Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 59444-59472 [E9-27402]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59444-59472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27402]



[[Page 59443]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR 17



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

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 220 / Tuesday, November 17, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 59444]]


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

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; Removal of the 
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) From the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
removing the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recovery. This action 
is based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial 
data, which indicate that the species is no longer in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. The 
brown pelican will remain protected under the provisions of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is December 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/. 
Supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the Service's Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office, 
17629 El Camino Real 211, Houston, Texas 77058-3051.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Parris, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office, 
17629 El Camino Real 211, Houston, Texas 77058-3051; telephone 
281/286-8282; facsimile 281/488-5882. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) populations currently listed 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) 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 and the coast of Mexico; along 
the Caribbean coast from Mexico south to Venezuela; along the Pacific 
Coast from British Columbia, Canada, south through Mexico into Central 
and South America; and in the West Indies, and are occasionally sighted 
throughout the United States (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 continues to occur throughout its historical 
range (Shields 2002, pp. 4-5). This rule includes biological and life 
history information for the brown pelican relevant to the delisting. 
Additional information about the brown pelican's biology and life 
history can be found in the Birds of North America, No. 609 (Shields 
2002, pp. 1-36).
    This rule applies to the entire listed species, which includes all 
brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) subspecies. 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. Additionally, some 
authors elevate the Peruvian subspecies to a separate species, Peruvian 
pelican (P. thagus) (see Remsen et al. 2009). However, the taxonomy of 
the brown pelican subspecies has not been critically reviewed for many 
years, and the classification followed by the American Ornithologists' 
Union (American Ornithologists' Union 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. 
Remsen et al. (2009) does not present a comprehensive taxonomic 
treatment of all brown pelicans, but rather, relies on already noted 
morphological differences to propose that P. o. thagus be recognized as 
a full species. Additional taxonomic review of all brown pelicans would 
be needed to further elucidate the relationships and distributions of 
the six described subspecies. The original listing of the brown pelican 
included the species throughout its range and covered all six of the 
subspecies described above. This rule continues that taxonomic 
treatment, including the Peruvian brown pelican (P. o. thagus).

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 20, 2008, we published a 12-month petition finding and 
proposed rule to remove the brown pelican from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 9408). We solicited data and 
comments from the public on the proposed rule. The comment period 
opened on February 20, 2008, and closed on April 21, 2008. Note that 
this proposed rule addresses the status of brown pelicans throughout 
their range except where previously delisted along the Atlantic Coast 
of the United States, in Florida, and in Alabama (50 FR 4938; February 
4, 1985). For more information on previous Federal actions concerning 
the brown pelican, please refer to the proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9408).

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. Additionally, 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

[[Page 59445]]

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 nonbreeding birds as 
well. However, the information does indicate the broad distribution of 
the species and reflects the large global population estimate of more 
than 620,000 birds, which does not include previously delisted birds 
along the Atlantic coast of the United States, in Florida, or in 
Alabama (Service 2007a, pp. 44-45).

Gulf of Mexico Coast

    Mississippi.--Turcotte and Watts (1999, pp. 84-86) consider the 
brown pelican a permanent resident of the Mississippi coast, even 
though there are no records of nesting brown pelicans in Mississippi. 
Brown pelicans are currently not known to breed in Mississippi, but the 
annual Christmas Bird Counts have documented wintering brown pelicans 
in Mississippi since 1985 (National Audubon Society 2009, pp. 1-3). The 
most recent counts over the winter of 2008-2009 sighted 372 brown 
pelicans (National Audubon Society 2009, p. 3).
    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, pp. 1, 4). In 2007, there 
were 14 colonies that produced 24,085 fledglings with an average of 2.2 
fledglings per nest (LDWF 2008, pp. 3, 6).
    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 (a decrease of 31 percent from 
2005 to 2006). Fledgling production has increased 37.1 percent from 
2006 to 2007 (LDWF 2008, p. 5). Numbers of successful nests are not 
directly comparable to numbers of individuals in historic estimates 
because they do not account for immature or nonbreeding 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; LDWF 2008, 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, pp. 2-3). The most recent complete count of 
breeding birds in Texas occurred in 2008 and reported 6,136 pairs 
(Service 2009c). This number equates to 12,272 breeding birds, which is 
substantially greater than historical population estimates for Texas.
    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 conducted in March 1986 
along this same stretch of coast counted 2,270 birds, down from 4,250 
birds estimated in counts conducted between December 1979 and January 
1980 (Blankenship 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. A recent survey of colonial waterbirds at Laguna Madre de 
Tamaulipas did not locate brown pelicans (Pronatura and Audubon Texas 
2008), although brown pelicans were not sighted there during the 1986 
aerial surveys either (Blankenship 1987, Table 1). No other 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.

[[Page 59446]]

West Indies

    The West Indies refers to a crescent-shaped group of islands 
occurring in the Caribbean Sea consisting of the Bahamas, the Greater 
Antilles (including Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and 
Puerto Rico), and the Lesser Antilles (a group of island countries 
forming an arc from the U.S. Virgin Islands on its northwest end 
southeast to Grenada). 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, and Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 
275) estimated the West Indian population at 1,630 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.''
    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 
historical record of nesting.
    Anguilla, Montserrat, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Antigua.--Recent 
information presented in Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) reports 21 
breeding pairs in Anguilla, 14 in Montserrat, greater than 150 in 
Jamaica, 50 in the Bahamas, and 53 in Antigua.
    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 in 2002 found no breeding pelicans at one of the two 
sites surveyed in 2001. 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 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. Information provided by Puerto Rico's 
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources places population 
estimates in the same relative range as Collazo et al. (1998) with an 
average of 437 individuals found in aerial surveys conducted from 1996 
to 2004 (Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 2008, pp. 1, 
3), although it is not known if these were summer or winter surveys. 
Additionally, the U.S. Virgin Islands' Department of Planning and 
Natural Resources reports that about 300 nesting pairs have been 
counted in the U.S. Virgin Islands annually (Department of Planning and 
Natural Resources 2008, p. 1), a comparable number to that reported by 
Collazo et al. (1998). Finally, more recent information from Bradley 
and Norton (2009, p. 275) reports 265 breeding pairs in Puerto Rico and 
325 breeding pairs in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    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 to 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. More recent data from 
Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) estimates there to be 300 nesting 
pairs in 18 colonies in Cuba.
    Aruba.--Information provided by Veterinary Service of Aruba, the 
country's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; 27 U.S.T. 1087) Management Authority, 
estimates the breeding population on the island to be 20 pairs with a 
total population estimate of 60 individuals (Veterinary Service of 
Aruba 2008, p. 1).
    Summary of West Indies.--Although we do not have detailed 
information on brown pelicans throughout all of the islands of the West 
Indies, the distribution and abundance of current breeding colonies 
reported by Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42), van Halewyn and Norton (1984, 
pp. 174-175, 201), and Bradley and Norton (2009, p. 275) are all 
similar and in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 breeding pairs.

Caribbean and Atlantic Coasts of Mexico, Central America, 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 6,200 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 (Blankenship 
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 (Blankenship 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 (2006, pp. 144-
149) variously report

[[Page 59447]]

brown pelicans as: ``Common: high density, likely to be seen many 
places,'' ``Transient, present briefly as migrant,'' ``Resident, 
species present all year,'' and ``apparently secure in Belize.'' Brown 
pelicans are also reported in one reference as nesting on several cays 
(small, low islands composed largely of coral or sand), 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 the 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, 582 brown pelicans were counted in Panama 
(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 coastal wetlands of La 
Guajira. However, no estimate of numbers of breeding birds was given. 
Information provided by Colombia's Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas 
y Costeras (INVEMAR) report approximately 20 breeding pairs on the 
Caribbean coast of Colombia with additional migratory birds present 
(INVEMAR 2008).
    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 1,700 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 nonbreeding 
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 with population numbers likely in the 
range of 30,000 to 50,000 birds, based on the numbers presented above.

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 70,680 nesting pairs, which equates to 141,360 breeding 
birds (Anderson et al. 2007, p. 8). 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 Los 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). In 2007, brown pelicans in California nested 
on west Anacapa Island and Santa Barbara Island but did not nest on 
Prince Island (Burkett et al. 2007, p. 8). 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 3,100 
breeding pairs, the Gulf of California population is estimated at 
43,350 breeding pairs, and the mainland Mexico populations (including 
islands) is estimated to have 12,385 breeding pairs (Anderson et al. 
2007, p. 8). 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 
organochlorine pesticides (e.g., 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, pp. 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 nonbreeding 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 nonbreeding 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

[[Page 59448]]

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 Bolanos 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 150 nests found at Coiba Island in 1976 
(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. INVEMAR (2008) also report approximately 3,000 
breeding pairs known from the Pacific coast of Colombia, which 
represents approximately 6,000 birds and is consistent with estimates 
by Naranjo et al. (2006b).
    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 birds. Santander 
et al. (2006, pp. 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 from the 
report 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 (a temporary oscillation of the ocean-
atmosphere system) 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 with population numbers in the range of 65,000 to 200,000 
birds, not including an estimated 400,000 birds in Peru.

Summary--Global Distribution and Population Estimates

    As discussed above, currently listed brown pelican populations are 
widely distributed throughout the coast of the Gulf of Mexico from 
Mississippi to Texas and the coast of Mexico; along the Caribbean coast 
from Mexico south to Venezuela; along the Pacific Coast from British 
Columbia, Canada, south through Mexico into Central and South America; 
and in the West Indies. 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. For example, surveys conducted in different parts of the 
year may yield differing results due to migratory trends and breeding 
patterns. 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.
    During our 5-year status review of the brown pelican, we estimated 
the global listed brown pelican population based on the best available 
information at the time of the review, which included most but not all 
of the individual estimates given above. Although these estimates 
represented the best available information at the time of the review, 
because of the lack of standardization and major differences in 
determining population estimates, we used conservative assumptions in 
tabulating these data in order to make a conservative estimate of the 
global population size of the brown pelican (see Service 2007a, pp. 43-
45 and 60-62). Specifically, where only numbers of nests are known, the 
total number of nests was simply doubled to obtain an estimate of total 
population size for an area. This method likely underestimates the 
population size because there are likely to be unpaired or immature 
nonbreeders in the population. Additionally, where a population 
estimate found in the literature was a range of numbers, the lower 
number was used in calculating the global estimate. Population size is 
merely one factor in determining whether a species is recovered, and 
this approach assures we are making our determination in a manner that 
is protective of the species.
    This total, or global estimate, as given in our 5-year review, is 
for the listed brown pelican, which does not include the Atlantic coast 
of the United States, 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

[[Page 59449]]

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 United States, 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 
nonbreeders 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).
    Section 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of 
threatened and endangered species, unless we find that such a plan will 
not promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to 
the maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan: (1) 
Site-specific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the 
plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species; (2) 
objective, measurable criteria, which when met would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the list; and (3) estimates of 
the time required and cost to carry out the plan. However, revisions to 
the List (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect 
determinations made in accordance with section 4(a)(1) and 4(b). 
Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a species 
is threatened or endangered (or not) because of one or more of five 
threat factors. Therefore, recovery criteria must indicate when a 
species is no longer threatened or endangered by any of the five 
factors. In other words, objective, measurable criteria, or recovery 
criteria, contained in recovery plans must indicate when an analysis of 
the five threat factors under 4(a)(1) would result in a determination 
that a species is no longer threatened or endangered. Section 4(b) 
requires the determination made under section 4(a)(1) as to whether a 
species is threatened or endangered because of one or more of the five 
factors be based on the best available science.
    Thus, while recovery plans are 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, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulation 
required under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to remove a species from 
the list made under section 4(a)(1) must be based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available at the time of the 
determination, regardless of whether that information differs from the 
recovery plan.
    In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species, 
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be 
modified accordingly. 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, yet the Service 
may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently, 
and the species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from 
endangered to threatened or perhaps delist 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, planning, implementing, and 
evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not, 
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the 
direction and strategy for recovery, and indicates when a rulemaking 
process may be initiated, the determination to remove a species from 
the List is ultimately based on an analysis of whether a species is no 
longer threatened or endangered. 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 
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States, 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). This recovery plan also addressed brown pelicans in 
Alabama, Florida, and the Atlantic Coast of the United States, but 
because these populations have already been delisted, we only discuss 
the plan's objectives for the portion of the range that remained listed 
in Louisiana and Texas.
    The recovery plan states a general objective to reestablish 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. Since 2005, brown pelicans have 
nested at between 11 and 15 sites in Louisiana and at 12 sites in Texas 
(Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 1-4, 7-8; Service 2006, p. 2). These 
sites include some of the same sites identified in the recovery plan as 
well as previously unknown or newly colonized sites.
    The number and location of nesting sites has varied from year to 
year along the Gulf Coast due in part to frequent tropical storms, but 
generally meet the recovery plan goals for number of

[[Page 59450]]

nesting sites. 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 
supports 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 (593 individuals 
compared to 2,289). 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 relevant for determining whether the 
brown pelican is recovered globally. Of the two recovery criteria, the 
second criterion is the more appropriate to the evaluation of the 
status of the species 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. 
Moreover, data from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Department of Planning and 
Natural Resources 2008, p. 1) supports the Collazo et al. (2000, p. 42) 
numbers by estimating the brown pelican population there at about 300 
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, pp. 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 
subspecies' 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: (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 reclassification from endangered 
status to 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, the subspecies 
should be considered for delisting. 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, although productivity has 
improved greatly since the time of listing, the productivity criterion 
for delisting 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 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

[[Page 59451]]

reached, reproduction has been sufficient to maintain a stable 
population for more than 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 because current productivity is sufficient to maintain a 
viable population of brown pelicans. Please see responses to comments 6 
and 8 below for additional discussion of the productivity criterion.
    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 altogether. No subsequent 
revisions have been made to any of these original recovery plans. No 
single recovery plan covers the entire range of the species in the 
United States, and the remainder of the range outside the United 
States, including Central America, South America, and most of the West 
Indies is not covered by a recovery plan. 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 rule is based largely on the analysis of threats in our 
recently completed 5-year review (Service 2007a, pp. 1-66), available 
at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1039.pdf, and 
presented below.

Summary of Public and Peer Review Comments and Recommendations

    In our February 20, 2008 proposed rule, we requested all interested 
parties submit information, data, and comments concerning multiple 
aspects of the status of the brown pelican. The comment period was open 
from February 20, 2008, through April 21, 2008.
    In accordance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited opinions from eight expert scientists 
who are familiar with this species regarding pertinent scientific data 
and assumptions relating to supportive biological and ecological 
information for the proposed rule. Reviewers were asked to review the 
proposed rule and the supporting data, to point out any mistakes in our 
data or analysis, and to identify any relevant data that we might have 
overlooked. Four of the eight peer reviewers submitted comments. Three 
of those four were generally supportive of the proposal to remove the 
brown pelican from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered 
Species while the fourth reviewer did not offer an opinion. Their 
comments are included in the summary below and/or incorporated directly 
into this final rule.
    During the 60-day comment period, we received comments from 19 
individuals, organizations, and government agencies. We have read and 
considered all comments received. We updated the rule where it was 
appropriate, and we responded to all substantive issues received, 
below.

Peer Review Comments

    (1) Comment: The inclusion of brown pelicans on the List (Federal 
List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife) has provided us with a 
means of protecting habitat that has also protected many other species 
that share the marine habitat with the brown pelican. With this 
delisting, we will lose protections afforded to all these other marine 
species.
    Response: When making listing and delisting determinations, we are 
only to consider the best scientific and commercial information data in 
preparing the five-factor analysis. This analysis has us consider a 
variety of impacts to the species in question and the regulatory 
mechanisms that may mitigate those impacts, but does not allow us to 
consider impacts of listing and delisting on other species. However, 
brown pelicans will remain protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) and, as discussed below, 
numerous other mechanisms confer protections to the brown pelican and 
to other species and habitats that are not dependent on the protections 
afforded brown pelicans by the Endangered Species Act.
    (2) Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concerns over our global 
population estimate, specifically noting that the number reached is 
vague and speculative because a complete and coordinated survey for the 
entire species has never been done. Reviewers requested use of 
additional information if possible and, if not possible, inclusion of a 
more thorough justification for relying on the old and widely varying 
data in our global population estimate.
    Response: The Act directs that we use the best scientific and 
commercial data available in making our determinations. This rulemaking 
was initially prompted by a petition to delist the species (see the 
``Previous Federal Actions'' section of our proposed rule (February 20, 
2008; 73 FR 9408)). In order to fulfill our requirements to respond to 
the petition and complete the rulemaking process once begun, we are 
statutorily required to make a determination at this time based on the 
best scientific and commercial data currently available to us. We 
recognize that additional research and coordinated efforts would yield 
a more reliable and accurate global population estimate. We have used 
the best available scientific and commercial data in developing our 
global population estimate. However, we have not relied solely upon 
this estimate in making our determination that the brown pelican no 
longer warrants listing. This number is developed and presented in 
efforts to provide the reader a general estimate of the scale of the 
global population, allow comparisons with other available estimates, 
and provide a summary and conclusion of the various estimates provided. 
While the accuracy of the specific number cannot be determined due to 
differences in survey methodology and information quality, the relative 
scale of the number, in the hundreds of thousands, is useful in 
demonstrating the degree of recovery the species has acheived and the 
absence of significant threats to the species. We have expanded the 
discussion under the ``Summary--Global Population Estimate'' section to 
further explain our rationale in developing this estimate.
    (3) Comment: The discussion of the significance of the Puerto Rico 
brown

[[Page 59452]]

pelicans makes it seem that the Service is saying these birds are not 
important.
    Response: In evaluating the brown pelican and whether it continues 
to require regulatory protection under the Act, we have looked at the 
species from a range-wide perspective first. The species' population 
numbers have rebounded and threats have been removed or reduced to the 
point that protection under the Act is no longer needed range wide. 
Next, we assessed whether any population may be experiencing localized 
threats over a significant portion of the range of the pelican such 
that its loss would lead to the species as a whole being at a greater 
risk of extinction. As discussed in ``Significant Portion of the 
Range'' section below, we have determined that the Puerto Rico 
population does not warrant listing as a significant portion of the 
range of the species, although this analysis does not imply that any 
subspecies, population, or subpopulation of brown pelican is not 
important to the long-term conservation of the brown pelican. In 
addition, once the pelican is delisted, brown pelicans will remain 
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and numerous other 
mechanisms, as discussed below. We will continue working with the 
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources through the post-delisting 
monitoring process to monitor the status of the brown pelican in Puerto 
Rico.
    (4) Comment: A complete study of the genetics of the entire species 
would seem to be strongly warranted in order to further elucidate 
unique, small breeding populations.
    Response: We agree and encourage continued research on the brown 
pelican; however, we don't believe a full understanding of the genetics 
of each individual breeding population is required in order to make our 
delisting decision, especially in the face of decreased threats and 
increased conservation and management opportunities.
    (5) Comment: While population numbers confirm that delisting is the 
correct action, threats to the brown pelican still remain. There needs 
to be monitoring of the brown pelican and the marine environment post-
delisting.
    Response: Under section 4(g)(1) of the Act, we are required to 
monitor all species that have been recovered and delisted for at least 
5 years post-delisting. On September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50236), we 
announced the availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring plan 
for the brown pelican which we expect to finalize within a year. We do 
not anticipate any of the factors currently affecting the brown pelican 
to become a threat to the status of the species in the future; however, 
if at any time during the monitoring program, data indicate that the 
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    (6) Comment: A peer reviewer noted that the productivity criterion 
developed in the California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan was somewhat 
subjective and based on comparisons to brown pelican productivity 
elsewhere. Despite this problem, the peer reviewer notes that the 
overall conclusions reached in the proposed rule concerning these 
productivity criteria--that a significant recovery has occurred in the 
Southern California Bight--are reasonable and logical.
    Response: While recovery planning and the recovery criteria often 
included in recovery plans provide useful tangible benchmarks for the 
planning of conservation, the Act requires us to base listing and 
delisting assessments on the status of the species and an