Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule To Remove the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 9408-9433 [E8-2829]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9408-9433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2829]



[[Page 9407]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



50 CFR Part 17



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



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition 
Finding and Proposed Rule To Remove the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus 
occidentalis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 9408]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R2-ES-2008-0025; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AV28


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition 
Finding and Proposed Rule To Remove the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus 
occidentalis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
propose to remove the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to 
recovery. This action is based on a review of the best available 
scientific and commercial data, which indicates that the species is no 
longer in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. If this proposal is finalized, the brown pelican 
will remain protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act. This document also constitutes our 12-month finding on a petition 
to delist the brown pelican subspecies that occurs along the Pacific 
Coast of California and Mexico, including the Gulf of California, and a 
petition to delist the Louisiana population of the brown pelican.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
April 21, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by April 7, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and materials to us by any 
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: RIN 1018-AV28; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Office, 10711 
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512/490-0057, 
extension 248; fascimilie 512/490-0974.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend for any final action resulting from this proposal to be 
as accurate as possible. Therefore, we solicit data, comments, or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, Tribes, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments and 
information concerning: (1) Information about any threat (or lack 
thereof) to the brown pelican; (2) additional information concerning 
the range, distribution, location of any additional populations, and 
population size of this species; (3) information on habitat destruction 
and/or preservation in relation to brown pelicans; (4) impacts to the 
species from commercial fisheries outside of the U.S.; (5) current or 
planned activities in the species' habitat and the possible impacts to 
this species; (6) data on population trends; (7) data on the status of 
brown pelicans in the West Indies; (8) data suggesting that any of the 
subspecies of brown pelican require protection; and (9) information 
pertaining to the requirement for post delisting monitoring. In 
addition, because we have received information indicating that one of 
the subspecies of brown pelican discussed in this proposal, Pelecanus 
occidentalis thagus, may be considered a full species, we request any 
additional information regarding brown pelican taxonomy. Please note 
that as we make our determination, we will note but not consider 
comments merely stating support or opposition to the actions under our 
consideration without providing supporting information because section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that we make 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 
data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 
must be submitted to https://www.regulations.gov before midnight 
(Eastern Standard Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. We 
will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 
listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; 
your comment must include your first and last name, city, State, 
country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-
delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are 
not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in addition to the required items 
specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone 
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The Act provides for a public hearing on this proposed delisting, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of 
publication of this proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and 
addressed to Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Austin Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Background

    Currently listed brown pelican populations occur in primarily 
coastal marine and estuarine (where fresh and salt water intermingle) 
environments along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico from Mississippi to 
Texas; along the Pacific Coast from British Columbia, Canada, south 
through Mexico into Central and South America; and in the West Indies, 
but are occasionally sighted throughout the U.S. (Shields 2002, pp. 2-
4). Brown pelicans remain in residence throughout the breeding range, 
but some segments of many populations migrate annually after breeding 
(Shields 2002, p. 6). Overall, the brown pelican still occurs 
throughout its historical range (Shields 2002, pp. 4-5). This proposed 
rule includes relevant biological and life history information for the 
brown pelican. However, additional information about the brown 
pelican's

[[Page 9409]]

biology and life history can be found in the Birds of North America, 
No. 609 (Shields 2002, pp. 1-36).
    The species Pelecanus occidentalis is generally recognized as 
consisting of six subspecies: (1) P. o. occidentalis (Linnaeus, 1766: 
West Indies and the Caribbean Coast of South America, occasionally 
wanders to coasts of Mexico and Florida), (2) P. o. carolinensis 
(Gmelin, 1798: Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States and 
Mexico; Caribbean Coast of Mexico south to Venezuela, South America; 
Pacific Coast from southern Mexico to northern Peru, South America), 
(3) P. o. californicus (Ridgeway, 1884: California south to Colima, 
Mexico, including Gulf of California), (4) P. o. urinator (Wetmore, 
1945: Galapagos Islands), (5) P. o. murphyi (Wetmore, 1945: Ecuador and 
Pacific Coast of Colombia), and (6) P. o. thagus (Molina, 1782: Peru 
and Chile). Recognition of brown pelican subspecies is based largely on 
relative size and color of plumage and soft parts (for example, the 
bill, legs, and feet). The distributional limits of the brown pelican 
subspecies are poorly known, so the geographic descriptions of their 
ranges are approximate and may not be adequate to assign subspecies 
designations. Taxonomy of the brown pelican subspecies has not been 
critically reviewed for many years, and the classification followed by 
the American Ornithological Union (AOU 1957, pp. 29-30) and by Palmer 
(1962, pp. 274-276) is based on Wetmore's (1945, pp. 577-586) review, 
which was based on few specimens from a limited portion of the range. 
This proposed delisting rule applies to the entire listed species, 
which includes all brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) subspecies.
    For a review of the brown pelican's status, see the ``Population 
Estimates'' section below. For a review of the threats in relation to 
the species status, see the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section below.

Previous Federal Action

    Due to population declines of brown pelicans, in 1970, we listed 
the species as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act 
of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). Brown pelicans were included in 
the List of Threatened and Endangered Foreign Species on June 2, 1970 
(35 FR 8495), and included in the United States list of endangered and 
threatened species on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047). The species was 
subsequently listed under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    On February 4, 1985, the Service delisted the brown pelican in 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and points 
northward along the Atlantic Coast (50 FR 4938). However, the brown 
pelican continued to be listed as endangered throughout the remainder 
of its range, including Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, 
Mexico, Central and South America, and the West Indies.
    On July 5, 1994, we received a petition dated February 21, 1994, 
from Joe L. Herring, Secretary, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 
State of Louisiana, requesting the Service remove the brown pelican 
from the List in Louisiana. The petition contained information on 
successful pelican reintroductions, colony expansions, population 
numbers, and productivity in Louisiana. We were not able to act on the 
request, since the processing of delisting actions was assigned the 
lowest priority in the allocation of available funding appropriations, 
as described in the Federal Register (61 FR 64475; December 5, 1996). 
In 1999, delisting actions were moved from the Service's listing 
program to the recovery program, allowing us to address requests and 
petitions to downlist and delist species. This proposed rule 
constitutes our 90-day and 12-month findings for the Louisiana petition 
to delist the brown pelican.
    On December 14, 2005, we received a petition from Craig Harrison, 
of the law firm Hutton and Williams, representing the Endangered 
Species Recovery Council, to remove the California brown pelican, the 
subspecies of brown pelican occurring along the Pacific Coast of 
California and Mexico, including the Gulf of California, from the List. 
We note that the taxon on the List is Pelecanus occidentalis, and the 
petition is specifically for the delisting of the California brown 
pelican subspecies, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus. The petition 
contained information on population size, trends, reproduction, and 
distribution of the California brown pelican, including information on 
the status and management of the species in Mexico. It contained 
information on the elimination (e.g., banning of DDT) or management of 
threats that originally resulted in the brown pelican being listed as 
endangered. On May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29908), we published a notice 
announcing our 90-day finding for the petition, in which we concluded 
that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
then initiated a 12-month status review of the California brown pelican 
to determine if delisting under the Act is warranted. This proposed 
rule constitutes our 12-month finding for the petition to delist the 
California brown pelican.
    On May 24, 2006, we also published a notice announcing initiation 
of a 5-year review on the rangewide status of the brown pelican (71 FR 
29908). Under the Act, we are required to review listed species at 
least once every 5 years and determine whether or not any species 
should be removed from the List, or reclassified from endangered to 
threatened or from threatened to endangered. The conclusion of this 
review, which was based on the best available scientific information, 
indicates the currently listed brown pelican population does not meet 
the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act 
(Service 2007a, p. 46).

Distribution and Population Estimates

    Information on population estimates below is arranged 
geographically for convenience and to present a logical organization of 
the information. These broad geographic areas do not necessarily 
represent populations or other biologically based groupings. The six 
subspecies described above are not used to organize the following 
information because distributional limits of the subspecies are poorly 
known, especially in Central and South America, and because the broad 
overlap in wintering and breeding ranges among the subspecies 
introduces considerable uncertainty in assigning subspecies 
designations in portions of the species range (Shields 2002, p.5). 
Because the brown pelican is a wide-ranging, mobile species, is 
migratory throughout much of its range, and may shift its breeding or 
wintering areas or distribution in response to local conditions, it is 
difficult to define local populations of the species. Much of the 
population estimate information below is given at the scale of 
individual countries, which may not correspond with actual biological 
populations, particularly for smaller countries that may represent only 
a fraction of the species' range. Direct comparison of all the 
estimates provided below is difficult because methods used to derive 
population estimates are not always reported, some population estimates 
are given as broad ranges, and some do not specify whether the 
estimates are for breeding birds or include non-breeding birds as well. 
However, the information does indicate the broad distribution of the 
species and reflects the large global population estimate of over 
620,000 birds, which does not include birds along the Atlantic coast of 
the U.S.,

[[Page 9410]]

Florida or Alabama (Service 2007a, pp. 44-45).

Gulf of Mexico Coast

    Mississippi--Brown pelicans are currently not known to breed in 
Mississippi, but the Great Backyard Bird Count (GBBC) has documented 
brown pelicans annually in Mississippi since 1999 (GBBC 2007, pp. 1-9). 
In 2003 and 2004, 244 and 261 pelicans, respectively, were counted. 
There was an increase to 403 pelicans in 2005, but a large decrease to 
54 in 2006 (GBBC 2007, pp. 5-8), which coincides with Hurricane 
Katrina. However, in 2007, 334 brown pelicans were documented (GBBC 
2007, p. 9).
    Louisiana--Before 1920, brown pelicans were estimated to have 
numbered between 50,000 and 85,000 in Louisiana (King et al. 1977a, pp. 
417, 419). By 1963, the brown pelican had completely disappeared from 
Louisiana (Williams and Martin 1968, p. 130). A reintroduction program 
was conducted between 1968 and 1980. During this period, 1,276 nestling 
brown pelicans were transplanted from colonies in Florida to coastal 
Louisiana (McNease et al. 1984, p. 169). After the initiation of the 
reintroduction, the population reached a total number of 16,405 
successful nests and 34,641 young produced in 2001 (Holm et al. 2003, 
p. 432). In 2003 the number of nesting colonies increased, but numbers 
of successful nests decreased to 13,044 due to four severe storms that 
eroded portions of some nest islands and destroyed some late nests in 
various colonies (Hess and Linscombe 2003, Table 2). According to 
surveys conducted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 
(LDWF), the population appeared to recover from these impacts and a 
peak of 16,501 successful nests producing 39,021 fledglings was 
recorded in 2004 (LDWF 2006, p. 1; Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. 13). 
However, tropical storms in 2004 resulted in the loss of three nesting 
islands east of the Mississippi River and, after storm events in late 
2005, LDWF surveys detected 25,289 fledglings (Hess and Linscombe 2006, 
p. 13). Surveys in 2006 detected 8,036 successful nests in 15 colonies, 
producing 17,566 fledglings with an average of 2.1 fledglings per 
successful nest (Hess and Linscombe 2007, p. 1, 4). Hess and Linscombe 
(2007, p. 4) concluded that the brown pelican population in Louisiana 
is maintaining sustained growth despite lower fledgling production in 
2005 and 2006. Numbers of successful nests are not directly comparable 
to numbers of individuals in historic estimates because they do not 
account for immature or non-breeding individuals or provide an index of 
population size in years when breeding success is low due to factors 
such as weather and food availability. However, numbers of successful 
nests and fledglings produced annually since 1993 (Hess and Linscombe 
2007, p. 4) do indicate continued nesting and successful fledging of 
young sufficient to sustain a viable population in Louisiana. See 
``Storm effects, weather and erosion impacts to habitat'' under Factor 
A for further discussion of effects of storms.
    Texas--Brown pelicans historically numbered around 5,000 in Texas 
but began to decline in the 1920s and 1930s, presumably due to shooting 
and destruction of nests (King et al. 1977a, p. 419). According to King 
et al. (1977a, p. 422), there were no reports of brown pelicans nesting 
in Texas in 1964 or 1966. There were two known nesting attempts in 
1965, but the success of these nests is not known. Annual aerial and 
ground surveys of traditional nesting colonies conducted in Texas 
during the period 1967 to 1974 indicated that only two to seven pairs 
attempted to breed in each of these years. Only 40 young were 
documented fledging during this entire 8-year period (King et al. 
1977a, p. 422).
    The Texas Colonial Waterbird Census has tracked population trends 
in Texas for the brown pelican since 1973 (Service 2006, p. 5). 
Although the Texas population of brown pelicans did not experience the 
total reproductive failure recorded in Louisiana, the first year (1973) 
of information from the Texas census identified only one nesting colony 
with six breeding pairs in the State. Since that time, there was a 
gradual increase through 1993 when there were 530 breeding pairs in two 
nesting colonies; in 1994, there was a substantial increase to 1,751 
breeding pairs in three nesting colonies (Service 2006, pp. 3-5). Since 
then, the overall increasing trend has continued with some year-to-year 
variation (Service 2006, p. 2-3). The highest count was in 2005 with 
4,097 breeding pairs in 12 colonies (Service 2006, p. 2). This number 
equates to 8,194 breeding birds, which is substantially greater than 
historical population estimates for Texas. Numbers declined slightly in 
2006 to 3,801 breeding pairs in six nesting colonies (7,602 breeding 
birds) (Service 2006, p. 2), possibly due to hurricanes in 2005 (see 
discussion of storm effects under Factor A), but they remained above 
historical estimates. The 2006 census numbers may be low because survey 
data appear to be missing for Sundown Island, which traditionally 
supports a large brown pelican breeding colony. There were 1,676 
breeding pairs nesting at Sundown Island in 2007 (Erfling 2007a, p. 1; 
https://www.sundownisland.org/default.htm), which is comparable to the 
number breeding there in 2005 (Service 2006, p. 2).
    Gulf Coast of Mexico--Very little information is available about 
the status of the brown pelican along the Gulf Coast in Mexico. Aerial 
surveys indicated that brown pelicans in Mexico were virtually absent 
as a breeding species along the Gulf of Mexico north of Veracruz by 
1968 (Service 1979, p. 10). An aerial survey along this same stretch of 
coast conducted in March 1986 counted 2,270 birds, down from 4,250 
birds estimated in counts conducted between December 1979 and January 
1980 (Blankinship 1987, p. 2). However, the counts in 1986 and in 1980 
differed in the areas covered and timing of counts and represent only 
two data points, so it is difficult to compare the earlier and later 
counts. No recent information for this portion of the species' range 
was found, so no conclusions on population trends of the brown pelican 
for the Mexican portion of the Gulf Coast can be drawn.
    Summary of Gulf of Mexico Coast--Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, brown 
pelican populations, while experiencing some periodic or local 
declines, have increased dramatically from a point of near 
disappearance in the 1960s and 70s. Brown pelicans were present along 
the Gulf Coast of Mexico in 1986, but we currently lack recent 
information on the status of the species in this portion of its range.

West Indies

    Van Halewyn and Norton (1984, p. 201) summarized the breeding 
distribution of brown pelicans throughout the Caribbean region and 
noted at least 23 sites where the species was reliably reported nesting 
in the islands of the West Indies at some time since 1950. Based on the 
most recent estimates available at the time, van Halewyn and Norton 
(1984, p. 201) documented more than 2,000 breeding pairs throughout the 
West Indies. More recently, Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) estimated the 
minimum number of brown pelicans throughout the West Indies at 1,500 
breeding pairs. Raffaele et al. (1998, pp. 224-225) describe the brown 
pelican as ``A common year-round resident in the southern Bahamas, 
Greater Antilles and locally in the northern Lesser Antilles east to 
Montserrat. It is common to rare through the rest of the West Indies 
with some birds wandering between islands.

[[Page 9411]]

Migrants that breed in North America augment local numbers primarily 
from November to February.''
    In a search for additional seabird breeding colonies in the Lesser 
Antilles, Collier et al. (2003, pp. 112-113) did not find brown 
pelicans nesting on Anguilla, Saba, and Dominica. In an attempt to 
survey seabirds in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Hayes (2002, p. 51) 
found brown pelicans in the central Grenadines. He notes that brown 
pelicans were once considered common in the Grenadines and suggests 
that a small nesting colony may exist there, although there is no 
historic record of nesting.
    St. Maarten--Collier et al. (2003, p. 113) reported finding two 
nesting colonies on St. Maarten Island in 2001, with a total of 64 
nesting pairs, but found no breeding pelicans at one site in 2002. 
Reasons for the lack of breeding activity in 2002 are unknown, although 
Collier et al. (2003, p. 113) suggested a disturbance event could have 
been the cause. The May 2006 newsletter for the Society for the 
Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds (Society for the Conservation 
and Study of Caribbean Birds, 2006) notes that St. Maarten's proposed 
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) of Fort Amsterdam and Pelikan Key host 
regionally important populations of nesting brown pelicans, although 
numbers of nesting birds are not given.
    Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands--Collazo et al. (1998, pp. 63-
64) compared demographic parameters between 1980-82 and 1992-95 for 
brown pelicans in Puerto Rico. The mean number of individuals observed 
during winter aerial population surveys between 1980 and 1982 was 
2,289, while mean winter counts from 1992 to 1995 averaged only 593 
birds (Collazo et al. 1998, p. 63). Reasons for the decrease in number 
of wintering birds between the two periods are not known; however, 
migrational shifts could have contributed to the decrease in winter 
counts between survey periods (Collazo et al. 1998, p. 63). The number 
of nests observed at the selected study sites did not show such an 
appreciable decline during the same period for Puerto Rico and the 
nearby U.S. Virgin Islands, with nest counts ranging from 167 to 250 
during 1980 to 1982, compared with 222 and 256 during 1992 to 1993 
(Collazo et al. 1998, p. 64). Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) estimated 
approximately 120-200 nesting pairs in Puerto Rico and 300-350 nesting 
pairs in the U.S. Virgin Islands. See ``Human disturbance of nesting 
pelicans'' under Factor A below for discussions of possible reasons for 
decline.
    Cuba--Acosta-Cruz and Mugica-Vald[eacute]s (2006, pp. 10, 65) 
reported that brown pelicans are a common resident species, with the 
population augmented by migrants during the winter. Brown pelicans have 
been documented nesting at five sites in the Archipi[eacute]lago 
Sabana-Camag[uuml]ey and in the Refugio de Fauna R[iacute]o 
M[aacute]ximo (Acosta-Cruz and Mugica-Vald[eacute]s 2006, pp. 32-33). 
The number of nesting pairs at Refugio de Fauna R[iacute]o 
M[aacute]ximo was estimated at 16-36 pairs during monitoring in 2001 
and 2002 (Acosta-Cruz and Mugica-Vald[eacute]s 2006, p. 33). No 
estimates were given for other nesting sites. Acosta-Cruz and Mugica-
Vald[eacute]s (2006, p. 65) estimate the population of brown pelicans 
in Cuba falls within the range on 1,000 to 4,999 birds and that the 
population trend is stable.
    Summary of West Indies--Although we do not have detailed 
information on brown pelicans throughout the islands of the West 
Indies, the distribution of current breeding colonies reported by 
Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) is similar to that reported by van Halewyn 
and Norton (1984, pp. 174-175, 201). Estimates of number of breeding 
pairs differ between the two reports but the studies differed somewhat 
in the sites reported and neither provided detailed methods for their 
estimates. Neither Collazo et al. (2000, p. 63) nor van Halewyn and 
Norton (1984, pp.174-175, 201) provided estimates for birds nesting in 
Cuba, but Acosta-Cruz and Mugica-Vald[eacute]s (2006, p. 65) estimate 
the population in Cuba falls within the range on 1,000 to 4,999 birds.

Caribbean and Atlantic Coast of Mexico, Central and South America

    No comprehensive population estimates for the Caribbean and 
Atlantic Coasts of Central and South America are available to our 
knowledge, although some estimates for other portions of the species' 
range include birds that nest on the mainland coast or offshore islands 
(e.g., van Halewyn and Norton's estimate of 6200 pairs in the Caribbean 
included birds nesting on the mainland and offshore islands of Colombia 
and Venezuela (1984, p. 201)).
    Mexico--Isla Contoy Reserva Especial de la Biosfera off the coast 
of Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, was the site of Mexico's largest brown 
pelican nesting colony in 1986, with 300 nesting pairs (Blankinship 
1987, p. 2). By the spring of 1996, 700 to 1,000 pairs of brown 
pelicans were estimated to be nesting on Isla Contoy (Shields 2002, p. 
35). Four other colonies in this region accounted for 128 nesting pairs 
in 1986 (Blankinship 1987, p. 2).
    Belize--Miller and Miller (2006, pp. 7, 64) analyzed Christmas Bird 
Count data collected in Belize from 1969-2005 and reported that brown 
pelican numbers over this period have remained about the same. 
References compiled and summarized by Miller and Miller (pp. 144-149) 
variously report brown pelicans as: ``Common: high density, likely to 
be seen many places,'' ``Transient, present briefly as migrant,'' 
``Resident, species present all year,'' ``apparently secure in 
Belize.'' Brown pelicans are also reported in one reference as nesting 
on several cays, but no information on number of nesting birds or 
locations are given.
    Guatemala--Brown pelicans in Guatemala are considered to be a 
breeding resident (Eisermann 2006, p. 55), although locations of 
nesting sites and number of breeding pairs are not given. Eisermann 
(2006, p. 65) estimated the Caribbean slope population of brown 
pelicans in Guatemala to consist of approximately 376 birds.
    Honduras--Thorn et al (2006, p. 29) report brown pelicans nesting 
on the Caribbean coast of Honduras and offshore islands. Brown pelicans 
are reported as a common resident in Honduras, with numbers estimated 
to range between 10,000 and 25,000 birds and a stable population trend 
(Thorn et al. 2006, p. 20).
    Nicaragua--Zolotoff-Pallais and Lezama (2006, p. 74) report that 
the number of brown pelicans within Nicaragua falls within the range 
1001-5000 and is stable, although they do not indicate whether this 
estimate represents only breeding birds.
    Costa Rica--Brown pelicans are considered a resident species in 
Costa Rica, but are not reported nesting on Caribbean coast of Costa 
Rica (Quesada 2006, pp. 9, 46).
    Panama--Brown pelicans primarily nest in the Gulf of Panama on the 
Pacific coast with no nesting reported on the Caribbean coast (Angehr 
2005, pp. 15-16). However, brown pelicans do winter along the Caribbean 
coast of Panama. In 1993 in Panama, 582 brown pelicans were counted 
(Shields 2002, p. 22) along the Caribbean coast, and Angehr (2005, p. 
79) considers brown pelicans to be a ``fairly common migrant'' along 
the Caribbean coast.
    Colombia--Moreno and Buelvas (2005, p. 57) report that brown 
pelicans occur at four sites on the Caribbean coast of Colombia, with a 
good population of brown pelicans in the Humedales costeros de La 
Guajira (coastal wetlands of La Guajira). However, no estimate of 
numbers of breeding birds was given.

[[Page 9412]]

    Venezuela--Based on aerial surveys of the Venezuelan coast, Guzman 
and Schreiber (1987, p. 278) estimated a population size of 17,000 
brown pelicans in 25 colonies. Within those breeding colonies, 3,369 
nests were counted (Guzman and Schreiber 1987, p. 278). More recently, 
Rodner (2006, p. 9) confirms that there are approximately 25 brown 
pelican colonies in Venezuela. Rodner (2006, p. 9) does not give an 
overall estimate of the brown pelican population in Venezuela but notes 
more than 1700 nests have been documented in four of the largest 
breeding colonies, while another recent census of four sites resulted 
in counts of 2,097 pelicans.
    South of Venezuela, brown pelicans are reported as a non-breeding 
migrant in Guyana (Johnson 2006, p. 5), French Guiana (Delelis and 
Pracontal 2006, p. 57), Surinam (Haverschmidt 1949, p. 77; Ottema 2006, 
p. 3), and Brazil (De Luca et al. 2006, pp. 3, 40)
    Summary of the Caribbean/Atlantic Coast--In general, brown pelicans 
are broadly distributed on the Caribbean and Atlantic coasts of 
southern Mexico and Central and South America and are still present 
throughout their historic range.

California and Pacific Coast of Northern Mexico

    The most recent population estimate of the brown pelican subspecies 
that ranges from California to Mexico along the Pacific Coast is 
approximately 71,200 nesting pairs, which equates to 142,400 breeding 
birds (Henny and Anderson 2007, p. 9). They nest in four distinct 
geographic areas: (1) The Southern California Bight (SCB), which 
includes southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico; (2) 
southwest Baja California; (3) the Gulf of California, which includes 
coastlines of both Baja California and Sonora, Mexico; and (4) mainland 
Mexico further south along the Pacific coastline (including Sinaloa and 
Nayarit) (Service 1983, p. 8).
    During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the SCB population declined 
to fewer than 1,000 pairs and reproductive success was nearly zero 
(Anderson et al. 1975, p. 807). In 2006, approximately 11,695 breeding 
pairs were documented at 10 locations in the SCB: 3 locations on 
Anacapa Island, 1 on Prince Island, and 1 on Santa Barbara Island in 
California; 3 on Coronados Islands, 1 on Islas Todos Santos, and 1 on 
Isla San Mart[iacute]n in Mexico within the SCB (Henny and Anderson 
2007, p. 9; Gress 2007). The populations on Todos Santos and San 
Mart[iacute]n islands were previously extirpated in 1923 and 1974, 
respectively; however, these were recently found to be occupied (Gress 
et al. 2005, pp. 20-25). Todos Santos Island had about 65 nests in 
2004, but there were no nests in 2005. This colony is currently 
considered to be ephemeral, occurring some years and then not others 
(Gress et al. 2005, p. 28). At San Mart[iacute]n Island, 35 pairs were 
reported in 1999, a small colony was noted in 2000, and 125-200 pairs 
were seen in 2002, 2003, and 2004 (Gress et al. 2005, pp. 20-25).
    The southwest Baja California coastal population has about 3,650 
breeding pairs, the Gulf of California population is estimated at 
42,970 breeding pairs, and the mainland Mexico population has about 
12,880 breeding pairs (Anderson 2007b; Henny and Anderson 2007, p. 9). 
The Gulf of California population remained essentially the same from 
1970 to 1988 (Everett and Anderson 1991, p. 125). It is thought that 
populations in Mexico have been stable since the early 1970s (when 
long-term studies began) because of their lower exposure to DDT, 
although annual numbers at individual colonies fluctuate widely due to 
prey availability and human disturbance at colonies (Everett and 
Anderson 1991, p. 133).
    Summary of California and Pacific Coast of Northern Mexico--Henny 
and Anderson (2007, p. 1, 8) concluded that their preliminary estimates 
of nesting pairs in 2006 suggest a large and healthy total breeding 
population for California and the Pacific coast of Mexico.

Pacific Coast of Central America and South America

    As with the Caribbean and Atlantic coasts of Central and South 
America, there are no comprehensive population estimates for brown 
pelicans along this portion of their range.
    Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua--Brown pelicans are 
considered a non-breeding visitor on the Pacific slope of Guatemala 
(Eisermann 2006, p. 4) with an estimated abundance of 2,118 birds. 
About 800 brown pelicans are widely distributed along the Pacific Coast 
of El Salvador (Ibarra Portillo 2006, p. 2). However, Herrera et al. 
(2006, p. 44) reported brown pelicans to be a non-breeding visitor in 
El Salvador with numbers falling within the range 1,001-10,000 and an 
increasing trend. Brown pelicans occur on the Pacific Coast of Honduras 
but are not reported to nest there (Thorn et al. 2006, p. 26, 29). 
Zolotoff-Pallais and Lezama (2006, p. 74) report that the number of 
brown pelicans within Nicaragua falls within the range 1,001-5,000, but 
do not indicate locations or breeding status.
    Costa Rica--The Costa Rican Ministry for Environment and Energy has 
reported that several breeding colonies exist on the Pacific Coast from 
the Nicaraguan border to the Gulf of Nicoya and include the islands of 
Bola[ntilde]os and Guayabo (Service 2007a, p. 13). Shields (2002, p. 
35) estimated as many as 850 pairs in Costa Rica. However, Quesada 
(2006, p. 37) estimated the brown pelican population in Costa Rica to 
fall within the range 10,000-25,000 birds with a stable population 
trend.
    Panama--Estimates of brown pelicans in Panama have varied greatly 
over the years. In 1981 Batista and Montgomery (1982, p. 70) estimated 
that 25,500 adults and chicks were known to occur on just the Pearl 
Island Archipelago in the Gulf of Panama. In 1982 Montgomery and Murcia 
(1982, p. 69) estimated 70,000 adults occurred at 7 colonies within the 
Gulf of Panama. By 1988, 6,031 brown pelicans were known from just the 
Gulf, while in 1998, only 3,017 brown pelicans were thought to occur 
along the entire Pacific Coast of Panama, including the Gulf (Shields 
2002, p. 22). By 2005, 4,877 brown pelican nests were reported just in 
the Gulf of Panama and a total population was estimated to be about 
15,000 individuals for the entire Pacific Coast of Panama, which 
includes 1,976 nest numbers from Coiba Island (Angehr 2005, p. 6). 
Angehr (2005, p. 12) also reported that those individual colonies that 
had been studied experienced an overall increase of 70 percent in nest 
numbers from 1979 to 2005, and describes the brown pelican on the 
Pacific Coast of Panama as an ``abundant breeder.''
    Colombia--Moreno and Buelvas (2005 p. 57) list brown pelicans as 
occurring at three protected sites on the Pacific coast of Colombia: 
Malpelo Island, Gorgona Island, and Sanquianga. Naranjo et al. (2006b, 
p. 178) estimated 2,000-4,000 brown pelicans at Sanquianga on the 
mainland and 4,800-5,200 on Gorgona Island. Brown pelicans were 
considered to be one of the most abundant resident species in a 1996-
1998 assessment of waterbird populations on the Pacific Coast of 
Colombia (Naranjo et al. 2006a, p. 181). Naranjo et al. (2006b, p. 179) 
concluded that preliminary results of their waterbird monitoring 
program on the Pacific coast of Colombia indicate that populations of 
Pelecaniformes (which include brown pelicans) in the three protected 
areas are stable.
    Ecuador--On Ecuador's Galapagos Islands, Shields (2002, p. 35) 
cites reports of a few thousand pairs. Delaney and Scott (2002, p. 29) 
estimated the population on the Galapagos to be 5,000

[[Page 9413]]

birds. Santander et al. (2006, p. 44, 49) reported that brown pelicans 
in the Galapagos number less than 10,000 and are considered common 
there, while populations on the mainland range from 25,000 to 100,000. 
The Ministerio del Ambiente of Ecuador has reported that nesting brown 
pelicans are widely distributed and fairly common along the mainland 
coast of that country (Rojas 2006).
    Peru--Shields (2002, p. 22) summarizes estimates of brown pelicans 
in Peru at 420,000 adults in 1981-1982, 110,000 in 1982-1983, 620,000 
in 1985-1986, and 400,000 in 1996. Franke (2006, p. 10) reported that a 
1997 survey of guano birds counted 140,000 brown pelicans with an 
increasing population trend reported; however, it is unclear whether 
that number represents a total estimate of the brown pelican population 
in Peru or a subset of birds nesting on islands managed for guano 
production.
    Chile--The range of brown pelicans in Chile extends from the 
extreme northern city of Arica (Rodr[iacute]guez 2006) to occasionally 
as far south as Isla Chilo[eacute] (Aves de Chile 2006, p. 1). The 
total population size for Chile is unknown (Shields 2002, p. 35). The 
breeding population on Isla P[aacute]jaro Ni[ntilde]o in central Chile 
was 2,699 pairs in 1995-1996, 1,032 pairs in 1996-1997, and none during 
the 1997-1998 El Ni[ntilde]o year (Simeone and Bernal 2000, p. 453).
    Two sightings of brown pelicans in Argentina in 1993 and 1999 are 
considered ``hypothetical'' records because they are not documented by 
specimens, photographs, or other concrete evidence (Lichtschein 2006).
    Summary of Pacific Coast of Central and South America--Brown 
pelicans are abundant breeders along the Pacific coast of Central and 
South America.

Summary--Global Population Estimates

    Population estimates for various States, regions, and countries 
reviewed above are not strictly comparable because they were not made 
using any standard protocol or methodology, and in many cases the 
process by which the estimates were developed is not described. While 
in some cases these estimates may be reliable in describing local 
abundance and trends, because of their incomparability, they have 
limited value in estimating absolute size or trends in the global 
population. However, because these estimates are the best available 
information, we attempted to use some conservative assumptions in 
tabulating these data in order to make a conservative estimate of the 
global population size of the brown pelican (Service 2007a, pp. 43-45 
and 60-62). This total, or global estimate, is for the listed brown 
pelican, which does not include the Atlantic coast of the U.S., 
Florida, and Alabama. The total based on regional estimates is over 
620,000 individuals, which includes an estimated 400,000 pelicans from 
Peru (Service 2007a, pp. 43-45 and 60-62). This is likely a 
conservative estimate given that estimates for some countries given 
above (for example, estimates for Colombia and Cuba) were not readily 
available at the time we conducted our 5-year review. Other recent 
estimates yield similar numbers. Kushlan et al.'s (2002, p. 64) 
estimate for the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan area, which 
includes Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and 
Caribbean islands of Venezuela, was 191,600-193,700 breeders. Delaney 
and Scott (2002, p. 29) applied a correction factor to Kushlan et al.'s 
estimate to account for immature birds and non-breeders to estimate a 
population of 290,000 birds. Neither estimate includes birds on the 
Pacific Coast of South America. Delaney and Scott (2002, p. 29) 
additionally estimated the brown pelican population on the Galapagos to 
be about 5,000 birds, and the population on the Pacific Coast of South 
America (estimate is for the subspecies Pelecanus occidentalis thagus, 
found in Peru and Chile) to range from 100,000-1,000,000 birds. 
Shields' (2002, p. 21) population estimate of 202,600-209,000 brown 
pelicans also did not include the Peruvian subspecies. While each of 
these estimates covers slightly different areas, they are all in 
general agreement and indicate that the listed population of brown 
pelicans, excluding the Peruvian subspecies, totals 200,000 or more 
individuals, while the Peruvian subspecies numbers in the few hundred 
thousand.

Recovery Plan

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for listed species. While brown pelicans were listed 
throughout their range, recovery planning efforts for the brown pelican 
focused primarily on those portions of the species' range within the 
United States. We have published three recovery plans for the brown 
pelican: (1) Recovery Plan for the Eastern Brown Pelican (Service 
1979); (2) the California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan (Service 1983); 
and (3) Recovery Plan for the Brown Pelican in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands (Service 1986).
    Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead 
intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners 
on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that 
may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There are many 
paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may be 
achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more 
criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been 
accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that, overall, 
the threats have been minimized sufficiently and the species is robust 
enough to justify reclassifying the species from endangered to 
threatened or perhaps delisting the species. In other cases, recovery 
opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time 
the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used 
instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, 
information on the species may be learned that was not known at the 
time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change 
the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the 
species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management. Analyzing the degree of recovery of a species is 
also an adaptive management process that may or may not fully follow 
the guidance provided in a recovery plan. The following discussion 
provides a brief review of recovery planning for the brown pelican, as 
well as an analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate 
to evaluating the status of the species.
    The Recovery Plan for the Eastern Brown Pelican, which includes the 
delisted populations and the currently listed Texas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi populations, does not identify recovery criteria because 
the causes of the species' decline were not well understood at the time 
the plan was prepared. The recovery team viewed the wide distribution 
of the species, rather than absolute numbers, as the species' major 
strength against extinction (Service 1979, p. iv). The recovery plan 
states a general objective to re-establish brown pelicans on all 
historically used nesting sites in Louisiana and Texas (Service 1979, 
p. iii). The plan identified 9 sites in Louisiana and 11 sites in 
Texas. These included historic, current (at the time of the recovery 
plan), and restored islands. As of 2005 (prior to Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita), 11 sites in Louisiana were being used for nesting by brown 
pelicans: Brush Island, Martin Island, North Island, Pelican Point, 
West Breton Island, Baptiste Collette, Queen Bess Island, Wine Island, 
Raccoon Island, Rabbit

[[Page 9414]]

Island, and Shallow Bayou. This list includes 7 previously unknown 
sites (Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 1-4, 7-8). In 2006, nesting 
occurred at 15 sites that included the previously mentioned 11. 
Hurricane-caused habitat degradation forced many birds to seek out new 
nesting locations including three additional sites in the Pelican Point 
area, and one on East Queen Bess Island (Hess and Linscombe 2007, pp. 
1, 3). As of 2006, 12 sites in Texas were being used for nesting by 
brown pelicans: Marker 52 Spoil Island, North Deer Island, Evia Island, 
Sunfish Island, Shamrock Island, Deadman Islands, South Pass Islands A 
and B, Pelican Island, Sundown Island, Little Pelican Island, and 
Dressing Point (Service 2006, p. 2). The northern Gulf of Mexico coast 
is subject to frequent severe tropical storms and hurricanes, which can 
cause significant changes to brown pelican nesting habitat. Past storms 
have resulted in changes to or loss of historical nesting sites, but 
brown pelicans seem well adapted to responding to losses of breeding 
sites by moving to new locations (Hess and Durham 2002, p. 7; Wilkinson 
et al. 1994, p. 425; Williams and Martin 1968, p. 136), and the species 
has clearly shown its ability to rebound (Williams and Martin 1968, p. 
130; Holm et al. 2003, p. 432; Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 5, 13) (see 
``Storm effects, weather and erosion impacts to habitat'' under Factor 
A for further discussion). While nesting is not occurring on all 
historically identified sites in Texas and Louisiana, the number of 
currently used nesting sites meets or exceeds the numbers identified in 
the recovery plan and support sustainable populations of brown 
pelicans. Because brown pelicans have demonstrated the ability to move 
to new breeding locations when a nesting island is no longer suitable, 
meeting the exact number and location of nesting sites in Texas and 
Louisiana identified in the recovery plan is not necessary to achieve 
recovery for the brown pelican. As discussed further below, we also 
have considered the population's wide distribution, numbers, and 
productivity, as indicators that the threats have been reduced such 
that the population is recovered and sustainable.
    The Recovery Plan for the Brown Pelican in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands has delisting criteria solely for the area covered by 
the plan. The criteria are to maintain a 5-year observed mean level of: 
(1) 2,300 individuals during winter, and (2) 350 breeding pairs at the 
peak of the breeding season. Both recovery criteria are solely based on 
demographic characteristics and do not provide an explicit reference 
point for determining whether threats have been reduced. The levels in 
the criteria were based on studies of brown pelicans from 1980 to 1983 
(Collazo 1985). Subsequent winter counts from 1992 to 1995 in Puerto 
Rico were 74 percent lower than during 1980-1982 (2,289 compared to 593 
individuals). Although the 1992 to 1995 counts did not include the 
Virgin Islands, it appears likely that the first criterion had not been 
met as of 1995 (Collazo et al. 1998). However, reasons for lower counts 
are unknown. Collazo et al. (1998, pp. 63-64) concluded that habitat 
was not limiting and suggested that migrational shifts could have 
contributed to the decrease in numbers and that longer term monitoring 
of at least 6 to 8 years is needed to define an acceptable range of 
population parameters for brown pelicans in the Caribbean. Collazo et 
al (1998, p. 64) also concluded that contaminants are not affecting 
brown pelican reproduction. Thus, while the first criterion, based on 4 
years of data, may not be sufficient to establish a realistic figure to 
reflect recovery, it also does not address whether threats to the 
species are still present. Also, because the criterion applies to only 
a small portion of the species' range, as well as only a portion of the 
species' range in the Caribbean, we do not consider it appropriate for 
determining whether the brown pelican is recovered globally. The second 
recovery criterion is the more important of the two as it reflects 
population productivity. The number of pairs seemed to be holding 
steady between the early 1980s and the 1990s with estimates given by 
Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) of 165 pairs for Puerto Rico and 305-345 
pairs for the U.S. Virgin Islands. While this estimate is not a 5-year 
observed mean, the estimated number is consistent with the recovery 
criterion for number of breeding pairs.
    The California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan only covers the 
California brown pelican subspecies (P. o. californicus), which 
includes the Pacific Coast of California and Mexico, including the Gulf 
of California. The primary objective of this recovery plan is to 
restore and maintain stable, self-sustaining populations throughout 
this portion of the species' range. To accomplish this objective, the 
recovery plan calls for: (1) Maintaining existing populations in 
Mexico; (2) assuring long-term protection of adequate food supplies and 
essential nesting, roosting, and offshore habitat throughout the 
subspecies' range; and (3) restoring population size and productivity 
to self-sustaining levels in the SCB at both the Anacapa and Los 
Coronados Island colonies. Existing populations appear to be stable in 
Mexico and throughout the subspecies range (Everett and Anderson 1991, 
p. 133; Henny and Anderson 2007, p. 1, 8), food supplies are assured by 
the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, and the majority 
of essential nesting and roosting habitat throughout the species' range 
is protected (see ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' below 
for further discussion). Therefore, criteria 1 and 2 of the recovery 
plan have been met.
    For population and productivity objectives, the recovery plan 
included the following additional criterion for the subspecies to be 
considered for delisting: (a) When any 5-year mean productivity for the 
SCB population reaches at least 0.7 young per nesting attempt from a 
breeding population of at least 3,000 pairs, the subspecies should be 
considered for threatened status; and (b) When any 5-year mean 
productivity for the SCB population reaches at least 0.9 young per 
nesting attempt from a breeding population of at least 3,000 pairs. 
Consideration for reclassification to threatened would require a total 
production averaging at least 2,100 fledglings per year over any 5-year 
period. Consideration for delisting would require a total production 
averaging at least 2,700 fledglings per year over any 5-year period.
    The criterion, including both productivity and population size, for 
downlisting to threatened has been met at least 10 times since 1985. 
The delisting population criterion of at least 3,000 breeding pairs has 
been exceeded every year since 1985, with the exception of 1990 and 
1992, which saw only 2,825 and 1,752 pairs, respectively. In most 
years, the nesting population far exceeds the 3,000 pair delisting 
goal; it has exceeded 6,000 pairs for 10 of the last 15 years (Gress 
2005). Additionally, the delisting criterion of at least 2,700 
fledglings per year over any 5-year period has been met at least 11 
times since 1985 (Gress 2005). However, the productivity criterion for 
delisting, while it has improved greatly since the time of listing and 
has neared the criterion for delisting a few times, has not been met, 
and the SCB population consistently has low productivity, with a mean 
of 0.63 young fledged per nesting attempt from 1985 to 2005 (Gress and 
Harvey 2004, p. 20; Gress 2005).
    Productivity is an important parameter used for evaluating 
population health; however, it is difficult to determine an objective 
and

[[Page 9415]]

appropriate minimum value. The 0.9 young per nesting attempt given in 
the recovery plan was the best estimate based on a review of brown 
pelican reproductive parameters in Florida and the Gulf of California 
(Schreiber 1979, p. 1; Anderson and Gress 1983, p. 84), because pre-DDT 
productivity for the SCB population was unknown. Despite the fact that 
this goal has not been reached, reproduction has been sufficient to 
maintain a stable population for over 20 years. Most colonies expanded 
during this interval, including the long-term colonization of Santa 
Barbara Island, which suggests that productivity has been sufficient to 
maintain a stable-to-increasing population. In conclusion, the first 
two recovery criteria for the California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan 
have been met. As discussed above, the population component of the 
third criterion has been far exceeded, while the productivity component 
has not been met. We have concluded, based on current population size 
and productivity, that the productivity component of the third 
criterion is no longer appropriate and that current productivity is 
sufficient to maintain a viable population of brown pelicans.
    Recovery Planning Summary--The three recovery plans for the brown 
pelican discussed above have not been actively used in recent years to 
guide recovery of the brown pelican because they are either outdated, 
lack recovery criteria for the entire species, or in the case of the 
eastern brown pelican, lack recovery criteria all together. No 
subsequent revisions have been made to any of these original recovery 
plans. No single recovery plan covers the entire range of the species, 
and the remainder of the range outside the U.S., including Central 
America, South America, and most of the West Indies is not covered by a 
recovery plan. Thus, these focus areas for recovery, which do not have 
formal or regulatory distinction, are outdated. Additionally, the 
recovery criteria in these plans do not specifically address the five 
threat factors used for listing, reclassifying, or delisting a species 
as outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Consequently, the recovery 
plans do not provide an explicit reference point for determining the 
appropriate legal status of the brown pelican based either on 
alleviating the specific factors that resulted in its initial listing 
as an endangered species or on addressing new risk factors that may 
have emerged since listing. As noted above, recovery is a dynamic 
process and analyzing the degree of recovery requires an adaptive 
process that includes not only evaluating recovery goals and criteria 
but also new information that has become available. Thus, while some 
recovery criteria and many of the goals in the three brown pelican 
recovery plans have been met, our evaluation of the status of the brown 
pelican in this proposal is based largely on the analysis of threats in 
our recently completed 5-year review (Service 2007a, pp. 1-66). This 
review is available at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/
doc1039.pdf.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. We may determine a 
species to be an endangered or threatened species because of one or 
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and 
we must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may 
delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available 
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or 
threatened (as is the case with the brown pelican); and/or (3) The 
original scientific data used at the time the species was classified 
were in error.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's 
definition of threatened or endangered. Determining whether a species 
is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of 
threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are 
already listed as threatened or endangered, this analysis of threats is 
an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the 
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future after delisting or downlisting and the removal or 
reduction of the Act's protections.
    A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its 
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range.'' The word ``range'' in the ``significant portion of its 
range'' (SPR) phrase refers to the range in which the species currently 
exists. For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate whether the 
currently listed species, the brown pelican, should be considered 
threatened or endangered. Then we will consider whether there are any 
portions of brown pelican's range in danger of extinction or likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.
    As discussed below in our analysis of factors affecting the 
species, we do not foresee any changes in the current protections for 
brown pelican. For example, we do not expect any significant changes to 
current non-Endangered Species Act habitat protections, regulations 
affecting pesticide use and licensing, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or the global 
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. We could 
consider that many of these protections would remain in place in 
perpetuity. However, considering this as a timeframe for analysis could 
introduce a considerable level of uncertainty and it may not be 
reasonable to assume that we can project an analysis out in perpetuity. 
Therefore, for the purposes of our analysis, we considered as a lower 
bound the timeframe over which it would be reasonable to expect 
population level or demographic effects of threats to be detected and 
to put the species at risk of becoming endangered. Factors most likely 
to affect population levels and key demographic characteristics of 
brown pelicans include those that affect reproduction over a period of 
several years, and include factors such as disturbance of nest sites, 
contaminants, and availability of prey. Therefore, for the purposes of 
this proposed rule, we consider ``foreseeable future'' for the brown 
pelican at a minimum to be 30 years, since it is a reasonable timeframe 
for analysis of factors identified that could affect the species in the 
future and as they relate to brown pelican biology. While average life 
spans are not known, fewer than 2 percent are thought to live past 10 
years of age, and the oldest known individual was 43 years old 
(Schreiber and Mock 1988, p. 178). Additionally, since age at first 
nesting is generally 3 to 5 years (Shields 2002, p. 18), the average 
brown pelican breeds at 4 years of age, thereby replacing itself within 
8 years. Therefore, 30 years, which incorporates one long life cycle 
and 10 possible generations, represents a reasonable biological 
timeframe to determine if threats could be significant.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the brown pelican distribution 
that is currently listed within the foreseeable future.

[[Page 9416]]

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

Nesting Habitat

    Brown pelicans breed annually from spring to summer above 30 
degrees north latitude, annually from winter to spring between 20 and 
30 degrees north latitude, and irregularly throughout the year on 8.5- 
to 10-month cycles below 20 degrees north latitude (Shields 2002, p. 
12). Brown pelicans usually breed on small, predator-free coastal 
islands. Brown pelicans use a wide variety of nesting substrates. Nests 
are built on the ground when vegetation is not available, but when 
built in trees, they are about 1.8 meters (m) to 12.2 m (6 to 40 feet 
(ft)) above the water's surface (McNease et al. 1992, p. 252; 
Jim[eacute]nez 2004, pp. 12-17). Along the Pacific Coast of California 
south to Baja California and in the Gulf of California, brown pelicans 
nest on dry, rocky substrates, typically on off-shore islands (Service 
1983, pp. 5-6). Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, brown pelicans mainly nest 
on coastal islands on the ground or in herbaceous plants or low shrubs 
(Shields 2002, p. 13; Wilkenson et al. 1994, pp. 421-423), but will use 
mangrove trees (Avicennia spp.) if available (Lowery 1974, p. 127; Blus 
et al. 1979a, p. 130). In some areas of the Caribbean, along the 
Pacific Coast of Mexico, and the Galapagos Islands, mangroves 
(Avicennia spp., Rhizophora spp., Launcularia spp.) are the most common 
nesting substrate, although other substrates are used as well (Collazo 
1985, pp. 106-108; Guzman and Schreiber 1987, p. 276; Service 1983, p. 
15; Shields 2002, p. 13). Various types of tropical forests, such as 
tropical thorn and humid forests, also provide nesting habitat for 
brown pelicans in southern Mexico, South and Central America, and the 
West Indies (Collazo 1985, pp. 106-108; Guzman and Schreiber 1987, p. 
2). Peruvian brown pelicans (found in Peru and Chile) nest only on the 
ground (Shields 2002, p. 13).
    Nesting habitat destruction from coastal development. Within the 
United States, the majority of brown pelican nesting sites are 
protected through land ownership and protection by conservation 
organizations and local, State, and Federal agencies. We are not aware 
of any losses of brown pelican nesting habitat to coastal development 
within the United States. In countries outside of the United States, 
some coastal and mangrove habitat used by brown pelicans has been lost 
to recreational and other coastal developments (Collazo et al. 1998, 
pp. 63). Mainland nesting colonies in Sinaloa and Nayarit, Mexico, have 
been impacted by increasing mariculture (the cultivation of marine 
life) and agriculture through habitat degradation, disturbance, and 
some removal of mangrove habitat (Anderson et al. 2003, p. 1097-1099; 
Anderson 2007a), although the extent of impacts is unknown. Van Halewyn 
and Norton (1984, p. 215) cited cutting and loss of mangrove habitat as 
a threat for seabirds, including brown pelicans, in the Caribbean. 
Aside from these limited accounts, we are not aware of any significant 
losses of brown pelican nesting habitat from coastal development 
anywhere within its range.
    Some destruction of current and potential brown pelican nesting 
habitat is