine falcons were extirpated, the initial recovery objective was

to reestablish peregrine falcons through the release of offspring from

a variety of wild stocks being held in captivity by falconers. The

first experimental releases of captive-produced young occurred in 1974

and 1975 in the United States.

Later, reintroduction was also pursued in Eastern Canada using only

Falco peregrinus anatum breeding stock from the boreal part of the

species' range. All peregrine falcons released to augment wild

populations in western North America west of the 100th meridian, where

small numbers of American peregrines survived the pesticide era, were

derived from western F. p. anatum stock

United States.

Later, reintroduction was also pursued in Eastern Canada using only

Falco peregrinus anatum breeding stock from the boreal part of the

species' range. All peregrine falcons released to augment wild

populations in western North America west of the 100th meridian, where

small numbers of American peregrines survived the pesticide era, were

derived from western F. p. anatum stock.

In Alaska and northwest Canada, American peregrine falcon

populations were locally depressed, but enough individuals survived the

pesticide era to allow populations to expand without the need for

release of captive-bred falcons. Likewise, in the Southwestern United

States, very few captive-bred birds were released, and populations

recovered naturally following restrictions on the use of organochlorine

pesticides. In southwest Canada, the northern Rocky Mountain States,

and the Pacific Coast States, however, local populations were greatly

depressed or extirpated, and over 3400 young American peregrine falcons

were released to promote recovery in those areas (Enderson et al.

1995).

American peregrine falcon population growth was noted in Alaska in

the late 1970s (Ambrose et al. 1988b) and by 1980 in many other areas

(Enderson et al. 1995). The rate of increase varied among regions of

North America, undoubtedly influenced by variation in patterns of

pesticide use, potential differences in the rate of pesticide

degradation, and the degree to which local populations had declined.

Populations in some portions of the range of American peregrine

falcons, such as Alaska and northwest Canada and Southwestern United

States, reached densities several years ago that suggested recovery was

approaching completion (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Mossop 1988; G. Holroyd,

Canadian Wildlife Service, in litt. 1993; Enderson et al. 1995).

Residual organochlorine pesticide contamination continues to affect

eggshells in some areas, such as portions of coastal California (Jarman

1994) and western Texas (Bonnie R

stern United

States, reached densities several years ago that suggested recovery was

approaching completion (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Mossop 1988; G. Holroyd,

Canadian Wildlife Service, in litt. 1993; Enderson et al. 1995).

Residual organochlorine pesticide contamination continues to affect

eggshells in some areas, such as portions of coastal California (Jarman

1994) and western Texas (Bonnie R. Mckinney, Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department, pers. comm. 1997), but these effects are localized. Despite

these localized effects and the variation in the rate of increase among

regions, local populations throughout North America have increased in

size, and positive trends in nearly all areas suggest that an extensive

recovery of American peregrine falcons has taken place.

Eastern Peregrine Population

The Eastern peregrine population has a relatively unique history

and complex status under the Act. As stated previously, peregrine

falcons were extirpated in the eastern United States and southeastern

Canada by the mid-1960s. In 1974, shortly after the passage of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Audubon Society sponsored

a meeting of experts in peregrine biology, including representatives

from the Service, to address the conservation of the species in North

America. This sparked the beginning of an effort to reestablish the

peregrine in the East through the introduction of offspring from

parents of multiple subspecies. Peregrine falcons were raised in

captivity from parent subspecies then listed as endangered (Falco

peregrinus anatum, F. p. tundrius, F. p. peregrinus), unlisted

subspecies (F. p. pealei, F. p. brookei, etc.), and combinations of

these subspecies. The first experimental releases of captive-produced

young in the eastern States occurred in 1974 and 1975

ing from

parents of multiple subspecies. Peregrine falcons were raised in

captivity from parent subspecies then listed as endangered (Falco

peregrinus anatum, F. p. tundrius, F. p. peregrinus), unlisted

subspecies (F. p. pealei, F. p. brookei, etc.), and combinations of

these subspecies. The first experimental releases of captive-produced

young in the eastern States occurred in 1974 and 1975. These and future

releases, coordinated by the Service, State fish and wildlife agencies,

and representatives of The Peregrine Fund, demonstrated that hacking,

the practice of retaining and feeding young captive-bred birds in

partial captivity until they learn to fly and hunt on their own, was an

effective method of introducing captive-bred peregrines to the wild

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Releases, primarily of Falco

peregrinus anatum, continue on a small scale today.

In 1978, the Director of the Service issued a policy statement

confirming support for the use of North American peregrines to

establish an Eastern peregrine falcon population, supported with

endangered species funds, and the use of peregrines from other

geographic areas for specific research purposes. The policy applied

only to peregrine falcons in the east.

In 1979, the Service published the first Eastern Peregrine Falcon

Recovery Plan, the first of four U.S. regional plans to be developed,

to guide the restoration of the peregrine in the East. The Eastern Plan

covered the areas extending to the western borders of the States of

Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and included the Gulf

Coast of Texas. The primary objective of the Plan was to restore a new

self-sustaining population of peregrine falcons in the eastern United

States through preservation and management of essential habitat,

captive propagation and release, protection of the population from

take, elimination of harmful environmental pollutants, and public

education

i, Arkansas, Louisiana, and included the Gulf

Coast of Texas. The primary objective of the Plan was to restore a new

self-sustaining population of peregrine falcons in the eastern United

States through preservation and management of essential habitat,

captive propagation and release, protection of the population from

take, elimination of harmful environmental pollutants, and public

education.

Reflecting a 1983 Department of the Interior Solicitor opinion that

progeny of intercrosses between listed and unlisted species were not

covered under the Act, the Service modified the regulatory status of

mixed heritage birds. Through the rulemaking process reclassifying the

Arctic peregrine falcon from threatened to endangered status (48 FR

8796, March 1, 1983; 49 FR 10520, March 20, 1984), all free-flying

Falco peregrinus in the lower 48 States were designated as Endangered

due to Similarity of Appearance to ``pure'' listed American and Arctic

peregrines (F. p. anatum and F. p. tundrius). This was done because the

intercrossed birds were not readily distinguishable from American and

Arctic peregrines, making enforcement of the taking prohibitions of the

Act for listed subspecies difficult. The Similarity of Appearance

provision of section 4(e) of the Act provides that species (or

subspecies or other groups of wildlife) that are not considered to be

biologically Endangered or Threatened may nevertheless be treated as

such for the purpose of providing protection to a species that is.

Accordingly, to ensure protection from illegal take of American and

Arctic peregrine falcons that may be nesting, migrating, or wintering

in the lower 48 States, the Service extended the taking prohibitions of

section 9 of the Act to all free-flying peregrines in the lower 48

States through the Similarity of Appearance provision.

The 1983 Solicitor opinion that progeny of intercrosses were not

covered by the Act was subsequently withdrawn by the Solicitor's Office

in 1990

ne falcons that may be nesting, migrating, or wintering

in the lower 48 States, the Service extended the taking prohibitions of

section 9 of the Act to all free-flying peregrines in the lower 48

States through the Similarity of Appearance provision.

The 1983 Solicitor opinion that progeny of intercrosses were not

covered by the Act was subsequently withdrawn by the Solicitor's Office

in 1990. Thus, notwithstanding the Similarity of Appearance

designation, the Service has continued to fully support the restoration

of the Eastern peregrine under the 1991 revised Eastern recovery plan.

The Eastern peregrine falcon is being considered on a par with the

American peregrine falcon.

Recovery Status

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

implement recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, the Service

appoints recovery teams of experts to assist in the writing of recovery

plans. In cooperation with the Service, recovery teams produced four

regional peregrine falcon recovery plans, including three recovery

plans for the American peregrine falcon in Alaska and the Western

United States, and one for the peregrine in the Eastern United States.

Although no United States recovery plans established recovery criteria

for peregrine falcons nesting outside of the United States, the

Canadian Wildlife Service published an Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Plan (Erickson et. al. 1988) for American peregrine falcons in Canada.

The current status of the subspecies in Mexico is discussed below,

although no recovery plan or recovery objectives were established for

Mexico.

To aid in assessing peregrine falcon recovery, the current status

is compared to specific recovery plan objectives for American peregrine

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

Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, and for (5) the peregrine falcons in

the Eastern United States.

Alaska

although no recovery plan or recovery objectives were established for

Mexico.

To aid in assessing peregrine falcon recovery, the current status

is compared to specific recovery plan objectives for American peregrine

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

Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, and for (5) the peregrine falcons in

the Eastern United States.

Alaska

The Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan, Alaska Population (Alaska

Recovery Plan) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982a) includes both

Arctic and American peregrine falcons nesting in Alaska. The following

discussion relates only to provisions regarding the American peregrine

falcon, as the Arctic peregrine falcon was delisted on October 5, 1994

(59 FR 50796).

The Alaskan Recovery Plan established recovery objectives based on

four measurements for assessing the status of American peregrine

falcons including (1) population size, (2) reproductive performance,

(3) pesticide residues in eggs, and (4) eggshell thickness. The

recovery objectives included (1) 28 nesting pairs in 2 specified study

areas (16 in upper Yukon and 12 in upper Tanana), (2) an average of 1.8

young per territorial pair, (3) average organochlorine concentration in

eggs of less than 5 ppm (parts per million ppm, wet weight basis DDE),

and (4) eggshells no more than 10 percent thinner than pre-DDT era

eggshells. The Alaska Recovery Plan suggested that these objectives be

maintained in the specified study areas for 5 years before

reclassifying from endangered to threatened status and remain constant

or improve for an additional 5 years before delisting.

Surveys were conducted in the two study areas, the upper Yukon and

Tanana Rivers, for which historical population data were available

using consistent methodology from 1973 to

uggested that these objectives be

maintained in the specified study areas for 5 years before

reclassifying from endangered to threatened status and remain constant

or improve for an additional 5 years before delisting.

Surveys were conducted in the two study areas, the upper Yukon and

Tanana Rivers, for which historical population data were available

using consistent methodology from 1973 to

the present so trends would be discernable. Surveys conducted between

1966 and 1997 along the upper Yukon River demonstrated increases in the

number of occupied nesting territories from a low of 11 known pairs in

1973 to 44 pairs in 1997 (Ambrose et al. 1988b; Robert Ambrose, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997a). Similarly, along the upper

Tanana River, the number of occupied nesting territories increased from

2 in 1975 to 27 in 1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). The recovery

objective of 28 occupied nesting territories in the 2 study areas was

first achieved (post-DDT) in 1982 and the number has increased steadily

since that time to the current level of 71 occupied nesting territories

in 1997 (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997). Thus, the recovery objective of

28 occupied nesting territories has been achieved and surpassed for 15

years.

Productivity measured along the upper Yukon and Tanana Rivers fell

to a low of about 1.0 young per territorial pair per year (yg/pr) in

the late 1960s, but began to increase in the mid-1970s. By 1982,

productivity exceeded the objective of 1.8 yg/pr and varied between

approximately 1.6 and 3.0 yg/pr each year since then; the annual

average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=283 nests/pairs) between 1994 and

1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). From the late 1970s to the present,

productivity was sufficient to allow an average annual increase of

approximately 8 percent in the number of breeding pairs. Productivity

was similar in several other areas in interior Alaska (R. Ambrose,

pers. comm. 1997)

h year since then; the annual

average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=283 nests/pairs) between 1994 and

1997 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997a). From the late 1970s to the present,

productivity was sufficient to allow an average annual increase of

approximately 8 percent in the number of breeding pairs. Productivity

was similar in several other areas in interior Alaska (R. Ambrose,

pers. comm. 1997). A minimum of 301 breeding pairs of American

peregrine falcons currently nest in Alaska.

Mean concentrations of DDE in peregrine falcon eggs in excess of

15-20 ppm are associated with high rates of nesting failure, whereas

productivity is usually sufficient to maintain population size if

residues average less than this concentration (Peakall et al. 1975,

Newton et al. 1989). In Alaska, average DDE residues in American

peregrine falcons averaged 12.2 ppm from 1979 to 1984, 5.8 ppm from

1988 to 1991, and 3.5 ppm from 1993 to 1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt.

1997b) and probably declined below the recovery objective of 5 ppm

sometime between 1984 and 1988 (Ambrose et al. 1988a).

In Alaska, eggshells were estimated to be as much as 20-22 percent

thinner than pre-DDT era shells in the mid-1960s (Cade et al. 1968). By

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

DDT era (Ambrose et al. 1988a; R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1995). Eggshell

thickness averaged 13.0 percent from 1979 to 1984, 13.1 from 1988 to

1991 and 12.1 from 1993 to 1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997b). The

average thickness of pre-DDT American peregrine falcon eggs from Alaska

is not precisely known, so current estimates of thinning could be

inaccurate to some degree. Reproduction has been sufficient, however,

to allow consistent population growth since the late 1970's, and

productivity has, on average, exceeded its stated recovery objective

for 15 years

1995 (R. Ambrose, in litt. 1997b). The

average thickness of pre-DDT American peregrine falcon eggs from Alaska

is not precisely known, so current estimates of thinning could be

inaccurate to some degree. Reproduction has been sufficient, however,

to allow consistent population growth since the late 1970's, and

productivity has, on average, exceeded its stated recovery objective

for 15 years.

In summary, based on the most current information (1997 survey and

early 1990 contamination data) the Service concludes that the basic

goals underlying all four objectives have been met or exceeded. The

number of pairs occupying nesting territories in the two study areas

and productivity exceeded, on average, the recovery objectives for the

past 15 years. Neither DDE residues in eggs nor eggshell thinning has

prevented a dramatic population growth since the late 1970's.

Canada

The 1988 Anatum Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan for Canada (Canadian

Recovery Plan) (Erickson et al. 1988) categorizes the historical range

of the American peregrine falcon throughout Canada into three regions,

which include the Western Mountains, Interior Plains, and the Eastern

Seaboard and Great Lakes. These regions are subdivided into nine zones

on the basis of historical population levels, habitat, political

boundaries, and restoration needs. The zones are (1) Maritime, (2)

Great Lakes, (3) Prairies, (4) Mackenzie River Valley, (5) Northern

Mountains, (6) Southern Mountains, (7) Eastern Mackenzie Watershed, (8)

Western Canadian Shield, and the (9) Eastern Canadian Shield. Coastal

British Columbia is excluded from consideration in the Canadian

Recovery Plan since this area is considered to be occupied by F. p.

pealei.

The goal of the Canadian Recovery Plan is to increase the wild

American peregrine falcon population in Canada so the subspecies is no

longer considered endangered or threatened by the Committee on the

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The proposed objectives are

is excluded from consideration in the Canadian

Recovery Plan since this area is considered to be occupied by F. p.

pealei.

The goal of the Canadian Recovery Plan is to increase the wild

American peregrine falcon population in Canada so the subspecies is no

longer considered endangered or threatened by the Committee on the

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The proposed objectives are

(1) to establish by 1992 a minimum of 10 territorial American peregrine

falcon pairs in each of Zones 1 to 6 and (2) to establish by 1997, in

each of 5 of these 6 zones, a minimum of 10 pairs naturally fledging 15

(1.5 yg/yr) or more young annually, measured as a 5-year average

beginning in 1993. No recovery goals were established for Zones 7, 8,

and 9. The Canadian Recovery Plan does not contain separate objectives

for reclassification of the subspecies in Canada from its current

endangered status to threatened.

The Canadian Wildlife Service has coordinated and published a

national range-wide peregrine falcon population survey once every 5

years starting in 1990. The results of the 1995 national population

survey were used in the following status summary of the American

peregrine falcon in Canada (Ursula Banasch, Canadian Wildlife Service,

in litt. 1997).

There are 98 known nest sites in Zones 1 and 2 (southern Ontario

and Quebec, northern Great Lakes, Bay of Fundy and Labrador), and

surveys located 64 pairs. There are 98 known nest sites in Zone 3

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

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

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

(Yukon), and surveys located 113 pairs. There are 50 known nest sites

in Zone 6 (Interior British Columbia), and surveys located 18 pairs.

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

minimum goals achieved for every recovery zone

ere are 117 known nest sites in Zone 4 (eastern N.W. Territories),

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

(Yukon), and surveys located 113 pairs. There are 50 known nest sites

in Zone 6 (Interior British Columbia), and surveys located 18 pairs.

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

minimum goals achieved for every recovery zone.

The only comprehensive range-wide productivity surveys available to

the Service were the national population surveys coordinated by the

Canadian Wildlife Service in 1990 and 1995 (U. Banasch, in litt. 1997;

Holroyd and Banasch 1996). Surveys conducted in the intervening years

were not nationally coordinated and therefore were not complete. Thus,

the Service used the combined average annual productivity data

collected in the 1990 and 1995 surveys to address this recovery

objective.

In Zones 1 and 2, average productivity was 1.7 yg/pr (N=104 nests)

. In Zone 3, average productivity was 1.5 yg/pr (N=55). In Zone 4,

average productivity was 2.0 yg/pr (N=171). In Zone 5, average

productivity was 1.8 yg/pr (N=626). No productivity data were available

for Zone 6. The 2-year average annual productivity for the Canadian

population of American peregrine falcons was 1.8 yg/pr.

In summary, the Canadian Recovery Plan identified two objectives to

determine recovery for the American peregrine falcon population in

Canada. Based on current available information, it is apparent that

both objectives have been met. The total number of pairs for all 6

zones in 1995 was 319, with minimum goals achieved for every recovery

zone. This count exceeds the total recovery goal of 60 pairs by 259.

The average annual productivity data

wo objectives to

determine recovery for the American peregrine falcon population in

Canada. Based on current available information, it is apparent that

both objectives have been met. The total number of pairs for all 6

zones in 1995 was 319, with minimum goals achieved for every recovery

zone. This count exceeds the total recovery goal of 60 pairs by 259.

The average annual productivity data

for 1990 and 1995 either met or exceeded objectives in 5 of the 6 zones

with an average annual productivity of 1.8 yg/pr for the Canadian

American peregrine falcon population.

Although the Canadian Recovery Plan did not identify pesticide

residue or eggshell thinning levels as recovery objectives, 205 eggs

and 62 samples from 28 specimens of peregrine falcons were collected in

Canada between 1965 and 1987 to assess organochlorine residue

concentrations. In all three subspecies (Falco peregrinus anatum, F. p.

tundrius, F. p. pealei) the proportion of specimens having residue

concentrations above established critical values (concentration at

which egg failure occurs, which varies among organochlorine

contaminants) has decreased and can be correlated with improvements in

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

Pacific Coast

The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1982b) for the American Peregrine Falcon, Pacific Population,

recommends that (1) 122 pairs be established in a specified

distribution spanning California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada and

that (2) these pairs achieve an average fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr

for consideration of reclassification to threatened status. It further

recommends that with attainment of (3) 185 wild, self-sustaining pairs

(California 120, Oregon 30, Washington 30, Nevada 5) and (4) an average

fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr for a 5-year period the subspecies can be

considered for delisting. Only the latter two objectives regarding

delisting are discussed in this proposal

for consideration of reclassification to threatened status. It further

recommends that with attainment of (3) 185 wild, self-sustaining pairs

(California 120, Oregon 30, Washington 30, Nevada 5) and (4) an average

fledging success of 1.5 yg/pr for a 5-year period the subspecies can be

considered for delisting. Only the latter two objectives regarding

delisting are discussed in this proposal. The Pacific Population Plan

defines a ``self-sustaining'' population as one whose natural

productivity without human management is equal to or greater than its

mortality.

By 1976, because of DDT, no American peregrine falcons could be

found at 14 historical sites in Washington; Oregon had also lost most

of its peregrine falcons. In addition, only 1 or 2 pairs remained on

the California coast, with no more than 10 nest sites known to be

occupied in the entire State (Cade 1994). A steadily increasing number

of American peregrine falcon pairs breeding in Washington, Oregon, and

Nevada were indicated by surveys from 1991 to 1997; known pairs in

Washington increased from 17 to 44, in Oregon from 23 to 42, and in

Nevada from 3 to 6 (Gary Herron, Nevada Division of Wildlife, pers.

comm. 1997; Martin Nugent, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in

litt. 1997; David Anderson, Washington Department of Fish and Game, in

litt. 1997). The number of American peregrine falcons in California

increased from an estimated low of 5-10 breeding pairs in the early

1970's (Herman 1971) to a minimum of 147 occupied sites in 1997 (Santa

Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group 1997). The increase in California

has been concurrent with the restriction of DDT and management that

included the release of over 750 American peregrine falcons, including

captive-reared and relocated wild hatchlings, through 1997 (Walton

1997). Recovery of American peregrine falcons in some areas of

California, however, has been impeded by continuing elevated DDT levels

(Jarman 1994, Walton 1997)

The increase in California

has been concurrent with the restriction of DDT and management that

included the release of over 750 American peregrine falcons, including

captive-reared and relocated wild hatchlings, through 1997 (Walton

1997). Recovery of American peregrine falcons in some areas of

California, however, has been impeded by continuing elevated DDT levels

(Jarman 1994, Walton 1997). Based on currently available information,

it is evident that the first recovery objective has been met; a minimum

known population of 239 pairs exceeds the delisting goal of 185 by 54

pairs, and the distribution goals also have been met in all four

States. Surveys conducted from 1991 to 1997 demonstrate a steadily

increasing number of American peregrine falcon pairs, indicating that

natural productivity is greater than mortality in this recovery region.

Productivity measured in Washington between 1993 and 1997 ranged

from 1.3 to 1.8 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=159) (D.

Anderson, in litt. 1997). In Oregon, productivity between 1993 and 1997

ranged from 0.8 to 1.9 yg/pr, with an average of 1.3 yg/pr (N=127) (M.

Nugent, in litt. 1997). Between 1993 and 1997, productivity in

California ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 yg/pr, (N=356) with an average of 1.6

yg/pr (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1997). No productivity data were

available for Nevada.

Productivity, an important measure of population health, can be

difficult to determine in wide-ranging species nesting in remote

landscapes that are often difficult to access. However, data available

indicate that the average productivity from 1993 to 1997 in Washington,

Oregon and California was 1.5 yg/pr; therefore, the Service considers

this objective to be met.

The release of captive-bred American peregrine falcons was

suspended in Nevada in 1989, in California in 1992 (although the

relocation of wild hatchlings continued), and in Oregon and Washington

in 1995

owever, data available

indicate that the average productivity from 1993 to 1997 in Washington,

Oregon and California was 1.5 yg/pr; therefore, the Service considers

this objective to be met.

The release of captive-bred American peregrine falcons was

suspended in Nevada in 1989, in California in 1992 (although the

relocation of wild hatchlings continued), and in Oregon and Washington

in 1995. The effect of these releases on population growth and

stability in this region are not yet completely known. As a result of

lower than expected first-year mortality of released birds, the

augmentation program accelerated the growth of the Pacific population

(Brian Walton, Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, pers. comm.

1997).

The Pacific Population Plan did not identify pesticide residue or

eggshell thinning levels as recovery objectives. However,

organochlorine residues and eggshell thinning have been measured in

California since the early 1970's. Jarman (1994) reported DDE

concentrations in 105 peregrine eggs collected in 1987-1992 from

California, and 11 eggs from Oregon from 1990 to 1993. Data collected

in 9 study regions in California (Jarman 1994) indicated the highest

concentrations of DDE were found in California eggs from the Channel

Islands and midcoast with 21 and 13 ppm, respectively. The southern

coast and San Francisco regions had the lowest concentrations of 5.5

and 4.3 ppm, respectively. The DDE concentrations in eggs collected

along the coast of California (between San Francisco Bay and 34 deg. N)

did not decrease between 1969 and 1992 (Jarman 1994). Eggs from Oregon

contained DDE levels of 10 ppm.

Eggshells from coastal California continue to show thinning. In

northern and central coastal California, eggshells collected between

1975 and 1995 averaged 17.7 and 19.1 percent thinner than pre-DDT era,

respectively (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996)

ia (between San Francisco Bay and 34 deg. N)

did not decrease between 1969 and 1992 (Jarman 1994). Eggs from Oregon

contained DDE levels of 10 ppm.

Eggshells from coastal California continue to show thinning. In

northern and central coastal California, eggshells collected between

1975 and 1995 averaged 17.7 and 19.1 percent thinner than pre-DDT era,

respectively (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). In northern interior

California, where 104 of the 186 sites known to be active at least once

since 1975 (1975-1993), eggshells averaged 15.6 percent thinner than

pre-DDT era shells (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). Eggshells collected

on the Channel Islands off the southern coast of California in 1992-

1995 averaged 19.4 percent thinner than those collected in California

prior to 1947 (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). In montane California, the

average has been 15 percent thinner than normal, and in eggshells from

the southern interior (coastal mountains) sites the average has been

17.9 percent thinner than normal (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). Urban

pairs experienced eggshell thinning averaging 8.7 percent in the San

Francisco area and 10.9 in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. A

summary of 633 clutch mean measurements representing 1,237 samples of

one or more eggshells collected between 1975 and 1995 from the

historical range of the American peregrine falcon in California

averaged 16.1 percent thinning (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). However,

current reproduction supports an expanding population in most areas

despite high organochlorine residue concentrations and associated

eggshell thinning that still occurs in some areas of the Pacific

population.

Rocky Mountain/Southwest

1975 and 1995 from the

historical range of the American peregrine falcon in California

averaged 16.1 percent thinning (J. Linthicum, in litt. 1996). However,

current reproduction supports an expanding population in most areas

despite high organochlorine residue concentrations and associated

eggshell thinning that still occurs in some areas of the Pacific

population.

Rocky Mountain/Southwest

The American Peregrine Falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest Population

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

recovery objectives for reclassification, including (1) increasing the

Falco peregrinus anatum population in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest

region to a minimum of 183 breeding pairs with the following

distribution: Arizona (46), Colorado (31), Idaho (17), Montana (20),

Nebraska (1), New Mexico (23), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (1),

Texas (8), Utah (21), and Wyoming (14); (2) sustaining a long-term

average production of 1.25 yg/pr without manipulation by 1995; and (3)

observing eggshell thickness within 10 percent of pre-DDT eggshells for

a 5-year span.

The prairie States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,

and Oklahoma contain little peregrine falcon habitat, and historical

data are incomplete. No recovery goals for a specific number of

peregrine falcon pairs were set for Kansas or Oklahoma; peregrine

falcons are not known to have nested in Oklahoma. Currently, Nebraska

and Kansas each have one peregrine falcon pair (Tordoff, Martell, and

Redig 1997); no peregrine falcon pairs are known to occur in North

Dakota, South Dakota, or Oklahoma.

The Rocky Mountain/Southwest population of the American peregrine

falcon has made a profound comeback since the late 1970's when surveys

showed no occupied nest sites in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming and few

pairs in Colorado, New Mexico, and the Colorado Plateau, including

parts of southern Utah and Arizona (Cade 1994)

ey, pers.

comm. 1997; Dennis Flath, Montana Department of Fish and Parks, in

litt. 1977). The current Rocky Mountain/Southwest population is 529,

which surpasses the recovery objective of 183 by 346 pairs.

Between 1989 and 1997 the average productivity in Arizona was 1.1

yg/pr (N=294) (Ward and Siemens 1995; Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and

Fish Dept., in litt. 1996; G. Beatty, in litt. 1997). Although recent

productivity averages have fallen below the 1.25 yg/pr recovery goal,

Arizona has sustained a 24-year average of 1.4 yg/pr.

In 1973, 1974, and 1975, productivity in Colorado was 0.2, 1.9, and

0.7 yg/pr respectively, reflecting the irregular and generally poor

productivity typical of the 1970's (Platt and Enderson 1988). From 1990

to 1997, production averaged 1.5 yg/pr (Gerry Craig, Colorado Division

of Wildlife, in litt. 1995; J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1997).

Productivity measured in Colorado from 1972 to 1997 ranged from 0 to

2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.5 yg/pr (N=611) for the 26-year period

(G. Craig, in litt. 1995; J.H. Enderson, pers. comm. 1997).

In Idaho, productivity recorded from 1988 to 1997 ranged from 0 to

2.5 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for this 10-year period (N=103)

(Wayne Melquist, Idaho Fish and Game, in litt. 1996; J. Beals, pers.

comm. 1997). In Montana, productivity between 1984 and 1997 ranged from

0.3 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 14-year period

(N=119) (D. Flath, pers. comm. 1997; Duane Shroufe, Arizona Game and

Fish Department, in litt. 1996). In Nebraska, productivity between 1992

and 1997 for a single pair ranged from 0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average

of 1.0 yg/pr for the 6-year period (N=6) (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).

New Mexico has sustained an 11-year (1986-1997) average

productivity of 1.71 yg/pr (N=246) (Sartor O. Williams, New Mexico

Dept. of Game & Fish, in litt. 1997). Productivity in 1995, 1996, and

1997 was 1.3 (N=43), 1.5 (N=44), and 1.6 (N=40) yg/pr, respectively (J.

Fowler-Propst, in litt. 1997)

0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average

of 1.0 yg/pr for the 6-year period (N=6) (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).

New Mexico has sustained an 11-year (1986-1997) average

productivity of 1.71 yg/pr (N=246) (Sartor O. Williams, New Mexico

Dept. of Game & Fish, in litt. 1997). Productivity in 1995, 1996, and

1997 was 1.3 (N=43), 1.5 (N=44), and 1.6 (N=40) yg/pr, respectively (J.

Fowler-Propst, in litt. 1997). New Mexico has maintained a 22-year

average productivity of 1.6 yg/pr.

In Texas, productivity recorded from 1975 to 1997 ranged from 0 to

2.3 yg/pr, with an average of 0.9 yg/pr for the 23-year period

(Mckinney 1994; B. Mckinney, pers. comm. 1997). Peregrine falcon

surveys conducted in the Big Bend National Park, Texas, between 1986

and 1989 recorded an average productivity of 1.08 yg/pr (Moore 1989).

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

From 1991 to 1996, productivity ranged from 0.9 to 2.0 yg/pr, with an

average of 1.3 yg/pr for the 6-year period (Bunnell 1994; F.H. Howe, in

litt. 1997). In Wyoming, productivity between 1984 and 1997 ranged from

0.9 to 3.0 yg/pr with an average of 1.7 yg/pr for the 14-year period

(Joe White, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in litt. 1995; B.H.

Heinrich, pers. comm. 1997). In Kansas, productivity between 1993 and

1997 ranged from 0 to 3.0 yg/pr, with an average of 1.0 yg/pr for the

4-year period (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997).

With the exception of Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas, the long-term

productivity goal of 1.25 yg/pr for the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region

has been exceeded by all States with breeding American peregrine

falcons. Although Texas has exceeded its goal for number of pairs,

heavy metal contamination, particularly mercury, in adults and

nestlings may be depressing productivity (Andrew Sansom, Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department, in litt. 1995). Residual mercury contamination

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

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

1997)

s has exceeded its goal for number of pairs,

heavy metal contamination, particularly mercury, in adults and

nestlings may be depressing productivity (Andrew Sansom, Texas Parks

and Wildlife Department, in litt. 1995). Residual mercury contamination

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

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

1997). Nebraska and Kansas have had only one peregrine falcon pair each

since 1992, and breeding has been sporadic in both States.

The average productivity for the nine States supporting breeding

populations is 1.4 yg/pr, well above the goal of 1.25 yg/pr goal. Even

though Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas have not yet met the productivity

goal, productivity throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region has

been more than sufficient for recruitment to exceed mortality, so

dramatic population growth has resulted.

In Arizona, eggshells collected between 1978 and 1983 averaged 14.2

percent thinner, and 20 eggshell replicates collected from 1989 to 1994

averaged 13 percent thinner than pre-DDT era eggshells (Ellis et al.

1989, Ward and Siemens 1995). In Colorado and New Mexico, shells from

260 eggs laid between 1977 and 1985 averaged 12 percent thinner than

pre-DDT eggshells (Enderson et al. 1988). In another analysis of eggs

from New Mexico, eggshells collected in 1977 averaged 20 percent

thinner than pre-DDT eggshells, but in 1985 averaged only 14 percent

thinner (Ponton et al. 1988). Eggshell thickness measurements for

Colorado from 1973 to 1997 included a maximum

ells from

260 eggs laid between 1977 and 1985 averaged 12 percent thinner than

pre-DDT eggshells (Enderson et al. 1988). In another analysis of eggs

from New Mexico, eggshells collected in 1977 averaged 20 percent

thinner than pre-DDT eggshells, but in 1985 averaged only 14 percent

thinner (Ponton et al. 1988). Eggshell thickness measurements for

Colorado from 1973 to 1997 included a maximum

of 25.1 percent thinner and a minimum of 6.0 percent thinner than pre-

DDT eggshells, with an average thinning of 13.5 percent. Only in

Colorado has the objective for eggshell thickness been achieved. In

1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994 measurements of 10.6, 11.7, 8.6, 8.1,

and 6.0 percent thinning, respectively, the average of the annual means

was 9.0 percent thinning for this period (G. Craig, in litt. 1995).

Although the recovery objective was not met in other States in the

region, there is a general trend toward thicker eggshells in

measurements taken since the mid-1970's (L. Kiff, pers. comm. 1995).

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

Southwest Recovery Plan has been met; the current population of 529

pairs exceeds the goal of 183 pairs by 346 pairs. These pairs are

distributed throughout the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States. By the mid-

1980's the practice of fostering chicks into active nests was

terminated; therefore, the long-term average productivity this recovery

region has demonstrated has been accomplished without nest

manipulation. The second objective of 1.25 yg/pr for 5 years has been

met by all Rocky Mountain/Southwest States that have breeding American

peregrine falcons except Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas. The current

reproductive level of the 10 States with breeding populations

(including Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas) is 1.4 yg/pr, exceeding the

second objective. Therefore, the Service considers the intent of this

objective met

bjective of 1.25 yg/pr for 5 years has been

met by all Rocky Mountain/Southwest States that have breeding American

peregrine falcons except Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas. The current

reproductive level of the 10 States with breeding populations

(including Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas) is 1.4 yg/pr, exceeding the

second objective. Therefore, the Service considers the intent of this

objective met. Based on the degree of recovery achieved, the third

objective, that average eggshell thickness is within 10 percent of the

pre-DDT era average for 5 years, appears to be conservative. The

increase in numbers of American peregrine falcons indicates the

subspecies has recovered without the necessity of reaching this

specific recovery objective.

The Rocky Mountain/Southwest Recovery Plan did not identify

pesticide residue levels as a recovery objective. However,

organochlorine pesticide residues in American peregrine falcon eggs

measured in Colorado and New Mexico between 1973 and 1979 averaged 26

ppm DDE, but the average declined to 15 ppm by 1980-1983 (Enderson et

al. 1988). The average concentration in eggs collected in Colorado from

1986 to 1989 was 11 ppm; however, the sample included only 5 eggs

(Jarman et al. 1993).

Eastern United States

The Peregrine Falcon, Eastern Population Recovery Plan, first

published in 1979 (Eastern Plan) and revised in 1985 and 1991 (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1991), addressed the recovery of the

peregrine falcon in the Eastern United States, which was established

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

of mixed genetic heritage. The recovery plan established two recovery

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

recovery units to be established and sustained for a minimum of 3

years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-200 pairs demonstrating

successful, sustained nesting

which was established

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

of mixed genetic heritage. The recovery plan established two recovery

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

recovery units to be established and sustained for a minimum of 3

years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-200 pairs demonstrating

successful, sustained nesting. The five recovery units are (1) Mid-

Atlantic Coast, (2) Northern New York and New England, (3) Southern

Appalachians, (4) Great Lakes, and (5) Southern New England/Central

Appalachians.

The first recovery objective has been substantially achieved, with

3 of the 5 recovery units (Mid-Atlantic Coast, Northern New York and

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

peregrine falcons for 3 years. The Mid-Atlantic Coast unit had 58 pairs

fledging 76 young in 1997 and averaged 60 pairs and 90 fledglings

annually from 1995 to 1997. The Northern New York and New England unit

had 49 pairs fledging 65 young in 1997 and averaged 43 pairs and 59

fledglings annually from 1995 to 1997 (Mike Amaral, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, in litt. 1997). The Great Lakes unit had 42 pairs

fledging 78 young in 1997 and averaged 36 pairs and 63 fledglings from

1995 to 1997 (L. Kiff, in litt. 1997). The Southern Appalachians unit

had 11 pairs fledging 23 young in 1997, and the Southern New England

and Central Appalachians unit had 14 pairs fledging 20 young in 1997

(L. Kiff, in litt. 1997; David Flemming, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, in litt. 1997). In 1997, there was a total of 174 pairs

counted in the 5 Eastern State recovery units, almost the minimum

recovery level of the Eastern Plan. The recovery goal, however, may

already have been exceeded because up to 10 percent of territorial

pairs in any given year escape detection and are not counted (Cade et

al. 1988a)

t. 1997; David Flemming, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, in litt. 1997). In 1997, there was a total of 174 pairs

counted in the 5 Eastern State recovery units, almost the minimum

recovery level of the Eastern Plan. The recovery goal, however, may

already have been exceeded because up to 10 percent of territorial

pairs in any given year escape detection and are not counted (Cade et

al. 1988a). Importantly, the number of territorial pairs recorded in

the eastern peregrine falcon recovery area has increased an average of

10 per cent annually for the past 5 years (1992-1997). Equally

important is that the productivity of these pairs during the same 5-

year period has averaged 1.5 fledged young per territorial pair.

As of 1997, there were at least 31 peregrine pairs in 6 Midwestern

States nesting outside the recovery area delineated for those States in

the 1991 recovery plan--the birds are nesting successfully in a greater

area than believed likely in 1991. Peregrine falcons now found in

Midwestern States are the result of captive-reared and released birds

and others that probably came from the peregrine falcons released in

the eastern States. Although there appears to be a zone of no nesting

in the northeastern Great Plains that separates the western native

American peregrine falcons from the introduced eastern peregrine

falcons (C. Kjos, pers. comm. 1997), the genetic origins of the

midwestern peregrine falcons are unknown, and the potential for

interchange of individuals between the two areas cannot be dismissed.

There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the

Midwestern and Eastern States where peregrine falcons had been

extirpated.

Mexico

grine falcons from the introduced eastern peregrine

falcons (C. Kjos, pers. comm. 1997), the genetic origins of the

midwestern peregrine falcons are unknown, and the potential for

interchange of individuals between the two areas cannot be dismissed.

There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the

Midwestern and Eastern States where peregrine falcons had been

extirpated.

Mexico

None of the existing recovery plans written for peregrine falcons

in North America established recovery criteria for birds that nest in

Mexico. There is very little historical or recent information on

peregrine falcons in Mexico for accurately assessing their current

status in Mexico.

Porter et al. (1988) reported 42 known nesting territories on the

western side of the Baja California Peninsula. From 1966 through 1971,

only three pairs occurred in this region and none were found in 1976

(Porter et al. 1988), indicating a substantial decline had occurred by

the mid-1970's. Most of these territories apparently have not been

checked since that time, but seven pairs were located in 1985-1992 in

areas not occupied in the years just before (Massey and Palacios 1994).

In 1993, three active American peregrine falcon nests were

discovered in Ojo de Liebre (Scammon's) Lagoon on the western side of

the Baja California Peninsula in an area without historical nesting

records (Castellanos et al. 1994). The central west coast of the Baja

California Peninsula was an important breeding area with an historical

population of about 13 pairs (Banks 1969). Between 1980 and 1994,

Castellanos et al. (1997) conducted breeding surveys of American

peregrine falcons in this area of the coast and found 10 nesting pairs.

Castellanos et al. (1997) studied the reproductive success of three

pairs in 1993 and five pairs in 1994 located at Ojo de Liebre and San

Ignacio Lagoons. An average of three eggs, 1.8 nestlings, and 1.6

fledglings were produced per nest

ween 1980 and 1994,

Castellanos et al. (1997) conducted breeding surveys of American

peregrine falcons in this area of the coast and found 10 nesting pairs.

Castellanos et al. (1997) studied the reproductive success of three

pairs in 1993 and five pairs in 1994 located at Ojo de Liebre and San

Ignacio Lagoons. An average of three eggs, 1.8 nestlings, and 1.6

fledglings were produced per nest. This productivity appears to be

within the range of normal productivity for healthy populations (Cade

et al. 1988b). These observations suggest some recent

recovery on the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula.

On the western (Gulf of California) side of mainland Mexico, Porter

et al. (1988) reported 23 historical nest sites. A number of new nest

sites were found in this area in 1966-1984, increasing the number of

known nest sites to 51. Territory occupancy averaged about 82 percent

in 1967-1971 and 77 percent in 1971-1975, indicating that territory

occupancy in that area never declined as significantly as on the west

side of the Baja California Peninsula. Porter and Jenkins (1988)

believed that the number of occupied territories in the Gulf area

increased after 1967 following a reduction in DDE residues in prey.

Between 1989 and 1997, Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, (in litt. 1997) found three pairs of American peregrine

falcons, one pair on the Rio Aros and two on the Rio Yaqui, Sonora.

Hunt et al. (1988) found 14 occupied American peregrine falcon nesting

territories in the highlands of northeast Mexico in 1982. In this area

and adjacent West Texas, territory occupancy averaged about 70 percent

during 1973-1985.

Most of what is known about productivity and pesticide residues in

Mexico comes from the western mainland near the Gulf of California.

Porter et al

Yaqui, Sonora.

Hunt et al. (1988) found 14 occupied American peregrine falcon nesting

territories in the highlands of northeast Mexico in 1982. In this area

and adjacent West Texas, territory occupancy averaged about 70 percent

during 1973-1985.

Most of what is known about productivity and pesticide residues in

Mexico comes from the western mainland near the Gulf of California.

Porter et al. (1988) found that productivity along the Gulf of

California in 1965-1984 was ``somewhat less than normal,'' and 5 addled

eggs collected in 1976-1984 averaged 12.8 ppm DDE with a range of 2.4

``25.0 ppm (Porter and Jenkins 1988). DDE residues in prey in the Gulf

area declined from the 1960's to the 1980's, and this decline

correlated with increases in productivity and the number of breeding

pairs (Porter and Jenkins 1988). Some prey, however, still contained

high pesticide residues, and reproduction appeared to be affected by

organochlorine at 3 of 15 nests examined (Porter and Jenkins 1988).

Hunt et al. (1988) found that only 5 of 14 pairs produced young in

northeast Mexico in 1982. Hunt et al. (1988) reported significant DDE

residues in peregrine falcon prey species in western Texas in the mid

1980's, but prey species in Mexico were not sampled.

In summary, there has been little research on the distribution,

numbers, and status of American peregrine falcons in Mexico, and most

research took place in the Baja California Peninsula and the Gulf of

California regions. Numbers on the west coast of the Baja California

Peninsula declined significantly (Porter et al. 1988), but observations

suggest that numbers may have increased in recent years (Massey and

Palacios 1994, Castellanos et al. 1994, Castellanos et al. 1997). In

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

drop below 77 percent (Porter et al. 1988), but it increased in the

1970's and 1980's (Porter and Jenkins 1988)

ornia

Peninsula declined significantly (Porter et al. 1988), but observations

suggest that numbers may have increased in recent years (Massey and

Palacios 1994, Castellanos et al. 1994, Castellanos et al. 1997). In

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

drop below 77 percent (Porter et al. 1988), but it increased in the

1970's and 1980's (Porter and Jenkins 1988). An unknown number of pairs

inhabit the Chihauhuan Desert and the Sierra Madre Occidental in the

interior of Mexico.

No information on population trends for American peregrine falcons

in Mexico is available; however, the status of the Mexican population

may be similar to that of the population occupying similar habitat in

nearby Arizona (G. Hunt, pers. comm. 1997). Exposure to organochlorine-

based pesticides continues to be a threat to Mexican-nesting

populations. In 1997, as part of the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)

established a North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT, which

proposes a phased reduction, resulting in the eventual elimination of

DDT used for malaria control in Mexico. Specific goals of the NARAP are

to (1) reduce the use of DDT for malaria control in Mexico by 80

percent in 5 years (beginning in 1997); (2) eliminate the illegal use

of DDT in agriculture in Mexico; (3) develop a cooperative approach to

minimize movement of malaria-infected mosquitos across borders and

reduce the illegal importation of DDT; and (4) advance global controls

on DDT production, export and use.

Eliminating protection for peregrine falcons under the Act is

unlikely to increase the risk to American peregrine falcons nesting in

Mexico. Adverse effects of organochlorine pesticides in the environment

remains an international concern, not only for peregrine falcons

nesting in Mexico, but for peregrine falcons wintering in or migrating

through Latin America

DDT production, export and use.

Eliminating protection for peregrine falcons under the Act is

unlikely to increase the risk to American peregrine falcons nesting in

Mexico. Adverse effects of organochlorine pesticides in the environment

remains an international concern, not only for peregrine falcons

nesting in Mexico, but for peregrine falcons wintering in or migrating

through Latin America. By undertaking the steps proposed in the NARAP,

the United States, Canada, and Mexico are committing to ongoing

cooperative activities and yearly reporting on progress made on these

initiatives and objectives. Annual reports will be submitted to the

North American Working Group for the Sound Management of Chemicals, and

subsequently disseminated to the Council of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation and the public.

Summary of Peregrine Falcon Recovery

Five regional peregrine falcon recovery plans, four for American

peregrine falcons in Canada and the Western United States and one for

the Eastern United States introduced peregrine falcon population, were

written to guide recovery efforts and establish criteria to be used in

measuring recovery. These recovery plans included objectives using

population size and reproductive performance to measure recovery. Only

two of the recovery plans included specific objectives that applied to

pesticide residues in eggs and eggshell thinning. The combined

population size goal for the 4 American peregrine falcon recovery plans

is 456 pairs. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 pairs occupy the range of

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

States, 174 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the 5 recovery units

included in the Eastern Plan, and an additional 31 peregrine falcon

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

Plan recovery units

ine falcon recovery plans

is 456 pairs. Currently, a minimum of 1,388 pairs occupy the range of

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

States, 174 peregrine falcon pairs are found in the 5 recovery units

included in the Eastern Plan, and an additional 31 peregrine falcon

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

Plan recovery units.

Other objectives, including those for pesticide residues in eggs

and the degree to which eggshells are thinner than pre-pesticide era

eggshells, vary among the plans. In the case of eggshell thinning,

current measurements obtained in some areas fall short of recovery

objectives. Eggshell thinning was originally suggested by recovery

teams as an indicator of whether organochlorine contamination was

preventing species recovery. Despite the failure of populations in

localized areas to meet recovery objectives, overall, populations of

American peregrine falcons have increased considerably. This increase

continues to occur even after reintroduction efforts have been

curtailed. The consistent and geographically widespread trends in

increasing population size demonstrate that current levels of

reproductive failure, pesticide residues, and eggshell thinning still

affecting American peregrine falcons in some areas have not prevented

recovery of the subspecies in most of North America. Exposure to

environmental contaminants remains a concern that must continue to be

addressed internationally in order to protect nesting, migrating, and

wintering populations of American peregrine falcons outside the United

States.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations

In the Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove the American

Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

(60 FR 34406, June 30, 1995), the Service requested that all interested

parties provide data and comments on the status and possible proposal

to delist the American

ons of American peregrine falcons outside the United

States.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations

In the Advanced Notice of a Proposal to Remove the American

Peregrine Falcon from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

(60 FR 34406, June 30, 1995), the Service requested that all interested

parties provide data and comments on the status and possible proposal

to delist the American

peregrine falcon. The Service provided the governments of Canada and

Mexico with the Advanced Notice. Canada responded and provided data but

gave no position on the proposal, and Mexico did not respond. The

Service received a total of 171 comment letters from 43 States and

Canada, which included 12 Federal resource and 32 State resource

agencies, 41 falconry associations or falconers, 13 conservation

organizations, and 45 private individuals. Of the responses received,

92 supported the proposal to delist, 46 opposed the proposal, 13

supported downlisting, and 20 expressed no opinion. These comments and

responses are available for public inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours (see ``Addresses''). Those responses objecting to

the Service's proposal contained several concerns, presented below with

the Service's response.

Issue 1: The data do not support delisting the American peregrine

falcon throughout its range in the continental United States. There

should be a combination of downlisting, delisting, and no change in

status for individual recovery areas based on the degree of attainment

of recovery plan objectives regarding not only numbers of peregrine

falcons, but also productivity and eggshell thinning goals. The Service

should consider downlisting the American peregrine falcon to threatened

rather than delisting.

Service Response: Data for 1996-1997, which were not available at

the time of the advanced delisting notice, have been included in this

proposed rule

tainment

of recovery plan objectives regarding not only numbers of peregrine

falcons, but also productivity and eggshell thinning goals. The Service

should consider downlisting the American peregrine falcon to threatened

rather than delisting.

Service Response: Data for 1996-1997, which were not available at

the time of the advanced delisting notice, have been included in this

proposed rule. These more recent data show improvements in numbers of

breeding pairs of peregrine falcons and productivity since 1994 (Refer

to Table 1, ``Recovery Status,'' and ``Summary of American Peregrine

Falcon Recovery''), and demonstrate that goals set for numbers and

productivity by the four American peregrine falcon recovery plans have

been met or exceeded. The combined population size goal for the 4

American peregrine falcon recovery plans is 456 pairs. Currently, a

minimum of 1,388 known pairs occupy sites in Alaska, Canada, and the

Western United States. A number of additional pairs have probably been

undetected.

Only the Alaska recovery plan set a goal for DDT levels, and only

two recovery plans (Alaska and Rocky Mountain/Southwest) specified

objectives for eggshell thinning. The Alaska Plan set a delisting goal

of less than 5 ppm DDT and less than 10 percent eggshell thinning.

Recent data for American peregrine falcon eggs indicate DDT levels at

less than 3.5 ppm, exceeding that goal, and eggshell thinning is at

12.5 percent. Measurements for eggshell thinning have not been

consistently taken in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest States. Colorado has

met the recovery plan eggshell thinning goal of less than 10 percent;

the average of the annual means for 1990-1994 was 9.0 percent. Data for

other States show a general trend toward thicker eggshells since the

mid-1970's (refer to ``Rocky Mountain/Southwest'' under ``Recovery

Status''). Overall productivity goals were met or exceeded in the four

American peregrine falcon recovery plans using productivity as a

recovery criterion

g goal of less than 10 percent;

the average of the annual means for 1990-1994 was 9.0 percent. Data for

other States show a general trend toward thicker eggshells since the

mid-1970's (refer to ``Rocky Mountain/Southwest'' under ``Recovery

Status''). Overall productivity goals were met or exceeded in the four

American peregrine falcon recovery plans using productivity as a

recovery criterion.

Three of five peregrine falcon recovery units in the Eastern United

States have met recovery goals, and 174 pairs documented in 1997

indicate the overall recovery goal of 175-200 pairs has probably been

met when considering that up to 10 percent of territorial pairs in any

given year escape detection (Cade et al. 1988a). In addition, another

31 pairs are nesting in areas of the Midwest outside the recovery units

specified in the eastern plan but nevertheless contribute to overall

restoration goals.

The Service believes that the species has essentially achieved the

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

goals. The Service believes the available information supports full

delisting of the species throughout its range, although some recovery

plan areas are experiencing slower recovery due to fluxes in

productivity or residual DDT/DDE impacts. The trends in productivity,

however, as well as DDT/DDE reduction, clearly indicate continued

population increases. The Service believes that, when viewed on a

range-wide or even region-wide basis, the species clearly is not in

danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range and

warrants full delisting.

Issue 2: American peregrine falcons should not be delisted because

they have not been restored throughout the historical range.

Service Response: Restoration of the American peregrine falcon

throughout the historical range was not a goal of any of the recovery

plans written for this subspecies and is not required for recovery

ut a significant portion of its range and

warrants full delisting.

Issue 2: American peregrine falcons should not be delisted because

they have not been restored throughout the historical range.

Service Response: Restoration of the American peregrine falcon

throughout the historical range was not a goal of any of the recovery

plans written for this subspecies and is not required for recovery.

Generally, the goal of a recovery program is to restore the species to

a point at which protection under the Act is no longer required. To be

recovered, a species must not be endangered with extinction, or be

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. As a species

recovers in numbers and populations expand, more of the historical

range can be reoccupied where appropriate habitat remains. In the case

of the peregrine falcon, a significant amount of unoccupied but

suitable habitat remains, so continued expansion is expected.

Issue 3: There are gaps in the scientific knowledge about American

peregrine biology. A population viability analysis has not been done;

genetic diversity, viable population size, knowledge of population

dynamics, and long-term stability of populations have not been

determined.

Service Response: A complete understanding of the biology of a

species is not required to determine a species' conservation status

under the Act. Population viability analyses are important tools for

attempting to quantify threats to a species, particularly those facing

loss and fragmentation of habitat, and the consequences of conservation

actions, as well as aiding in identifying critical factors for study,

management, and monitoring. These analyses are not essential, however,

to determine when a species has achieved recovery, particularly in the

case of the American peregrine falcon

r

attempting to quantify threats to a species, particularly those facing

loss and fragmentation of habitat, and the consequences of conservation

actions, as well as aiding in identifying critical factors for study,

management, and monitoring. These analyses are not essential, however,

to determine when a species has achieved recovery, particularly in the

case of the American peregrine falcon. It is evident that recovery of

this subspecies has been largely achieved by eliminating the use of DDT

and by successful management activities, including the reintroduction

of captive-bred American peregrine falcons. Recovery goals established

for the species have been met or exceeded, with few exceptions.

Issue 4: Organochlorine pesticides still persist within the

breeding range of the American peregrine falcon and continue to depress

natural productivity.

Service Response: Continued exposure to organochlorines in areas

outside the U.S. remains a concern that must be addressed

internationally. The North American Regional Action Plan on DDT, an

ongoing effort under the North American Working Group for the Sound

Management of Chemicals, has specific goals to reduce and eliminate the

use of DDT and advance global controls on DDT production, export and

use. Monitoring organochlorine exposure and productivity of American

peregrine falcon populations breeding and nesting in Mexico and Latin

America could potentially be funded and part of post-delisting

monitoring for this subspecies. American peregrine falcons have

increased throughout their historical range in the U.S. despite the

continued presence of organochlorine residues in certain populations

(e.g., coastal California). American peregrine falcon populations have

met or

populations breeding and nesting in Mexico and Latin

America could potentially be funded and part of post-delisting

monitoring for this subspecies. American peregrine falcons have

increased throughout their historical range in the U.S. despite the

continued presence of organochlorine residues in certain populations

(e.g., coastal California). American peregrine falcon populations have

met or

exceeded recovery goals in the four recovery plans (Table 1), and the

Service believes removing the endangered status of this subspecies is

appropriate. Bioaccumulation of organochlorine residues will be

monitored in the United States during the minimum 5-year post-delisting

monitoring period. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence''

for an in-depth discussion. See also Service response to issue 9.

Issue 5: The continued unrestricted use of organochlorine

pesticides in Latin America places the American peregrine falcon at

risk of contamination while on migration and on its wintering grounds.

Service Response: Comparisons of blood samples collected during

fall and spring migration indicate that, although migrant peregrine

falcons accumulate pesticides while wintering in Latin America, DDE

residues in the blood taken from female peregrine falcons captured

during spring migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased between 1978

and 1994 below levels that would affect reproduction (Henny et al.

1996). Despite the continued use of organochlorines in Latin America,

the American peregrine falcon has recovered over most of its historic

range, and Arctic peregrine falcons, which also winter in Latin

America, have been delisted. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species, E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its

continued existence'' for an in-depth discussion

ny et al.

1996). Despite the continued use of organochlorines in Latin America,

the American peregrine falcon has recovered over most of its historic

range, and Arctic peregrine falcons, which also winter in Latin

America, have been delisted. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species, E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its

continued existence'' for an in-depth discussion. The North American

Working Group for the Sound Management of Chemicals promotes a regional

perspective that encourages the active involvement of Central and South

American countries in the implementation of the North American Regional

Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT, and is facilitating international

cooperation on combating malaria in these regions without the continued

use of organochlorine pesticides.

Issue 6: The take of American peregrine falcons for falconry after

its delisting will create an additional threat to the subspecies.

Service Response: Delisting the American peregrine falcon will not

affect the protection given to all migratory bird species, including

the peregrine falcon, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The

regulations issued pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allow for

issuance of permits to take raptors for falconry provided the taking

will not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR 21.28 and 13.21(b)). The

Service will establish biological criteria for the issuance of permits

for take of peregrine falcons for falconry to ensure the taking does

not negatively impact wild populations, particularly those in need of

further recovery. These criteria will pertain to all wild North

American peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future

falconry and raptor propagation permit holders. Until such time as

these criteria are in place, take for falconry and raptor propagation

purposes under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will not be authorized.

The Service expects to finalize the criteria before it issues a final

decision on this delisting proposal

all wild North

American peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future

falconry and raptor propagation permit holders. Until such time as

these criteria are in place, take for falconry and raptor propagation

purposes under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will not be authorized.

The Service expects to finalize the criteria before it issues a final

decision on this delisting proposal. The effects of take for falconry

will be assessed during the minimum 5-year post-delisting monitoring

period following delisting. Refer to ``Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species'' (paragraph D) and ``Effects of this Rule'' for further

information.

Issue 7: The Service cannot consider delisting the American

peregrine falcon until all recovery goals in the four existing recovery

plans for this subspecies have been met or exceeded.

Service Response: Section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to

develop and implement recovery plans for species of animals or plants

listed as endangered or threatened. Recovery is the process by which

the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or

reversed and threats to its survival are neutralized so that long-term

survival in nature can be ensured. The goal of this process is the

maintenance of secure, self-sustaining wild populations of species with

the minimum investment of resources. One of the main purposes of the

recovery plan is to enumerate goals (guidelines) that will help the

Service to determine when recovery for a particular species has been

achieved. The Act does not require that all of the specific recovery

goals for a listed species must be met or exceeded before it can be

delisted.

The Service determines whether recovery has been achieved based on

a species' performance relative to the goals set in its recovery plan

and the best available scientific information

ice to determine when recovery for a particular species has been

achieved. The Act does not require that all of the specific recovery

goals for a listed species must be met or exceeded before it can be

delisted.

The Service determines whether recovery has been achieved based on

a species' performance relative to the goals set in its recovery plan

and the best available scientific information. A species is recovered

when it is no longer endangered with extinction (i.e., endangered), or

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout

all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., threatened). The

peregrine falcon meets these requirements for removal from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

The American peregrine falcon has either met, exceeded, or is very

close to meeting the recovery goals set for this subspecies throughout

its range, and the specific goals not met are not factors preventing

recovery. The Service considers that the intent of all the objectives

have been met and that the recovery of the species justifies a proposal

to delist.

Issue 8: The eastern peregrine falcon population has not met the

recovery goals set for it in the Eastern Recovery Plan and, therefore,

should not be delisted.

Service Response: Current data, through 1997, on the status of the

eastern peregrine falcon population indicate that the intent of the

recovery goals set for this population have been met. The recovery plan

established two recovery objectives including (1) a minimum of 20-25

nesting pairs in each of five recovery units to be established and

sustained for a minimum of 3 years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-

200 pairs demonstrating successful, sustained nesting. Three of the

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

England, and Great Lakes) have surpassed the nesting pair goal for 3

years

ery objectives including (1) a minimum of 20-25

nesting pairs in each of five recovery units to be established and

sustained for a minimum of 3 years, and (2) an overall minimum of 175-

200 pairs demonstrating successful, sustained nesting. Three of the

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

England, and Great Lakes) have surpassed the nesting pair goal for 3

years. The Southern Appalachians and Southern New England/Central

Appalachians units may not yet have achieved the recommended number of

breeding pair goals established for those areas. However, the overall

minimum of 175-200 successful pairs in the eastern region has been

largely achieved, and over the past 5 years (1992-1997), the number of

territorial pairs has increased an average of 10 per cent annually.

There are now more than 200 pairs of peregrine falcons in the

midwestern and eastern States where falcons had been extirpated, and

pairs are successfully nesting throughout a greater range that

anticipated in 1991. The Service believes the intent of the recovery

objectives have been satisfied and that recovery of the peregrine in

the eastern United States is sufficiently established. Refer to

``Recovery Status'' for additional discussion on this subject.

Issue 9: The status of the American peregrine falcon in Mexico has

not been adequately addressed.

Service Response: While population status and trends for falcons

nesting in Sonora and the highlands of Central Mexico is not known,

American peregrine falcon populations in the United States and Canada,

including those migrating from Latin America to nest, have met or

exceeded the criteria for delisting. Removing protection for the

species under United States domestic law is not anticipated to either

benefit or harm American peregrine falcons in Mexico. Environmental

exposure to organochlorine pesticides continues to be a concern for

resident nesting American peregrine falcons in Sonora and the highlands

of Central

from Latin America to nest, have met or

exceeded the criteria for delisting. Removing protection for the

species under United States domestic law is not anticipated to either

benefit or harm American peregrine falcons in Mexico. Environmental

exposure to organochlorine pesticides continues to be a concern for

resident nesting American peregrine falcons in Sonora and the highlands

of Central

Mexico, because it is likely that productivity in these local

populations is being adversely affected. Delisting does not eliminate

the need for continued international efforts regarding contaminants

monitoring in Mexico. Current DDT production is restricted to one

facility in Mexico, which supplies DDT for authorized government use in

malaria vector control. DDT is registered only for use in government-

sponsored public health campaigns, and continues to be an important

tool in the fight against malaria transmission, although new, less

environmentally harmful measures are being investigated. Sixty percent

of Mexico's territory, from sea level to 1,800 meters above sea level,

presents favorable conditions for malaria transmission. This includes

the Pacific coast, the Gulf of Mexico slopes, the Yucatan peninsula and

interior basins of the high plateau. In some cases, targeted malaria

control areas may overlap with nesting American peregrine falcons.

Refer to ``Mexico'' under ``Recovery Status'' for additional discussion

on this subject.

Issue 10: Post-declassification monitoring for 5 years is

essential.

Service Response: The Service agrees. The Endangered Species Act

requires the Secretary to implement a system in cooperation with the

States to monitor effectively for not less than 5 years the status of

all species which have recovered to the point that protection of the

Act is no longer required (section 4(g)). If it becomes evident during

the course of the post-delisting monitoring that the species again

required protection of the Act, it would be relisted

uires the Secretary to implement a system in cooperation with the

States to monitor effectively for not less than 5 years the status of

all species which have recovered to the point that protection of the

Act is no longer required (section 4(g)). If it becomes evident during

the course of the post-delisting monitoring that the species again

required protection of the Act, it would be relisted. Refer to

``Monitoring'' under ``Future Conservation Measures'' for the proposed

development of a post-delisting monitoring program for the peregrine

falcon, and the conditions under which this subspecies might be

relisted.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR

Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act,

set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting

species on the Federal lists. A species may be listed if one or more of

the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the

continued existence of the species. A species may be delisted,

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial

data available substantiate that the species is neither endangered or

threatened because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) because the

original data for classification of the species were in error.

After a thorough review of all available information, the Service

has determined a substantial peregrine falcon recovery has taken place

since the early 1980's. The Service determines that none of the five

factors addressed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and discussed below,

is currently affecting the species, including the American peregrine

falcon subspecies and introduced peregrine falcon populations, such

that the species is endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all

or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become

endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range)

ct, and discussed below,

is currently affecting the species, including the American peregrine

falcon subspecies and introduced peregrine falcon populations, such

that the species is endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all

or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become

endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range). These factors and their application to the

peregrine falcon in North America are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of Its Habitat or Range

Peregrine falcons occupy a variety of habitat types and nest from

the boreal forest region of Alaska and Canada, through much of Canada

and the western United States, south to parts of central and western

Mexico. Nesting habitat includes cliffs and bluffs in boreal forests,

coastal cliffs and islands, urban skyscrapers and other structures, and

cliffs and buttes in southwestern deserts. In some breeding areas, such

as the southern United States, some or all of the birds remain year-

round on their nesting territories. In other breeding areas,

particularly in high latitudes, many or all of the individuals are

highly migratory; these individuals occupy a number of regions and

habitat types throughout the year as they nest, migrate to and from

wintering areas, and occupy their wintering ranges. Due to the

extensive geographic distribution of the peregrine falcon, the wide

variety of habitat types in which the species nests, and the immense

area that some of the more migratory individuals occupy during a year,

the peregrine falcon occupies an extremely broad array of areas and

habitats throughout its range. As a result, the degree to which

peregrine falcons have been affected by human-caused habitat

modification varies widely by region, habitat type, and individual

falcons within the population.

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

alteration has unquestionably increased

peregrine falcon occupies an extremely broad array of areas and

habitats throughout its range. As a result, the degree to which

peregrine falcons have been affected by human-caused habitat

modification varies widely by region, habitat type, and individual

falcons within the population.

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

alteration has unquestionably increased. Certainly some peregrine

falcon habitat has been destroyed, such as the many wetlands drained in

recent years that were previously used by peregrine falcons for

foraging or as migratory staging areas during spring and fall. But

peregrine falcons have colonized many cities in North America due to

the abundance of nest sites on buildings and the abundance of prey,

such as feral rock doves (Columba livia), that thrive in urban areas.

Therefore, some forms of habitat modification have negatively affected

peregrine falcons while other forms have benefited them. It would be

difficult to estimate the net, overall effect of habitat modification

on the species throughout North America.

Although the rate of habitat modification in North America has

increased in recent decades, the number of American peregrine falcons

occupying the region has increased substantially since the late 1970's

or early 1980's. In several parts of their range, including parts of

Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, California, and the

southwestern United States, the number of breeding pairs has increased

rapidly in recent years, and some local populations now occur at very

high densities (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997; G. Holroyd, pers. comm.

1997; Enderson et al. 1995). Because these rapid population growth

rates and high densities were achieved despite considerable habitat

modification in North America, the Service concludes that habitat

modification or destruction has not been a limiting factor in peregrine

recovery

d some local populations now occur at very

high densities (R. Ambrose, pers. comm. 1997; G. Holroyd, pers. comm.

1997; Enderson et al. 1995). Because these rapid population growth

rates and high densities were achieved despite considerable habitat

modification in North America, the Service concludes that habitat

modification or destruction has not been a limiting factor in peregrine

recovery. It does not currently threaten the existence of the American

peregrine falcon nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

Delisting the peregrine falcon will not result in overutilization

because the delisting will not affect protection provided to all

subspecies of the peregrine falcon by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

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

governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act's regulation of the taking of

migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes

and requiring harvest be limited to levels that prevent overutilization

(See ``D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'').

C. Disease or Predation

Although individuals are vulnerable to disease and predation, these

factors are not known to affect the peregrine falcon at the population

level. Great horned owls are natural predators of peregrine falcons

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) and may be responsible for the

slow recovery of peregrine falcons in two recovery areas

in the reestablished eastern population (M. Amaral in litt. 1995).

Great horned owl predation was not documented as a significant cause of

the decline in peregrine falcons and has not affected the species'

overall recovery.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

ish and Wildlife Service 1991) and may be responsible for the

slow recovery of peregrine falcons in two 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.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Upon delisting, peregrine falcons will no longer be protected from

take and commerce by the Endangered Species Act. However, peregrine

falcons will still be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16

U.S.C. 703). Section 704 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act states that

the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine

if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds should be allowed

and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take. In

adopting regulations, the Secretary is to consider such factors as

distribution and abundance to ensure that take is compatible with the

protection of the species.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its implementing regulations (50

CFR Parts 20 and 21) prohibit take, possession, import, export,

transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase or

barter, any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as

authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Certain exceptions

apply to employees of the Department of the Interior to enforce the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to Federal Government employees, and to

State game departments, municipal game farms or parks, and public

museums, public zoological parks, accredited institutional members of

the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (now called

the American Zoo and Aquarium Association) and public scientific or

educational institutions.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and implementing regulations allow

for the taking and use of migratory birds, but require that such use

not adversely affect populations

, public zoological parks, accredited institutional members of

the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (now called

the American Zoo and Aquarium Association) and public scientific or

educational institutions.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and implementing regulations allow

for the taking and use of migratory birds, but require that such use

not adversely affect populations. Regulations at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.30

specifically authorize the issuance of permits to take, possess,

transport and engage in commerce with raptors for falconry purposes and

for propagation purposes. Certain criteria must be met prior to

issuance of these permits, including a requirement that the issuance

will not threaten a wildlife population (50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)). The

Service will develop specific biological criteria to govern the take of

peregrine falcons prior to authorizing take for falconry and raptor

propagation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No take of wild North

American peregrines will be authorized until these criteria are in

place. The criteria will apply to all current and future falconry and

raptor propagation permit holders. In addition to considering the

effect on wild populations, issuance of raptor propagation permits

requires that the Service consider whether suitable captive stock is

available and whether wild stock is needed to enhance the genetic

variability of captive stock (50 CFR 21.30(c)(4)). These regulatory

provisions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will adequately protect

against excessive take of peregrine falcons (see additional discussion

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the Effects of this Rule section

below). Protective measures could be expanded, if necessary, by

promulgation of a regulation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the

Service following or during the assessment of the effects of this take

on peregrine falcons during the 5-year post-listing monitoring period

e of peregrine falcons (see additional discussion

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the Effects of this Rule section

below). Protective measures could be expanded, if necessary, by

promulgation of a regulation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by the

Service following or during the assessment of the effects of this take

on peregrine falcons during the 5-year post-listing monitoring period.

Therefore, in the event the peregrine falcon is delisted under the

Endangered Species Act, the Service has authority under the Migratory

Bird Treat Act to ensure the conservation of the species.

In the absence of habitat protection under the Endangered Species

Act, there are no other existing Federal laws that specifically protect

the habitat of this species (see ``Critical Habitat''); however, loss

of habitat has not been identified as a threat to the species and was

not a factor identified as contributing to the species original

decline.

An important regulatory mechanism affecting peregrine falcons is

the requirement that pesticides be registered with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Under the authority of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136), the

Environmental Protection Agency requires environmental testing of all

new pesticides. Testing the effects of pesticides on representative

wildlife species prior to pesticide registration is specifically

required. This protection from effects of pesticides would not be

altered by delisting the peregrine falcon.

On July 1, 1975, peregrine falcons were included in Appendix I of

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). This treaty was established to prevent

international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants

and animals. Generally, both import and export permits are required by

the importing and exporting countries before an Appendix I species may

be shipped, and Appendix I species may not be imported for primarily

commercial purposes

in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). This treaty was established to prevent

international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants

and animals. Generally, both import and export permits are required by

the importing and exporting countries before an Appendix I species may

be shipped, and Appendix I species may not be imported for primarily

commercial purposes. Although CITES does not itself regulate take or

domestic trade, CITES permits may not be issued if the export will be

detrimental to the survival of the species or if the specimens were not

legally acquired. This protection would not be altered by delisting the

peregrine falcon under the Act.

Peregrine falcons will still be afforded some protection by land

management agencies under laws such as the National Forest Management

Act (16 U.S.C. 1600) and the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (43

U.S.C. 1701). National Forest Management Act regulations specify that

``fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate

species in the planning area.'' (36 CFR 219.19). Guidelines for each

planning area must provide for a diversity of plant and animal

communities based on the suitability of a specific land area. Regional

Foresters are responsible for identifying sensitive species occurring

within their Region. Sensitive species are those that may require

special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude

trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal

listing. In the event the peregrine falcon is delisted, Regional

Foresters will consider the need for designating the peregrine falcon

as a sensitive species to ensure that forest management activities do

not contribute to a need for relisting

may require

special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude

trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal

listing. In the event the peregrine falcon is delisted, Regional

Foresters will consider the need for designating the peregrine falcon

as a sensitive species to ensure that forest management activities do

not contribute to a need for relisting. The Federal Land Policy and

Management Act requires that public lands be managed to protect the

quality of scientific, ecological, and environmental qualities, among

others, and to preserve and protect certain lands in their natural

condition to provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife.

Federal delisting of the peregrine falcon will not remove the

peregrine falcon from State threatened and endangered species lists, or

suspend any other legal protections provided by State law. States may

have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife, including restrictions

on falconry, and may retain State threatened or endangered status for

the peregrine falcon. Falconry permits will still be required under

Federal migratory bird regulations, which are administered by

cooperating States under a Federal/State permit application program (50

CFR 21.28).

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Egg collecting, shooting, harvest for falconry, habitat

destruction, climate change, and the extinction of passenger pigeons

were all proposed as possible

ill be required under

Federal migratory bird regulations, which are administered by

cooperating States under a Federal/State permit application program (50

CFR 21.28).

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Egg collecting, shooting, harvest for falconry, habitat

destruction, climate change, and the extinction of passenger pigeons

were all proposed as possible

factors causing or contributing to the decline in peregrine falcon

populations in North America; however, no evidence supports any of

these factors as causing the widespread reproductive failure and

population decline that occurred. In contrast, an overwhelming body of

evidence has been accumulated showing that organochlorine pesticides

affected survival and reproductive performance sufficiently to cause

the decline. There currently is no question within the scientific

community that contamination with organochlorines was the principal

cause for the drastic declines and extirpations in peregrine falcon

populations that took place in most parts of North America.

Although the use of organochlorine pesticides has been restricted

in the United States and Canada since the early 1970s, use continues in

areas of Latin America. It has been shown, by comparing blood samples

collected during fall and spring migration, that migrant peregrine

falcons bioaccumulate organochlorines while wintering in Latin America

(Henny et al. 1982). Henny et al. (1996) demonstrated that DDE residues

in the blood taken from female peregrine falcons captured during spring

migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased between 1978 and 1994. In

second-year peregrines, residues dropped from 1.43 ppm in 1978-1979 to

only 0.25 ppm in 1994 and from 0.88 to 0.41 ppm for older peregrines;

these levels are well below those that would affect reproduction.

The widespread reproductive failure and population crash in North

America coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine use in the

United States

as decreased between 1978 and 1994. In

second-year peregrines, residues dropped from 1.43 ppm in 1978-1979 to

only 0.25 ppm in 1994 and from 0.88 to 0.41 ppm for older peregrines;

these levels are well below those that would affect reproduction.

The widespread reproductive failure and population crash in North

America coincided with the period of heavy organochlorine use in the

United States. Although there was not an immediate lowering of

pesticide residues in eggs following restrictions on the use of

organochlorines north of Mexico (Enderson et al. 1995), residues

gradually declined following the restrictions (Ambrose et al. 1988b,

Enderson et al. 1988, Peakall et al. 1990), and most surviving

populations began to increase in numbers thereafter. Despite the

continued use of organochlorines in Latin America, populations of

American peregrine falcons in North America have recovered

substantially in recent years. In fact, Arctic peregrine falcons that

winter predominantly in Latin America recovered to the point that the

subspecies was removed from the List of Threatened and Endangered

Wildlife on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50796).

Additionally, some of the avian prey used during the nesting season

by peregrine falcons throughout North America also winter in Latin

America. Many of these prey return to their nesting areas with

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

Peregrine falcons preying upon these birds during the summer are

further exposed to Latin American pesticides. While overall, pesticide

use in Latin America has apparently not adversely affected reproductive

success and productivity in American peregrine falcon populations in

North America, monitoring levels of organochlorines in the subspecies

must continue, and more effort must be placed in monitoring and

remediating organochlorine exposure in populations nesting and

migrating outside the United States

e overall, pesticide

use in Latin America has apparently not adversely affected reproductive

success and productivity in American peregrine falcon populations in

North America, monitoring levels of organochlorines in the subspecies

must continue, and more effort must be placed in monitoring and

remediating organochlorine exposure in populations nesting and

migrating outside the United States.

The Service recognizes that certain populations of American

peregrine falcons have recovered to a lesser degree and that in some of

these populations organochlorine residues are still high and

reproductive rates remain lower than normal. The Channel Islands off

southern California are still plagued by high organochlorine residues

and eggshell thinning (Jarman 1994). Despite the residual effects of

organochlorines on the Channel Islands, this population is continuing

to increase, although some of the increase could be the result of the

release of a significant number of captive-bred young (B. Walton, pers.

comm. 1997) or dispersal from other areas where recovery is greater.

Based on published values in the literature, detected concentrations of

DDT in peregrine falcon eggs collected in New Jersey were sufficient to

impact reproduction. Productivity and eggshell thinning data, however,

did not support a conclusion of reproductive impairment due to DDT

contamination (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection 1997). Jarman (1994) suggested that these

locally higher egg residues result from a local point source of DDT or

DDE. As a result, the effects are localized, and the observations do

not reflect the current status of peregrine falcons as a whole. In

general, numbers of peregrine falcons have increased throughout their

historical ranges despite the effects of localized organochlorine

residues.

Similarly, American peregrine falcons in southwest Canada have not

recovered as well as in most other regions of North America

lt, the effects are localized, and the observations do

not reflect the current status of peregrine falcons as a whole. In

general, numbers of peregrine falcons have increased throughout their

historical ranges despite the effects of localized organochlorine

residues.

Similarly, American peregrine falcons in southwest Canada have not

recovered as well as in most other regions of North America. Despite

the release of several hundred captive-bred young in the prairie

Provinces and western Canada (Holroyd and Banasch 1990), the number of

pairs occupying territories is still well below the number of known

historical nest sites (G. Holroyd, in litt. 1993), which is probably an

underestimate of the actual number of historical nest sites. In

southern Canada, including the prairie region, the proportion of

reintroduced young that entered the breeding population has been

considerably lower than in the United States (Peakall 1990, Enderson et

al. 1995). The factor or factors causing this lower recruitment rate

remain unknown, but survivorship of peregrine falcons released into

this area may be lower than in adjacent portions of the subspecies'

range. Pesticide residues in American peregrine falcon eggs do not

appear to be higher in southwest Canada than in the United States

(Peakall et al. 1990). Therefore, higher residual organochlorine

contamination is apparently not responsible, and the number of pairs

occupying this region continues to increase.

In summary, exposure to organochlorine pesticides caused drastic

population declines in peregrine falcons. Following restrictions on the

use of organochlorines in the United States and Canada, residues in

eggs declined and reproduction rates improved

igher residual organochlorine

contamination is apparently not responsible, and the number of pairs

occupying this region continues to increase.

In summary, exposure to organochlorine pesticides caused drastic

population declines in peregrine falcons. Following restrictions on the

use of organochlorines in the United States and Canada, residues in

eggs declined and reproduction rates improved. Improved reproduction,

combined with the release of thousands of captive-reared young and

relocated wild hatchlings, allowed the American peregrine falcon to

recover and peregrine falcons to be successfully reestablished in those

areas of the historical range from which the species had been

extirpated. Pesticide residues, reproductive rates, and the rate of

recovery have varied among regions within the vast range of this

species. In some areas, such as portions of California, the lingering

effects of DDT have caused reproductive rates to remain low. Point

source contamination may even cause continued reproductive problems in

these areas in California. In southwest Canada, the rate of recovery,

or onset of recovery, apparently lagged behind most other areas, but

recent trends suggest that historical nest sites will continue to be

gradually recolonized. Although the recovery of the peregrine falcon is

not complete throughout all parts of the historical range in North

America, those areas in which recovery has been slow represent a small

portion of the species' range. Furthermore, evidence collected in

recent years shows that a combination of lingering residues of

organochlorines in North America and contamination resulting from the

continued use of organochlorines in Latin America has not prevented a

widespread and substantial recovery of peregrine falcons as numbers of

peregrine falcons continue to increase. The Service concludes,

therefore, that the continued existence of the American peregrine

falcon and the reestablished peregrine

ing residues of

organochlorines in North America and contamination resulting from the

continued use of organochlorines in Latin America has not prevented a

widespread and substantial recovery of peregrine falcons as numbers of

peregrine falcons continue to increase. The Service concludes,

therefore, that the continued existence of the American peregrine

falcon and the reestablished peregrine

populations in the eastern and Midwestern States are no longer

threatened by exposure to organochlorine pesticides.

Due to the reduction in the effects of pesticides and widespread

positive trends in population size, the Service believes that the

American peregrine falcon has recovered and is no longer endangered

with extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The

Service proposes to remove the peregrine falcon from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, removing endangered status for the

American peregrine falcon and the Similarity of Appearance provision

for all free-flying peregrine falcons within the 48 conterminous

States.

Effects of This Rule

Finalization of this proposed rule will affect the protection

afforded to peregrine falcons under the Endangered Species Act. It will

not affect the status of the Eurasian peregrine falcon (F. p.

peregrinus), currently listed under the Act as endangered wherever it

occurs. The endangered designation under the Act for the American

peregrine falcon will be removed and the designation of ``Endangered

due to Similarity of Appearance'' designation for all free-flying

peregrine falcons found within the 48 conterminous United States,

including the Arctic and Peale's peregrine falcons and the

reestablished eastern and midwestern populations, will be removed.

Therefore, taking, interstate commerce, import, and export of North

American peregrine falcons will no longer be prohibited under the Act

due to Similarity of Appearance'' designation for all free-flying

peregrine falcons found within the 48 conterminous United States,

including the Arctic and Peale's peregrine falcons and the

reestablished eastern and midwestern populations, will be removed.

Therefore, taking, interstate commerce, import, and export of North

American peregrine falcons will no longer be prohibited under the Act.

In addition, Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult

with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event activities

they authorize, fund or carry out adversely affect peregrine falcons.

However, removal of the protection of the Endangered Species Act will

not affect the protection afforded all migratory bird species,

including all peregrine falcons, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act governs the taking, killing,

possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their

eggs, parts, and nests. Implementing regulations (50 CFR 20 and 21)

include provisions for the taking of migratory birds for educational,

scientific, and recreational purposes. Special regulations pertaining

to raptors are found in 50 CFR 21.28 to 21.30. These regulations allow

for the taking, possession, transport, import, purchase, and barter of

raptors for purposes of falconry and captive propagation pursuant to

State and Federal permits. If this delisting proposal is finalized, the

taking of peregrine falcons from the wild for falconry and propagation

will be allowable. Unpermitted take of peregrine falcons for falconry

and raptor propagation will be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act. In accordance with general permit regulation requirements that the

issuance of permits not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR

13.21(b)), authorization to take peregrines under the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria that will be issued

by the Service

of peregrine falcons for falconry

and raptor propagation will be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act. In accordance with general permit regulation requirements that the

issuance of permits not threaten wildlife populations (50 CFR

13.21(b)), authorization to take peregrines under the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria that will be issued

by the Service. The criteria will pertain to all wild North American

peregrine falcons and will apply to all current and future falconry and

raptor propagation permit holders. Take of peregrines will not be

authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act until these biological

criteria are in place. The Service expects to issue final criteria

prior to finalizing a decision on this proposal to delist the

peregrine.

The take and use of peregrine falcons must comply with appropriate

State regulations. State regulations applying to falconry currently

vary among States and are subject to change over time. The applicable

State regulations may be more but not less restrictive than Federal

regulations.

This rule will not affect the peregrine falcon's Appendix I status

under CITES, and CITES permits will still be required to import and

export peregrine falcons to and from the United States. CITES permits

will not be granted if the export will be detrimental to the survival

of the species or if the falcon was not legally acquired.

Critical Habitat

less restrictive than Federal

regulations.

This rule will not affect the peregrine falcon's Appendix I status

under CITES, and CITES permits will still be required to import and

export peregrine falcons to and from the United States. CITES permits

will not be granted if the export will be detrimental to the survival

of the species or if the falcon was not legally acquired.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat for the American peregrine falcon includes five

areas in northern California (50 CFR 17.95). The Act defines critical

habitat as ``specific areas within the geographical area occupied by

the species, at the time it is listed on which are found those physical

or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and

which may require special management considerations or protection.''

Since critical habitat can be designated only for species listed as

endangered or threatened under the Act, existing critical habitat will

lose this current designation when the American peregrine falcon is

delisted.

Future Conservation Measures

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

Interior, through the Service, implement a monitoring program for not

less than 5 years for all species that have been recovered and

delisted. The purpose of this requirement is to develop a program that

detects the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without

the protective measures provided by the Act. If at any time during the

5-year monitoring program, data indicate that protective status under

the Act should be reinstated, the Service can initiate listing

procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At the

conclusion of the monitoring period, the Service will review all

available information to determine if relisting, the continuation of

monitoring, or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.

Monitoring

nitoring program, data indicate that protective status under

the Act should be reinstated, the Service can initiate listing

procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At the

conclusion of the monitoring period, the Service will review all

available information to determine if relisting, the continuation of

monitoring, or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.

Monitoring

The Service's Region 1 in consultation with Service biologists in

Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will coordinate with existing recovery

teams, working groups, State resource agencies, and interested

scientific organizations to develop and implement an effective 5-year

monitoring program to track the population status of the peregrine

falcon. The Service will encourage Canada and Mexico to establish

monitoring plans that will produce comparable data.

The Service will use, to the fullest extent possible, information

routinely collected by researchers and land managers in a variety of

organizations and agencies. This data, however, will only supplement

data collected under a systematic monitoring program. Sites or areas

will be specifically selected for monitoring to provide a subset of

data that is representative of the species' status throughout its

range. The following minimum measures will be used to track the status

of the peregrine falcon, although the specific approaches to monitoring

may vary among regions.

1. Annual Occupancy Surveys

To detect changes in the use of nesting territories, samples of

breeding pairs will be surveyed each breeding season in a statistically

valid manner. Survey areas, timing, and survey methods must be

consistent among surveys conducted over several years.

2. Productivity

To assess productivity, the number of young produced per

territorial pair will be recorded in the survey areas. The Service will

also use information from all study areas where appropriate data are

available in addition to systematic monitoring of productivity of

selected sites.

y areas, timing, and survey methods must be

consistent among surveys conducted over several years.

2. Productivity

To assess productivity, the number of young produced per

territorial pair will be recorded in the survey areas. The Service will

also use information from all study areas where appropriate data are

available in addition to systematic monitoring of productivity of

selected sites.

3. Contaminants

In areas where depressed reproduction may be caused by residual

organochlorine pesticides, eggshell thickness and contaminant

concentrations in addled eggs will be analyzed to monitor

organochlorines pesticides and other environmental contaminants.

Additional sampling to detect contaminants may include blood analysis

and collection of egg and blood samples from peregrine falcons in

selected areas where reproduction is not depressed by environmental

contaminants to detect changes in contaminant levels on a broader scale

in the United States, as well as to continue to evaluate the effects of

contaminants on American peregrines migrating to Latin America in

winter.

The North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on DDT was

developed by parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), working with the Secretariat for the (North American)

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), under Council

Resolution #95-05. This tri-lateral forum between the United States,

Canada, and Mexico, may provide funding opportunities for monitoring

organochlorine exposure, and productivity in American peregrine falcon

populations nesting in Mexico.

4. Take for Falconry

Authorization to take peregrine falcons for falconry purposes under

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria

established by the Service. The Service will work with the States to

monitor levels of actual take of peregrine falcons authorized under

State/Federal falconry and raptor propagation permits

regrine falcon

populations nesting in Mexico.

4. Take for Falconry

Authorization to take peregrine falcons for falconry purposes under

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be subject to biological criteria

established by the Service. The Service will work with the States to

monitor levels of actual take of peregrine falcons authorized under

State/Federal falconry and raptor propagation permits.

After completion of the mandated 5-year monitoring program, the

Service will review all available monitoring data to determine whether

relisting, continuation of monitoring, or termination of monitoring is

appropriate. The Service will consider relisting if, during or after

the 5-year monitoring effort, the Service determines a reversal of

recovery has taken place. The Service will consider relisting the

peregrine falcon if (1) major breeding areas do not maintain 60 percent

occupancy of sites, as measured by the number of sites documented as

occupied by peregrine pairs in the first year of monitoring; (2) there

is a clear and substantial trend of reduced productivity below that of

growing or stable populations (i.e., average productivity drops below

1.0 young per territorial pair for two consecutive surveys, without

mitigating circumstances, such as abnormal weather conditions); (3)

exposure to organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, or

other environmental contaminants increases to levels shown to be

deleterious to the species in more than a few, isolated populations; or

populations (i.e., average productivity drops below

1.0 young per territorial pair for two consecutive surveys, without

mitigating circumstances, such as abnormal weather conditions); (3)

exposure to organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, or

other environmental contaminants increases to levels shown to be

deleterious to the species in more than a few, isolated populations; or

(4) in the case of other extenuating circumstances that would warrant

relisting.

If the Service determines at the end of the mandatory 5-year

monitoring period that recovery is complete, and factors that led to

the listing of subspecies of peregrine falcon, or any new factors, have

been sufficiently reduced or eliminated, monitoring may be reduced or

terminated. If data show that peregrine falcon populations are

declining or if one or more factors that have the potential to cause

decline are identified, the Service will continue monitoring beyond the

5-year period and may modify the monitoring program based on an

evaluation of the results of the initial 5-year monitoring program.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service requests comments on three aspects of this proposed

rulemaking: (1) the proposed removal of the peregrine falcon from the

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, (2) the clarity of this

proposal, pursuant to Executive Order 12866, which requires agencies to

write clear regulations, and (3) the collection of information from the

public during the 5-year monitoring period, which requires Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Proposed Delisting

egrine falcon from the

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, (2) the clarity of this

proposal, pursuant to Executive Order 12866, which requires agencies to

write clear regulations, and (3) the collection of information from the

public during the 5-year monitoring period, which requires Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Proposed Delisting

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal to remove the peregrine falcon from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife will be as accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other

interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.

Comments should be sent to the Service's Ventura, California, Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section). Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species;

(3) current or planned activities in the range of this subspecies

and their possible impacts on this species;

(4) data on population trends in Mexico;

(5) information and comments on the potential impacts of falconry

on peregrine falcon populations; and

reat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species;

(3) current or planned activities in the range of this subspecies

and their possible impacts on this species;

(4) data on population trends in Mexico;

(5) information and comments on the potential impacts of falconry

on peregrine falcon populations; and

(6) information and comments pertaining to the proposed monitoring

program contained in this proposal.

The final decision on this proposal for the peregrine falcon will

take into consideration the comments and any additional information

received by the Service during the comment period.

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of

publication of this proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and

sent to the Ventura Field Office address in the ADDRESSES section at

the beginning of this proposed rule.

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that

are easy to understand. The Service invites your comments on how to

make this proposal easier to understand including answers to questions

such as the following: (1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary

Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon

that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal

(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)

aid or reduce its clarity? What else could the Service do to make the

proposal easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how the Service could make

this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to: E[email protected].

Paperwork Reduction Act

d or reduce its clarity? What else could the Service do to make the

proposal easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how the Service could make

this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to: E[email protected].

Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public

and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency

information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR

1320.8(d)). The Service intends to collect information from the public

during the mandatory 5-year monitoring period following delisting of

the peregrine falcon. A description of the information collection

burden and the comments requested on this

collection are included in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Section 4(g) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all

species that are delisted due to recovery be monitored for a minimum of

5 years. A general description of the information that will be

collected during the monitoring period was provided above in the

Monitoring section of this proposal. Implementation of the monitoring

plan will include collections of information from the public that

require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Simultaneous to publication of this

proposed delisting rule, the Service is initiating the process of

information collection approval from OMB. The Service may not conduct

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

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Service intends to collect information from researchers and

land managers in a variety of organizations and agencies

oposed delisting rule, the Service is initiating the process of

information collection approval from OMB. The Service may not conduct

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

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Service intends to collect information from researchers and

land managers in a variety of organizations and agencies. Some of the

information gathered will be part of already ongoing State, Federal, or

private monitoring programs. The Service also will use information from

other study areas where appropriate data are available. The information

collected will allow the Service to detect any failure of the species

to sustain itself following delisting. If during this monitoring period

the Service determines that the species is not sufficiently maintaining

its recovered status, the species could be relisted as endangered or

threatened under the Act.

The Service estimates approximately 20 respondents to requests for

information on the status of peregrine falcon per year. Different

respondents may provide one or more types of information. A total of

12.5 burden hours per year are estimated for the potential 20

respondents, as indicated in the following table.

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

Average time

Number of required per Annual

Type of information requests response burden hours

annually * (minutes)

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

Nest occupancy.................................................... 20 15 5

Productivity...................................................... 20 15 5

Contaminants...................................................... 10 15 2.5

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

* The total number of individual respondents anticipated is 20

occupancy.................................................... 20 15 5

Productivity...................................................... 20 15 5

Contaminants...................................................... 10 15 2.5

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

* The total number of individual respondents anticipated is 20. The figures in this column should not be viewed

cumulatively.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public

and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information

collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). Comments

are invited on--(1) whether the collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy

of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of

information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of

the information to be collected; and, (4) ways to minimize the burden

of the collection of information on respondents, including through the

use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or other forms of information

technology. Comments on information collection should be sent to OMB

and to the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer at the

addresses included in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this

proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

ough the

use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or other forms of information

technology. Comments on information collection should be sent to OMB

and to the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer at the

addresses included in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this

proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the

Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Listing Priority Guidance

The Service has implemented a series of listing priority guidance

since 1996 to clarify the order in which it will process rulemaking

actions. The need for this guidance arose following major disruptions

in the Service's listing budget beginning in Fiscal Year 1995 and a

moratorium on certain listing actions during parts of Fiscal Years 1995

and 1996. The intent of the guidance is to focus Service efforts on

listing actions that will provide the greatest conservation benefits to

imperiled species in the most expeditious and biologically sound

manner. The Service's Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998

and 1999 was published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502) and reflects the

significant progress the Service has made in addressing its backlog

tent of the guidance is to focus Service efforts on

listing actions that will provide the greatest conservation benefits to

imperiled species in the most expeditious and biologically sound

manner. The Service's Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998

and 1999 was published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502) and reflects the

significant progress the Service has made in addressing its backlog.

The Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority Guidance gives highest

priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the

Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority

(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species

to the lists, processing new proposals to add species to the Lists,

processing administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the

lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a

limited number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify

species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final

rules designating critical habitat. Processing of this delisting

proposal is a Tier 2 action.

Processing of this proposed delisting conforms with the guidance

for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. The processing of certain high-priority

delisting actions will result in significant, albeit indirect,

conservation benefits. As long as a species remains on the endangered

and threatened list, Service funds are expended reviewing regulated

activities pursuant to section 10 (prohibited activities) and engaging

in consultations with other Federal agencies under section 7

(interagency cooperation) of the Act. Following delisting, resources

currently devoted to these activities will be redirected to other

listed species more deserving of conservation efforts. Moreover, the

Service is obligated to keep the lists of endangered and threatened

species accurate.

References Cited

activities) and engaging

in consultations with other Federal agencies under section 7

(interagency cooperation) of the Act. Following delisting, resources

currently devoted to these activities will be redirected to other

listed species more deserving of conservation efforts. Moreover, the

Service is obligated to keep the lists of endangered and threatened

species accurate.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert Mesta, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section), (805/644-1766).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Service hereby

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, Title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

2. Section 17.11(h) is proposed to be amended by removing the

entries for the ``Falcon, American peregrine, Falco peregrinus anatum''

and ``Falcon, peregrine, Falco peregrinus'' under ``BIRDS'', from the

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. [Note--This rule does not

affect the entry for ``Falcon, Eurasian peregrine, Falco peregrinus

peregrinus.]

Sec. 17.95 [Amended]

3. Amend section 17.95(b) by removing the critical habitat entry

for ``American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum).''

Dated: July 31, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98-22934 Filed 8-25-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P