Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AV28

FWS ID: [FWS-R2-ES-2008-0025; 92220-1113-0000-C6]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition finding.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: 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

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.

DOCUMENT 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 12month 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.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

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 http://www.regulations.gov before midnight (Eastern Standard Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. We will not accept comments sent by email 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 commentincluding your personal identifying informationon http://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 email 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 http://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. 45). 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. 136).

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. 2930) and by Palmer (1962, pp. 274276) is based on Wetmore's (1945, pp. 577586) 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. 91135, 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 90day and 12month 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 90day 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 12month status review of the California brown pelican to determine if delisting under the Act is warranted. This proposed rule constitutes our 12month finding for the petition to delist the California brown pelican.

On May 24, 2006, we also published a notice announcing initiation of a 5year 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 wideranging, 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 nonbreeding 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. 4445).

Gulf of Mexico Coast

MississippiBrown 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. 19). 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. 58), which coincides with Hurricane Katrina. However, in 2007, 334 brown pelicans were documented (GBBC 2007, p. 9).

LouisianaBefore 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 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) 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.

TexasBrown 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 8year 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. 35). Since then, the overall increasing trend has continued with some yeartoyear variation (Service 2006, p. 23). 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; http://www.sundownisland.org/default.htm), which is comparable to the number breeding there in 2005 (Service 2006, p. 2).

Gulf Coast of MexicoVery 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 CoastAlong 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. 224225) describe the brown pelican as ``A common yearround 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. 112113) 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. MaartenCollier 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 IslandsCollazo et al. (1998, pp. 63 64) compared demographic parameters between 198082 and 199295 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 120200 nesting pairs in Puerto Rico and 300350 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.

CubaAcostaCruz and MugicaVald[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 SabanaCamag[uuml]ey and in the Refugio de Fauna R[iacute]o M[aacute]ximo (AcostaCruz and MugicaVald[eacute]s 2006, pp. 3233). The number of nesting pairs at Refugio de Fauna R[iacute]o M[aacute]ximo was estimated at 1636 pairs during monitoring in 2001 and 2002 (AcostaCruz and MugicaVald[eacute]s 2006, p. 33). No estimates were given for other nesting sites. AcostaCruz 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 IndiesAlthough 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. 174175, 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.174175, 201) provided estimates for birds nesting in Cuba, but AcostaCruz and MugicaVald[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)).

MexicoIsla 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).

BelizeMiller and Miller (2006, pp. 7, 64) analyzed Christmas Bird Count data collected in Belize from 19692005 and reported that brown pelican numbers over this period have remained about the same. References compiled and summarized by Miller and Miller (pp. 144149) 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.

GuatemalaBrown 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.

HondurasThorn 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).

NicaraguaZolotoffPallais and Lezama (2006, p. 74) report that the number of brown pelicans within Nicaragua falls within the range 10015000 and is stable, although they do not indicate whether this estimate represents only breeding birds.

Costa RicaBrown 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).

PanamaBrown pelicans primarily nest in the Gulf of Panama on the Pacific coast with no nesting reported on the Caribbean coast (Angehr 2005, pp. 1516). 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.

ColombiaMoreno 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]]

VenezuelaBased 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 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 CoastIn 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. 2025). 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 125200 pairs were seen in 2002, 2003, and 2004 (Gress et al. 2005, pp. 2025).

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 longterm 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 MexicoHenny 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 NicaraguaBrown 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 1,00110,000 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). ZolotoffPallais and Lezama (2006, p. 74) report that the number of brown pelicans within Nicaragua falls within the range 1,0015,000, but do not indicate locations or breeding status.

Costa RicaThe 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 10,00025,000 birds with a stable population trend.

PanamaEstimates 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.''

ColombiaMoreno 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 2,0004,000 brown pelicans at Sanquianga on the mainland and 4,8005,200 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.

EcuadorOn 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).

PeruShields (2002, p. 22) summarizes estimates of brown pelicans in Peru at 420,000 adults in 19811982, 110,000 in 19821983, 620,000 in 19851986, 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.

ChileThe 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 19951996, 1,032 pairs in 19961997, and none during the 19971998 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 AmericaBrown pelicans are abundant breeders along the Pacific coast of Central and South America.

SummaryGlobal 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. 4345 and 6062). 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. 4345 and 6062). 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 5year 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 191,600193,700 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 100,0001,000,000 birds. Shields' (2002, p. 21) population estimate of 202,600209,000 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 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. 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. 14, 78). In 2006, nesting occurred at 15 sites that included the previously mentioned 11. Hurricanecaused 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 5year 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 19801982 (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. 6364) 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 305345 pairs for the U.S. Virgin Islands. While this estimate is not a 5year 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, selfsustaining 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 longterm protection of adequate food supplies and essential nesting, roosting, and offshore habitat throughout the subspecies' range; and (3) restoring population size and productivity to selfsustaining 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 5year 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 5year 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 5year period. Consideration for delisting would require a total production averaging at least 2,700 fledglings per year over any 5year 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 5year 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 preDDT 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 longterm colonization of Santa Barbara Island, which suggests that productivity has been sufficient to maintain a stabletoincreasing 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 SummaryThe 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 5year review (Service 2007a, pp. 166). This review is available at http://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 nonEndangered Species Act habitat protections, regulations affecting pesticide use and licensing, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, MagnusonStevens 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 10month cycles below 20 degrees north latitude (Shields 2002, p. 12). Brown pelicans usually breed on small, predatorfree 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. 1217). 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 offshore islands (Service 1983, pp. 56). 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. 421423), 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. 106108; 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. 106108; 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. 10971099; 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 likely to occur in the future. However, a large number of brown pelican nesting sites throughout the species' range are currently protected (see discussion below). In some cases, loss of mangrove habitat has been specifically cited. However, brown pelicans do not nest exclusively in mangroves, they may utilize other nesting substrates, and they readily colonize new nesting sites in response to changing habitat conditions. For example, Collazo et al. (1998, p. 63) documented the loss of one nesting site in Puerto Rico, but stated the belief that the pelicans relocated to a new nesting colony nearby (see also discussion of colonization of new sites under ``Storm effects, weather and erosion impacts to habitat''). Destruction of nesting habitat is likely to only affect brown pelicans on a local scale where nesting colonies overlap with coastal or mariculture development. In cases where nesting habitat destruction results in the loss of a nesting site, it is likely to be limited to a single season of lost reproduction because birds will likely disperse to other colonies or establish a new colony in a new location. Because numerous brown pelican nesting sites are protected, brown pelicans may relocate to new nesting sites if any unprotected sites are destroyed, and any loss of nesting habitat is likely to result in only limited loss of reproduction that will not affect population levels, we do not believe that habitat destruction currently threatens brown pelicans, nor do we believe it will it become a threat that endangers the brown pelican throughout all of its range in the foreseeable future.

Storm effects, weather and erosion impacts to habitat. Many nesting islands along the U.S. Gulf Coast have been impacted by wave action, storm surge erosion, and a lack of sediment deposition (McNease and Perry 1998, p. 9), resulting in loss or degradation of nesting habitat. Since 1998, nesting habitat east of the Mississippi River in Louisiana has undergone continual degradation or loss from tropical storms and hurricanes, resulting in a reduced number of successfully reared brown pelican young in this area (Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. 4). In 2003 and 2004, brown pelican nesting and reproduction was distributed approximately equally between areas east and west of the Mississippi River. After tropical storms in 2004, nesting habitat east of the Mississippi River was reduced, resulting in a shift to 95 percent of nesting and reproduction to west of the Mississippi River. In 2005, hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in approximately 349 km\2\ (217 mi\2\) of coastal land loss (Barras 2006, p. 4). This figure represents total coastal land loss, including interior marshes, and while a figure for loss of barrier islands would be a more appropriate measure of impacts to brown pelicans, we are not aware of any estimates for barrier island loss. While Louisiana's brown pelican nesting islands east of the Mississippi River were reduced by over 70 percent and what remains is vulnerable to overwash from future storm tides, at the time, these islands supported only about 5 percent of the total Louisiana population of brown pelicans (Hess and Linscombe 2006, pp. 3, 6; Harris 2006). Louisiana brown pelican nesting islands west of the Mississippi River, which accounted for 95 percent of the 2005 brown pelican breeding population, were degraded, but still supported the four main nesting colonies (Hess and Linscombe 2006, p. 5) (see discussion of nesting in Louisiana und

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 512/4900057, extension 248; fascimilie 512/4900974.