Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Part III

Department of the Interior and Wildlife Service

50 CFR 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Brown (Pelecanus occidentalis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59444 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR salt water intermingle) environments 274–276) is based on Wetmore’s (1945, along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico pp. 577–586) review, which was based Fish and Wildlife Service from Mississippi to Texas and the coast on few specimens from a limited of Mexico; along the Caribbean coast portion of the range. Remsen et al. 50 CFR Part 17 from Mexico south to Venezuela; along (2009) does not present a [FWS–R2–ES–2008–0025 ; 92220–1113– the Pacific Coast from British Columbia, comprehensive taxonomic treatment of 0000–C6] Canada, south through Mexico into all brown , but rather, relies on Central and South America; and in the already noted morphological differences RIN 1018–AV28 West Indies, and are occasionally to propose that P. o. thagus be recognized as a full . Additional Endangered and Threatened Wildlife sighted throughout the United States (Shields 2002, pp. 2–4). Brown pelicans taxonomic review of all brown pelicans and Plants; Removal of the Brown would be needed to further elucidate Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) From remain in residence throughout the breeding range, but some segments of the relationships and distributions of the Federal List of Endangered and the six described . The Threatened Wildlife many populations migrate annually after breeding (Shields 2002, p. 6). original listing of the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Overall, the brown pelican continues to included the species throughout its Interior. occur throughout its historical range range and covered all six of the ACTION: Final rule. (Shields 2002, pp. 4–5). This rule subspecies described above. This rule includes biological and life history continues that taxonomic treatment, SUMMARY: Under the authority of the information for the brown pelican including the Peruvian brown pelican Endangered Species Act of 1973, as relevant to the delisting. Additional (P. o. thagus). amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and information about the brown pelican’s Previous Federal Actions Wildlife Service (Service), are removing biology and life history can be found in the brown pelican (Pelecanus the of North America, No. 609 On February 20, 2008, we published occidentalis) from the Federal List of (Shields 2002, pp. 1–36). a 12-month petition finding and proposed rule to remove the brown Endangered and Threatened Wildlife This rule applies to the entire listed due to recovery. This action is based on pelican from the Federal List of species, which includes all brown Endangered and Threatened Wildlife a review of the best available scientific pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and commercial data, which indicate (73 FR 9408). We solicited data and subspecies. The species Pelecanus comments from the public on the that the species is no longer in danger occidentalis is generally recognized as of extinction, or likely to become so proposed rule. The comment period consisting of six subspecies: (1) P. o. opened on February 20, 2008, and within the foreseeable future. The occidentalis (Linnaeus, 1766: West brown pelican will remain protected closed on April 21, 2008. Note that this Indies and the Caribbean Coast of South proposed rule addresses the status of under the provisions of the Migratory America, occasionally wanders to coasts Treaty Act. brown pelicans throughout their range of Mexico and Florida), (2) P. o. except where previously delisted along DATES: The effective date of this rule is carolinensis (Gmelin, 1798: Atlantic and the Atlantic Coast of the United States, December 17, 2009. Gulf coasts of the United States and in Florida, and in Alabama (50 FR 4938; ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Mexico; Caribbean Coast of Mexico February 4, 1985). For more information on the Internet at http:// south to Venezuela, South America; on previous Federal actions concerning www.regulations.gov and http:// Pacific Coast from southern Mexico to the brown pelican, please refer to the www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/. northern , South America), (3) P. o. proposed rule published in the Federal Supporting documentation used in californicus (Ridgeway, 1884: California Register on February 20, 2008 (73 FR preparing this final rule will be south to Colima, Mexico, including Gulf 9408). available for public inspection, by of California), (4) P. o. urinator appointment, during normal business (Wetmore, 1945: Galapagos Islands), (5) Distribution and Population Estimates hours, at the Service’s Clear Lake P. o. murphyi (Wetmore, 1945: Ecuador Information on population estimates Ecological Services Field Office, 17629 and Pacific Coast of Colombia), and (6) below is arranged geographically for El Camino Real #211, Houston, Texas P. o. thagus (Molina, 1782: Peru and convenience and to present a logical 77058–3051. Chile). Recognition of brown pelican organization of the information. These FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: subspecies is based largely on relative broad geographic areas do not Steve Parris, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish size and color of plumage and soft parts necessarily represent populations or and Wildlife Service, Clear Lake (for example, the bill, legs, and feet). other biologically based groupings. The Ecological Services Field Office, 17629 The distributional limits of the brown six subspecies described above are not El Camino Real #211, Houston, Texas pelican subspecies are poorly known, so used to organize the following 77058–3051; telephone 281/286–8282; the geographic descriptions of their information because distributional facsimile 281/488–5882. If you use a ranges are approximate and may not be limits of the subspecies are poorly telecommunications device for the deaf adequate to assign subspecies known, especially in Central and South (TDD), call the Federal Information designations. Additionally, some America. Additionally, the broad Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. authors elevate the Peruvian subspecies overlap in wintering and breeding SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to a separate species, Peruvian pelican ranges among the subspecies introduces (P. thagus) (see Remsen et al. 2009). considerable uncertainty in assigning Background However, the of the brown subspecies designations in portions of Brown pelican (Pelecanus pelican subspecies has not been the species range (Shields 2002, p. 5). occidentalis) populations currently critically reviewed for many years, and Because the brown pelican is a wide- listed under the Endangered Species Act the classification followed by the ranging, mobile species, is migratory of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. American Ornithologists’ Union throughout much of its range, and may 1531 et seq.) occur in primarily coastal (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957, shift its breeding or wintering areas or marine and estuarine (where fresh and pp. 29–30) and by Palmer (1962, pp. distribution in response to local

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59445

conditions, it is difficult to define local of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), the for the brown pelican since 1973 populations of the species. Much of the population appeared to recover from (Service 2006, p. 5). Although the Texas population estimate information below these impacts and a peak of 16,501 population of brown pelicans did not is given at the scale of individual successful nests producing 39,021 experience the total reproductive failure countries, which may not correspond fledglings was recorded in 2004 (LDWF recorded in Louisiana, the first year with actual biological populations, 2006, p. 1; Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. (1973) of information from the Texas particularly for smaller countries that 13). However, tropical storms in 2004 census identified only one nesting may represent only a fraction of the resulted in the loss of three nesting colony with six breeding pairs in the species’ range. Direct comparison of all islands east of the Mississippi River State. Since that time, there was a the estimates provided below is difficult and, after storm events in late 2005, gradual increase through 1993 when because methods used to derive LDWF surveys detected 25,289 there were 530 breeding pairs in two population estimates are not always fledglings (Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. nesting colonies; in 1994, there was a reported, some population estimates are 13). Surveys in 2006 detected 8,036 substantial increase to 1,751 breeding given as broad ranges, and some do not successful nests in 15 colonies, pairs in three nesting colonies (Service specify whether the estimates are for producing 17,566 fledglings with an 2006, pp. 3–5). Since then, the overall breeding birds or include nonbreeding average of 2.1 fledglings per successful increasing trend has continued with birds as well. However, the information nest (Hess and Linscombe 2007, pp. 1, some year-to-year variation (Service does indicate the broad distribution of 4). In 2007, there were 14 colonies that 2006, pp. 2–3). The most recent the species and reflects the large global produced 24,085 fledglings with an complete count of breeding birds in population estimate of more than average of 2.2 fledglings per nest (LDWF Texas occurred in 2008 and reported 620,000 birds, which does not include 2008, pp. 3, 6). 6,136 pairs (Service 2009c). This Hess and Linscombe (2007, p. 4) previously delisted birds along the number equates to 12,272 breeding concluded that the brown pelican Atlantic coast of the United States, in birds, which is substantially greater Florida, or in Alabama (Service 2007a, population in Louisiana is maintaining than historical population estimates for pp. 44–45). sustained growth despite lower fledgling production in 2005 and 2006 Texas. Gulf of Mexico Coast (a decrease of 31 percent from 2005 to Gulf Coast of Mexico.—Very little Mississippi.—Turcotte and Watts 2006). Fledgling production has information is available about the status (1999, pp. 84–86) consider the brown increased 37.1 percent from 2006 to of the brown pelican along the Gulf pelican a permanent resident of the 2007 (LDWF 2008, p. 5). Numbers of Coast in Mexico. Aerial surveys Mississippi coast, even though there are successful nests are not directly indicated that brown pelicans in Mexico no records of nesting brown pelicans in comparable to numbers of individuals were virtually absent as a breeding Mississippi. Brown pelicans are in historic estimates because they do not species along the Gulf of Mexico north currently not known to breed in account for immature or nonbreeding of Veracruz by 1968 (Service 1979, p. Mississippi, but the annual Christmas individuals or provide an index of 10). An aerial survey conducted in Bird Counts have documented wintering population size in years when breeding March 1986 along this same stretch of brown pelicans in Mississippi since success is low due to factors such as coast counted 2,270 birds, down from 1985 (National Audubon Society 2009, weather and food availability. However, 4,250 birds estimated in counts pp. 1–3). The most recent counts over numbers of successful nests and conducted between December 1979 and the winter of 2008–2009 sighted 372 fledglings produced annually since 1993 January 1980 (Blankenship 1987, p. 2). brown pelicans (National Audubon (Hess and Linscombe 2007, p. 4; LDWF However, the counts in 1986 and in Society 2009, p. 3). 2008, p. 4) do indicate continued 1980 differed in the areas covered and Louisiana.—Before 1920, brown nesting and successful fledging of young timing of counts and represent only two pelicans were estimated to have sufficient to sustain a viable population data points, so it is difficult to compare numbered between 50,000 and 85,000 in in Louisiana. See ‘‘Storm effects, the earlier and later counts. A recent Louisiana (King et al. 1977a, pp. 417, weather, and erosion impacts to habitat’’ survey of colonial waterbirds at Laguna 419). By 1963, the brown pelican had under Factor A for further discussion of Madre de Tamaulipas did not locate completely disappeared from Louisiana effects of storms. brown pelicans (Pronatura and (Williams and Martin 1968, p. 130). A Texas.—Brown pelicans historically Audubon Texas 2008), although brown reintroduction program was conducted numbered around 5,000 in Texas but pelicans were not sighted there during between 1968 and 1980. During this began to decline in the 1920s and 1930s, the 1986 aerial surveys either period, 1,276 nestling brown pelicans presumably due to shooting and (Blankenship 1987, Table 1). No other were transplanted from colonies in destruction of nests (King et al. 1977a, recent information for this portion of the Florida to coastal Louisiana (McNease et p. 419). According to King et al. (1977a, species’ range was found, so no al. 1984, p. 169). After the initiation of p. 422), there were no reports of brown conclusions on population trends of the the reintroduction, the population pelicans nesting in Texas in 1964 or brown pelican for the Mexican portion reached a total number of 16,405 1966. There were two known nesting successful nests and 34,641 young attempts in 1965, but the success of of the Gulf Coast can be drawn. produced in 2001 (Holm et al. 2003, p. these nests is not known. Annual aerial Summary of Gulf of Mexico Coast.— 432). and ground surveys of traditional Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, brown In 2003, the number of nesting nesting colonies conducted in Texas pelican populations, while experiencing colonies increased, but numbers of during the period 1967 to 1974 some periodic or local declines, have successful nests decreased to 13,044 due indicated that only two to seven pairs increased dramatically from a point of to four severe storms that eroded attempted to breed in each of these near disappearance in the 1960s and portions of some nest islands and years. Only 40 young were documented 70s. Brown pelicans were present along destroyed some late nests in various fledging during this entire 8-year period the Gulf Coast of Mexico in 1986, but colonies (Hess and Linscombe 2003, (King et al. 1977a, p. 422). we currently lack recent information on Table 2). According to surveys The Texas Colonial Waterbird Census the status of the species in this portion conducted by the Louisiana Department has tracked population trends in Texas of its range.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

West Indies cause. The May 2006 newsletter for the Camagu¨ ey and in the Refugio de Fauna The West Indies refers to a crescent- Society for the Conservation and Study Rı´o Ma´ximo (Acosta-Cruz and Mugica- shaped group of islands occurring in the of Caribbean Birds (Society for the Valde´s 2006, pp. 32–33). The number of Caribbean Sea consisting of the Conservation and Study of Caribbean nesting pairs at Refugio de Fauna Rı´o Bahamas, the Greater Antilles Birds 2006) notes that St. Maarten’s Ma´ximo was estimated at 16 to 36 pairs (including Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, the proposed Important Bird Areas of Fort during monitoring in 2001 and 2002 ´ Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico), Amsterdam and Pelikan Key host (Acosta-Cruz and Mugica-Valdes 2006, and the Lesser Antilles (a group of regionally important populations of p. 33). No estimates were given for other island countries forming an arc from the nesting brown pelicans, although nesting sites. More recent data from U.S. Virgin Islands on its northwest end numbers of nesting birds are not given. Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.— estimates there to be 300 nesting pairs southeast to Grenada). Van Halewyn Collazo et al. (1998, pp. 63–64) in 18 colonies in Cuba. and Norton (1984, p. 201) summarized compared demographic parameters Aruba.—Information provided by the breeding distribution of brown between 1980–82 and 1992–95 for Veterinary Service of Aruba, the pelicans throughout the Caribbean brown pelicans in Puerto Rico. The country’s Convention on International region and noted at least 23 sites where mean number of individuals observed Trade in Endangered Species of Wild the species was reliably reported nesting during winter aerial population surveys Fauna and Flora (CITES; 27 U.S.T. 1087) in the islands of the West Indies at some between 1980 and 1982 was 2,289, Management Authority, estimates the time since 1950. Based on the most while mean winter counts from 1992 to breeding population on the island to be recent estimates available at the time, 1995 averaged only 593 birds (Collazo et 20 pairs with a total population estimate van Halewyn and Norton (1984, p. 201) al. 1998, p. 63). Reasons for the decrease of 60 individuals (Veterinary Service of documented more than 2,000 breeding in number of wintering birds between Aruba 2008, p. 1). pairs throughout the West Indies. More the two periods are not known; Summary of West Indies.—Although recently, Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) however, migrational shifts could have we do not have detailed information on estimated the minimum number of contributed to the decrease in winter brown pelicans throughout all of the brown pelicans throughout the West counts between survey periods (Collazo islands of the West Indies, the Indies at 1,500 breeding pairs, and et al. 1998, p. 63). The number of nests distribution and abundance of current Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) observed at the selected study sites did breeding colonies reported by Collazo et estimated the West Indian population at not show such an appreciable decline al. (2000, p. 42), van Halewyn and 1,630 breeding pairs. Raffaele et al. during the same period for Puerto Rico Norton (1984, pp. 174–175, 201), and (1998, pp. 224–225) describe the brown and the nearby U.S. Virgin Islands, with Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) are pelican as ‘‘A common year-round nest counts ranging from 167 to 250 all similar and in the range of 1,500 to resident in the southern Bahamas, during 1980 to 1982, compared with 222 2,000 breeding pairs. Greater Antilles and locally in the and 256 during 1992 to 1993 (Collazo et northern Lesser Antilles east to Caribbean and Atlantic Coasts of al. 1998, p. 64). Collazo et al. (2000, p. Mexico, Central America, and South Montserrat. It is common to rare through 42) estimated approximately 120–200 America the rest of the West Indies with some nesting pairs in Puerto Rico and 300– birds wandering between islands.’’ 350 nesting pairs in the U.S. Virgin No comprehensive population In a search for additional seabird Islands. Information provided by Puerto estimates for the Caribbean and Atlantic breeding colonies in the Lesser Antilles, Rico’s Department of Natural and Coasts of Central and South America are Collier et al. (2003, pp. 112–113) did not Environmental Resources places available to our knowledge, although find brown pelicans nesting on population estimates in the same some estimates for other portions of the Anguilla, Saba, and Dominica. In an relative range as Collazo et al. (1998) species’ range include birds that nest on attempt to survey seabirds in St. Vincent with an average of 437 individuals the mainland coast or offshore islands and the Grenadines, Hayes (2002, p. 51) found in aerial surveys conducted from (e.g., van Halewyn and Norton’s found brown pelicans in the central 1996 to 2004 (Department of Natural estimate of 6,200 pairs in the Caribbean Grenadines. He notes that brown and Environmental Resources 2008, pp. included birds nesting on the mainland pelicans were once considered common 1, 3), although it is not known if these and offshore islands of Colombia and in the Grenadines and suggests that a were summer or winter surveys. Venezuela (1984, p. 201)). small nesting colony may exist there, Additionally, the U.S. Virgin Islands’ Mexico.—Isla Contoy Reserva although there is no historical record of Department of Planning and Natural Especial de la Biosfera off the coast of nesting. Resources reports that about 300 nesting Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, was the Anguilla, Montserrat, Jamaica, the pairs have been counted in the U.S. site of Mexico’s largest brown pelican Bahamas, and Antigua.—Recent Virgin Islands annually (Department of nesting colony in 1986, with 300 nesting information presented in Bradley and Planning and Natural Resources 2008, p. pairs (Blankenship 1987, p. 2). By the Norton (2009, p. 275) reports 21 1), a comparable number to that spring of 1996, 700 to 1,000 pairs of breeding pairs in Anguilla, 14 in reported by Collazo et al. (1998). brown pelicans were estimated to be Montserrat, greater than 150 in Jamaica, Finally, more recent information from nesting on Isla Contoy (Shields 2002, p. 50 in the Bahamas, and 53 in Antigua. Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) 35). Four other colonies in this region St. Maarten.—Collier et al. (2003, p. reports 265 breeding pairs in Puerto accounted for 128 nesting pairs in 1986 113) reported finding two nesting Rico and 325 breeding pairs in the U.S. (Blankenship 1987, p. 2). colonies on St. Maarten Island in 2001, Virgin Islands. Belize.—Miller and Miller (2006, pp. with a total of 64 nesting pairs, but in Cuba.—Acosta-Cruz and Mugica- 7, 64) analyzed Christmas Bird Count 2002 found no breeding pelicans at one Valde´s (2006, pp. 10, 65) reported that data collected in Belize from 1969–2005 of the two sites surveyed in 2001. brown pelicans are a common resident and reported that brown pelican Reasons for the lack of breeding activity species, with the population augmented numbers over this period have remained in 2002 are unknown, although Collier by migrants during the winter. Brown about the same. References compiled et al. (2003, p. 113) suggested a pelicans have been documented nesting and summarized by Miller and Miller disturbance event could have been the at five sites in the Archipie´lago Sabana- (2006, pp. 144–149) variously report

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59447

brown pelicans as: ‘‘Common: high Schreiber (1987, p. 278) estimated a Santos and San Martı´n islands were density, likely to be seen many places,’’ population size of 17,000 brown previously extirpated in 1923 and 1974, ‘‘Transient, present briefly as migrant,’’ pelicans in 25 colonies. Within those respectively; however, these were ‘‘Resident, species present all year,’’ and breeding colonies, 3,369 nests were recently found to be occupied (Gress et ‘‘apparently secure in Belize.’’ Brown counted (Guzman and Schreiber 1987, al. 2005, pp. 20–25). Todos Santos pelicans are also reported in one p. 278). More recently, Rodner (2006, p. Island had about 65 nests in 2004, but reference as nesting on several cays 9) confirms that there are approximately there were no nests in 2005. This colony (small, low islands composed largely of 25 brown pelican colonies in Venezuela. is currently considered to be ephemeral, coral or sand), but no information on Rodner (2006, p. 9) does not give an occurring some years and then not number of nesting birds or locations are overall estimate of the brown pelican others (Gress et al. 2005, p. 28). At San given. population in Venezuela but notes more Martı´n Island, 35 pairs were reported in Guatemala.—Brown pelicans in than 1,700 nests have been documented 1999, a small colony was noted in 2000, Guatemala are considered to be a in four of the largest breeding colonies, and 125–200 pairs were seen in 2002, breeding resident (Eisermann 2006, p. while another recent census of four sites 2003, and 2004 (Gress et al. 2005, pp. 55), although locations of nesting sites resulted in counts of 2,097 pelicans. 20–25). and number of breeding pairs are not South of Venezuela, brown pelicans The southwest Baja California coastal given. Eisermann (2006, p. 65) estimated are reported as a nonbreeding migrant in population has about 3,100 breeding the Caribbean slope population of Guyana (Johnson 2006, p. 5), French pairs, the Gulf of California population brown pelicans in Guatemala to consist Guiana (Delelis and Pracontal 2006, p. is estimated at 43,350 breeding pairs, of approximately 376 birds. 57), Surinam (Haverschmidt 1949, p. 77; and the mainland Mexico populations Honduras.—Thorn et al. (2006, p. 29) Ottema 2006, p. 3), and Brazil (De Luca (including islands) is estimated to have report brown pelicans nesting on the et al. 2006, pp. 3, 40) 12,385 breeding pairs (Anderson et al. Caribbean coast of Honduras and Summary of the Caribbean/Atlantic 2007, p. 8). The Gulf of California offshore islands. Brown pelicans are Coast.—In general, brown pelicans are population remained essentially the reported as a common resident in broadly distributed on the Caribbean same from 1970 to 1988 (Everett and Honduras, with numbers estimated to and Atlantic coasts of southern Mexico Anderson 1991, p. 125). It is thought range between 10,000 and 25,000 birds and Central and South America and are that populations in Mexico have been and a stable population trend (Thorn et still present throughout their historic stable since the early 1970s (when long- al. 2006, p. 20). range with population numbers likely in term studies began) because of their Nicaragua.—Zolotoff-Pallais and the range of 30,000 to 50,000 birds, lower exposure to organochlorine Lezama (2006, p. 74) report that the based on the numbers presented above. pesticides (e.g., DDT), although annual number of brown pelicans within California and Pacific Coast of Northern numbers at individual colonies fluctuate Nicaragua falls within the range 1001– Mexico widely due to prey availability and 5000 and is stable, although they do not human disturbance at colonies (Everett indicate whether this estimate The most recent population estimate and Anderson 1991, p. 133). represents only breeding birds. of the brown pelican subspecies that Summary of California and Pacific Costa Rica.—Brown pelicans are ranges from California to Mexico along Coast of Northern Mexico.—Henny and considered a resident species in Costa the Pacific Coast is approximately Anderson (2007, pp. 1, 8) concluded Rica, but are not reported nesting on the 70,680 nesting pairs, which equates to that their preliminary estimates of Caribbean coast of Costa Rica (Quesada 141,360 breeding birds (Anderson et al. nesting pairs in 2006 suggest a large and 2006, pp. 9, 46). 2007, p. 8). They nest in four distinct healthy total breeding population for Panama.—Brown pelicans primarily geographic areas: (1) The Southern California and the Pacific coast of nest in the Gulf of Panama on the California Bight (SCB), which includes Mexico. Pacific coast with no nesting reported southern California and northern Baja on the Caribbean coast (Angehr 2005, California, Mexico; (2) southwest Baja Pacific Coast of Central America and pp. 15–16). However, brown pelicans do California; (3) the Gulf of California, South America winter along the Caribbean coast of which includes coastlines of both Baja As with the Caribbean and Atlantic Panama. In 1993, 582 brown pelicans California and Sonora, Mexico; and (4) coasts of Central and South America, were counted in Panama (Shields 2002, mainland Mexico further south along there are no comprehensive population p. 22) along the Caribbean coast, and the Pacific coastline (including Sinaloa estimates for brown pelicans along this Angehr (2005, p. 79) considers brown and Nayarit) (Service 1983, p. 8). portion of their range. pelicans to be a ‘‘fairly common During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, migrant’’ along the Caribbean coast. the SCB population declined to fewer and Nicaragua.—Brown pelicans are Colombia.—Moreno and Buelvas than 1,000 pairs and reproductive considered a nonbreeding visitor on the (2005, p. 57) report that brown pelicans success was nearly zero (Anderson et al. Pacific slope of Guatemala (Eisermann occur at four sites on the Caribbean 1975, p. 807). In 2006, approximately 2006, p. 4) with an estimated abundance coast of Colombia, with a good 11,695 breeding pairs were documented of 2,118 birds. About 800 brown population of brown pelicans in the at 10 locations in the SCB: 3 locations pelicans are widely distributed along coastal wetlands of La Guajira. on Anacapa Island, 1 on Prince Island, the Pacific Coast of El Salvador (Ibarra However, no estimate of numbers of and 1 on Santa Barbara Island in Portillo 2006, p. 2). However, Herrera et breeding birds was given. Information California; 3 on Los Coronados Islands, al. (2006, p. 44) reported brown pelicans provided by Colombia’s Instituto de 1 on Islas Todos Santos, and 1 on Isla to be a nonbreeding visitor in El Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras San Martı´n in Mexico within the SCB Salvador with numbers falling within (INVEMAR) report approximately 20 (Henny and Anderson 2007, p. 9; Gress the range 1,001–10,000 and an breeding pairs on the Caribbean coast of 2007). In 2007, brown pelicans in increasing trend. Brown pelicans occur Colombia with additional migratory California nested on west Anacapa on the Pacific Coast of Honduras but are birds present (INVEMAR 2008). Island and Santa Barbara Island but did not reported to nest there (Thorn et al. Venezuela.—Based on aerial surveys not nest on Prince Island (Burkett et al. 2006, p. 26, 29). Zolotoff-Pallais and of the Venezuelan coast, Guzman and 2007, p. 8). The populations on Todos Lezama (2006, p. 74) report that the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59448 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

number of brown pelicans within (2008) also report approximately 3,000 Gulf of Mexico from Mississippi to Nicaragua falls within the range 1,001– breeding pairs known from the Pacific Texas and the coast of Mexico; along the 5,000, but do not indicate locations or coast of Colombia, which represents Caribbean coast from Mexico south to breeding status. approximately 6,000 birds and is Venezuela; along the Pacific Coast from Costa Rica.—The Costa Rican consistent with estimates by Naranjo et British Columbia, Canada, south Ministry for Environment and Energy al. (2006b). through Mexico into Central and South has reported that several breeding Ecuador.—On Ecuador’s Galapagos America; and in the West Indies. colonies exist on the Pacific Coast from Islands, Shields (2002, p. 35) cites Population estimates for various States, the Nicaraguan border to the Gulf of reports of a few thousand pairs. Delaney regions, and countries reviewed above Nicoya and include the islands of and Scott (2002, p. 29) estimated the are not strictly comparable because they Bolanos and Guayabo (Service 2007a, p. population on the Galapagos to be 5,000 were not made using any standard 13). Shields (2002, p. 35) estimated as birds. Santander et al. (2006, pp. 44, 49) protocol or methodology, and in many many as 850 pairs in Costa Rica. reported that brown pelicans in the cases the process by which the estimates However, Quesada (2006, p. 37) Galapagos number less than 10,000 and were developed is not described. For estimated the brown pelican population are considered common there, while example, surveys conducted in different in Costa Rica to fall within the range populations on the mainland range from parts of the year may yield differing 10,000–25,000 birds with a stable 25,000 to 100,000. The Ministerio del results due to migratory trends and population trend. Ambiente of Ecuador has reported that breeding patterns. While in some cases Panama.—Estimates of brown nesting brown pelicans are widely these estimates may be reliable in pelicans in Panama have varied greatly distributed and fairly common along the describing local abundance and trends, over the years. In 1981, Batista and mainland coast of that country (Rojas because of their incomparability, they Montgomery (1982, p. 70) estimated that 2006). have limited value in estimating 25,500 adults and chicks were known to Peru.—Shields (2002, p. 22) absolute size or trends in the global occur on just the Pearl Island summarizes estimates of brown pelicans population. Archipelago in the Gulf of Panama. In in Peru at 420,000 adults in 1981–1982, During our 5-year status review of the 1982, Montgomery and Murcia (1982, p. 110,000 in 1982–1983, 620,000 in 1985– brown pelican, we estimated the global 69) estimated 70,000 adults occurred at 1986, and 400,000 in 1996. Franke listed brown pelican population based 7 colonies within the Gulf of Panama. (2006, p. 10) reported that a 1997 survey on the best available information at the By 1988, 6,031 brown pelicans were of guano birds counted 140,000 brown time of the review, which included most known from just the Gulf, while in pelicans with an increasing population but not all of the individual estimates 1998, only 3,017 brown pelicans were trend reported; however, it is unclear given above. Although these estimates thought to occur along the entire Pacific from the report whether that number represented the best available Coast of Panama, including the Gulf represents a total estimate of the brown information at the time of the review, (Shields 2002, p. 22). By 2005, 4,877 pelican population in Peru or a subset because of the lack of standardization brown pelican nests were reported just of birds nesting on islands managed for and major differences in determining in the Gulf of Panama and a total guano production. population estimates, we used population was estimated to be about Chile.—The range of brown pelicans conservative assumptions in tabulating 15,000 individuals for the entire Pacific in Chile extends from the extreme these data in to make a Coast of Panama, which includes 150 northern city of Arica (Rodrı´guez 2006) conservative estimate of the global nests found at Coiba Island in 1976 to occasionally as far south as Isla population size of the brown pelican (Angehr 2005, p. 6). Angehr (2005, p. Chiloe´ (Aves de Chile 2006, p. 1). The (see Service 2007a, pp. 43–45 and 60– 12) also reported that those individual total population size for Chile is 62). Specifically, where only numbers of colonies that had been studied unknown (Shields 2002, p. 35). The nests are known, the total number of experienced an overall increase of 70 breeding population on Isla Pa´jaro Nin˜ o nests was simply doubled to obtain an percent in nest numbers from 1979 to in central Chile was 2,699 pairs in estimate of total population size for an 2005, and describes the brown pelican 1995–1996, 1,032 pairs in 1996–1997, area. This method likely underestimates on the Pacific Coast of Panama as an and none during the 1997–1998 El Nin˜ o the population size because there are ‘‘abundant breeder.’’ (a temporary oscillation of the ocean- likely to be unpaired or immature Colombia.—Moreno and Buelvas atmosphere system) year (Simeone and nonbreeders in the population. (2005, p. 57) list brown pelicans as Bernal 2000, p. 453). Additionally, where a population occurring at three protected sites on the Two sightings of brown pelicans in estimate found in the literature was a Pacific coast of Colombia: Malpelo Argentina in 1993 and 1999 are range of numbers, the lower number Island, Gorgona Island, and Sanquianga. considered ‘‘hypothetical’’ records was used in calculating the global Naranjo et al. (2006b, p. 178) estimated because they are not documented by estimate. Population size is merely one 2,000–4,000 brown pelicans at specimens, photographs, or other factor in determining whether a species Sanquianga on the mainland and 4,800– concrete evidence (Lichtschein 2006). is recovered, and this approach assures 5,200 on Gorgona Island. Brown Summary of Pacific Coast of Central we are making our determination in a pelicans were considered to be one of and South America.—Brown pelicans manner that is protective of the species. the most abundant resident species in a are abundant breeders along the Pacific This total, or global estimate, as given 1996–1998 assessment of waterbird coast of Central and South America with in our 5-year review, is for the listed populations on the Pacific Coast of population numbers in the range of brown pelican, which does not include Colombia (Naranjo et al. 2006a, p. 181). 65,000 to 200,000 birds, not including the Atlantic coast of the United States, Naranjo et al. (2006b, p. 179) concluded an estimated 400,000 birds in Peru. Florida, and Alabama. The total based that preliminary results of their on regional estimates is over 620,000 waterbird monitoring program on the Summary—Global Distribution and individuals, which includes an Pacific coast of Colombia indicate that Population Estimates estimated 400,000 pelicans from Peru populations of (which As discussed above, currently listed (Service 2007a, pp. 43–45 and 60–62). include brown pelicans) in the three brown pelican populations are widely This is likely a conservative estimate protected areas are stable. INVEMAR distributed throughout the coast of the given that estimates for some countries

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59449

given above (for example, estimates for in a determination, in accordance with Likewise, information on the species Colombia and Cuba) were not readily the provisions of section 4 of the Act, may be learned that was not known at available at the time we conducted our that the species be removed from the the time the recovery plan was 5-year review. Other recent estimates list; and (3) estimates of the time finalized. The new information may yield similar numbers. Kushlan et al.’s required and cost to carry out the plan. change the extent that criteria need to be (2002, p. 64) estimate for the North However, revisions to the List (adding, met for recognizing recovery of the American Waterbird Conservation Plan removing, or reclassifying a species) species. Overall, recovery of species is area, which includes Canada, the United must reflect determinations made in a dynamic process requiring adaptive States, Mexico, Central America, the accordance with section 4(a)(1) and 4(b). management, planning, implementing, Caribbean, and Caribbean islands of Section 4(a)(1) requires that the and evaluating the degree of recovery of Venezuela, was 191,600–193,700 Secretary determine whether a species a species that may, or may not, fully breeders. Delaney and Scott (2002, p. is threatened or endangered (or not) follow the guidance provided in a 29) applied a correction factor to because of one or more of five threat recovery plan. Kushlan et al.’s estimate to account for factors. Therefore, recovery criteria must Thus, while the recovery plan immature birds and nonbreeders to indicate when a species is no longer provides important guidance on the estimate a population of 290,000 birds. threatened or endangered by any of the direction and strategy for recovery, and Neither estimate includes birds on the five factors. In other words, objective, indicates when a rulemaking process Pacific Coast of South America. Delaney measurable criteria, or recovery criteria, may be initiated, the determination to and Scott (2002, p. 29) additionally contained in recovery plans must remove a species from the List is estimated the brown pelican population indicate when an analysis of the five ultimately based on an analysis of on the Galapagos to be about 5,000 threat factors under 4(a)(1) would result whether a species is no longer birds, and the population on the Pacific in a determination that a species is no threatened or endangered. The Coast of South America (estimate is for longer threatened or endangered. following discussion provides a brief the subspecies Pelecanus occidentalis Section 4(b) requires the determination review of recovery planning for the thagus, found in Peru and Chile) to made under section 4(a)(1) as to brown pelican, as well as an analysis of range from 100,000–1,000,000 birds. whether a species is threatened or the recovery criteria and goals as they Shields’ (2002, p. 21) population endangered because of one or more of relate to evaluating the status of the estimate of 202,600–209,000 brown the five factors be based on the best species. pelicans also did not include the available science. The Recovery Plan for the Eastern Brown Pelican, which includes the Peruvian subspecies. While each of Thus, while recovery plans are these estimates covers slightly different Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United intended to provide guidance to the States, does not identify recovery areas, they are all in general agreement Service, States, and other partners on and indicate that the listed population criteria because the causes of the methods of minimizing threats to listed species’ decline were not well of brown pelicans, excluding the species and on criteria that may be used Peruvian subspecies, totals 200,000 or understood at the time the plan was to determine when recovery is achieved, prepared. The recovery team viewed the more individuals, while the Peruvian they are not regulatory documents and subspecies numbers in the few hundred wide distribution of the species, rather cannot substitute for the determinations thousand. than absolute numbers, as the species’ and promulgation of regulation required major strength against extinction Recovery Plan under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to (Service 1979, p. iv). This recovery plan Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to remove a species from the list made also addressed brown pelicans in develop and implement recovery plans under section 4(a)(1) must be based on Alabama, Florida, and the Atlantic for listed species. While brown pelicans the best scientific and commercial data Coast of the United States, but because were listed throughout their range, available at the time of the these populations have already been recovery planning efforts for the brown determination, regardless of whether delisted, we only discuss the plan’s pelican focused primarily on those that information differs from the objectives for the portion of the range portions of the species’ range within the recovery plan. that remained listed in Louisiana and United States. We have published three In the course of implementing Texas. recovery plans for the brown pelican: (1) conservation actions for a species, new The recovery plan states a general Recovery Plan for the Eastern Brown information is often gained that requires objective to reestablish brown pelicans Pelican (Service 1979); (2) the California recovery efforts to be modified on all historically used nesting sites in Brown Pelican Recovery Plan (Service accordingly. There are many paths to Louisiana and Texas (Service 1979, p. 1983); and (3) Recovery Plan for the accomplishing recovery of a species, iii). The plan identified 9 sites in Brown Pelican in Puerto Rico and the and recovery may be achieved without Louisiana and 11 sites in Texas. These U.S. Virgin Islands (Service 1986). all criteria being fully met For example, included historic, current (at the time of Section 4(f) of the Act requires the one or more criteria may have been the recovery plan), and restored islands. Service to develop and implement exceeded while other criteria may not Since 2005, brown pelicans have nested recovery plans for the conservation and have been accomplished, yet the Service at between 11 and 15 sites in Louisiana survival of threatened and endangered may judge that, overall, the threats have and at 12 sites in Texas (Hess and species, unless we find that such a plan been minimized sufficiently, and the Linscombe 2006, pp. 1–4, 7–8; Service will not promote the conservation of the species is robust enough, to reclassify 2006, p. 2). These sites include some of species. The Act directs that, to the the species from endangered to the same sites identified in the recovery maximum extent practicable, we threatened or perhaps delist the species. plan as well as previously unknown or incorporate into each plan: (1) Site- In other cases, recovery opportunities newly colonized sites. specific management actions that may may have been recognized that were not The number and location of nesting be necessary to achieve the plan’s goals known at the time the recovery plan was sites has varied from year to year along for conservation and survival of the finalized. These opportunities may be the Gulf Coast due in part to frequent species; (2) objective, measurable used instead of methods identified in tropical storms, but generally meet the criteria, which when met would result the recovery plan. recovery plan goals for number of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

nesting sites. The northern Gulf of and that longer term monitoring of at subspecies’ range is protected (see Mexico coast is subject to frequent least 6 to 8 years is needed to define an ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the severe tropical storms and hurricanes, acceptable range of population Species’’ below for further discussion). which can cause significant changes to parameters for brown pelicans in the Therefore, criteria 1 and 2 of the brown pelican nesting habitat. Past Caribbean. Collazo et al. (1998, p. 64) recovery plan have been met. storms have resulted in changes to or also concluded that contaminants are For population and productivity loss of historical nesting sites, but not affecting brown pelican objectives, the recovery plan included brown pelicans seem well adapted to reproduction. the following additional criterion: (a) responding to losses of breeding sites by Thus, while the first criterion, based When any 5-year mean productivity for moving to new locations (Hess and on 4 years of data, may not be sufficient the SCB population reaches at least 0.7 Durham 2002, p. 7; Wilkinson et al. to establish a realistic figure to reflect young per nesting attempt from a 1994, p. 425; Williams and Martin 1968, recovery, it also does not address breeding population of at least 3,000 p. 136), and the species has clearly whether threats to the species are still pairs, the subspecies should be shown its ability to rebound (Williams present. Also, because the criterion considered for reclassification from and Martin 1968, p. 130; Holm et al. applies to only a small portion of the endangered status to threatened status; 2003, p. 432; Hess and Linscombe 2006, species’ range, as well as only a portion and (b) When any 5-year mean pp. 5, 13) (see ‘‘Storm effects, weather, of the species’ range in the Caribbean, productivity for the SCB population and erosion impacts to habitat’’ under we do not consider it relevant for reaches at least 0.9 young per nesting Factor A for further discussion). determining whether the brown pelican attempt from a breeding population of at While nesting is not occurring on all is recovered globally. Of the two least 3,000 pairs, the subspecies should historically identified sites in Texas and recovery criteria, the second criterion is be considered for delisting. Louisiana, the number of currently used the more appropriate to the evaluation Consideration for reclassification to nesting sites meets or exceeds the of the status of the species as it reflects threatened would require a total numbers identified in the recovery plan population productivity. The number of production averaging at least 2,100 and supports sustainable populations of pairs seemed to be holding steady fledglings per year over any 5-year brown pelicans. Because brown pelicans between the early 1980s and the 1990s period. Consideration for delisting have demonstrated the ability to move with estimates given by Collazo et al. would require a total production to new breeding locations when a (2000, p. 42) of 165 pairs for Puerto Rico averaging at least 2,700 fledglings per nesting island is no longer suitable, and 305–345 pairs for the U.S. Virgin year over any 5-year period. meeting the exact number and location Islands. While this estimate is not a The criterion, including both of nesting sites in Texas and Louisiana 5-year observed mean, the estimated productivity and population size, for identified in the recovery plan is not number is consistent with the recovery downlisting to threatened has been met necessary to achieve recovery for the criterion for number of breeding pairs. at least 10 times since 1985. The brown pelican. As discussed further Moreover, data from the U.S. Virgin delisting population criterion of at least below, we also have considered the Islands (Department of Planning and 3,000 breeding pairs has been exceeded population’s wide distribution, Natural Resources 2008, p. 1) supports every year since 1985, with the numbers, and productivity as indicators the Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) numbers exception of 1990 and 1992, which saw that the threats have been reduced such by estimating the brown pelican only 2,825 and 1,752 pairs, respectively. that the population is recovered and population there at about 300 breeding In most years, the nesting population far sustainable. pairs. exceeds the 3,000 pair delisting goal; it The Recovery Plan for the Brown The California Brown Pelican has exceeded 6,000 pairs for 10 of the Pelican in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Recovery Plan only covers the California last 15 years (Gress 2005). Additionally, Virgin Islands has delisting criteria brown pelican subspecies (P. o. the delisting criterion of at least 2,700 solely for the area covered by the plan. californicus), which includes the Pacific fledglings per year over any 5-year The criteria are to maintain a 5-year Coast of California and Mexico, period has been met at least 11 times observed mean level of: (1) 2,300 including the Gulf of California. The since 1985 (Gress 2005). However, individuals during winter, and (2) 350 primary objective of this recovery plan although productivity has improved breeding pairs at the peak of the is to restore and maintain stable, self- greatly since the time of listing, the breeding season. Both recovery criteria sustaining populations throughout this productivity criterion for delisting has are solely based on demographic portion of the species’ range. To not been met and the SCB population characteristics and do not provide an accomplish this objective, the recovery consistently has low productivity, with explicit reference point for determining plan calls for: (1) Maintaining existing a mean of 0.63 young fledged per whether threats have been reduced. The populations in Mexico; (2) assuring nesting attempt from 1985 to 2005 levels in the criteria were based on long-term protection of adequate food (Gress and Harvey 2004, p. 20; Gress studies of brown pelicans from 1980 to supplies and essential nesting, roosting, 2005). 1983 (Collazo 1985). Subsequent winter and offshore habitat throughout the Productivity is an important counts from 1992 to 1995 in Puerto Rico subspecies’ range; and (3) restoring parameter used for evaluating were 74 percent lower than during population size and productivity to self- population health; however, it is 1980–1982 (593 individuals compared sustaining levels in the SCB at both the difficult to determine an objective and to 2,289). Although the 1992 to 1995 Anacapa and Los Coronados Island appropriate minimum value. The 0.9 counts did not include the Virgin colonies. Existing populations appear to young per nesting attempt given in the Islands, it appears likely that the first be stable in Mexico and throughout the recovery plan was the best estimate criterion had not been met as of 1995 subspecies range (Everett and Anderson based on a review of brown pelican (Collazo et al. 1998). However, reasons 1991, p. 133; Henny and Anderson reproductive parameters in Florida and for lower counts are unknown. Collazo 2007, pp. 1, 8), food supplies are the Gulf of California (Schreiber 1979, et al. (1998, pp. 63–64) concluded that assured by the Coastal Pelagic Species p. 1; Anderson and Gress 1983, p. 84), habitat was not limiting and suggested Fishery Management Plan, and the because pre-DDT productivity for the that migrational shifts could have majority of essential nesting and SCB population was unknown. Despite contributed to the decrease in numbers roosting habitat throughout the the fact that this goal has not been

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59451

reached, reproduction has been completed 5-year review (Service 2007a, brown pelicans will remain protected by sufficient to maintain a stable pp. 1–66), available at http:// the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 population for more than 20 years. Most ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/ (16 U.S.C. 703–711; 40 Stat. 755) and, as colonies expanded during this interval, doc1039.pdf, and presented below. discussed below, numerous other mechanisms confer protections to the including the long-term colonization of Summary of Public and Peer Review Santa Barbara Island, which suggests Comments and Recommendations brown pelican and to other species and that productivity has been sufficient to habitats that are not dependent on the maintain a stable-to-increasing In our February 20, 2008 proposed protections afforded brown pelicans by population. In conclusion, the first two rule, we requested all interested parties the Endangered Species Act. recovery criteria for the California submit information, data, and comments (2) Comment: Multiple commenters Brown Pelican Recovery Plan have been concerning multiple aspects of the expressed concerns over our global met. As discussed above, the population status of the brown pelican. The population estimate, specifically noting component of the third criterion has comment period was open from that the number reached is vague and been far exceeded, while the February 20, 2008, through April 21, speculative because a complete and productivity component has not been 2008. coordinated survey for the entire species In accordance with our policy on peer met. We have concluded, based on has never been done. Reviewers review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 current population size and requested use of additional information FR 34270), we solicited opinions from productivity, that the productivity if possible and, if not possible, inclusion eight expert scientists who are familiar component of the third criterion is no of a more thorough justification for with this species regarding pertinent longer appropriate because current relying on the old and widely varying scientific data and assumptions relating productivity is sufficient to maintain a data in our global population estimate. to supportive biological and ecological viable population of brown pelicans. Response: The Act directs that we use Please see responses to comments 6 and information for the proposed rule. Reviewers were asked to review the the best scientific and commercial data 8 below for additional discussion of the available in making our determinations. productivity criterion. proposed rule and the supporting data, to point out any mistakes in our data or This rulemaking was initially prompted Recovery Planning Summary—The analysis, and to identify any relevant by a petition to delist the species (see three recovery plans for the brown data that we might have overlooked. the ‘‘Previous Federal Actions’’ section pelican discussed above have not been Four of the eight peer reviewers of our proposed rule (February 20, 2008; actively used in recent years to guide submitted comments. Three of those 73 FR 9408)). In order to fulfill our recovery of the brown pelican because four were generally supportive of the requirements to respond to the petition they are either outdated, lack recovery proposal to remove the brown pelican and complete the rulemaking process criteria for the entire species, or in the from the Federal List of Threatened and once begun, we are statutorily required case of the eastern brown pelican, lack Endangered Species while the fourth to make a determination at this time recovery criteria altogether. No reviewer did not offer an opinion. Their based on the best scientific and subsequent revisions have been made to comments are included in the summary commercial data currently available to any of these original recovery plans. No below and/or incorporated directly into us. We recognize that additional single recovery plan covers the entire this final rule. research and coordinated efforts would range of the species in the United States, During the 60-day comment period, yield a more reliable and accurate global and the remainder of the range outside we received comments from 19 population estimate. We have used the the United States, including Central individuals, organizations, and best available scientific and commercial America, South America, and most of government agencies. We have read and data in developing our global the West Indies is not covered by a considered all comments received. We population estimate. However, we have recovery plan. Additionally, the updated the rule where it was not relied solely upon this estimate in recovery criteria in these plans do not appropriate, and we responded to all making our determination that the specifically address the five threat substantive issues received, below. brown pelican no longer warrants factors used for listing, reclassifying, or listing. This number is developed and delisting a species as outlined in section Peer Review Comments presented in efforts to provide the 4(a)(1) of the Act. Consequently, the (1) Comment: The inclusion of brown reader a general estimate of the scale of recovery plans do not provide an pelicans on the List (Federal List of the global population, allow explicit reference point for determining Threatened and Endangered Wildlife) comparisons with other available the appropriate legal status of the brown has provided us with a means of estimates, and provide a summary and pelican based either on alleviating the protecting habitat that has also conclusion of the various estimates specific factors that resulted in its initial protected many other species that share provided. While the accuracy of the listing as an endangered species or on the marine habitat with the brown specific number cannot be determined addressing new risk factors that may pelican. With this delisting, we will lose due to differences in survey have emerged since listing. As noted protections afforded to all these other methodology and information quality, above, recovery is a dynamic process marine species. the relative scale of the number, in the and analyzing the degree of recovery Response: When making listing and hundreds of thousands, is useful in requires an adaptive process that delisting determinations, we are only to demonstrating the degree of recovery includes not only evaluating recovery consider the best scientific and the species has acheived and the goals and criteria but also new commercial information data in absence of significant threats to the information that has become available. preparing the five-factor analysis. This species. We have expanded the Thus, while some recovery criteria and analysis has us consider a variety of discussion under the ‘‘Summary— many of the goals in the three brown impacts to the species in question and Global Population Estimate’’ section to pelican recovery plans have been met, the regulatory mechanisms that may further explain our rationale in our evaluation of the status of the brown mitigate those impacts, but does not developing this estimate. pelican in this rule is based largely on allow us to consider impacts of listing (3) Comment: The discussion of the the analysis of threats in our recently and delisting on other species. However, significance of the Puerto Rico brown

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

pelicans makes it seem that the Service threat to the status of the species in the size of the , quality of the is saying these birds are not important. future; however, if at any time during habitat, access to resources, breeding Response: In evaluating the brown the monitoring program, data indicate strategy, and feeding type. pelican and whether it continues to that the protective status under the Act Conceptually, in order to maintain a require regulatory protection under the should be reinstated, we can initiate population at a stable level, a Act, we have looked at the species from listing procedures, including, if productivity value of 2.0 (2 successful a range-wide perspective first. The appropriate, emergency listing. fledglings per nest) would be needed in species’ population numbers have (6) Comment: A peer reviewer noted order to keep a population level steady, rebounded and threats have been that the productivity criterion assuming all fledglings survive to removed or reduced to the point that developed in the California Brown breeding age and each pair only protection under the Act is no longer Pelican Recovery Plan was somewhat reproduces once. In other words, this needed range wide. Next, we assessed subjective and based on comparisons to scenario would result in one-to-one whether any population may be brown pelican productivity elsewhere. replacement of adults by the new experiencing localized threats over a Despite this problem, the peer reviewer generation. Brown pelicans breed significant portion of the range of the notes that the overall conclusions multiple times throughout relatively pelican such that its loss would lead to reached in the proposed rule concerning long lifetimes, thus they have multiple the species as a whole being at a greater these productivity criteria—that a chances to replace themselves, making risk of extinction. As discussed in significant recovery has occurred in the numbers near and even below 1.0 ‘‘Significant Portion of the Range’’ Southern California Bight—are acceptable. The key point in our section below, we have determined that reasonable and logical. assessment is that the California the Puerto Rico population does not Response: While recovery planning populations have expanded and warrant listing as a significant portion of and the recovery criteria often included stabilized despite a productivity number the range of the species, although this in recovery plans provide useful below the target set in our 1983 analysis does not imply that any tangible benchmarks for the planning of California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan subspecies, population, or conservation, the Act requires us to base (Service 1983). subpopulation of brown pelican is not listing and delisting assessments on the (9) Comment: The rule should include important to the long-term conservation status of the species and an analysis of a discussion of potential weather-related of the brown pelican. In addition, once the factors affecting the species. This issues caused by global warming the pelican is delisted, brown pelicans process allows us to determine that a including hurricane frequency and will remain protected by the Migratory species has achieved recovery even if it potential impacts to food supply. Bird Treaty Act and numerous other has not met all of its recovery criteria. Response: The Intergovernmental mechanisms, as discussed below. We In this case, the significant recovery of Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will continue working with the Puerto the California populations of brown concluded that warming of the climate Rico Department of Natural Resources pelican in terms of population trends system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. through the post-delisting monitoring and total population numbers has been 30). Numerous long-term changes have process to monitor the status of the deemed indicative of recovery of the been observed including changes in brown pelican in Puerto Rico. species, although the specific arctic temperatures and ice, widespread (4) Comment: A complete study of the productivity goal has not been met. changes in precipitation amounts, ocean genetics of the entire species would Please see the ‘‘Recovery Plan’’ section salinity, wind patterns and aspects of seem to be strongly warranted in order above for additional discussion. extreme weather including droughts, to further elucidate unique, small (7) Comment: Multiple commenters heavy precipitation, heat waves and the breeding populations. requested the Service to consider intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC Response: We agree and encourage various updates to the Act, the Act’s 2007b, p. 7). While continued change is continued research on the brown implementing regulations, and the certain, the magnitude and rate of pelican; however, we don’t believe a full recovery planning process. A peer change is unknown in many cases. understanding of the genetics of each reviewer specifically indicated that the Tropical storms (including individual breeding population is Act has become ‘‘out-of-step’’ with hurricanes) have become more intense required in order to make our delisting principles that have more recently over the period of record (U.S. Climate decision, especially in the face of emerged from the fields of wildlife Change Science Program (CCSP) 2008, decreased threats and increased management and conservation biology. p. 5). Multiple studies and analyses conservation and management Response: While we appreciate input have been done concerning how tropical opportunities. on the efficacy of our program, these storm activity may change in the future. (5) Comment: While population comments are not relevant to this Predicting change in frequency and numbers confirm that delisting is the rulemaking for the brown pelican. intensity is quite complicated with correct action, threats to the brown some factors potentially negating or pelican still remain. There needs to be Public Comments exacerbating each other (e.g., sea surface monitoring of the brown pelican and the (8) Comment: Concerning the temperature versus vertical wind shear, marine environment post-delisting. California brown pelican Recovery Plan, a measure of the difference in wind Response: Under section 4(g)(1) of the a mean productivity value of 0.63 seems speed and duration over a vertical Act, we are required to monitor all low. Perhaps better clarification should distance). There is general agreement species that have been recovered and be made regarding the productivity that, based on current information, the delisted for at least 5 years post- value of similar birds and how 0.63 intensity of individual storms is likely delisting. On September 30, 2009 (74 FR compares. to increase over time; however, the 50236), we announced the availability Response: Comparisons of global frequency of tropical storms is of a draft post-delisting monitoring plan productivity between species can be believed to stay stable or even decrease for the brown pelican which we expect very tenuous. A large number of factors (CCSP 2008, p. 112). Some authors show to finalize within a year. We do not affect differences in productivity an increase in global frequency of anticipate any of the factors currently between species and even populations tropical storms (CCSP 2008, p. 112), but affecting the brown pelican to become a of the same species, including relative the likely magnitude and rate of those

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59453

predicted increases is not known. Aside (10) Comment: The rule should use is adversely impacting the brown from the global predictions, there is include an expanded discussion on pelican throughout all or a significant some information that suggests the avian flu and other avian diseases. portion of the range of the species. In frequency of intense tropical storms in Response: Discussion of multiple order to find pesticide use to be a threat the North Atlantic may increase due to diseases and potential effects to brown to the brown pelican we would have to atmospheric moisture and increased sea pelicans can be found in the ‘‘Disease have information available that shows surface temperatures; other studies and Predation’’ section below. We have that pesticides are actually being used show decreased frequency due to effects updated this section to include a and are being used in a manner that of wind shear. discussion of avian influenza, also impacts the species. It would be At this time, the best available known as bird flu. speculative to assert that pesticide use information does not allow us to predict (11) Comment: Multiple commenters is a threat to the brown pelican solely whether a decrease in brown pelican indicated that a variety of issues (e.g., because pesticides are accessible in populations would result from or be avian botulism, domoic acid poisoning, some areas. In addition, we have correlated with a future increase in avian disease, oil spills, mortality from determined that pesticides known to hurricane activity. If this information recreational fisheries, coastal have affected brown pelican should change in the future, the post- development) could be threatening the populations in the past are no longer a delisting monitoring program will species throughout some portion of the threat to the species. Please see the reflect these declines and the situation range or are a greater threat to the brown ‘‘Pesticides and Contaminants’’ section may be reassessed in the future. pelican than we have presented in our below. The distribution and abundance of analysis without providing additional (14) Comment: Additional discussion marine fish species is dependent on a information, references, or insight to concerning the monitoring and variety of factors that may be influenced explain their rationale. enforcement of the Stockholm by climate change including nutrient Response: We believe we have used Convention is needed. availability, ocean currents, and water the best available scientific and Response: The Stockholm Convention temperature. It has been shown that commercial data in developing our five- on Persistent Organic Pollutants is an population levels of anchovies, a main factor analysis. An important point to international treaty that aims to food source of pelicans in some areas, consider when evaluating the status of eliminate the use of persistent organic decrease in portions of the Pacific a wide-ranging species such as the pollutants (e.g., DDT) globally. The Ocean in response to the warmer waters brown pelican is the scope, or the Convention went into effect on May 17, found in El Nin˜ o years. Thus, it is geographic and temporal extent, of the 2004, and carries the force of possible that increased ocean threat affecting the species. Some international law. Monitoring of temperatures, which may result from threats adversely impact one or more activities under the Convention is climate change, could decrease food individuals of a species, while a threat achieved through voluntary reporting of supplies for brown pelicans. However, to the species would be considered a production, import, and export other studies show that El Nin˜ o results factor that results in a decline in one or activities to the Conference of the in increased population levels of more population parameters. There are Parties. Currently, the Parties to the sardines, another brown pelican prey a lot of factors that have effects to Convention are drafting measures for species (Chaves et al. 2003, p. 217). In individuals and local populations; non-compliance with the Convention. fact, multiple authors have shown that however, these factors are not leading to The key portion of the draft when anchovy abundances are high, population level impacts and certainly noncompliance measures includes sardine abundances are low and vice not resulting in rangewide adverse suspension from rights of the versa (Tourre et al. 2007, p. 4). impacts. Convention for parties found to be Because the brown pelican is a (12) Comment: The Puerto Rican, noncompliant. Of particular importance generalist in terms of prey sources, it is West Indies, eastern Caribbean, and is suspension from support under able to adapt to available food sources. Colombian populations of brown Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, Additionally, global fish populations are pelican should remain listed because which provide for technical and likely to be affected by climate change threats still persist in these areas. financial assistance to developing in much more complex ways than by Response: We acknowledge that a country Parties and Parties with simple ocean temperature rise, variety of factors continue to impact economies in transition. Further, particularly the potential for shifting brown pelicans in various portions of violation of international laws generally ocean currents and locations of nutrient the range of the species; however, we may result in economic sanctions or upwelling. The response of ocean did not find that these factors are could be brought before the currents to global climate change is not endangering the species throughout all International Court of Justice. Finally, well understood at this time due to the or a significant portion of the range of pursuant to becoming Parties to the complicating factors of natural climate the species now or in the foreseeable Convention, many countries across the variability that occurs on various spatio- future. Please see additional discussion range of the brown pelican have temporal scales, including the quasi- in the ‘‘Significant Portion of the Range’’ adopted national measures to reduce or biennial (2- to 3-year periods), the inter- section below. eliminate use of various persistent annual (3- to 7-year periods), the quasi- (13) Comment: The brown pelican organic pollutants. These measures are decadal (8- to 13-year periods), and the continues to be threatened by pesticides enforceable through a variety of local inter-decadal (17- to 23-year periods) because pesticides not registered for use and national laws. Please see the (Tourre et al. 2007, p. 1), thus the in the United States are readily available ‘‘Pesticides and Contaminants’’ section response of marine fish species and for use in areas outside the United below for additional discussion. effects to brown pelicans is even less States. predictable. At this time, we are not able Response: It is true that the number Summary of Factors Affecting the to predict a decrease in brown pelican and kinds of pesticides available and Species population levels in response to food registered for use varies from country to Section 4 of the Act and its availability effects of global climate country. However, we have no implementing regulations (50 CFR part change. information indicating that pesticide 424) set forth the procedures for listing

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

species, reclassifying species, or form of extrapolating the trends). We provide nesting habitat for brown removing species from listed status. We also considered whether we could pelicans in southern Mexico, South and may determine a species to be an reliably predict any future events that Central America, and the West Indies endangered or threatened species might affect the status of the species, (Collazo 1985, pp. 106–108; Guzman because of one or more of the five recognizing that our ability to make and Schreiber 1987, p. 2). Peruvian factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the reliable predictions into the future is brown pelicans (found in Peru and Act, and we must consider these same limited by the variable quantity and Chile) nest only on the ground (Shields five factors in delisting a species. We quality of available data. 2002, p. 13). may delist a species according to 50 For the purposes of this analysis, we Nesting habitat destruction from CFR 424.11(d) if the best available will evaluate whether the currently coastal development. Within the United scientific and commercial data indicate listed species, the brown pelican, States, the majority of brown pelican that the species is neither endangered should be considered threatened or nesting sites are protected through land nor threatened for the following reasons: endangered. Then we will consider ownership by conservation (1) The species is extinct; (2) The whether there are any portions of the organizations and local, State, and species has recovered and is no longer brown pelican’s range in danger of Federal agencies. We are not aware of endangered or threatened (as is the case extinction or likely to become any losses of brown pelican nesting with the brown pelican); and/or (3) The endangered within the foreseeable habitat to coastal development within original scientific data used at the time future. The following analysis examines the United States. In countries outside the species was classified were in error. all five factors currently affecting, or of the United States, some coastal and A recovered species is one that no that are likely to affect, the listed brown mangrove habitat used by brown longer meets the Act’s definition of pelican populations within the pelicans has been lost to recreational threatened or endangered. Determining foreseeable future. and other coastal developments (Collazo whether a species is recovered requires et al. 1998, pp. 63). Mainland nesting consideration of the same five categories A. The Present or Threatened colonies in Sinaloa and Nayarit, Mexico, of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of Destruction, Modification, or have been impacted by increasing the Act. For species that are already Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range mariculture (the cultivation of marine listed as threatened or endangered, this Nesting Habitat life) and agriculture through habitat analysis of threats is an evaluation of degradation, disturbance, and some both the threats currently facing the Brown pelicans breed annually from removal of mangrove habitat (Anderson species and the threats that are spring to summer above 30 degrees et al. 2003, pp. 1097–1099; Anderson reasonably likely to affect the species in north latitude, annually from winter to 2007), although the extent of impacts is the foreseeable future after delisting or spring between 20 and 30 degrees north unknown. Van Halewyn and Norton downlisting and the removal or latitude, and irregularly throughout the (1984, p. 215) cited cutting and loss of reduction of the Act’s protections. year on 8.5- to 10-month cycles below mangrove habitat as a threat for A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 20 degrees north latitude (Shields 2002, seabirds, including brown pelicans, in purposes of the Act if it is in danger of p. 12). Brown pelicans usually breed on the Caribbean. Aside from these limited extinction throughout all or a small, coastal islands free from accounts, we are not aware of any ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is mammalian predators. Brown pelicans significant losses of brown pelican ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become use a wide variety of nesting substrates. nesting habitat from coastal endangered within the foreseeable Nests are built on the ground when development anywhere within its range. future throughout all or a ‘‘significant vegetation is not available, but when Some destruction of current and portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’ built in trees, they are about 1.8 meters potential brown pelican nesting habitat in the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (m) to 12.2 m (6 to 40 feet (ft)) above the is likely to occur in the future. However, (SPR) phrase refers to the range in water’s surface (McNease et al. 1992, p. a large number of brown pelican nesting which the species currently exists. The 252; Jime´nez 2004, pp. 12–17). sites throughout the species’ range are Act does not define the term Along the Pacific Coast of California currently protected (see discussion ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ However, in a south to Baja California and in the Gulf below). In some cases, loss of mangrove January 16, 2009, memorandum of California, brown pelicans nest on habitat has been specifically cited. addressed to the Acting Director of the dry, rocky substrates, typically on off- However, brown pelicans do not nest Service, the Office of the Solicitor, shore islands (Service 1983, pp. 5–6). exclusively in mangroves. They utilize a Department of the Interior, concluded, Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, brown variety of nesting substrates and readily ‘‘* * * as used in the [Act], Congress pelicans mainly nest on coastal islands colonize new nesting sites in response intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to on the ground or in herbaceous plants to changing habitat conditions. For describe the extent to which the or low shrubs (Shields 2002, p. 13; example, Collazo et al. (1998, p. 63) Secretary can reasonably rely on Wilkenson et al. 1994, pp. 421–423), but documented the loss of one nesting site predictions about the future in making will use mangrove trees (Avicennia in Puerto Rico, but stated the belief that determinations about the future spp.) if available (Lowery 1974, p. 127; the pelicans relocated to a new nesting conservation status of the species Blus et al. 1979a, p. 130). In some areas colony nearby (see also discussion of (M–37021, January 16, 2009).’’ of the Caribbean, along the Pacific Coast colonization of new sites under ‘‘Storm In considering the foreseeable future of Mexico, and the Galapagos Islands, effects, weather, and erosion impacts to as it relates to the status of the brown mangroves (Avicennia spp., Rhizophora habitat’’). Destruction of nesting habitat pelican, we considered the factors spp., Laguncularia spp.) are the most is likely to affect brown pelicans on a acting on the species and looked to see common nesting substrate, although local scale only where nesting colonies if reliable predictions about the status of other substrates are used as well overlap with coastal or mariculture the species in response to those factors (Collazo 1985, pp. 106–108; Guzman development. In cases where nesting could be drawn. We considered the and Schreiber 1987, p. 276; Service habitat destruction results in the loss of historical data to identify any relevant 1983, p. 15; Shields 2002, p. 13). a nesting site, it is likely to be limited existing trends that might allow for Various types of tropical forests, such as to a single season of lost reproduction reliable prediction of the future (in the tropical thorn and humid forests, also because birds will likely disperse to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59455

other colonies or establish a new colony nesting in Louisiana under projects that are intended to protect the in a new location. Because numerous ‘‘Distribution and Population coast from this land loss. Coastal habitat brown pelican nesting sites are Estimate’’). protection and restoration have been protected, brown pelicans may relocate In some instances, brown pelicans and will continue to be priorities for to new nesting sites if any unprotected have responded to losses of breeding Louisiana, since coastal land loss has sites are destroyed, and any loss of sites by dispersing and using other areas much broader negative implications to nesting habitat is likely to result in only (Hess and Durham 2002, p. 7). Hess and the State economy, oil and gas limited loss of reproduction that will Linscombe (2001, p. 5) believe that a production, navigation security, not affect population levels, we do not shift in nesting from the Baptiste fisheries and flyways, and strategic believe that nesting habitat destruction Collette area to Breton Island in petroleum reserves. The Coastal from coastal development currently Louisiana was the result of high Wetlands Planning, Protection, and threatens brown pelicans, nor do we Mississippi River levels and associated Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA), believe it will become a threat that muddy water, which limited sight which provides Federal grants to endangers the brown pelican throughout feeding. Additionally, two new brown acquire, restore, and enhance wetlands all of its range in the foreseeable future. pelican nesting colonies were of coastal States, is one of the first Storm effects, weather, and erosion established between 2000 and 2005 on programs with Federal funds dedicated impacts to habitat. Many nesting islands Baptiste Collette and Shallow Bayou exclusively to the long-term restoration along the U.S. Gulf Coast have been (Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. 5). of coastal habitat (104 Stat. 4779). As of Wilkinson et al. (1994, p. 425) reported impacted by wave action, storm surge April 2006, 10 CWPPRA barrier island the loss of large brown pelican nesting erosion, and a lack of sediment restoration projects in Louisiana have colonies on Deveaux Bank in South deposition (McNease and Perry 1998, p. been implemented (costing over 75.8 Carolina following a hurricane and 9), resulting in loss or degradation of million dollars), with another 9 subsequent movement and use of new nesting habitat. Since 1998, nesting currently under construction or nesting locations on that island and on habitat east of the Mississippi River in awaiting construction. Several of these Bird Key Stono. Hess and Linscombe Louisiana has undergone continual directly enhance or protect current (2001, p. 4) believe that tropical storm degradation or loss from tropical storms brown pelican nesting habitat (for and hurricane-induced habitat damage example, Raccoon Island), while the rest and hurricanes, resulting in a reduced to the Chandeleur Islands contributed to occur on islands that were historically number of successfully reared brown the initial dispersal of pelicans to used or could be used for nesting in the pelican young in this area (Hess and southwest Louisiana and the formation future (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Linscombe 2006, p. 4). In 2003 and of a nesting colony on newly created Conservation and Restoration Task 2004, brown pelican nesting and habitat at the Baptiste Collette bar Force 2006, p. 13). reproduction was distributed channel. Two other restoration plans being approximately equally between areas While pelicans generally exhibit nest implemented in coastal Louisiana are east and west of the Mississippi River. site fidelity, they can also demonstrate the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem After tropical storms in 2004, nesting flexibility and adaptability. In Texas Restoration Plan (LCA) and Louisiana’s habitat east of the Mississippi River was and Louisiana they have established Comprehensive Master Plan for a reduced, resulting in a shift to 95 breeding colonies on islands artificially Sustainable Coast (State Master Plan). percent of nesting and reproduction to created or enhanced by material The LCA, administered by the Corps of west of the Mississippi River. In 2005, dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with State cost-share hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in Engineers (Corps) from nearby ship assistance, focuses on the protection of 2 2 approximately 349 km (217 mi ) of channels (Hess and Linscombe 2001, coastal wetlands, including barrier coastal land loss (Barras 2006, p. 4). pp. 5–6; Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. island restoration. The State Master Plan This figure represents total coastal land 5). For example, Little Pelican Island includes barrier island protection and loss, including interior marshes. and Alligator Point in Texas are restoration as a key component. In Although a figure for barrier island loss maintained by the disposal of dredged addition, Louisiana’s Coastal Impact would be a more appropriate measure of material (Yeargan 2007). The Corps in Assistance Program (CIAP) also impacts to brown pelicans, we are not Louisiana beneficially uses provides funding for barrier island aware of any recent, comprehensive approximately 8.5 million m3 (11.1 restoration. The State Master Plan serves analysis of barrier island loss. Previous million yds3) of dredged material each as Louisiana’s overarching document to estimates of loss did not include the year in the surrounding environment guide hurricane protection and coastal benefits of numerous restoration (Corps 2004, p. xi). For example, restoration efforts in the State. While projects discussed below. While dredged material was used to retard none of these plans are considered Louisiana’s brown pelican nesting erosion and secure Queen Bess Island as existing regulatory mechanisms for the islands east of the Mississippi River brown pelican nesting habitat (McNease purposes of this delisting rule and they were reduced by over 70 percent and et al. 1994, p. 8). It was also used to are not designed specifically to benefit what remains is vulnerable to overwash restore and enhance brown pelican brown pelicans, they may provide from future storm tides, at the time, habitat on Raccoon Island in 1987 and opportunities for us to monitor and to these islands supported only about 5 Last Island in 1992 following Hurricane minimize the threats to brown pelicans percent of the total Louisiana Andrew (McNease and Perry 1998, p. from habitat loss and degradation population of brown pelicans (Hess and 10; Hess and Linscombe 2001, p. 5). Use caused by storms in the Louisiana Gulf Linscombe 2006, pp. 3, 6; Harris 2006). of these islands by pelicans Coast region after the species is delisted. Louisiana brown pelican nesting islands demonstrates both the utility of these They also demonstrate the level of west of the Mississippi River, which artificially generated habitats and the importance State and Federal agencies accounted for 95 percent of the 2005 pelican’s ability to find and establish place on maintaining and protecting brown pelican breeding population, nesting colonies on them. those areas. were degraded, but still supported the While storms in Louisiana and the In other portions of the species’ range, four main nesting colonies (Hess and U.S. Gulf Coast are expected to continue storms and weather conditions may also Linscombe 2006, p. 5) (see discussion of in perpetuity, there are numerous remove or degrade vegetation used for

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

nesting by brown pelicans. Hurricanes to expect State and Federal agencies to Christi Bay, Texas (Sundown Island, (category 3 or higher) such as Hugo and continue active maintenance and owned by the Port of Corpus Christi, Georges have severely affected red restoration of barrier islands through and Pelican Island, owned by the Texas (Rhizophora mangle) and black programs such as the CWPPRA and the General Land Office), are part of the (Avicennia germinans) mangrove habitat State Master Plan. Texas Audubon Society’s Coastal in Puerto Rico. Other coastal trees such We lack data on the effects of storms Sanctuaries program (Yeargan 2007; as Bursera simaruba and Pisonia and erosion elsewhere in the range of Audubon 2007b, p. 1; Service 2007b, subcordata, which are prime nesting the brown pelican. However, outside of p. 2). Audubon also owns North Deer trees for pelicans in the U.S. Virgin the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, Island, which houses the most Islands, have also been completely storms generally are less frequent and productive waterbird colony in defoliated or torn down by hurricanes less severe. It is evident from the Galveston Bay and is the largest natural (Saliva 1989). Mangroves and other information on pelican responses to island remaining in the bay (Audubon coastal trees may either be uprooted, storms in the Gulf of Mexico that they 2007c, p. 1). A third major nesting site, completely defoliated, or killed (through are capable of successfully adapting to Little Pelican Island, Galveston Bay, is dislodging of submerged roots by strong the changes that storms bring. In owned by the U.S. Army Corps of wave action), and several breeding addition, brown pelicans are broadly Engineers (Corps) (Yeargan 2007). seasons may pass before those areas distributed along the Gulf of Mexico, Audubon, in cooperation with the recover. Similar effects of hurricanes nesting at 15 sites in Louisiana in 2006 Corps, Texas Parks and Wildlife and storms on nesting vegetation would (LDWF 2007, pp. 1, 3) and 12 sites in Department, and the Service, has placed be expected in other areas where brown Texas in 2006 (Service 2006, p. 2). The signs around Little Pelican Island pelicans nest in trees (some areas in the species’ broad distribution and multiple advising the public to avoid landing on Caribbean, portions of the Pacific coast nesting colonies reduce the risk that any the island during the nesting season of Mexico, and parts of Central and single storm would affect the entire Gulf (Service 2007b, p. 3). South America). Along the U.S. Gulf coast population of brown pelicans. Also in Galveston Bay, Evia and Coast, mangroves can be killed off by Therefore, we believe that habitat Midbay islands, owned by the Port of extreme cold weather (Blus et al. 1979a, modification or destruction of brown Houston, are important brown pelican p. 130; McNease et al. 1992, p. 225; pelican nesting habitat by storms or nesting islands, and Alligator Point in McNease et al. 1994, p. 6). Coastal black coastal erosion will not endanger the Chocolate Bayou, owned by the Texas mangroves, decimated by freezes since brown pelican throughout all of its General Land Office, also supports range in the foreseeable future. the 1980s, were historically the nesting breeding brown pelicans (Yeargan shrub of choice for brown pelicans in Nesting Habitat Protection 2007). Brown pelicans are counted Louisiana, but now clumps of A number of factors may affect the annually as part of the Texas Colonial vegetation, like dense stands of quantity and quality of brown pelican Waterbird Survey (Service 2006, p. 1; nonwoody plants or low woody shrubs, nesting habitat from year to year. Erfling 2007). Signs advising the public are used (McNease et al. 1992, p. 225; However, almost all the U.S. nesting to avoid landing were posted at each Shields et al. 2002, p. 23). sites are protected from manmade island listed above and later lost during While localized losses and habitat destruction and human Hurricane Ike in 2008; however, the degradation of nesting habitat from disturbance, and a significant number of signs are to be replaced after the hurricanes, storms, and erosion have nesting sites outside the United States hurricane debris is removed (Erfling been documented (Wilkinson et al. are also protected. Protections include 2009). 1994, p. 425; Hess and Linscombe 2006, designations as wildlife refuges, Louisiana’s North Island and Breton p. 4), brown pelicans have demonstrated biosphere reserves, and national parks, Island, two pelican nesting islands that they are capable of recovering from as well as land ownership and within the Chandeleur Islands chain, such losses. For example, brown pelican protection by conservation are part of the Service’s Breton National nests producing young in Louisiana organizations and local, State, and Wildlife Refuge system (GulfBase 2007, have generally increased from a low in Federal governments. Because these p. 1). Signs are posted at the edge of the 1993 of 5,186 to a high of 16,501 in 2004 protections are designed not only to water indicating that the site is closed (Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 5, 13). protect brown pelicans, but other to human intrusion during the nesting During this timeframe, numerous resources as well, such as other species season. In addition, during the nesting tropical storms and hurricanes have of colonial waterbirds, and wetland, season, law enforcement personnel made landfall on the Louisiana coast coastal, and marine habitats, we do not patrol the islands during periods of high (Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 9–11). expect these protections to change when human presence, such as on weekends As of May 2006, less than a year after the brown pelican is delisted. and holidays (Fuller 2007c). One of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Hess and Gulf of Mexico Coast. Many of the Louisiana’s largest pelican nesting Linscombe (2007, p. 4) noted a total of Texas islands used by brown pelicans colonies, Raccoon Island, in addition to 8,036 nests in 15 colonies. Additionally, are leased, managed, and monitored by Wine Island, East Island, Trinity Island, brown pelicans have shown they are local chapters of the National Audubon and Whiskey Island, are part of the Isles capable of dispersing from nesting sites. Society (Audubon) (Audubon 2007a, p. Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge owned Examples of this dispersal are the 1). In Texas, Audubon staff assess the and managed by the LDWF, which natural expansion and population conditions of brown pelican islands restricts public access (Fuller 2007d). growth observed following the throughout the year (Yeargan 2007) and Additionally, there are several other reintroduction program in Louisiana implement management actions to small, intermittently used nesting (McNease and Perry 1998, p. 1) and address issues such as erosion and fire colony sites, such as Martin and Brush more recently with the establishment of ant control. Additionally, there are local islands, that are privately owned. a new nesting colony at Rabbit Island ‘‘Bird Wardens’’ that patrol the islands However, these sites are remote and are (Hess and Linscombe 2003, p. 5). It is regularly (Audubon 2007b, p. 1). The likely only subject to occasional reasonable to expect island erosion will two largest brown pelican nesting offshore recreational and commercial continue; however, it is also reasonable colonies in Texas, both in Corpus fishing activity.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59457

West Indies. The two nesting sites development. West Anacapa Island, colonies in California remain relatively documented by Collier et al. (2003, p. where approximately 75 percent of the disturbance free. 113) on St. Maarten are protected: Fort SCB population nests (Gress et al. 2003, As noted above, Mexico’s nesting Amsterdam as a registered and p. 15), is designated as a research brown pelicans are monitored annually protected historic site, and Pelikan Key natural area by Channel Islands as an indicator species in the Gulf of as part of a marine park. In addition, National Park and closed to the public California (Godinez et al. 2004, p. 48). both sites have been proposed as (NPS 2004, p. 4). To protect pelican All of the island nesting colonies and Important Bird Areas (Society for the nesting areas, Santa Barbara Island trails many of the mainland Mexico nesting Conservation and Study of Caribbean are seasonally closed (NPS 2006, p. 1), colonies are protected from habitat Birds 2006, pp. 11–12). and Scorpion Rock off Santa Cruz Island destruction or modification by Mexican In Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin is permanently closed to the public law because the sites are federally Islands, most breeding colonies of (NPS 2004, p. 2). In 1980, the waters protected and designated as either brown pelicans are located within adjacent to the Channel Islands were Biosphere Reserve Areas for Protection Commonwealth or Federal protected designated as a National Marine of Flora and Fauna or National Parks areas. Cayo Conejo, on the south coast Sanctuary (15 CFR 922). This (Anderson and Palacios 2005, p. 16; of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, is one of designation implements restrictions Carabias-Lilio et al. 2000, p. 3). the two most active and largest brown which include, but are not limited to, Central America, South America, and pelican nesting colonies in Puerto Rico (1) no tankers and other bulk carriers Caribbean Coast of Mexico. Isla Contoy (Saliva 2003). The U.S. Navy began and barges, or any vessel engaged in the Reserva Especial de la Biosfera off the using the eastern portion of Vieques servicing of offshore installations within coast of Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, Island for training exercises in the early 1.8 kilometers (km) (1.15 miles (mi)); (2) is Mexico’s largest brown pelican years of World War II, and acquired the no motorized aircraft at altitudes less nesting colony on the Caribbean coast. eastern and western portions of the than 305 m (1,000 ft) over the waters It is currently protected as a National island between 1941 and 1943 within 1.8 km (1.15 mi); and (3) no Park within a Biosphere Reserve. (Schreiber 1999, pp. 8, 13, 18–21). Since exploring for, developing, or producing Visitation is limited and strictly that time, it has been used in varying oil and gas unless authorized prior to controlled to minimize impacts to the intensities for activities including 1981 (NOAA 2006, Appendix C). seabirds that nest and roost there. amphibious landings, naval gunfire Guatemala—Eisermann (2006, p. 63) Additionally, in 2003, the California support, and air-to-ground training identified 12 sites where brown pelicans (Service 2001, p. 4). In May 2003, the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are present within Guatemala, but did Navy ceased operations on Vieques designated the waters adjacent to not indicate whether any of these are Island via the Floyd D. Spense Defense nesting brown pelican habitat on West nesting sites. Of these 12 sites, 10 have Authorization Act of 2001 and Anacapa island as a Marine Reserve, some level of conservation as either transferred these lands to the Service, increasing protections for that colony by Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, Areas which subsequently designated it as the prohibiting fishing and other boating of Multiple Use, or private protected Vieques Island National Wildlife activities at depths of less than 37 m areas (Eisermann 2006, p. 13). Refuge. (120 ft) from January 1 to October 31 of Honduras—In Honduras, two of the In the U.S. Virgin Islands, brown each year (California Code of four identified nesting sites for brown pelican colonies are fairly inaccessible Regulations, Title 14, Sections 27.82, pelicans are currently protected: on high cliffs or steep cays (Collazo 630, and 6321). In 1999, commercial Monumento Natural Marino del 1985, pp. 106–108; Saliva 1996b); squid fishing boats operating offshore of Archipie´lago de Cayos Cochinos and therefore, it is unlikely that human West Anacapa and Santa Barbara Laguna de Los Micos within Parque intrusion would be a major factor islands during the pelican breeding Nacional Blanca Jeannette Kawas affecting pelican reproduction in those season, presumably because the (Thorn et al. 2006, pp. 8, 11, 29). A third colonies. (nonlocal) fishermen were not aware of nesting area, the cays of Isla Utila, has The six nesting sites in Cuba the closure during the breeding season, been proposed for protection as Refugio identified by Acosta-Cruz and Mugica- used bright lights at night to attract de Vida Silvestre Cayos de Utila and Valde´s (2006, pp. 32–33) are within squid to the surface (Gress 1999, p. 1). Reserva Marina Utila (Thorn et al. 2006, areas identified as wetlands of Use of lights at night was associated p. 9). international importance under the with brown pelican nest abandonment, Nicaragua—Although Zolotoff-Pallais Convention on Wetlands of chick mortality, and very low and Lezama (2006, p. 79) do not International Importance especially as productivity (Gress 1999, pp. 1–2). indicate any nesting sites for brown Waterfowl Habitat. The convention Squid fishing has been observed around pelicans, they indicate that brown itself does not provide specific the Channel Islands in recent years, pelicans occur at four sites designated protections of identified wetlands, but although it has not occurred near the as wetlands of international importance does commit the parties to the colonies at a noticeable level since 1999 under the Convention on Wetlands of convention to formulate and implement (Whitworth et al. 2005, p. 19). In 2004, International Importance especially as planning for the conservation and the California Fish and Game Waterfowl Habitat. management of wetlands within their Commission adopted the requirement of Costa Rica—In Costa Rica, the three countries. One of the brown pelican light shields and a limit of 30,000 watts major brown pelican nesting sites sites in Cuba, Refugio de Fauna Rı´o per boat operating around the Channel reported by Quesada (2006, p. 34), Isla Ma´ximo, is additionally protected as a Islands (CDFG Regulations, Section 149, Guayabo, Isla Negrita, and Isla Pararos, wildlife refuge (Acosta-Cruz and Title 14, CCR). Although occasional are protected as Biological Reserves. A Mugica-Valde´s 2006, pp. 32–33). disturbances may occur during the fourth site, Isla Verde, identified as a California and Pacific Coast of breeding season, such as illegal boating roosting location for brown pelicans, is Mexico. Pelican nesting colonies in within the Marine Sanctuary, we believe protected as a National Park (Quesada California occur within Channel Islands the protections and active enforcement 2006, p. 34). National Park and are protected from by the National Park Service (NPS) and Panama—Angehr (2005, pp. 23, 26, human disturbance and coastal CDFG have ensured that all nesting 30, 34) identifies four nesting sites used

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

by brown pelicans in Panama that are Chile—Simeone and Bernal (2000, p. (Jaques and Anderson 1987, pp. 14, 19; on lands with some official protective 450) reported that Isla Pa´jaro Nin˜ o in Briggs et al. 1981, pp. 7–8). In other status: (1) Isla Barca Quebrada, within Chile has been designated a Nature areas, brown pelicans generally use Coiba National Park; (2) Iguana Island, Reserve by the Chilean government for their nesting grounds as roosting within Isla Iguana Wildlife Refuge; (3) a the protection of Humboldt penguins, grounds year round (Saliva 2003; Hess group of small islands mostly within the brown pelicans, and other seabirds. The and Durham 2002, p. 1; Hess and Taboga Wildlife Refuge; and (4) Pearl breakwater connecting the island to the Linscombe 2001, p. 1; King et al. 1985, Islands, owned by the Panamanian mainland has controlled access, which p. 204). Because brown pelicans also environmental organization ANCON has reduced human disturbance use nesting sites as roosting sites and (National Association for the (Simeone and Bernal 2000, p. 455). most of these nesting areas are already Conservation of Nature). There are many In summary, efforts to conserve protected, as described above, we more nesting areas in Panama, but they nesting habitat are positively affecting believe roosting habitat is also generally lack protective status. nesting brown pelicans, resulting in an adequately protected. However, we have Colombia—In Colombia, the seven overall rangewide recovery. Although identified southern California as one sites where brown pelican were loss of nesting habitat has occurred on area where roosting habitat may be documented to occur by Moreno and a local scale, for instance, in Puerto Rico limited. We discuss the adequacy of Buelvas (2005, pp. 11, 57) are included (Collazo et al. 1998, p. 63) and Mexico protections of southern California in a system of protected areas or as part (Anderson et al. 2003, p. 1099), we have roosting habitat and its effects on the of sanctuaries for wildlife and plants. no evidence that nesting habitat is species below. Venezuela—In Venezuela, Rodner limiting pelican populations on a While not known to be a concern in (2006, p. 28) indicates that at least 9 of regional or global scale. Threats from other portions of the brown pelican’s the 25 nesting colonies for brown human disturbance of nesting colonies range, natural roost habitat is limited pelicans are protected as either Parques throughout most of the species’ range along the southern California coast due Nacional, Monumentals Natural, or have been abated through protection to a lack of rocky substrate, as well as Refugios de Silvestre. efforts, including federal and state coastal development and wetland filling Ecuador—About 87 percent of the ownership and management, (Jaques and Strong 2003, p. 1). Most Galapagos Islands are a National Park designation of National Parks and roosts in southern California occur on (Exploring Ecuador 2006, p. 1), and Biosphere Reserves, signage to deter jetties and breakwaters under commercial and tourist access to the people from entering colonies, and jurisdiction of the Corps, although Park is regulated by the government of restricted access. While nesting habitat private structures such as barges and oil Ecuador to protect natural resources at a local scale is lost to storms and platforms also provide significant roost (Service 2007a, p. 23). The resident erosion, particularly in the Gulf of habitat (Strong and Jaques 2003, p. 20). human population on the Galapagos Mexico (McNease and Perry 1998, p. 9), Night roost habitat is further limited to Islands has expanded in recent years, as birds have been found to disperse to and large areas where disturbance is has the number of tourists (Charles colonize other natural areas (Hess and minimal, which may be causing Darwin Foundation 2006, p. 13). The Durham 2002, p. 7) and manmade pelicans to expend unnecessary energy Charles Darwin Foundation, which islands (Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. to fly between daytime roosting/foraging works in the islands under an agreement 3, 6; Harris 2006). areas along the mainland and distant with the government of Ecuador, has night roosts in the Channel Islands Roosting Habitat developed a strategic plan to address the (Jaques et al. 1996, p. 46; Jaques and management of increasing human Disturbance-free roosting habitat is Strong 2003, p. 12). presence in the islands (Charles Darwin essential for brown pelicans throughout In California, all rocks, islands, Foundation 2006, p. 7). The plan’s the year, for drying and maintaining pinnacles, and exposed reefs above general objective is to ‘‘forge a plumage, resting, sleeping, and mean high tide within 22.2 km (13.8 mi) sustainable Galapagos society in which conserving energy (Jaques and Anderson of shore are included within the the people who inhabit the islands will 1987, pp. 4–5). Roosts also act as California Coastal National Monument, act as agents of conservation.’’ information centers for social managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Peru—Proabonos, an agency in Peru’s facilitation. Essential characteristics of Management (U.S. Bureau of Land Ministry of Agriculture, protects and roost sites include: Proximity to food Management 2005, pp. 1–3). manages brown pelican nesting islands resources; physical barriers to minimize Management includes monitoring and (Zavalaga et al. 2002, p. 9; Proabonos predation and disturbance; sufficient protecting geologic formations and the 2006). Additionally, Franke (2006, p. 8) size for individuals to interact normally; habitat they provide for seabirds and indicates brown pelicans occur at four and protection from adverse other wildlife (U.S. Bureau of Land protected sites, although it is not clear environmental conditions, such as wind Management 2005, pp. 1–3). Many whether these are nesting sites as well: and surf (Jaques and Anderson 1987, p. pelican roost sites are on protected Santuario Nacional Los Manglares de 5). Communal roosts occur on offshore rocks and islands within the California Tumbes, Zona Reservada Los Pantanos rocks and islands; on beaches at mouths Coastal National Monument. de Villa, National Reserve Paracas, and of estuaries; and on breakwaters, The central California coast supports Santuario Nacional Lagunas de Mejı´a. pilings, jetties, sandbars, and mangrove an important temporal component of Estimated increases in the brown islets (Jaques and Anderson 1987, pp. pelican roosting habitat, supporting 69 pelican population along coastal Peru 14, 19; Shields 2002, p. 7). Brown to 75 percent of pelicans in California in have been attributed to protective pelicans have two types of roosts, day the fall (Strong and Jaques 2003, p. 28). measures by the Government of Peru. and night roosts. Night roosts need to be The Farallon Islands National Wildlife The Ministry of Agriculture’s Forest and larger and less accessible to predators Refuge and Monterey Bay National Wild Fauna Management Authority and human disturbance than day roosts Marine Sanctuary in central California (IRENA) lists the brown pelican as (Jaques and Anderson 1987, p. 27; protect and support roosting habitat (15 endangered, and provides prohibitions Jaques and Strong 2003, p. 1). Along the CFR 922; Thayer and Sydeman 2004, p. against take of the species without a Pacific Coast, brown pelicans use roost 2; Service 2007c, p. 1). CDFG designated permit (Taura 2006). sites that are different from nest sites the waters around the Farallon Islands

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59459

as a State Marine Conservation Area, Restoration Plan, Kure/Humboldt Bay to 30 mi) of a colony during the and the islands are part of the Gulf of Oil Spill Restoration Plan (KRP), breeding season is critical to pelicans the Farallons National Marine Sanctuary Stuyvesant/Humboldt Coast Oil Spill for feeding young (Anderson et al. 1982, (CDFG 2007, p. 7; 15 CFR 922). The Restoration Plan (SRP), and Montrose p. 28). Additionally, reproductive Marine Sanctuaries prohibit aircraft Settlement Restoration Plan (MSRP). success is dependent on abundance and from flying below 305 m (1,000 ft) The purpose of these plans is to restore availability of prey within foraging within their boundaries, and limit natural resources, including seabirds, distance of the colony (Anderson et al. allowable uses to research, educational, that were injured as a result of oil spills 1982, pp. 23, 30; Everett and Anderson and recreational activities. In general, and hazardous substance releases along 1991, p. 133). Therefore, commercial commercial and recreational uses of the California coast. One component of harvests of pelican prey species have marine resources are prohibited, but all these plans is to reduce human the potential to affect brown pelican certain commercial and recreational disturbance at roost sites in northern, population dynamics. harvests of marine resources may be central, and southern California through Commercial fishing. The Magnuson- permitted (CDFG 2007, pp. 4–5; 15 CFR education, monitoring, and enforcement Stevens Fishery Conservation and 922). (American Trader Trustee Council 2001, Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), in p. 16; Command Oil Spill Trustee 1801 et seq.) requires management plans southern California, consulted under Council 2004, p. 60; Torch/Platform for commercial fish species to ensure section 7 of the Act with the Service Irene Trustee Council 2006, p. 33; CDFG optimum yield with guaranteed regarding the effects of low-flying test and Service 2008, p. 40; CDFG and perpetuation of that resource and flights, and agreed to avoid flying Service 2007, p. 26; MSRP 2005, p. D6– minimal impact to the ecosystem of directly over roosting pelicans occurring 1). The American Trader Trustee which it is a part. Each coastal region of on their mainland base (Service 2003a, Council also funded a pilot program in the United States is a member of one of p. 1). We have consulted with 2004 to create new night roosting eight Fishery Management Councils, Vandenberg AFB multiple times habitat in the form of a floating platform each of which implements the local regarding the impacts of missile in the San Diego Bay National Wildlife fishery management plan (16 U.S.C. launches on roosting pelicans and have Refuge salt ponds. While pelican use 1801 et seq.). determined that impacts are limited to has been limited, the American Trader The Pacific Fishery Management a short-term startle effect (Service 1998, Trustee Council is exploring ways to Council prepared the Anchovy Fishery 1999, 2003a). A maximum of 30 missile enhance and improve the platform. The Management Plan. Amendment 8 to the launches per year at Vandenberg AFB MSRP also includes roost site creation Anchovy Fishery Management Plan, are estimated (Vanderberg AFB 2008, p. and/or enhancement as suitable adopted December 15, 1999 (64 FR 14). Therefore, potential impacts from restoration projects for the brown 69888), changed the name of the missile launches are minimal because pelican (MSRP 2005, p. D6–1). Anchovy Fishery Management Plan to they are temporary in nature and will While some roosting habitat in the the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery likely only occur a few times per month. United States may still be susceptible to Management Plan (CPSFMP) and added The Sonny Bono Salton Sea National human disturbance, much of the brown Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Wildlife Refuge, inland from San Diego, pelican roosting habitat occurs within Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), is also used for roosting during the post- protected areas. There are ongoing jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), breeding season, and supports and efforts to identify and prioritize and market squid (Loligo opalescens) to protects up to 5,000 pelicans in the important roost sites, reduce the fishery management unit (CPSFMP summer within its boundaries (Service disturbances at these sites, enhance 1998, p. 1–1). Amendment 8 divided 2007d, pp. 1–2). However, roosting existing roosts, and create new roost these species into the categories of habitat is expected to decrease after the habitat. Southern California is the only actively managed and monitored. year 2018 as a result of reductions of area we are aware of with potentially Harvest guidelines for actively managed Colorado River water reaching the limited roost sites. We have no species, Pacific sardine and Pacific Salton Sea (Service 2002, p. 52), which information to indicate that roosting mackerel, are based on formulas applied could decrease the availability of forage habitat may be limiting elsewhere in the to current biomass estimates and to pelicans and reduce the species’ range. Nevertheless, the limited designed to ensure that adequate forage suitability of roosting habitat in this area number of existing roost sites has had is available for seabirds, marine (Service 2002, pp. 18, 51). The Bureau no known impacts to the species and mammals, and other fish. There are no of Reclamation will compensate for this the population appears to be stable or harvest guidelines for the monitored loss by creating new roosting habitat increasing. Therefore, we do not believe species (northern anchovy, jack along the southern California coast that roost site disturbance will adversely mackerel, and market squid) because (Service 2002, p. 52). affect the brown pelican throughout all they are not currently intensively An atlas of pelican roost sites along of its range in the foreseeable future. fished, although harvest and abundance portions of the central and northern data will be monitored (CPSFMP 1998, California coasts was completed that Prey Abundance pp. 4–5). The northern anchovy fishery will allow management agencies to Brown pelicans feed on surface- essentially ceased in 1983 due to a evaluate the overall status of roosting schooling fish such as menhaden depressed market. The depressed habitat and help prioritize roost sites for (Brevoortia spp.), mullet (Mugil spp.), market for northern anchovy is thought protection. A similar atlas for the sardines (Sardinops sagax), and to be a long-term or possibly permanent southern California coast was completed anchovies (Engraulis spp.), which they condition, although this fishery in January of 2009 (Service 2009a). In catch by plunge-diving in coastal waters continues today at a minimal level addition, the following restoration plans (Palmer 1962, p. 279; Blus et al. 1979b, (CDFG 2001, pp. 303–305). A include projects that will benefit brown p. 175; Gress et al. 1990, p. 2; Schreiber comprehensive assessment of the pelicans, regardless of the brown et al. 1975, p. 649; Schreiber 1980, p. northern anchovy fishery will be pelican listing status: American Trader 744; Kushlan and Frohring 1985, p. 92). conducted if the annual harvest Restoration Plan, Command Oil Spill The availability of high quality forage in approaches 25,000 metric tons (mt) Restoration Plan, Torch/Platform Irene the offshore area within 30 to 50 km (18 (25,097 tons); however, the annual

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59460 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

harvest as of 1999 was estimated to be currently being commercially fished and with natural phenomena such as only about 7,000 mt (6,889 tons) of an any that may be in the future. Therefore, variation in food resources, winter estimated biomass of 388,000 mt we do not believe that commercial storms, and hurricanes, such that (381,872 tons) (Service 1999, pp. 1–2). fishing will endanger the brown pelican sporadic breeding failures have little On June 10, 1999, the Service or its prey throughout the United States, effect on long-term population stability determined that Amendment 8 to the Mexico, and Caribbean portion of its (Shields 2002, p. 23). These factors are Anchovy Fishery Management Plan will range in the foreseeable future. only significant when population sizes not adversely affect brown pelicans in We do not have information from are small and reproduction is limited (as California because it would not decrease other countries on commercial fishery was the case in the late 1960s due to the availability of fish to pelicans impacts to brown pelican prey impaired breeding success caused by (Service 1999, p. 1). The CPSFMP (1998, abundance. However, we have no organo-chlorine residues). Because pp. 2–5) will continue to ensure that evidence to suggest that commercial current population sizes and adequate forage is available to pelicans fishing is limiting brown pelican distribution are large and reproduction if economic conditions change and populations. Populations of brown has been restored to a level that can northern anchovies become more pelicans in Central and South America compensate for normal environmental intensively fished. The CPSFMP will are generally large with stable or fluctuations, we do not believe these also ensure that other forage fishes used increasing trends, indicating that food natural events threaten the species by pelicans, such as Pacific sardines and resources are not limiting. throughout all of its range in the Pacific mackerel, are also managed to El Nin˜ o and Freeze Events. A mixture foreseeable future. preserve adequate forage reserves of subarctic and tropical waters, (CPSFMP 1998, pp. 2–5). upwelling events, and varying depths of Other Habitat Protections Implementation of the CPSFMP is not the Pacific Ocean result in seasonal, U.S. laws that provide protections to dependent on the brown pelican’s status inter-annual (between year), and long- brown pelican habitat are the Fish and as an endangered species, and should term variability in fish availability for Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. not be affected by this delisting rule. brown pelicans (Dailey et al. 1993, pp. 661 et seq.), which requires equal The central subpopulation of the 11–13). El Nin˜ o events that occur consideration and coordination of northern anchovy extends south of the periodically in the Pacific Ocean are wildlife conservation with other water U.S. border along the west coast of Baja characterized by warm, nutrient-poor resource developments, and the Estuary California, Mexico. However, there is no water and reduced productivity (Dailey Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), bilateral agreement between the United et al. 1993, p. 11; Leck 1973, p. 357; which requires Federal agencies to States and Mexico regarding the Duffy 1983b, p. 687), thus reducing assess impacts of commercial and management of this subpopulation, and brown pelican reproductive success and industrial developments on estuaries. the Mexican fishery is managed causing mortality in pelican chicks Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act independently and not restricted by a (Hayward 2000, p. 111). Pelicans have (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) regulates the quota (CDFG 2001, p. 304). The the flexibility to respond to changes in building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, Coronados Islands pelican population food supplies through variable and other structures and the excavation may have suffered reduced breeding reproductive rates, although a long-term or fill within navigable water. Sections success during the late 1970s as a result decline in food abundance could have 402 and 404 of the Federal Water of intensive commercial anchovy serious impacts on the pelican Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et harvests in Mexico (Anderson and Gress population (Anderson et al. 1982, p. 30). seq.), as amended by the Clean Water 1982, p. 130). Declines in the anchovy An incidental effect of El Nin˜ o is Act (91 Stat. 1566) and the Water population in the early 1980s may have movement of brown pelicans into Quality Improvement Act (101 Stat. 7), been caused by intensive harvesting in developed areas, presumably in search provide for the development of Mexico that far exceeded the California of food, exposing them to collision comprehensive programs for water fishery (Service 1983, p. 57). Similar to hazards with structures and vehicles pollution control and efficient and the U.S. fishery, anchovy harvests in (Leck 1973, p. 357). During the 1997 El coordinated action to minimize damage Mexico have decreased sharply over Nin˜ o event, an increase was reported in from oil discharges. time, from an average 86,363 mt (85,000 the local pelican population from 200 to Additional environmental laws that tons) per year from 1962 to 1989, to an 4,000 birds within a few weeks within help protect pelican habitat and food average of 3.65 mt (3.6 tons) from 1990 the city of Arica, Chile (CNN 1997, p. sources include: Emergency Wetlands to 1999 (CDFG 2001, p. 303). However, 1). El Nin˜ o events are generally limited Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901 if economic conditions change and to a single breeding season, and are not et seq.), which authorizes the purchase anchovies become more intensively likely to result in long-term population of wetlands from Land & Water harvested in Mexico, availability of declines (Dailey et al. 1993, p. 11). Conservation Fund monies; North anchovies for pelicans could be McNease et al. (1994, p. 10) found American Wetlands Conservation Act of reduced. that severe freezes limited feeding due 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.) which While no brown pelican prey species to surface ice formation. Fish mortality provides funding for wetland appear to be currently regulated by the related to freezes also negatively conservation programs in Canada, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management impacts the pelican’s food supply on a Mexico, and the United States; Council or the Caribbean Fishery short-term basis (McNease et al. 1994, p. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of Management Council (Web sites 10). However, these events are typically 1965 (16 U.S.C. 757a et seq.), which accessed: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/, localized and restricted to a single provides funds for conservation, and http://www.caribbeanfmc.com/) in season in duration. development, and enhancement of the United States, regulations under El Nin˜ os and severe freezes may anadromous fish (marine fish that breed authority of the Magnuson-Stevens impact brown pelicans on a short-term, in fresh water) through cooperation with Fishery Conservation and Management localized basis, but they do not pose a States and other non-Federal interests; Act are sufficient to protect prey rangewide threat to the continued Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. abundance for brown pelicans, existence of the species. The pelican is 3501 et seq.), as amended by the Coastal including brown pelican food species a long-lived species that has evolved Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, which

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59461

encourages conservation of hurricane- to result in significant rangewide Mexico. This Treaty provides for prone, biologically rich coastal barrier declines in the foreseeable future, based protection from shooting and egg islands by restricting Federal on information currently available. collection by establishment of closed expenditures that encourage In summary, conservation efforts are seasons and refuge zones. development of coastal barrier islands, continuing to positively affect brown Implementation of the treaty in the such as providing National Flood pelicans, resulting in an overall United States was accomplished by Insurance; Coastal Zone Management rangewide recovery. Although loss of amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), nesting habitat has occurred on a local (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). The which provides fiscal incentives for the scale, for instance in Puerto Rico MBTA and its implementing regulations protection, restoration, or enhancement (Collazo et al. 1998, p. 63) and Mexico (50 CFR parts 20 and 21) prohibit take, of existing coastal wetlands or creating (Anderson et al. 2003, p. 1099), we have possession, import, export, transport, new coastal wetlands and assessing the no evidence that nesting habitat loss is selling, purchase, barter, or offering for cumulative effects of coastal limiting pelican populations on a sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory development on coastal wetlands and regional or global scale. While localized bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except fishery resources; Shore Protection Act nesting habitat is lost to storms and as authorized under a valid permit, and of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); Outer erosion, particularly in the Gulf of require that such use not adversely Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1954, as Mexico (McNease and Perry 1998, p. 9), affect populations (50 CFR 21.11). The amended in 1978 and 1985 (43 U.S.C. birds have been found to colonize in MBTA and its implementing regulations 1301 et seq.); National Ocean Pollution other natural areas (Hess and Durham will adequately protect against Planning Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1701 et 2002, p. 7) and on manmade islands overutilization of pelicans within the seq.); Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 (Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 3, 6; United States, Canada, and Mexico (see U.S.C. 2701 et seq.); Act to Prevent Harris 2006). The only area where we discussion of the MBTA in ‘‘Effects of Pollution From Ships of 1980 (33 U.S.C. have determined roost sites to be this Rule’’ section below). Another 1901 et seq.); Marine Pollution and limited is in southern California, but Federal law that will continue to offer Research and Control Act of 1989; this has not had any known impacts to some form of protection for the brown Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 (33 the population. Much of the U.S. brown pelican is the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); Marine Protection, pelican roosting habitat is within 3371–3378), which helps the United Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1988 protected areas. We have no evidence to States and other foreign countries (Pub. L. 100–688); and Federal suggest that commercial fishing in the enforce their wildlife conservation laws Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide United States and elsewhere is limiting by prohibiting trade in wildlife, fish, Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). These brown pelican populations by reducing and plants that have been illegally laws and regulations, taken collectively, the species’ fish prey base and taken, possessed, transported, or sold in help ensure the conservation of brown regulatory mechanisms are in place violation of other federal, state, and pelicans and their habitat. within the United States to manage foreign laws protecting wildlife. fisheries to ensure adequate prey base We do not have any information to Climate Change for sea birds and other species. El Nin˜ os indicate that overutilization for The Intergovernmental Panel on and severe freezes may impact brown commercial, recreational, scientific, or Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that pelicans on a short-term, localized basis, educational uses is occurring now or warming of the climate system is but these events do not pose a will occur in the future. Therefore, we unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30). significant threat to the species. do not believe overutilization is a Numerous long-term changes have been Although some local factors continue to significant factor affecting the brown observed including changes in arctic affect brown pelicans, these factors are pelican throughout all of its range, both temperatures and ice, widespread not of sufficient magnitude to affect any now and in the foreseeable future. changes in precipitation amounts, ocean brown pelican populations. Therefore, C. Disease or Predation salinity, wind patterns and aspects of we believe that the present or extreme weather including droughts, threatened destruction, modification, or Several diseases have been identified heavy precipitation, heat waves and the curtailment of the brown pelican’s as causing illness and mortality of intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC habitat or range is not a significant brown pelicans. The diatom Pseudo- 2007b, p. 7). Species that are dependent factor affecting the brown pelican nitzchia australis (an algae) occasionally on specialized habitat types, limited in throughout all of its range, both now blooms in large numbers off the distribution, or occurring already at the and for the foreseeable future. California coast and produces the toxin extreme periphery of their range will be domoic acid that occasionally causes most susceptible to the impacts of B. Overutilization for Commercial, mortalities in pelicans (USGS 2002a, p. climate change. Such species would Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 5). Erysipelas, caused by the bacterium currently be found at high elevations, Purposes Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, caused extreme northern/southern latitudes, or We are not aware of any mortality of about 350 pelicans off the dependent on delicate ecological overutilization for commercial, coast of California during the winter of interactions, or sensitive to nonnative recreational, scientific, or educational 1987–1988 (Shields 2002, p. 32). This competitors. The brown pelican does uses of brown pelicans, although within outbreak was thought to have been not meet the profile of a species most the United States, Canada, and Mexico, caused by unusually warm waters susceptible to climate change. It is a the brown pelican is protected from any combined with a large number of wide-ranging species and is relatively such threats. In 1936, the Protection of pelicans in that area. Avian botulism, general in its habitat selection as it is Migratory Birds and Game Mammals caused by the bacterium Clostridium able to breed in a variety of coastal Treaty was signed by the United States, botulinum, has caused illness and habitat types and feed on a variety of Canada, Japan, Russia, and Mexico (50 mortality of pelicans at the Sonny Bono prey items. It is likely that the range of Stat. 1311; TS 912), which adopted a Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge the species may shift and population system for the protection of certain (USGS 2002b, p. 6). None of these centers may redistribute, but effects of migratory birds, including the brown disease outbreaks have had known long- climate change would not be expected pelican, in the United States and term impacts on the population, and

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

because occurrences are few and self- populations would respond to exposure. oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus), limiting, we do not believe impacts from Multiple government and international crows (Corvus spp.), and mockingbirds these diseases will become a threat to agencies are monitoring the progress of (Mimus gilvus) (Schreiber 1979, p. 40; brown pelicans throughout all of their the disease (see, for example, USDA’s Saliva and Burger 1989, p. 695; Jiminez range in the foreseeable future. BioSecurity for Birds at http:// 2004, pp. 16–17). Avian predators _ West Nile virus is listed on the Center www.aphis.usda.gov/animal health/ occasionally destroy unguarded pelican for Disease Control’s West Nile Virus birdbiosecurity). These avian influenza nests, and disturbances to nesting Web page (http://www.cdc.gov/westnile) specific monitoring programs, in colonies may flush pelicans from nests, as causing the mortality of white addition to our own post-delisting increasing the risk of predation on eggs pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), monitoring plan, are designed to detect and young (Schreiber and Riseborough the only other species of pelican native declines in brown pelicans and other 1972, p. 126). However, if brown to North America. However, according bird populations that might arise from to this same Web site and the USGS, no threats such as avian influenza in the pelicans are undisturbed, at least one brown pelican deaths due to West Nile future. member of the breeding pair usually virus have been reported, although Ticks have been implicated as the remains close to the nest to protect the antibodies for the virus have been found cause of nest abandonment on both a eggs and vulnerable nestlings (Duffy in captive brown pelicans (USGS 2003a, Texas and Peruvian island (King et al. 1983a, p. 113; Schreiber and p. 6). We do not believe impacts from 1977b, p. 1; Duffy 1983a, p. 112). Riseborough 1972, p. 126; Shields 2002, West Nile virus will become a threat to However, these events were localized p. 12). In the absence of other human brown pelicans throughout all of their and apparently have had no long-term disturbances, egg and nest predation by range in the foreseeable future, since impact on population levels in these mammals and other birds does not there is no evidence to date that it areas. Mites and liver flukes have also appear to impose a significant limitation negatively impacts pelicans. The post- been reported in brown pelicans (50 FR on brown pelican reproduction. Most delisting monitoring plan will be 4942; February 4, 1985), but have not nesting islands are protected from designed to detect declines in brown been noted to cause significant health human disturbance as discussed above. pelican populations that might arise impairment in healthy birds. We have Therefore, we do not believe impacts from a variety of threats, including West no evidence that mites, liver flukes, or from mammalian or avian predation Nile virus. There is an extensive other parasites are limiting brown will become a threat to brown pelicans network of Federal and State wildlife pelican populations now or are likely to throughout all of their range within the agencies and other cooperators that in the future. Therefore, we do not foreseeable future. monitor colonial nesting waterbird believe impacts from parasites will species, including the brown pelican become a threat to brown pelicans Disease and predation generally affect (see ‘‘Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan’’ throughout all of their range in the only small numbers of individuals. In section below). foreseeable future. addition, many disease events are Similar to West Nile virus, avian Brown pelicans require nesting areas usually limited in area and may only influenza, also known as bird flu, is not in close proximity to food supplies and affect brown pelicans for a short period currently impacting brown pelicans, but free from mammalian predators and of time (e.g., for a single breeding may be a threat in the future. The term human disturbance (Anderson and season). Because brown pelicans are avian influenza refers to multiple strains Keith 1980, p. 65). There is no known long lived, sporadic breeding failures of the influenza virus carried by birds. significant impact from mammalian that may be caused by parasites, disease, Just as with the variety of strains of predation on brown pelicans, or predation, especially on a local scale, human influenza virus, the avian particularly since they generally nest at have little effect on long-term influenza viral strains differ in strength, sites free of mammals that could population stability (Shields 2002, p. transmission rates, and effects. Strains depredate eggs or young. Mammalian 23). Because current populations and of avian influenza known as low predators introduced to seabird nesting pathanogenic avian influenza (LPAI) are islands, such as domestic cats (Felis distribution are large and reproduction commonly carried in the intestines of catus) and rats (Rattus spp.), can have has been restored to a level that can wild birds and generally do not result in serious impacts on small and medium- compensate for normal environmental sick or dead birds (CDC 2006, p. 1). sized seabirds, but they appear to have fluctuations, we do not believe that However, if domesticated birds come little impact on pelicans (Anderson et disease, parasites, and predation are a into contact with a LPAI, the viral strain al. 1989, p. 102). However, in some significant factor affecting brown can mutate to a highly pathanogenic areas we anticipate that the brown pelicans throughout the species’ range, avian influenza (HPAI), which can pelican will benefit from feral cat both now and in the foreseeable future. result in significant illness and death removal programs. The Montrose D. The Inadequacy of Existing (USGS 2006, p. 2). The mutated HPAI Trustee Council is planning to remove strain can be secondarily transmitted the feral cats from San Nicolas Island, Regulatory Mechanisms back to wild birds in addition to a a known brown pelican roosting As discussed in each of the factors, variety of other species, including location off the southern California many regulatory mechanisms will humans. Currently, the HPAI strain of coast, starting in 2009 (Service 2009b). remain in place after delisting that There are numerous reported avian avian influenza is not known to occur ensure future threats will be reduced or in the range of the brown pelican (USGS predators of chicks and eggs: minimized. We believe these 2009). It is possible that the HPAI strain magnificent frigatebirds (Fregata protections, taken together, provide could be carried into the range of the magnificens), gulls (Larus spp.), red- brown pelican through human travel, tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), adequate regulatory mechanisms to importation of tainted materials, and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), prevent the brown pelican from migratory birds coming in from affected American kestrels (Falco sparverius), becoming endangered throughout all of areas (USGS 2005, p. 2). At this time, short-eared owls (Asio flammeus), cattle its range in the foreseeable future. avian influenza is not impacting brown egrets (Bulbulcus ibis), night herons pelicans and it is not known how (Nycticorax spp.), American

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59463

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors diving into ice-covered water. However, and unprotected from predators, but Affecting Its Continued Existence severe freeze events in Louisiana are none flushed when a slow-moving dive infrequent (McNease et al. 1994, p. 10) boat approached within 10 m (33 ft) of Natural Factors and have not precluded the Louisiana the colony. This discussion addresses direct population from growing to large In Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin mortality of brown pelicans. See Factor numbers since the restocking program Islands, most breeding colonies of A for impacts to habitat from natural began in the 1960s. brown pelicans are located within weather events such as storms and El Winter storms and severe freezes may Commonwealth or Federal protected Nin˜ o. Weather events and El Nin˜ o locally impact pelicans. For example, areas. The adverse effects of human events may affect habitat and prey larger than usual numbers of pelicans disturbances by recreational vessels and abundance as discussed above, but also began washing up on beaches in fishermen have been suggested as may result directly in death or injury of California during the winter of 2008– potentially resulting in abandonment of individual brown pelicans. Boersma 2009. This die-off of 300 to 400 birds pelican nests located at low elevations (1978, p. 1482) reported El Nin˜ o-season appears to have occurred as a result of and close to the water (Jime´nez 2004, starvation of nestling brown pelicans in a winter storm event in the Pacific pp. 12–17). Pelicans have been seen the Galapagos Islands. The 1982–83, Northwest and weather-related stress in flushing from nests when boats 1986–87, and 1991–1994 El Nin˜ o events the northernmost portion of the winter approached within 152.4 m (500 ft), and may have reduced the number of range of the species where pelicans had have been noted to leave their nests nesting brown pelicans in those years at remained late in the year due to unattended for as long as humans Cayo Conejo, Puerto Rico (Schreiber relatively mild weather (California remained within this proximity (Saliva 1999, p. 12). In extreme cases adult Department of Fish and Game 2009, pp. 1996a; Saliva 2003). Raffaele et al. mortality has resulted from El Nin˜ o 7–8). (1998, pp. 224–225) summarized events (Shields 2002, p. 32), such as the These natural factors may adversely historical records of pelicans nesting in especially severe El Nin˜ o (Southern affect brown pelicans on a short-term, Puerto Rico and noted their extirpation Oscillation) of 1983 (Duffy 1986, p. localized basis, but do not pose a from at least three colonies and suggests 591). Mortality was not noted during the rangewide threat to the continued boat traffic as the cause. Schreiber less severe event of 1978 (Boersma 1978, existence of the species. These factors (1999, p. 20) noted that one of these p. 1482). Shields (2002, p. 23, and generally affect only a limited number extirpated colonies may have moved to reference cited within) states that food of individuals, affect only a localized a nearby bay, hidden from boaters. shortages as a result of El Nin˜ o and area, or affect reproductive success for Along Mexico’s Pacific Coast, human other climatic and oceanographic events a single season. The pelican is a long- disturbance at colonies has resulted in may result in abandonment of nests and lived species that has evolved with nest abandonment, predation of eggs starvation of nestlings, but rarely results natural phenomena such as variation in and chicks, and total abandonment or in adult mortality except in extreme food resources, winter storms, and relocation of individual colonies events. Because brown pelicans are long hurricanes. These factors are only (Anderson and Keith 1980, p. 69). lived, such sporadic and short-term significant when population sizes are Fishermen, birders, photographers, breeding failures have little impact on small and reproduction is limited. educational groups, and egg collectors long-term population viability. Because current populations and (in past years) have occasionally Storms accompanied by severe tidal distribution are large and reproduction disturbed the pelican colonies at critical flooding can have a significant negative has been restored to a level that can times during the breeding season (Gress effect on brown pelican productivity compensate for normal environmental et al. 2005, p. 7). However, nesting (McNease et al. 1994, p. 10). While some fluctuations, we do not believe that brown pelicans are monitored annually adults may be killed during storm natural events will endanger the species as an indicator species in the Gulf of events, most impacts result in juvenile throughout all of its range in the California (Godinez et al. 2004, p. 48), mortality and reduced fledgling foreseeable future. and although annual numbers fluctuate production (Wilkinson et al. 1994, p. widely due to a number of factors, 425; Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. 4). Manmade Factors including disturbances at some Additionally, eggs and nestlings may be Human disturbance of nesting colonies, the populations are considered lost due to flooding (Hess and pelicans. Adverse effects on nesting stable (Everett and Anderson 1991, p. Linscombe 2006, p. 23) and nests built pelicans from human disturbance by 133; Anderson and Palacios 2005, p. 2). in trees are easily dislodged and recreationists, scientists, educational Although the threat of human destroyed during strong winds or major groups, and fishermen have been well disturbance has declined in Mexico as storms (Jiminez 2004, pp. 12–17; Saliva documented (Anderson 1988, p. 342; a result of conservation efforts and 1989). While McNease et al.’s (1994, p. Anderson and Keith 1980, pp. 68–69). increased protection (Luckenbach 10) observations indicated a female that Disturbance at nesting colonies, such as Trustee Council 2006, p. 82), has produced eggs or nestlings will not walking among or near nests, has been enforcement remains limited (Anderson nest again in the same season, Hess and shown to adversely affect reproductive et al. 2003, pp. 1103–1104) and many Linscombe (2006, pp. 3, 7, 23) found success of pelicans, and even result in colonies are still susceptible to pelicans rebuilding new nests on top of abandonment of nests or entire colonies disturbances (Godinez 2006). However, flooded and damaged nests. (Anderson and Keith 1980, p. 69). effects from disturbance have not been In addition to freezes in Louisiana Collier et al. (2003, pp. 112–113) offer substantial enough to result in limiting brown pelican foraging and human disturbance as the cause of a documented population declines in the resulting in fish mortality, as discussed suspension of breeding activity in a last 20 years (Anderson et al. 2004, p. above under Factor A, McNease et al. brown pelican colony on St. Martin in 37). Therefore, while these local impacts (1994, p. 10) found effects from severe the Lesser Antilles. The colony was near are still occurring, we do not believe freezes included high initial brown a resort with heavy boat and jet ski use. they currently threaten brown pelicans pelican mortality from hypothermia, When a jet ski passed within about or will become a threat that endangers prolonged exposure to low 400 m (1,312 ft) of a colony, 40 pelicans the brown pelican throughout all of its temperatures, and death while plunge- flushed, leaving their nests unattended range in the foreseeable future.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

Future conservation actions in Mexico result in population declines of brown DDE was also found to be detrimental that are not a factor in our rule to delist pelicans throughout all of the species’ to the reproductive success of brown the brown pelican, but that would range in the foreseeable future. pelicans in both Texas and Louisiana benefit brown pelicans and reduce Pesticides and Contaminants. During (King et al. 1977a, p. 423) and was the human disturbance if implemented, are initial recovery planning for brown direct cause of brown pelican deaths in the restoration of seabird colonies on pelicans, it was recognized that Louisiana (Holm et al. 2003, p. 431). five pelican nesting islands along the organochlorine pesticides were the Since banning of the use of DDT, levels Pacific Coast of Baja California as part major threat to the brown pelican in the of DDE residues have declined. The of the Luckenbach Restoration Plan and United States and these pesticides acted level of DDE residues in eggs collected the Montrose Settlements Restoration by direct toxicity (affecting all age in Texas from 1975 to 1981 was about Program (MSRP) (Luckenbach Trustee classes) and by impairing reproduction one half the level found in eggs Council 2006, pp. 74–82, 100, 106; (reducing recruitment into the collected in 1970 (King et al. 1985, p. MSRP 2005, pp. D5–11–12). Proposed population) (Hickey and Anderson 205; King et al. 1977a, p. 423). restoration activities include reducing 1968, p. 272; Risebrough et al. 1971, pp. In 1997, Mexico introduced a plan to sources of disturbance at colonies by 8–9; Blus et al. 1979b, p. 183). strictly curtail and then phase out use redesigning paths and walkways to Impairment of reproduction was of DDT by 2007 (Environmental Health manage human traffic, shielding light attributed to a physiological response to Perspectives 1997, p. 1). Mexico used sources, and performing public outreach the presence of high levels of the DDT for control of malaria until 1999 and education (Luckenbach Trustee organochlorine (Salazar-Garcı´a et al. 2004, p. 542), and Council 2006, pp. 20, 77). dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene then eliminated its use by 2000, several years ahead of schedule (Gonzalez 2005, While human disturbance can cause (DDE) (Hickey and Anderson 1968, p. p. 1). Recent contaminants studies in brown pelicans to flush from their nests, 272). DDE is the principal metabolite of the Gulf of California, Mexico, indicate there are also situations where the birds DDT, a synthetic organochlorine that this area remains one of the least have become habituated to nearby compound that was widely used as a contaminated with persistent organic intense uses (for example, aircraft commercial and agricultural pesticide pollutants in western North America activity) without obvious effects on from the 1950s through the early 1970s (Risebrough 1986, p. 401; 37 FR 13369; (Anderson and Palacios 2005, p. 8). breeding efforts (Schreiber et al. 1981, p. Eggs were collected during the July 7, 1972). Brown pelicans gradually 398). We believe the current protections periods 1980 to 1982 and 1992 to 1993 accumulated these toxins by eating provided by regulatory mechanisms in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin contaminated prey (Hickey and other than the Endangered Species Act Islands (Collazo et al. 1998, pp. 62–63). for nest sites in the United States and to Anderson 1968, p. 271). DDE interferes Concentrations of DDE and prevent human disturbances to U.S. with calcium deposition during eggshell polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were nesting colonies will adequately formation, resulting in the production of significantly higher in the Puerto Rico continue to protect brown pelicans thin-shelled eggs that are easily crushed eggs than the U.S. Virgin Island eggs throughout their range within the during incubation (Gress 1995, p. 10). collected in the 1980s. However, United States. Additionally, while DDE also causes the death of embryos in Collazo et al. (1998, p. 64) state that human disturbance to brown pelican the egg, and the death or aberrant brown pelican reproduction has not nesting colonies is still occurring behavior of recently hatched young been affected by contaminants in Puerto outside of the United States, most of the (Blus 1982, p. 26). The primary reason Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at least countries in the species’ range are for severe declines in the brown pelican since the 1980s. Additionally, protecting, and are expected to continue population in the United States was contaminant concentrations in the eggs to protect, brown pelicans through DDT contamination in the 1960s and collected in the 1990s were significantly implementation of restoration plans, early 1970s. lower than those collected in the 1980s designated biosphere reserves and In California, ocean sediments off the (USGS 2002b, p. 5). parks, and land ownership and coast of Los Angeles were heavily The Environmental Protection Agency protection by conservation contaminated with DDT residues from a (EPA) banned the use of DDT in the organizations and local, State, and DDT manufacturing facility that United States in 1972 (37 FR 13369), Federal governments (see above for discharged waste into the sewage and Canada’s National Office of discussion of nesting habitat system, which entered the marine Pollution Prevention banned its use in protections). These protections are environment through a submarine 1985 (Canada Gazette 2005, p. 1). The implemented through various outfall (Gress 1995, p. 10). This input Stockholm Convention on Persistent mechanisms that do not rely on the U.S. ceased in 1970, after which DDT and Organic Pollutants (http:// Endangered Species Act and therefore DDE residues in the marine chm.pops.int/) eliminated or reduced are expected to continue if the brown environment decreased sharply, and the use of 12 persistent organic pelican is delisted. The current levels of pelican reproductive success improved pollutants, including DDT, in all human disturbance are not sufficient to as eggshell thickness increased (Gress participating countries in 2001. All cause population declines of brown 1995, p. 10; Gress and Lewis 1988, p. countries within the breeding range of pelicans, because brown pelicans may 13). Reproductive declines are thought the brown pelican are participants. In become habituated to some level of to occur when pelican eggshells average addition to the United States and disturbance, may shift nesting locations 15 to 20 percent thinner than normal Canada, Cuba and Costa Rica have (as indicated above in discussion of loss (Gress 1994, p. 7). Mean eggshell banned its use; Belize, Columbia, of nesting habitat), or may only thickness from 1986 to 1990 was only Mexico, and Venezuela have restricted experience a temporary loss of 4.6 percent thinner than the pre-1947 its use; and eight countries limited reproduction, such as for a single mean, a level which may contribute to access in other ways (http:// breeding season. While human lowered fledging rates in some birds, www.pesticideinfo.org). Although low- disturbance of brown pelican colonies is but is no longer causing population- level DDE contamination will probably continuing, we do not believe the level wide reproductive impairment in brown persist for many years in areas where of disturbance is currently sufficient to pelicans (Gress 1995, p. 92). DDT was used, the impact to pelican

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59465

populations is now believed to be chm.pops.int/). Although it is not mosquitoes) control in accordance with negligible and is expected to continue to currently banned in the United States, it World Health Organization lessen over time. Because regulatory is not registered for use in the United recommendations and guidelines and mechanisms are in place to ban or States or Canada and is banned in when alternatives are not available. strictly limit use of DDT, and current Belize, Colombia, Cuba, and Peru Parties exercising this exemption are to levels of DDE contamination are no (http://www.pesticideinfo.org). periodically report their use (Resource longer causing population-wide Dieldrin (another organochlorine Futures International 2001, p. 12). These reproductive impairment in brown pesticide) was also detected at levels reports are listed on the Convention’s pelicans, DDT or DDE will not endanger considered detrimental to reproductive Web site: http://chm.pops.int/. The the brown pelican throughout all of its success for brown pelicans in the evidence we have found indicates that range within the foreseeable future. eastern portion of the United States reproduction in brown pelicans is no A number of other organochlorine (Blus et al. 1974, p. 186; Blus et al. longer affected by the use of persistent pesticides have also been documented 1975, p. 653; Blus et al. 1979a, p. 132). organochlorine pesticides. Regulatory to have affected brown pelicans in some There is only slight evidence that mechanisms are currently in place to portions of their range. The dieldrin thins eggshells, whereas there eliminate or severely restrict their use organochlorine pesticide endrin is the is strong evidence indicating that it such that they do not threaten the probable cause of the brown pelican’s adversely affects egg hatching, post- brown pelican throughout all of its rapid decline and subsequent hatching survival, and behavior of range within the foreseeable future. disappearance in Louisiana (King et al. young birds (Dahlgren and Linder 1974, While effects from other 1977a, p. 427). Endrin was first used in pp. 329–330; Blus 1982, p. 27). The environmental contaminants were not the Mississippi River Basin in 1952. In agricultural use of dieldrin in the thoroughly known in the 1970s and 1958, dead fish were reported near United States ceased in 1970 and it was 1980s, there were indications that some sugarcane fields where endrin was used, discontinued as a termite control in localized contaminant-related problems and die-offs of fish and other wildlife 1987 (Centers for Disease Control and still existed for the brown pelican. began to consistently occur when heavy Prevention 2005, p. 340). From 1975 National Wildlife Health Laboratory rains produced runoffs from those fields through 1978, dieldrin residues records of brown pelican mortality from (King et al. 1977a, p. 427). King et al. collected from brown pelican eggs in 1976 to 1983 documented 10 die-off (1977a, p. 427) reported an estimated six Texas were found at levels that do not incidents totaling over 212 birds along million menhaden found dead between pose a threat to reproductive success the U.S. Atlantic Coast (Service 2007a, 1960 and 1963. Extensive fish kills and survival (King et al. 1985, p. 206). p. 29). More recently National Wildlife persisted in the lower Mississippi River Other organochlorine insecticides, Health Laboratory records from July and other streams in sugarcane growing including chlordane-related 1995 through June 2003 documented 13 parishes of Louisiana through 1964 compounds, HCB, and toxaphene, were incidents of brown pelican mortality for (King et al. 1977a, p. 427). It was rarely detected in brown pelican eggs the continental United States east of the concluded that endrin from both collected in Texas from 1975 to 1978 Rocky Mountains. None of these records agricultural and industrial sources was (King et al. 1985, p. 206). PCBs are cite problems with heavy metals, and responsible for the fish kills (King et al. chemicals that were used as coolants pesticides were implicated in just one of 1977a, p. 427). Fish-eating ducks, such and lubricants in transformers, these cases (USGS 2003b). Two pelicans as mergansers, were also reported capacitors, and other electrical from Florida had moderate brain floating dead in streams and bayous equipment. Due to concern over the acetlycholinesterase activity depression, (King et al. 1977a, p. 427). toxicity and persistence of PCBs, they an indicator of poisoning from either According to Winn (1975, p. 127), the were banned in the United States in organophosphorus or carbamate adverse impact of endrin on brown 1978 (43 FR 33918) under authority of pesticides. While these currently pelicans was demonstrated when more the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 applied, short-lived, non-organochlorine than 300 of the 465 birds introduced to (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). Concentrations pesticides may cause occasional Louisiana since 1968 died during April of PCBs in brown pelican eggs collected mortality of individual pelicans, they do and May 1975. Brain tissue from five in Texas declined more than eight-fold not accumulate within the body, nor do dead pelicans was analyzed. Chemists at between 1970 and 1981 (King et al. they persist in the environment; Louisiana State University identified 1985, p. 206), and are now at levels not therefore, they are unlikely to result in seven pesticides in the brain tissue, all believed to be detrimental. widespread reproductive failure like chlorinated hydrocarbons widely used Claims have been made that that caused by the use of organochlorine in agriculture. Most of the birds organochlorine pesticides are still used pesticides. analyzed contained what experts regard in South and Central America In the United States, an important as potentially lethal levels of endrin. In (NatureServe 2007, p. 2). However, we regulatory mechanism benefitting brown addition to endrin, residues of six other are not aware of any reports of pelicans is the requirement that organochlorine pesticides (DDE, pesticides affecting reproduction pesticides be registered with the EPA. dieldrin, toxaphene, benzene outside of the United States. Nearly Under the authority of the Federal hexachloride, hexachloro-benzene every nation within the range of the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide (HCB), and heptachlor epoxide) were brown pelican has signed the 2001 Act, the EPA requires environmental found (Winn 1975, p. 127). This Stockholm Convention on Persistent testing of the effects of all new significant die-off demonstrated the Organic Pollutants (Resource Futures pesticides on representative wildlife vulnerability of brown pelicans to International 2001, p. 11). Signatories to species prior to EPA granting a pesticide endrin and emphasized the possible role the Convention agree to eliminate the registration. The EPA evaluates of pesticides in the brown pelican’s production and use of DDT, endrin, pesticides before they can be marketed decline in the eastern United States. dieldrin, chlordane, HCB, toxaphene, and used in the United States to ensure Endrin is also one of the pesticides and PCBs, as well as other persistent that they will not pose unreasonable targeted for elimination by the organic pollutants, with an exemption adverse effects to human health and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent for use of DDT for disease vector (an environment. Pesticides that meet this Organic Pollutants (http:// organism that transmits disease, such as test are granted a license or

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘registration,’’ which permits their Superficially embedded hooks can often not likely to pose a significant factor distribution, sales, and use according to be removed without damage; however, a affecting the brown pelican throughout requirements set by EPA to protect small tear in the mouth pouch can all of its range, both now and in the human health and the environment. The hinder feeding and cause death from foreseeable future. requirement for evaluation of pesticides starvation (Service 1983, p. 63). Offshore oil and gas development. Oil during the registration process would Mortality is likely if a hook is spills and chronic oil pollution from oil not be altered if the pelican was delisted swallowed or if there is substantial tankers and other vessels, offshore oil and protection of the Endangered injury during hook removal (Service platforms, and natural oil seeps Species Act were not available. 1983, p. 63). Pelicans can become continue to represent a potential source Efforts to ban and restrict use of ensnared in monofilament fishing line of injury and mortality to pelicans persistent organic pollutants have which can result in serious injury, (Carter 2003, p. 3). The effects of oil on reduced the contaminants that are most infections from cuts, impaired pelicans persist beyond immediate likely to cause widespread reproductive movement and flight, inability to feed, physiological injuries. Survival and failures, and thus endangerment of the and death (Service 1983, p. 63). future reproductive success of oiled species. Other contaminants continue to Pelican Harbor Seabird Station, Inc., a pelicans that are rehabilitated and be detected in some brown pelican Florida wildlife rehabilitator, reported released are lower than for non-oiled populations, but these are generally that of the 200 pelicans handled in pelicans (Anderson et al. 1996, p. 715). short-lived pesticides or contaminants 1982, roughly 71 percent had fishing- Injury and mortality of large numbers of and effects have only been noted to related injuries. Of these, 12 (8.5 pelicans would likely result if a occur on a local scale and affect few percent) died or were permanently significant oil spill occurred near a individuals and therefore are unlikely to crippled; the remainder were nesting colony during the breeding have long-term effects on brown pelican rehabilitated. Fishing-related injuries season or near traditional roost sites. reproduction or numbers. Regulatory comprised about 35 percent of all Oil spills from oil tankers and other mechanisms within the United States to observed mortality (February 4, 1985; 50 vessels are far more common than spills evaluate and register pesticides, as well FR 4943). Another seabird rehabilitation from oil platforms (Carter 2003, p. 3). as the international convention group reported treating some 450 brown Since 1984, twelve major oil spill- restricting use of persistent organic pelicans for fish line or hook injuries related seabird mortality events pollutants, ensure that contaminant- over a 4-year period (February 4, 1985; occurred along the coast of California, caused mortality and widespread 50 FR 4943). However, this number of all of which may have adversely reproductive failures are unlikely to individuals affected is small in affected breeding, roosting, or migrating occur in the future. Therefore, we do not comparison to global population pelicans (Hampton et al. 2003, p. 30). believe pesticides and contaminants are numbers and is therefore unlikely to Only one of these events was from an a significant factor affecting the brown affect long-term population stability. offshore oil platform; the rest were from pelican throughout all of its range, both Mortality from recreational fishing is tankers, oil barges, or non-tanker vessels now and for the foreseeable future. thought to be insignificant to overall (Hampton et al. 2003, p. 30). As an Commercial fishing. Commercial population dynamics, although it has example, on February 7, 1990, the oil fishing can have a direct effect on been a significant cause of injury/ tanker vessel American Trader ran pelicans through physical injury caused mortality to newly fledged pelicans near aground at Huntington Beach, by trawling gear. In 1998, a number of colonies in California in the past California, and spilled 1.6 million liters live and dead brown pelicans washed (Service 1983, p. 62). Live anchovies (416,598 gallons) of Alaskan crude oil up on the beach at Matagorda Island, used for bait and chumming (cut or (American Trader Trustee Council 2001, Texas (Sanchez 2007). Many had ground bait dumped into the water to p. 1). An estimated 195 pelicans died as obvious wing damage. This incident attract fish to the area where one is a result of the spill, and 725 to 1,000 coincided with the opening of the fishing) attract young pelicans, and they oiled pelicans were observed roosting in summer shrimp season. A similar often swallow baited hooks that they the Long Beach Breakwater after the incident in 1999 also coincided with the encounter, which become embedded in spill (American Trader Trustee Council summer shrimp season (Sanchez 2007). bills or pouches (Service 1983, p. 63). In 2001, p. 10). The spill occurred just It is possible that the young, California, the closure to vessels at before the start of the breeding season as inexperienced birds were colliding with depths of less than 37 m (120 ft) the birds gathered at traditional roosts the shrimp net lines while attempting to offshore of West Anacapa Island has before moving to breeding islands, feed on the bycatch (unwanted marine provided physical separation between making large numbers of birds creatures that are caught in the nets fishing boats and the nesting colony, vulnerable to the oil (American Trader while fishing for another species), which has greatly reduced the Trustee Council 2001, p. 10). resulting in incidental death. likelihood of these interactions (Gress Along the United States coastline, Commercial fishing may adversely affect 2006). Several educational pamphlets National Marine Sanctuary regulations individual brown pelicans on a short- have been developed and distributed by prohibit vessels, including oil tankers, term, localized basis, but we do not National Oceanic and Atmospheric from operating within 1.85 km (1.15 mi) believe it poses a rangewide threat to Administration-Fisheries, in of any of the Channel or Farallon the continued existence of the species. conjunction with the Service, NPS, and islands or in the Monterey Bay or Therefore, we do not believe this impact CDFG, to inform recreational fishermen Olympic Coast sanctuaries (15 CFR will become a significant factor affecting in California about the impacts of hook 922). In the event of a major oil spill, the brown pelican throughout all of its and line injuries to pelicans and other this is probably an insufficient distance range in the foreseeable future. seabirds and give step-by-step from the pelican nesting colonies to Recreational fishing. Recreational instructions for removing hooks and prevent impacts. Vessels frequently pass fishing can have a direct effect on fishing lines from entangled birds. through the SCB in established shipping pelicans through physical injury caused While injuries and deaths from lanes that are within 5 km (3 mi) of by fishing tackle. Pelicans are recreational fishing do occur, we believe Anacapa Island to the north and within occasionally hooked by people fishing they are accidental and localized, that 50 km (31 mi) to the south (Carter et al. from piers or boats (Service 1983, p. 62). they affect only few individuals, and are 2000, p. 436). A traffic separation

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59467

scheme north of Anacapa Island in the In the Gulf of Mexico, the Outer reduce oil pollution (Carter 2003, p. 2). Santa Barbara Channel separates Continental Shelf (OCS) is categorized In 1990, State and Federal oil pollution opposing flows of vessel traffic. The into planning areas. The Central acts were passed, and agencies shipping lanes and traffic separation Planning Area includes Louisiana and developed programs to gather data on scheme in the SCB reduces the Mississippi, and the Western Planning seabird mortality from oil spills, likelihood of spills because it reduces Area includes Texas (Ji et al. 2002, p. improve seabird rehabilitation the probability of vessel-to-vessel and 19). Based on sheer volume of oil programs, and develop restoration vessel-to platform collisions. Shipping transported to those facilities, coastal projects for seabirds (Carter 2003, p. 2). traffic is increasing offshore of birds and their habitats in these areas There have also been improvements in California, and this may result in are at greatest risk from spills oil spill response time, containment, increased oil spills and pollution events originating in coastal waters. An MMS and cleanup equipment (McCrary et al. (McCrary et al. 2003, p. 48). There is Oil Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) 2003, p. 46). In the absence of swift and also a shipping lane that passes within predicted that in these Planning Areas effective action by the responsible party 25 km (16 mi) of Los Coronados Islands large oil spills associated with OCS for a spill, the U.S. Coast Guard will in Mexico (Carter et al. 2000, p. 436). activities are low-probability events initiate action pursuant to the Oil However, because impacts of tanker (Service 2003b, p. 7). The OSRA Pollution Act of 1990 to control and spills are localized and occur estimated only a 4 to 8 percent clean up a spill offshore under regional infrequently, we expect that brown probability that an oil spill in the Gulf area contingency plans, which have pelicans will be affected only within of Mexico greater than 1,000 barrels of been developed for this scenario (40 localized areas in the event of spills and oil would occur and contact brown CFR 300 Subpart B). These measures that individual birds will only be pelican habitat in the Central Planning have not entirely eliminated the affected infrequently. Therefore, we do Area, and a similar spill scenario has potential for oil spills, but have reduced not believe this impact is a significant only a 4 to 7 percent probability of the likelihood of spills, thereby factor affecting the brown pelican reaching the Western Planning Area (Ji reducing pelican deaths and alleviating throughout all of its range, both now et al. 2002, pp. 56, 59). Estimates the magnitude of the impacts on and in the foreseeable future. derived from the OSRA model are pelicans and other seabirds if a spill ‘‘conservative’’ in that they presume the were to occur (Carter 2003, p. 3). There are 27 offshore oil platforms persistence of the entire volume of If an oil spill or other hazardous and 6 artificial oil and gas islands off spilled oil over the entire duration time materials release does occur in the the coast of southern and central and do not include cleanup activities or United States, the Natural Resource California (McCrary et al. 2003, p. 43). natural weathering of the spill (Ji et al. Damage Assessment (NRDA) process is There are no platforms within the 2002, pp. 12–13). in place to identify the extent of natural Channel Islands National Marine Beginning in the 1980s, MMS resource injuries (including injuries to Sanctuary (McCrary et al. 2003, p. 44), established comprehensive pollution wildlife), the best methods for restoring and oil and gas exploration and prevention requirements that include those resources, and the type and development are prohibited within this redundant safety systems, along with amount of restoration required. The Sanctuary, excluding a few oil and gas inspecting and testing requirements to Comprehensive Environmental leases that existed prior to its confirm that those devices are working Response, Compensation, and Liability designation. Oil and gas exploration and properly (Service 2003b, p. 7). There Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 development are prohibited in the other was an 89 percent decline in the volume et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 three National Marine Sanctuaries, of oil spilled per billion barrels (33 U.S.C. 2701), and the Federal Water Olympic Coast (Washington), Gulf of the produced from OCS operations between Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Farallones (California), and Monterey 1980 and the present, compared to the Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) Bay (California) (15 CFR 922), with the total volume spilled prior to 1980. form the legal foundation for the NRDA exception of a few leases that existed Additionally, this spill reduction Restoration Program and provide prior to each sanctuary’s creation, volume occurred during a period when trustees with the legal authority to carry although new petroleum operations are OCS oil production has been increasing out Restoration Program unlikely to occur on these leases (Service 2003b, p. 7). Spills less than responsibilities. Trustees for natural (McCrary et al. 2003, p. 45). The 1,000 barrels are not expected to persist resources include the Departments of sanctuaries essentially provide a minor as a slick on the water surface beyond Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and the buffer from oil platform accidents, a few days (Service 2003b, p. 8). Interior, and other agencies authorized allowing time for breakup of oil Because spills in the OCS would occur to manage or protect natural resources discharges, and time to respond before at least 3 miles from shore, it is unlikely (EPA 2007a, EPA 2007b, Department of the oil reaches the shore. The last major that any spills would make landfall the Interior 2007). Therefore, if an oil spill from any of the oil platforms or prior to breaking up (Service 2003b, p. spill occurs and brown pelicans are associated pipelines was a well blowout 8). negatively affected, injuries to brown in 1969 that released 80,000 barrels in There are a number of regulatory pelican populations or their habitat may the Santa Barbara Channel. The mechanisms within the United States be restored through this process. For Minerals Management Service (MMS) that address oil and gas operations. example, in California, negative effects estimates the risk of a spill of 1,000 MMS is also responsible for inspection to brown pelicans have been mitigated barrels or more over the next 28 years and monitoring of OCS oil and gas through the implementation of at 41 percent (McCrary et al. 2003, p. operations (McCrary et al. 2003, p. 46). restoration measures in the American 45). However, the likelihood that a spill All owners and operators of oil Trader Restoration Plan, the Command would affect brown pelicans would handling, storage, or transportation Oil Spill Restoration Plan, the Torch/ depend on the location, timing, and facilities located seaward of the Platform Irene Restoration Plan, and the local conditions associated with the coastline must submit an Oil Spill Montrose Settlement Restoration Plan. spill. Past spills from oil platforms have Response Plan to the MMS for approval Oil spills from oilfields, pipelines, or not limited brown pelican recovery in (30 CFR 254). Several Federal and State ships have impacted brown pelicans in California. laws were instituted in the 1970s to some other countries. For example,

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

oiling related to an oilfield in Mexico 1). Because brown pelicans are also reproductive success varies widely, (King et al. 1985, p. 208; Anderson et al. protected by the MBTA, these populations have remained generally 1996, p. 211) and from a ship in the modifications to prevent mortalities are stable for at least 20 years. The EPA Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (Lougheed expected to remain in place after the requires registration and testing of new et al. 2002, p. 5) affected brown protections of the Act are removed. pesticides to assess potential impacts on pelicans. Although 117 brown pelicans Oil spills and oil pollution continue wildlife, so we do not anticipate that a were reported as affected by the 2001 to have potential impacts on brown pesticide that would adversely affect spill in the Galapagos Islands from the pelicans, but spill prevention, response, brown pelicans will be permitted in the fuel tanker Jessica, no mortalities of and restoration activities have become future. Although DDT contamination pelicans were reported (Lougheed et al. more organized and effective, and the continues to persist in the environment, 2002, p. 29). From these accounts, breeding range is large enough that a based on the nesting population size, brown pelicans frequently survive these single spill, even a major one, would overall population stability, and incidences, especially when receiving likely only affect a small fraction of the improved reproductive success, the some rescue cleanup. Oil spills have population. Additionally, the death of continued existence of brown pelicans been identified as a possibility in oil- pelicans from design flaws on platforms is no longer threatened by exposure to producing areas of Venezuela, with is rare and being remedied. Therefore, DDT or its metabolites, and populations concern for effects on marine we believe that oil and gas activities, within the United States have recovered productivity and the food supply of while they may occasionally have short- adequately to warrant delisting. We brown pelicans, as well as for direct term impacts to local populations, will have no evidence that brown pelicans oiling of birds (Service 2007a, p. 39). not become threats that endanger the outside the United States ever declined While spills outside of the United States brown pelican throughout all of its in response to persistent organic are still a possibility, they would be range in the foreseeable future. pesticides. localized and thus would not become a Miscellaneous. Within the United Nesting and roosting colonies in the threat that would endanger the brown States, brown pelican mortalities have United States are expected to continue pelican throughout all of its range in the been documented from electrocution on to be protected from human disturbance foreseeable future. In addition, there are power lines and drowning in water through local conservation measures, a number of international conventions intake pipes. In both cases, through laws, numerous restoration plans, and and their amendments, including the consultation with the Service, those ownership of many of the nesting and International Convention on Civil features were modified to virtually roosting habitats by conservation groups Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, eliminate the problem (Fuller 2007b, p. and local, State, and Federal agencies. International Convention on Oil 1). These events were unusual instances In most countries outside of the United of short-term, localized impacts to Pollution Preparedness Response and States where brown pelicans occur, brown pelicans. Continued protection of Co-operation, International Convention protection is expected to continue brown pelicans under the MBTA will Relating to Intervention on the High through implementation of restoration ensure that future brown pelican Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution plans, designated biosphere reserves mortality caused by design of man-made Casualties, and the International and parks, and land ownership by features are similarly addressed. Convention on the Establishment of an conservation organizations and local, International Fund of Compensation for Conclusion State, and Federal governments. Some nesting and roosting habitat is Oil Pollution Damage. The majority of As required by the Act, we considered expected to continue to be limited at countries within the range of brown the five threat factors in order to assess certain local scales, just as some habitat pelicans are parties to one of more of whether the brown pelican is threatened destruction is expected to continue. these international agreements (http:// or endangered throughout all of its However, the majority of nesting sites sedac.ciesin.org/entri/ range. When considering the listing within the United States and many treatyMultStatus.jsp), which would status of the species, the first step in the outside the United States are protected. assist with prevention, as well as analysis is to determine whether the While some nesting habitat may be lost, response and restoration activities in the species is in danger of extinction it is not likely to be a limiting factor in event of oil spills outside the United throughout all of its range. If this is the brown pelican reproductive success, States. case, then the species is listed as since pelicans are broadly distributed Other much less common effects of endangered in its entirety. For instance, and have the ability to shift breeding offshore oil and gas development have if the threats on a species are acting only sites in response to changing habitat and occasionally been documented. There on a portion of its range, but the effects prey abundance conditions. In response have been several instances in Louisiana of the threats are such that they place to storms, erosion, and lack of of unusual and infrequent mortalities, the entire species in danger of sedimentation, brown pelicans have generally involving juvenile brown extinction, we would list the entire exhibited their dispersal capabilities; pelicans, associated with the design and species. they have established new colonies construction of inshore and offshore oil As discussed above, the primary elsewhere, and shown an ability to platforms (Fuller 2007a, p. 1). Brown reason for severe declines in the brown rebound from low numbers. pelicans have been observed strangling pelican population in the United States, Additionally, there are several in inshore rig railings and drowning in and for designating the species as restoration activities, such as artificial uncovered casements (large pipes used endangered, was likely DDT island creation and enhancement with in the drilling process that may fill with contamination in the 1960s and early dredge material and barrier island water). The number of brown pelican 1970s. Additionally, pesticides like restoration and protection that will mortalities in these incidences was low. dieldrin and endrin were also found to continue to enhance and protect brown However, through consultation with the negatively impact brown pelicans. Since pelican habitat, particularly within the Service, MMS, and the Louisiana the banning of these organochlorine U.S. Gulf Coast region. Department of Natural Resources, those pesticides, brown pelican abundance Impacts from weather events, such as features were modified to virtually within the United States has shown a El Nin˜ os and severe freezes, are also eliminate the problem (Fuller 2007a, p. dramatic recovery, and although annual expected to continue. Natural factors

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59469

such as these may adversely affect these impacts are generally limited to levels over at least a significant portion pelican reproduction and survival on a one breeding season in duration, occur of the range of the species. Current short-term, localized basis, but alone infrequently, or occur in only a small scientific and commercial information pose only a minimal threat to the portion of the range of the species, they simply does not indicate that these two species at current population numbers. are not expected to result in declines in things are happening or that some Brown pelican prey abundance in the the rangewide status of the species. In change will occur allowing it to happen United States will continue to be order to reliably predict that these in the future. monitored and managed in accordance impacts may result in endangerment in The fact that threats are not with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery the foreseeable future, the rate, considered foreseeable does not mean Conservation and Management Act of magnitude, or intensity of the threats that they are not possible, only that 1976. We do not have any information would have to increase to the point that current scientific understanding does from outside of the United States on population level impacts (e.g., repeated not allow us to reliably predict that commercial fishery impacts to brown nesting failures) were seen in at least a impacts will increase or that a pelican prey abundance; however, based significant portion of the range of the population decline will result in on population numbers, there is no species. The brown pelican is a long- response to that impact in the future. reason to believe that commercial lived species that breeds multiple years Given current information on threats fisheries are currently limiting brown such that sporadic breeding failures and ongoing conservation and pelican reproductive success. have little effect on long-term management activities, it would be Brown pelicans are not threatened population stability (Shields 2002, p. speculative to assume that these impacts with overutilization for commercial, 23). In many cases, pelicans will will increase to a reliably measureable recreational, scientific, or educational relocate to alternative breeding areas or level, thus it is not foreseeable that the purposes. Research on pelicans is pelicans from other areas will threats will impact the species generally observational and recolonize affected sites. Current meaningfully in the future. noninvasive. Although several diseases science does not allow us to extrapolate In conclusion, the single most have been identified as a source of declines in the species’ status if threats important threat to the continued mortality for brown pelicans, they remain at current levels and further existence of the brown pelican was from appear to be self-limiting and sporadic does not allow us to reliably predict that DDT, which is now banned in the and are not likely to impact long-term these localized, short-term impacts will United States, Mexico, and Canada. In population trends. Predation is a minor change in such a way in the future such Central and South America and the threat that occurs when disturbance to that pelicans will respond negatively West Indies, most countries have either nesting colonies leaves eggs and chicks over a significant portion of the range of banned or restricted use of DDT or made unprotected, making it essential that the species. its importation illegal (http:// nesting colonies are protected from Some diseases such as domoic acid www.pesticideinfo.org/ disturbance, as noted above. poisoning, erysipelas, and avian DetailChemReg.jsp?Rec-Id=PC33482). Commercial and recreational fishing botulism occur rarely and are subject to Although other localized threats to the may adversely affect brown pelicans on the same fact patterns discussed above brown pelican remain throughout its a localized basis, but pose no rangewide concerning short-term, localized threats. range, as discussed above, they are at a threat to the continued existence of the When considering diseases such as West low enough level that none are likely to species. Oil spills and oil pollution Nile virus and avian influenza, it would have long-term population level or continue to be a potential threat, but the not be unexpected for either disease to demographic effects on brown pelican breeding range is large enough that a move into the range of the brown populations in the foreseeable future. single spill, even a major one, would pelican; however, the timing, intensity, We believe this species is no longer in likely only affect a small fraction of the and response of pelicans across the danger of extinction throughout its population. This threat has been range of the species cannot be reliably range, nor is it likely to become so in the alleviated in the United States to some predicted. Thus, the scientific foreseeable future. degree by stringent regulations for information does not support these Significant Portion of the Range extraction equipment and procedures, diseases as threats to the brown pelican traffic separation schemes, shipping in the foreseeable future. Having determined that the brown lanes that reduce the likelihood of Predation of chicks and eggs is pelican does not meet the definition of collisions or spills, and improvements occurring at a level low enough to allow threatened or endangered throughout its in oil spill response, containment, and for populations to recover and expand range, we must next consider whether cleanup. These measures reduce the across the range of the species. This there are any significant portions of its probability of spills and also may background level of predation is not range that are in danger of extinction or reduce adverse impacts if a spill were to expected to increase or otherwise are likely to become endangered in the occur. change in the future such that this trend foreseeable future. On March 16, 2007, would be reversed as a result of a formal opinion was issued by the Foreseeable Future predation. Solicitor of the Department of the As discussed above, the brown The use of pesticides and Interior, ‘‘The Meaning of In Danger of pelican continues to be affected by a contaminants that were known to affect Extinction Throughout All or a variety of localized, short-term impacts. brown pelicans across the range of the Significant Portion of Its Range’’ (U.S. These localized impacts are generally species has discontinued in most Department of the Interior 2007). We expected to continue in perpetuity. For portions of the range of the species have summarized our interpretation of example, there is no reason to think that through implementation of bans, laws, that opinion and the underlying development; hurricanes and other and treaties. In order to determine that statutory language below. A portion of storm events; random human pesticide and contaminant use may be a species’ range is significant if it is part disturbance; fishery activities; oil spills; a threat to the brown pelican in the of the current range of the species and and infestation by mites, tick, and liver future, its use must not only be it contributes substantially to the flukes will not continue at some rate occurring, but be occurring at a level representation, resiliency, or indefinitely into the future. Because that impacts the long term population redundancy of the species. The

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

contribution must be at a level such that of the species in such a way as to are small (in the context of the range of its loss would result in a decrease in the capture the environmental variability the species) and affect a few pelicans ability to conserve the species. In other found within the range of the species. It from one year to the next (such as words, in considering significance, the is likely that the larger size of a abandonment of a single breeding Service should ask whether the loss of population will help contribute to the colony or entanglement in fishing gear), this portion likely would eventually viability of the species overall. Thus, a thus there is no substantial information move the species toward extinction, but portion of the range of a species may that these areas are a significant portion not necessarily to the point where the make a meaningful contribution to the of the range. Some areas that may be species should be listed as threatened resiliency of the species if the area is significant experience short-term or throughout its range. relatively large and contains particularly sporadic events (such as the Gulf Coast The first step in determining whether high-quality habitat or if its location or region experiencing tropical storm a species is threatened or endangered in characteristics make it less susceptible events, or Pacific Coast populations a significant portion of its range is to to certain threats than other portions of experiencing reduced nesting success identify any portions of the range of the the range. When evaluating whether or during an El Nin˜ o event), but we do not species that warrant further how a portion of the range contributes have substantial information that brown consideration. The range of a species to resiliency of the species, it may help pelicans in these areas are likely to can theoretically be divided into to evaluate the historical value of the become in danger of extinction in the portions in an infinite number of ways. portion and how frequently the portion foreseeable future. However, there is no purpose to is used by the species. In addition, the analyzing portions of the range that are portion may contribute to resiliency for As discussed previously in not reasonably likely to be significant other reasons—for instance, it may Distribution and Population Estimates, and threatened or endangered. To contain an important concentration of Recovery Plans, and Factors A and E, identify only those portions that warrant certain types of habitat that are declines in wintering numbers of brown further consideration, we determine necessary for the species to carry out its pelicans have been noted in Puerto Rico whether there is substantial information life-history functions, such as breeding, (Collazo et al. 2000, p. 40), which indicating that (i) the portions may be feeding, migration, dispersal, or superficially suggest that Puerto Rico significant and (ii) the species may be in wintering. warrants further consideration. danger of extinction there or likely to Redundancy of populations may be However, Puerto Rico does not become so within the foreseeable future. needed to provide a margin of safety for represent a large block of high quality In practice, a key part of this analysis is the species to withstand catastrophic habitat, is not known to act as a whether the threats are geographically events. This does not mean that any refugium, and is not known to contain concentrated in some way. If the threats portion that provides redundancy is a important concentrations of specialized to the species are essentially uniform significant portion of the range of a habitat types (e.g., breeding, foraging). throughout its range, no portion is likely species. The idea is to conserve enough As discussed above, brown pelican to warrant further consideration. areas of the range such that random populations generally are able to Moreover, if any concentration of perturbations in the system act on only recolonize neighboring sites that may threats applies only to portions of the a few populations. Therefore, each area have been lost or extirpated during a range that are not significant to the must be examined based on whether catastrophic event (e.g., hurricane). In conservation of the species, such that area provides an increment of this sense, Puerto Rico contributes to portions will not warrant further redundancy that is important to the the resiliency of brown pelican consideration. conservation of the species. populations; however, all brown pelican If we identify any portions that Adequate representation insures that populations contribute to resiliency in warrant further consideration, we then the species’ adaptive capabilities are this way and the Puerto Rico determine whether in fact the species is conserved. Specifically, the portion populations are not known to contribute threatened or endangered in any should be evaluated to see how it significant portion of its range. contributes to the genetic diversity of more significantly to resiliency than Depending on the biology of the species, the species. The loss of genetically neighboring populations and as such are its range, and the threats it faces, it may based diversity may substantially considered to have a low contribution to be more efficient for the Service to reduce the ability of the species to the resiliency of the species. Because address the significance question first, respond and adapt to future Puerto Rico represents a small portion or the status question first. Thus, if the environmental changes. A peripheral of the range of the species, both Service determines that a portion of the population may contribute meaningfully geographically and in total numbers range is not significant, the Service need to representation if there is evidence (240–400 out of 620,000 birds), these not determine whether the species is that it provides genetic diversity due to populations have a low contribution to threatened or endangered there; if the its location on the margin of the species’ the redundancy of the species. Finally, Service determines that the species is habitat requirements. brown pelicans in Puerto Rico belong to not threatened or endangered in a Applying the process described above the subspecies of brown pelican portion of its range, the Service need not for determining whether a species is distributed throughout the West Indies determine if that portion is significant. threatened in a significant portion of its and along the Caribbean coasts of The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ range, we next addressed whether any Colombia and Venezuela and are not ‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are portions of the range of the brown known to contain any unique genetic intended to be indicators of the pelican warranted further consideration. materials, morphologies, or behaviors conservation value of portions of the We noted in the five-factor analysis that and thus have a low contribution to the range. Resiliency of a species allows the numerous factors continue to affect representation of the species. While it is species to recover from periodic or brown pelicans in various geographical important to note that brown pelicans occasional disturbance. A species will areas within the range. However, we may serve a vital role in the local flora likely be more resilient if large conclude that these areas do not warrant and fauna of Puerto Rico and populations exist in high-quality habitat further consideration because the areas neighboring areas, these populations are that is distributed throughout the range where localized effects may still occur not significant to the species as a whole

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 59471

under the resiliency, redundancy, and portion of the species range that (Secretary) is authorized and directed to representation framework. warrants further consideration. determine if, and by what means, the In addition to a determination that the In conclusion, major threats to brown take of migratory birds should be Puerto Rico populations are not pelicans have been reduced, managed, allowed, and to adopt suitable significant to the conservation of the or eliminated. Remaining factors that regulations permitting and governing species, we did not find that these affect brown pelicans occur on localized the take. In adopting regulations, the populations are in danger of extinction scales, are short-term events, or affect Secretary is to consider such factors as now or in the foreseeable future. Causes small numbers of individuals and do distribution and abundance to ensure for the apparent decline in number of not have long-term effects on population that any take is compatible with the wintering birds are not known and no numbers or distribution of the species. protection of the species. Modification specific threats to brown pelicans in We have determined that none of the to brown pelican habitat would Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were existing or potential threats, either alone constitute a violation of the MBTA only identified in the five factor analysis or in combination with others, are likely to the extent it directly takes or kills a above. Although numbers of breeding to cause the brown pelican to become in brown pelican (such as removing a nest pelicans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin danger of extinction within the with chicks present). foreseeable future throughout all or any Islands varied from year to year in both Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan the 1980s and 1990s, there was no trend significant portion of its range. We in breeding pelican numbers that would believe the brown pelican no longer Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary, through the Service, suggest that the species is in danger of requires the protection of the Act, and, implement a monitoring program for not extinction in that area. Nesting sites are therefore, we are removing it from the less than 5 years for all species that have protected from development, human Federal List of Endangered and been recovered and delisted. The disturbance of nesting sites is not Threatened Wildlife. purpose of this requirement is to known to be limiting, contaminants are Effect of This Rule develop a program that detects the not affecting brown pelican populations This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to failure of any delisted species to sustain (Collazo et al. 1998, pp. 63–64), and remove the brown pelican from the List itself without the protective measures numbers of nesting pairs appear to be of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. provided by the Act. If at any time holding steady (Collazo et al. 2000, p. Because no critical habitat was ever during the monitoring program, data 42). Juvenile and adult pelicans from designated for this species, this rule indicate that the protective status under the Virgin Islands disperse to Puerto would not affect 50 CFR 17.95. the Act should be reinstated, we can Rico (Collazo et al. 1998, p. 63), so The prohibitions and conservation initiate listing procedures, including, if proximity to breeding colonies on the measures provided by the Act, appropriate, emergency listing. At the Virgin Islands and other islands would particularly through sections 7 and 9, no conclusion of the monitoring period, we likely re-establish the species on Puerto longer apply. Federal agencies are no will review all available information to Rico even if it were lost. In the absence longer required to consult with us to determine if relisting, the continuation of identified threats or evidence that ensure that any action they authorize, of monitoring, or the termination of brown pelicans in Puerto Rico represent fund, or carry out is not likely to monitoring is appropriate. We proposed a significant portion of the species’ jeopardize the continued existence of a draft post-delisting monitoring plan in range, we did not consider this portion this species. This rulemaking, however, the Federal Register on September 30, of the range further. does not affect the protection given to 2009 (74 FR 50236) and expect to INVEMAR (2008) states that pelicans all migratory bird species under the finalize that post-delisting monitoring in Colombia may be impacted by a MBTA. plan within a year. variety of factors including port The take of all migratory birds, construction, mangrove deforestation, including brown pelicans, is governed Paperwork Reduction Act development, overfishing, pollution, by the MBTA. The MBTA makes it Office of Management and Budget disease, and hunting. However, we have unlawful to at any time, by any means (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, found no information to indicate that or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, which implement provisions of the these factors are leading to declines in capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. numbers of brown pelican in Colombia. kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to 3501 et seq.) require that Federal In fact, the seven sites where Moreno barter, barter, offer to purchase, agencies obtain approval from OMB and Bulevas (2005, p. 11) document purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, before collecting information from the brown pelicans to occur in Colombia all export, import, cause to be shipped, public. This rule does not contain any have some form of protection. For exported, or imported, deliver for new collections of information that example, the largest population in transportation, transport or cause to be require approval by OMB under the Colombia occurs on Isla Gorgona which transported, carry or cause to be carried, Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will is a Parque Nacional Natural, or national or receive for shipment, transportation, not impose recordkeeping or reporting park, and is protected from most carriage, or export, any migratory bird, requirements on State or local disturbance. Further, similar to the any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, governments, individuals, businesses, or situation for Puerto Rico, the Colombian or any product, whether or not organizations. populations of brown pelican do not manufactured, which consists, or is appear to be genetically different from composed in whole or part, of any such National Environmental Policy Act other brown pelicans and this portion of bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof (16 We have determined that the range does not appear to include a U.S.C. 703(a)). Brown pelicans are Environmental Assessments or concentration of an important specific among the migratory birds protected by Environmental Impact Statements, as habitat type or a large portion of the MBTA. The MBTA regulates the defined under the authority of the unusually high quality habitat. In taking of migratory birds for National Environmental Policy Act of summary, in our analysis of the five educational, scientific, and recreational 1969, need not be prepared in listing factors, we did not identify any purposes. Section 704 of the MBTA connection with actions adopted significant continuing threats in any states that the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2 59472 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

published a notice outlining our reasons List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law for this determination in the Federal Endangered and threatened species, Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise Exports, Imports, Reporting and noted. 49244). recordkeeping requirements, References Cited Transportation. § 17.11 [Amended] A complete list of all references we Regulation Promulgation ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the cited is available upon request from the entry for ‘‘Pelican, brown’’ under BIRDS ■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, Clear Lake Ecological Services Office from the List of Endangered and subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Threatened Wildlife. Code of Federal Regulations as set forth Authors below: Dated: October 28, 2009. Christine E. Eustis, The primary authors of this final rule PART 17—[AMENDED] are staff members of the Southwest Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Regional Office, Albuquerque, New ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 [FR Doc. E9–27402 Filed 11–16–09; 8:45 am] Mexico. continues to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:34 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17NOR2.SGM 17NOR2 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2