[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36000-36010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16981]
[[Page 35999]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 36000]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC48
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to
Reclassify the Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in All of the
Lower 48 States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service reclassifies under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from endangered to threatened in the lower
48 States. The bald eagle remains classified as threatened in Michigan,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington where it is currently
listed as threatened. The special rule for threatened bald eagles is
revised to include all lower 48 States. This action will not alter
those conservation measures already in force to protect the species and
its habitats. The bald eagle also occurs in Alaska and Canada, where it
is not at risk and is not protected under the Act. Bald eagles of
Mexico are not listed at this time due to a recently enacted moratorium
on listing additional taxa as threatened or endangered.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 4469-48th Avenue Court, Rock
Island, Illinois, 61201 and at the Division of Endangered Species, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Whipple Federal Building, Fort
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle
Recovery Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4469-48th Avenue
Court, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (309/793-5800).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Literally translated, Haliaeetus leucocephalus means white-headed
sea eagle. This large, powerful, brown bird with a white head and tail
is well known as our Nation's symbol. Young bald eagles are mostly dark
brown until they reach four to six years of age and may be confused
with the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The bald eagle is the only
sea eagle regularly occurring on the North American continent (American
Ornithologists' Union 1983). Its range extends from central Alaska and
Canada to northern Mexico.
The bald eagle is a bird of aquatic ecosystems (Gerrard and
Bortolotti 1988). It frequents estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs,
major rivers, and some seacoast habitats. However, such areas must have
an adequate food base, perching areas, and nesting sites to support
bald eagles. In winter, bald eagles often congregate at specific
wintering sites that are generally close to open water and that offer
good perch trees and night roosts. Bald eagle habitats encompass both
public and private lands.
The bald eagle was first described in 1766 as Falco leucocephalus
by Linnaeus. This South Carolina bird was later renamed as the southern
bald eagle, subspecies Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus
(Linnaeus), when, in 1897, Townsend identified the northern bald eagle
as Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus (American Ornithologists' Union
1957). These two subspecific names were in use when the southern bald
eagle (arbitrarily declared to occur south of the 40th parallel) was
listed (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967) as endangered under the Endangered
Species Protection Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc). By the time the
bald eagle was listed (43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978) for the entire
lower 48 States, the subspecies were no longer recognized by
ornithologists.
The bald eagle historically ranged throughout North America except
extreme northern Alaska and Canada and central and southern Mexico.
Bald eagles nested on both coasts from Florida to Baja California, in
the south, and from Labrador to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska,
in the north. In many of these areas they were abundant.
Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988) describe early population trends as
follows. When Europeans first arrived on the North American continent,
there were an estimated one-quarter to one-half million bald eagles.
The first major decline in the bald eagle population probably began in
the mid to late 1800's. It coincided with declines in numbers of
waterfowl and shorebirds and other major prey species. Direct eagle
killing was also prevalent, and, coupled with loss of nesting habitat,
these factors reduced bald eagle numbers until the 1940's.
In 1940, the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) was passed.
This law prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer
to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald
eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed
by permit. Take includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill,
capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb.
The Bald Eagle Protection Act and increased public awareness of the
bald eagle resulted in a partial recovery or a slower decline of the
species in most areas of the country. However, persecution continued,
notably in Alaska, which was exempted from the Bald Eagle Protection
Act and maintained a bounty on bald eagles. In 1952, after lengthy
studies demonstrated that bald eagles were not affecting salmon
numbers, Alaska was no longer exempted.
Shortly after World War II, the use of dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) and other organochlorine compounds became
widespread. Initially, DDT was sprayed extensively along coastal and
other wetland areas to control mosquitos (Carson 1962). Later it was
used as a general insecticide. As DDT accumulated in individual bald
eagles from ingesting contaminated food, the species' reproduction
plummeted. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, it was determined that
dichlorophenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE), the principal breakdown product
of DDT, accumulated in the fatty tissues of the adult females and
impaired calcium release that is necessary for egg shell formation,
thus inducing thin shells and reproductive failure.
In response to the decline following World War II, the Secretary of
the Interior, on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), listed bald eagles south
of the 40th parallel as endangered under the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of 1966. The northern bald eagle was not included in
that action primarily because the Alaskan and Canadian populations were
not considered endangered in 1967. On December 31, 1972, DDT was banned
from use in the United States.
In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was
passed. Among other provisions, it allowed the listing of distinct
populations of animal species and the addition of a new category of
``threatened.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. A threatened species is defined as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
[[Page 36001]]
A nationwide bald eagle survey by the Service and a number of other
agencies and conservation groups in 1974 revealed that, in parts of the
northern half of the lower 48 States, bald eagle populations and
reproductive success were lower than in certain southern areas. In
1978, the Service listed the bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (no
subspecies referenced) throughout the lower 48 States as endangered
except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where
it was designated as threatened (43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978).
Restoring endangered and threatened animals and plants to the point
where they are again viable, self-sustaining members of their
ecosystems is the main goal of the Endangered Species Act. Thus, the
Act contains recovery, as well as listing and protection, provisions.
To effect recovery, section 4(f) of the Act provides for the
development and implementation of recovery plans for listed species.
According to the Act, a recovery plan is a plan for the conservation
and survival of the species. It identifies, describes, and schedules
the actions necessary to restore endangered and threatened species to a
more secure biological condition.
In establishing a recovery program for the species in the mid-
1970's, the Service divided the bald eagles of the lower 48 States into
five recovery regions, based on geographic location. A recovery plan
was prepared for each region by separate recovery teams composed of
species experts in each geographic area. The teams set forth goals for
recovery and identified tasks to achieve those goals. Coordination
meetings were held regularly among the five teams to exchange data and
other information. The five recovery regions and the dates of their
approved recovery plans are as follows: Chesapeake Bay (1982, revised
1990), Pacific (1986), Southeastern (1984, revised 1989), Northern
States (1983), and Southwestern (1982). The Northern States plan is
under revision and is expected to be available for public review within
the next six months. Many of the tasks described within these recovery
plans have been funded and carried out by the Service and other
Federal, State, and private organizations. Annual expenditures for the
recovery and protection of the bald eagle by public and private
agencies have exceeded $1 million each year for the past decade
(Service files).
In the 17 years since it was listed throughout the conterminous 48
States, the bald eagle population has clearly increased in number and
expanded in range. The improvement is a direct result of the banning of
DDT and other persistent organochlorines, habitat protection, and from
other recovery efforts. In 1963, a National Audubon Society survey
reported only 417 active nests in the lower 48 States, with an average
of 0.59 young produced per active nest. In 1994, about 4,450 occupied
breeding areas were reported by the States with an estimated average
young per occupied territory (for 4110 territories) of 1.17. Compared
to 1974, the number of occupied breeding areas in the lower 48 States
has increased by 462 percent, and since 1990, there has been a 47
percent increase. The species is doubling its breeding population every
6-7 years since the late 1970's.
Table 1.--Number of Bald Eagle Pairs Counted in Lower 48 States, 1963-
1994
[Missing years indicate incomplete data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963......................................................... 417
1974......................................................... 791
1981......................................................... 1188
1984......................................................... 1757
1986......................................................... 1875
1988......................................................... 2475
1989......................................................... 2680
1990......................................................... 3020
1991......................................................... 3391
1992......................................................... 3747
1993......................................................... 4016
1994......................................................... 4452
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act requires periodic review of the status of listed species.
When the status of the bald eagle was reviewed the Service recognized
the achievement of specific recovery plan reclassification goals. As a
result of this review, the Service issued the proposed rule for
reclassification to threatened status in all or portions of four
recovery regions and proposed classification of those eagles in Mexico
as endangered (59 FR 35584, July 12, 1994). The current action
finalizes the reclassification to threatened for all five recovery
regions where not already so listed but excludes the bald eagles of
Mexico due to a recently imposed moratorium on new listings (PL 104-6,
109 Stat 73, April 10, 1995).
The five bald eagle recovery plans were first approved in the early
1980's. The biological basis for the recovery goals is described in
each recovery plan. The five recovery regions are illustrated on the
following map:
BILLINB CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 36002]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR12JY95.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
A summary follows of each recovery region's reclassification and
delisting goals, an estimation of progress to date in achieving those
goals, and final Service action. The term ``occupied territories''
indicates that a pair of bald eagles has established a breeding
territory and a nest site but was not necessarily successful in
producing young. ``Young'' or ``young produced'' are fledged young. All
numbers are based upon known eagle nests and are not estimates.
Surveys, particularly those before the late 1970's, miss some pairs, so
all figures are considered to be minimums.
Chesapeake Recovery Region
Reclassification Goals: Sustaining 175-250 breeding pairs with a
productivity level of 1.1 young per active nest, concurrent with
sustained progress in habitat protection measures.
Delisting Goals: Sustaining 300-400 pairs with an average
productivity of 1.1 young per active nest over five years with
permanent protection of sufficient habitat to support this nesting
population and enough roosting and foraging habitat to support
population levels commensurate with increases throughout the Atlantic
coastal area.
Progress to Date: 356 occupied territories and 1.1 young per
occupied territory reported in 1994. Progress in habitat protection has
been sustained and additional habitat is being protected. There have
been in excess of 175 known occupied breeding areas since 1988; 1992
was the first year in which there were more than 300. Reclassification
goals have been met, and delisting goals have been met for three of the
required five years.
Service Action: Reclassify to threatened.
Northern Recovery Region
Reclassification Goals: No goal for reclassification to threatened
status in present plan.
Delisting Goals: 1,200 occupied breeding areas distributed over a
minimum of 16 States with an average annual productivity of at least
1.0 young per occupied nest.
Progress to Date: In 1994, there were 1772 known occupied
territories distributed over 21 States with an estimated 1.26 young per
occupied territory (based upon the 1473 territories included in
productivity surveys). Productivity was 1.00 in 1990, 0.97 in 1991,
1.01 in 1992, and 0.95 in 1993. (Productivity is estimated from
incomplete surveys for Wisconsin and Minnesota in 1992 and 1993.
Productivity data are also incomplete from Wisconsin in 1990 and 1991;
partial productivity surveys were conducted during those years).
Delisting
[[Page 36003]]
goals have been met for occupied breeding areas and for productivity.
Service Action: Reclassify to threatened; the species will remain
threatened in the three States where it has had that status. The
recovery plan describes the delisting goals as initial and tentative.
The Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team has reconvened for the
purpose of reviewing and updating the plan, and currently is critically
reviewing the delisting goals.
Pacific Recovery Region
Reclassification Goals: Nesting populations continue to increase
annually for the five years beginning with the 1986 nesting season.
Delisting Goals: A minimum of 800 nesting pairs with an average
reproductive rate of 1.0 fledged young per pair with an average success
rate per occupied site of not less than 65% over a 5-year period.
Attainment of breeding population goals should be met in at least 80%
of management zones. Wintering populations should be stable or
increasing.
Progress to Date: In 1994, 1192 occupied territories were reported
with 1.03 young per occupied territory. The number of occupied
territories has consistently increased since 1986 and exceeded 800 for
5 years beginning in 1990 when 861 were reported. Productivity has
averaged about 1.03 since 1990. Nesting targets for 37 specified
management zones have been reached in 57 percent of the zones. In 1994,
21 of those zones had met or exceeded their recovery goals, and 5 other
zones in addition to the original 37 had nesting eagles that are not
part of the recovery goals for this region. Reclassification goals have
been met. Delisting goals have been met in all categories except
distribution in zones with nesting targets.
Service Action: Reclassify to threatened in California, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming; the species will remain threatened in
Washington and Oregon.
Southeastern Recovery Region
Reclassification Goals: 600 occupied breeding areas distributed
over at least 75 percent of the historical range contingent upon
greater than 0.9 young per occupied nest, greater than 1.5 young per
successful nest, and at least 50 percent of the nests successful in
raising at least one young; based on a 3-year average and documentation
of population vigor and adequate support habitat. Individual State
goals are given.
Delisting Goals: Delisting may be considered if the recovery trend
continues for five years after reclassification goals are met. The
criteria for delisting will be developed when the species is
reclassified from endangered to threatened.
Progress to Date: 1099 occupied territories were reported with an
average of 1.27 young per occupied territory (based upon 1059
territories) in 1994. Nesting is distributed over all 11 Southeastern
States. The number of occupied territories reached 601 in 1991 and has
exceeded 600 for four successive years. Reproductive success for the
years 1990-1994 averaged 1.47 young per occupied territory. All
individual State goals have been met with Florida and South Carolina
doubling their original goals. Existing habitat is deemed to be
adequate to achieve and exceed overall recovery plan goals.
Reclassification goals have been met and delisting goals as stated may
be met next year.
Service Action: Reclassify to threatened.
Southwestern Recovery Region
Reclassification Goals: 10-12 young per year over a 5-year period;
population range has to expand to include one or more river drainages
in addition to the Salt and Verde Systems.
Delisting Goals: None given.
Progress to Date: 30 occupied breeding areas were reported for 1994
with 21 young produced. Some of the increase in the Southwestern Region
is due to finding previously unrecorded nest sites which may or may not
be new. Ten or more young have been produced every year since 1981.
Productivity has increased 10-20 percent through the assistance of the
Arizona Nest Watch program (Hunt et al. 1992).
Breeding has expanded beyond the Salt and Verde River systems.
Eagles are now nesting in the Gila, Bill Williams, and most recently,
the San Carlos river systems in Arizona, and the Rio Grande in New
Mexico. Thus, the reclassification criteria have been fully met.
Information received in response to the proposed rule indicates that
the bald eagles of central Arizona are not reproductively isolated, as
was previously believed. Commentors also pointed out that bald eagles
were likely never abundant in this arid land. Though many unique
threats persist, trends of this population segment appears stable or
increasing.
Service Action: Reclassify to Threatened
In summary, the Service is reclassifying the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened in the Chesapeake, Southeastern, and
Southwestern Recovery Regions and in those portions of the Northern
States and Pacific Recovery Regions where it is currently classified as
endangered. The Service is not delisting the bald eagle anywhere in the
lower 48 States at this time.
At this time the Service is deferring further action on listing the
bald eagles of northern Mexico as threatened or endangered. Provisions
included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions
for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance Military
Readiness Act of 1995 (Publ. Law 104-6, 109 Stat 73; April 10, 1995)
preclude the listing of taxa as threatened or endangered species during
the remainder of fiscal year 1995. The bald eagles of northern Mexico
will retain their status as species proposed for listing as threatened
or endangered until the Service takes additional action.
Previous Federal Action
On February 7, 1990, the Service published an Advance Notice of a
Proposed Rule (55 FR 4209) to announce that consideration was being
given to the possible reclassification or delisting of the bald eagle
in all or part of its range in the lower 48 States. A summary of those
comments and Service responses to them were provided in the proposed
rule of July 12, 1994 (59 FR 35584).
On July 12, 1994, the Service published the proposed rule to
reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in most of the
lower 48 States (59 FR 35584). Comments were requested by October 11,
1994. Newspaper notices were published on or about July 18, 1994, in
papers of major cities or State capitals throughout the lower 48
States. Notification letters were sent to each State resource agency,
major Federal agencies, major public conservation organizations, and
all parties who submitted comments in response to the 1990 Notice.
Eight written requests were received for public hearings. Two public
hearings were held, and to accommodate them the comment period was
extended to November 9, 1994 (59 FR 49908, September 30, 1994).
On March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15280) the Service published the
announcement to reopen the comment period for 30 days due to the
existence of substantial additional information concerning the possible
inclusion of the Southwestern Bald Eagle Recovery Region in the
reclassification. The reopened comment period was announced by a news
release, and newspaper notices were published on or about March 24,
1995, in the Washington Post and major newspapers of the Southwest.
[[Page 36004]]
Notification letters were sent to all commentors on the proposed rule,
State resource agencies, major Federal agencies, and major public
conservation organizations. In addition, a public information meeting
was held on April 3, 1995, in Phoenix, Arizona.
Summaries of Public Hearings, Comments, and Recommendations
The first public hearing was held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, October 18, 1994, at the Somerset County Park Commission
Environmental Education Center, 190 Lord Stirling Road, Basking Ridge,
New Jersey. This hearing was held in response to requests from citizens
living in Delaware and Rhode Island. The location was deemed to be
centrally located for interested parties in both States. Notice of the
public hearing was announced in local and regional newspapers. Four
people attended this hearing and all provided comments. Major issues
discussed included contaminants, particularly those associated with
Delaware Bay, concern for low bald eagle breeding numbers in certain
areas, recovery region boundaries, and scientific take permits.
The second public hearing was held from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, October 25, 1994, at St. Michael's Chapter House, Window Rock,
Arizona. The hearing was held in response to requests from the Navajo
Nation and representatives of Apache County, Arizona. Notice of the
public hearing was published in local and regional newspapers. Five
people attended this hearing and three people provided comments. Major
issues discussed included take permits, Southwestern Recovery Region
boundaries, and support for retaining the endangered status in the
Southwestern Recovery Region.
Comments on the proposed rule were received from 72 parties
including those attending the public hearings. Twenty-two State
resource agencies responded to the proposed rule, of which 14 supported
reclassification, three recommended the Southwestern Recovery Region be
reclassified to threatened, one recommended bald eagles in its State be
delisted, two did not object to reclassification but stated that they
would retain State endangered status, and one provided comments, but
gave no position.
Eighteen commentors represented organizations. Of these, ten stated
support for the proposal, four recommended against the proposed rule,
and two requested additional information.
Nineteen individuals provided comments, two of which provided
surveys covering 157 people. Most individuals recommended against
reclassification and several provided comments.
In response to the reopened comment period beginning March 23,
1995, the Service received 18 additional comments. Six State resource
agencies responded with five of them supporting reclassification of the
Southwestern Recovery Region and one requested delisting for a northern
State. Four Federal entities responded. Three did not object to the
reclassification, but two of those provided comments. One Federal
entity requested the bald eagles of Mexico be listed as endangered. Two
organizations opposed reclassification of the Southwestern bald eagles,
as did two individuals. A third individual expressed opposition to any
reduction of eagle protection. Three parties requested additional
information but provided no comments.
Written comments received during the comment periods and oral
statements presented at the public hearing are discussed in the
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into
general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are
discussed below.
Issue 1: The bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region should
be reclassified to threatened because recovery goals were met, genetic
evidence does not indicate this population segment to be unique, and
there is recent evidence of immigration.
Service Response: The Service has reviewed this issue, and due to
the new evidence of immigration, reopened the comment period to alert
the public to the new data and to reconsider whether or not this
population segment is distinct and if it should also be reclassified to
threatened. In considering the comments and information received, the
Service has determined the Southwestern Recovery Region to be part of
the same bald eagle population as that of the remaining lower 48
States. Therefore, the Service has included it in the reclassification.
In 1994, a new pair of nesting bald eagles was discovered in the White
Mountains at Luna Lake near Alpine, Arizona, bordering New Mexico. The
male of this pair was trapped, and its band revealed that it had
hatched in 1988 in southeastern Texas, south of Houston. This is the
first known bald eagle to breed within Arizona's boundaries that
originated in a different State and in a different recovery region
(Southeastern).
Mabie et al. (1994) provides additional evidence of inter-
population movements. Based on sight records, the authors believe that
bald eagles fledged in Texas may enter breeding populations throughout
the southern United States. Emigration of Texas-fledged eagles may also
extend into Mexico (Driscoll, et al. 1993).
Though Hunt et al. (1992) suggested that the central Arizona
population may be reproductively isolated, that publication also stated
that, ``neither enzyme electrophoresis nor DNA fingerprinting resolved
any specific genetic markers from which Arizona eagles could be
differentiated from those of other populations * * *.; Both techniques
showed higher levels of genetic heterozygosity in the Arizona samples
than the other populations tested * * *, [and] * * * these healthy
levels of variation imply that the Arizona eagles are not currently
experiencing inbreeding problems and may be capable of adapting to
future environmental change. This, together with the occupancy and
reproductive data, suggests that the population may be viable over the
long term * * *'' and that, in spite of the smaller size of the Arizona
eagles, ``We were unable to show a quality of uniqueness among the
Arizona eagles that implies the existence of adaptations to the desert
environment * * *''
Thus, based on new information on immigration and previously known
genetic data, the Service believes this population is not
reproductively isolated and should be included with the
reclassification of the lower 48 States population.
Issue 2: Delisting goals have been met or exceeded in many cases.
The bald eagle should be delisted in States where it has fully
recovered.
Response: In 1978, the Service recognized separate population
segments of this species primarily on the basis of State boundaries,
with bald eagles in five northern and Pacific States listed as
threatened, and those in the remainder of the lower 48 States listed as
endangered. The distinctiveness of these population segments is
questionable, given the dispersal capabilities of the species across
state lines. For the purposes of this rule, the Service recognizes only
one population in the lower 48 States, although the five recovery
regions remain valid for management purposes. Thus, delisting will only
be considered for the listed bald eagle population as a whole and not
on a State by State or recovery region basis. Delisting goals have only
been met for the Northern States Recovery Region and these goals were
developed and approved as ``tentative.'' Two recovery plans, those for
the
[[Page 36005]]
Southwestern and the Southeastern Recovery Regions, have not yet
established delisting goals. These three plans are currently being
updated and revised, with emphasis on developing biologically sound
delisting goals. Delisting goals for the remaining regions are very
close to being met.
Issue 3: The number of occupied territories in several States or
all the lower 48 States is too low to consider reclassification.
Response: Reclassification and delisting criteria were developed by
experts in bald eagle biology in all five recovery regions. The
reclassification criteria were met for all five recovery regions in the
lower 48 States. Each recovery plan included the number and
distribution of occupied territories and productivity as factors in
recovery and reclassification. The bald eagle has never been uniformly
distributed, and there is no biological reason to require a more even
distribution of the species as a precursor to reclassification. The
Service believes that, in the unlikely event of a catastrophe
decimating a State's bald eagle population, pioneering eagles from
other States would likely venture into the unoccupied habitats within a
short time.
Issue 4: The Service should not proceed with reclassification until
certain additional studies are conducted.
Service Response: The Endangered Species Act does not require that
the Service know the answers to all outstanding biological questions
before declaring the bald eagle to be recovering and worthy of
reclassification to threatened status. Reclassification is based on
criteria set forth in the recovery plans; those criteria are set at a
level which is believed to be sufficiently high so that relisting as
endangered will not be necessary in the foreseeable future. The plans
were developed by the Nation's bald eagle experts and approved by the
Service. Additional studies are not deemed necessary for
reclassification.
Issue 5: Contaminants continue to depress reproduction and the prey
base in many bald eagle nesting areas. Development continues to
encroach on bald eagle habitat. Low level military aircraft flights may
affect bald eagle reproduction. Many questions related to these factors
remain unanswered.
Response: Even States which are known to have localized areas of
contamination or development pressures have experienced increased
numbers of occupied territories in the past 10 years. Achieving the
reclassification criteria does not mean that all the threats are gone;
rather, it means that the species is doing much better than when it was
listed as endangered. The reclassification will not alter those
conservation measures already in force to protect the species and its
habitats. Since these pressures are expected to continue, all levels of
government and the public will need to continue to work toward
protection of important bald eagle habitat.
Issue 6: More bald eagles will be shot and killed if they are
reclassified to threatened status.
Response: Shooting bald eagles is illegal under the Endangered
Species Act regardless of whether they are classified as threatened or
endangered. Bald eagles are also protected from shooting by the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Issue 7: The bald eagles of the Channel Islands off California were
once part of the Southwest and Mexican population segment. They were
extirpated due to DDT exposure and have since been reintroduced.
Reproduction remains low due to lingering contaminants. These birds
should be classified as endangered.
Response: The Channel Island eagles are not a genetically unique
population segment as they have recently been reintroduced to that
area. The Service has also recognized the Southwestern population
segment as not being reproductively isolated and, having met the
reclassification criteria, is reclassified to threatened. Possible
inclusion of the bald eagles of the Channel Islands with the
Southwestern Recovery Region will be considered during the recovery
plan updating and revision.
Issue 8: Bald eagles in western States should not be reclassified
due to mortality from animal damage control methods.
Response: Animal damage control methods, such as M-44 sodium
cyanide devices and zinc phosphide, if used legally and according to
label instructions, pose low potential for poisoning bald eagles.
Illegal use of carbofuran and other highly toxic chemicals on bait for
predator control has resulted in a number of eagle mortalities. Such
actions are illegal now, and will remain illegal following
reclassification of the bald eagle. Western States and their respective
recovery regions have met reclassification goals in spite of these
localized mortalities.
Issue 9: The Service should prepare an environmental impact
statement under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) based on
increased permitted take that will result as land use changes occur on
public lands.
Service Response: Reclassification will not increase permitted take
of bald eagles due to land use changes occurring on public lands. Take
permits are only issued for activities that promote recovery goals or
for activities that incidentally take endangered or threatened species
during the course of otherwise legal activities. The Service is
required to consider NEPA compliance prior to deciding whether to issue
each take permit. Habitat protective mechanisms remain the same under
the Endangered Species Act whether a species is in the endangered or
threatened status. In addition, the take prohibitions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will remain in
effect following reclassification.
Issue 10: The most current scientific information should be used
for this reclassification based on the National Environmental Policy
Act requirements.
Service Response: The Endangered Species Act requires the use of
the best scientific and commercial data when making a determination to
list, delist, or reclassify a species. Annual bald eagle survey data
collected primarily by State and Federal biologists is compiled
nationwide each year by the Service. In addition, many university,
State, and Federal life history studies have been completed and others
are on-going. Furthermore, there have been two public comment periods
following the proposed reclassification notice, and one comment period
subsequent to the 1990 Advance Notice. These comment periods provided
opportunities for submission of additional data to the Service. The
Service considered all relevant data in regards to achieving recovery
plan goals, and believes the best available scientific data were used
in determining that reclassification is warranted for the bald eagle.
National Environmental Policy Act compliance is discussed at the end of
this document.
Issue 11: The bald eagle should not be rushed into reclassification
for political considerations, and it should be fully recovered before
reclassification occurs.
Service Response: The Endangered Species Act requires periodic
review of the status of listed species. The listing status should
accurately reflect the biological status. Fully recovered implies that
the species is no longer likely to become an endangered species and is
candidate for delisting. The Act does not require that a species be
fully recovered prior to reclassification to threatened status. Rather,
a species must no longer be in danger of extinction for it to be
reclassified from endangered to
[[Page 36006]]
threatened status. The Service used only biological information in
determining to reclassify the bald eagle; political considerations were
not a factor in the decision.
Issue 12: The Service acknowledges a high level of mortality due to
illegal use of pesticides, yet states that pesticides in recent times
have not impacted the bald eagle on a population level. How high is
this mortality?
Service Response: The Service, with this rule, recognizes only one
population of bald eagles in the lower 48 States and five recovery
areas. Although full recovery may be faster if the Service were able to
reduce all forms of mortality, the population and all management zones
clearly have experienced significant improvement since completion of
the recovery plans. The Service is using all available tools to
minimize mortality to bald eagles from legal and illegal use of
pesticides. Estimates of mortalities from illegal pesticide use cannot
accurately be made, as many cases remain unreported.
Issue 13: The remnant population of Baja California, Mexico, bald
eagles and possibly those of Sonora, Mexico, should be classified as
endangered.
Service Response: The recent moratorium on listing new species
prevents us from including the bald eagles of Mexico in this rule (PL
104-6, April 10, 1995). However, Mabie, et al. (1994) indicates the
possibility that bald eagles of Texas may be emigrating to Sonora and
other areas in the southwest. The numbers of nesting bald eagles in
Baja, though low, appear stable. Current information does not indicate
the bald eagles of Mexico are a distinct population, and thus may not
warrant a separate listing as endangered. Following removal of the
listing moratorium, all available data will be re-examined prior to
making a final determination on Mexican bald eagles.
Issue 14: Recently, several bald eagles have died in Arkansas and
Wisconsin from unknown causes.
Service Response: In the winter of 1994-95, 29 bald eagles died in
Arkansas and 9 died in Wisconsin from unknown causes. Infectious
disease has been ruled out as a likely cause. It is believed that the
Arkansas mortalities were caused by a toxic agent different from that
of Wisconsin. These mortalities are too few in number to impact
recovery. Although it is disturbing that the agents have not yet been
identified, the causes of these deaths do not appear to be common
diseases which might spread widely to other eagles.
Issue 15: The new information regarding the successful nesting at
Luna Lake, Arizona, which included a male from southeast Texas, does
not constitute definitive proof that genetic interaction occurs between
desert nesting bald eagle populations and wintering populations. The
Service should retain the endangered status for these southwestern bald
eagles.
Service Response: The significance of the Luna Lake nesting pair
was that the male was documented as originating in a different recovery
region, i.e. the Southeastern Recovery Region. This supported existing
genetic data indicating the southwestern birds are not experiencing
inbreeding problems. We are not aware of Arizona nesting birds
interbreeding with wintering birds, although it is possible that a
wintering bird might replace the lost mate of a pair. Though many
threats remain, the Southwestern eagles have far exceeded the criteria
for threatened status as outlined in the Southwestern Recovery Plan.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, the Service has determined that the bald eagle should be
classified as a threatened species throughout the lower 48 States.
Procedures found in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations implementing the provisions of the
Act (50 CFR Part 424) were followed. A species may be determined to be
listed or reclassified as threatened or endangered due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These five factors
and their application to the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are
as follows.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The bald eagle is associated with aquatic ecosystems throughout
most of its range. Nesting almost never occurs farther than 3 km (2
miles) from water (Gerrard and Bortolotti 1988). Fish predominate in
the typical diet of eagles. Many other types of prey are also taken,
including waterfowl and small mammals, depending on location, time of
year, and population cycles of prey species. Dead animals or carrion,
especially in the wintering areas, are also taken when available
(Lincer et al. 1979).
Nest sites are usually in large trees along shorelines in
relatively remote areas. The trees must be sturdy and open to support a
nest that is often 2-3 m (6-9 ft) across and more than a meter (3 ft)
thick (Bent 1938). Bald eagles also select cliffs or rock outcrops for
nest sites where large trees are not available. This dependence upon
very large trees associated with water makes the eagle vulnerable to
water-associated development pressures.
One of the two major threats to the bald eagle at present and for
the foreseeable future is destruction and degradation of its habitat
(the other major threat is environmental contaminants--see Factor E
below). This occurs through direct cutting of trees for shoreline
development, human disturbance associated with recreational use of
shorelines and waterways, and contamination of waterways from point and
non-point sources of pollution.
Steps to reduce these threats are underway by all levels of
government and numerous private conservation organizations nationwide.
Increased protection of nesting habitat and winter roost sites has
occurred in many areas throughout the country. Guidelines to minimize
human disturbance around nesting and winter roost sites have been
developed in all parts of the country. Areas of contamination continue
to be identified and reduced. Rehabilitation, captive propagation,
reintroduction, and transplanting programs have all worked toward
increasing the viability of the U.S. bald eagle population.
Current threats to the bald eagle's habitat and range in the United
States by recovery region are as follows:
Chesapeake Bay Region--Buehler et al. (1991) reported that the bald
eagle feeding and resting use of Chesapeake Bay shoreline was directly
related to the distance of development from the shoreline. Eagles
tended to avoid shorelines with nearby pedestrian or boat traffic. With
human activity and development increasing, preferred bald eagle habitat
is diminishing. Associated land clearing reduces bald eagle nesting and
perching sites.
To offset these impacts, the Service has expanded its National
Wildlife Refuge System around the Chesapeake Bay area to protect bald
eagle habitat. For example, the Service acquired 3,500 acres of nesting
and roosting habitat in the James River area of Chesapeake Bay in 1991
to be protected and managed for bald eagles. Acquisition of an
additional 600 acres is planned. The Blackwater National Wildlife
Refuge, which provides important eagle habitat on Chesapeake Bay, is
also proposing to acquire more land. Nickerson (1989) estimates that
enough suitable unoccupied nesting habitat remains that, if unaltered,
it could sustain continued growth of the bald eagle population through
the remainder of the 20th century.
[[Page 36007]]
Northern States Recovery Region--Development, particularly near
urban areas, remains a primary threat. In spite of these localized
problems, bald eagle nesting activity in the Northern States Recovery
Region has more than doubled in the past 10 years from fewer than 700
to nearly 1,800 territories known to be occupied. There also is ample
unoccupied habitat still available throughout this region.
In the Great Plains States, loss of wintering habitat is a major
concern. Wintering areas have been lost through development of riparian
areas for recreational, agricultural, and urban uses. Loss of wintering
habitat also occurs due to lack of cottonwood regeneration. This
results from changes in floodplain hydrology from construction of
reservoirs and dam operations. Grazing also inhibits regeneration. A
threat to some wintering populations of eagles in the Great Plains
States is the destruction of prairie dog colonies and other important
foraging areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992).
However, management measures, reforestation, improved water
quality, and a reduction in pesticide contamination (see factor E
below) have enabled the Northern States bald eagle populations to
increase substantially overall. Where reservoirs may adversely affect
woody riparian growth, they have provided additional forage base for
eagles. Much eagle nesting and wintering habitat is on publicly owned
lands. Many of these lands are protected by habitat management plans
and strict eagle nest protection and management guidelines.
Pacific Recovery Region--Development-related habitat loss continues
to be a major factor limiting the abundance and distribution of the
species in the Pacific Recovery Region. Habitat conservation efforts,
including laws and management practices by Federal and State agencies
and efforts by private organizations, have helped to facilitate bald
eagle population increases in the Pacific Recovery Region since the
1960's. For example, interagency working teams in six of the seven
Pacific Recovery Region States have developed implementation plans to
address local issues more specifically than the recovery plan. Bald
eagle habitat guidelines have also been incorporated into development
covenants and land use. California and Washington have rules relating
to bald eagles on private lands to encourage landowners to maintain
nesting territory habitat.
Southeastern Recovery Region--The accelerated pace of development
activities within eagle habitat and the extensive area involved are the
most significant limiting factors in the Southeastern Region. The
cumulative effects of many water development projects impinge on the
ability to maintain current nesting populations and ultimately may
limit the extent to which recovery may occur.
To reduce these threats, habitat management guidelines are used to
minimize development disturbance in and around nests. Several counties
and municipalities have adopted the guidelines in their land use and
zoning policies. In addition, a significant amount of new habitat has
been created in the form of manmade reservoirs. Reservoirs primarily
provide wintering and non-nesting habitat, but are used by nesting
eagles as well (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989).
In addition, many of the States have, or have had, active
reintroduction programs. Rehabilitation and release of injured eagles
occurs throughout the Southeastern Region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1989). As a result of these and other efforts, the bald eagle
nesting population in the Southeastern Region has more than doubled in
the past 10 years.
Southwestern Recovery Region--In addition to threats in common with
other recovery regions, such as human disturbance and availability of
adequate nesting and feeding habitat, the bald eagles of the
Southwestern Recovery Region, and nestlings in particular, are
subjected to heat stress, nest parasites, and entanglement in fishing
line debris from intense fishing pressure. Extensive monitoring through
the Arizona Bald Eagle Nestwatch Program has lessened the impact of
mortality factors by educating the public, protecting breeding areas,
and maximizing the number of fledglings produced. The protection,
education, and intervention that this program and current management
efforts provide help sustain this population segment.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
There is no legal commercial or recreational use of bald eagles.
The Service considers present legal and enforcement measures sufficient
to prevent bald eagle extinction or a need to reclassify as endangered.
The Service exercises very strict control over scientific, educational,
and Native American religious activities involving bald eagles or their
parts. With reclassification to threatened, the Service could issue
permits for limited exhibition and educational purposes, for selected
research work not directly related to the conservation of the species,
and for other special purposes consistent with the Act (50 CFR 17.32
and 17.41(a)). The Service does not believe that the issuance of these
additional permits would adversely impact the full recovery of the bald
eagle.
C. Disease or Predation
Predation is not a significant problem for bald eagle populations.
Incidents of mortality due to territory disputes between bald eagles
have been reported. Diseases such as avian cholera, avian pox,
aspergillosis, tuberculosis, and botulism may affect individual eagles,
but are not considered to be a significant threat to the population. In
the winter of 1994-95, 29 bald eagles died in Arkansas and 9 died in
Wisconsin. Infectious disease has been ruled out. Apparently the
Arkansas mortalities were caused by a toxic agent different from that
of Wisconsin. These mortalities, though significant, are too few in
number to impact recovery. In the Southwestern population, the Mexican
chicken bug, when abundant, is known to occasionally kill young.
According to the National Wildlife Health Research Center, National
Biological Survey, Wisconsin, only 2.7 percent of bald eagles submitted
to the Center between 1985 and 1990 died from infectious disease.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The bald eagle is protected by the following Federal wildlife laws
in the U.S.:
* Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) protect individual bald eagles (threatened or
endangered) and their active nests on public and private land.
* The Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) prohibits
without specific authorization the possession, transport, or take of
any bald or golden eagle, their parts, nests, or eggs.
* The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703) prohibits
without specific authorization the possession, transport, or take of
any migratory bird (including bald eagles), their parts, nests, or
eggs.
* The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3372 and 18 U.S.C. 42-44) among
other provisions, makes it unlawful to export, import, transport,
sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any bald eagle (1) taken or
possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the
United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law or (2) to be
taken, sold, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in
violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of
any foreign law.
This species is afforded uncommonly comprehensive statutory and
regulatory
[[Page 36008]]
protection under Federal and State authorities. These protections will
remain in effect following reclassification to threatened status.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Contaminants may affect the survival as well as the reproductive
success and health of bald eagles. The abundance, and, potentially more
important, the quality of prey may be seriously affected by
environmental contamination. Although many of the compounds implicated
in reduced reproductive rates and direct mortality are no longer used,
contaminants continue to be a major problem in some areas. Pesticides
in recent times have not impacted the bald eagle on a population level;
however, individual poisonings still occur.
Carcasses baited with poison may attract bald eagles as well as
target animals such as coyotes. Poisonings may occur secondarily, when
predatory animals are poisoned and subsequently eaten by eagles. Crop
insecticides may be taken up by prey animals and may also result in
eagle mortality. In addition, organophosphates and carbamates are
sometimes used illegally as animal poisons. The National Wildlife
Health Research Center has diagnosed over 100 cases of pesticide
poisonings in bald eagles in the past 15 years.
Bald eagle deaths have been reported each year in the past decade
on western rangelands due, in part, to illegal use of pesticides such
as famphur, phorate, and carbofuran, and highly restricted chemicals,
such as strychnine, Compound 1080, and others (Tom Jackson, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, pers. comm.). This mortality on western
rangelands corresponds with the primary wintering areas for most
western bald eagles (other than Pacific Coast birds). Some illegal uses
of pesticides are targeted at bald and golden eagles. Cases of
suspected intentional mortality through treating carcasses with
pesticides have occurred in most western States and may occur in other
States. The Service is using all available means to reduce these
incidents.
Long-term exposure to contaminants is a much more extensive problem
than is direct mortality. Lifetime exposure to contaminants may limit
an eagle's reproductive capabilities, alter their behavior and foraging
abilities, and increase their susceptibility to diseases or other
environmental stresses. Organochlorines, such as DDT, are no longer
legally used in the United States. Their presence in bald eagles is
generally a consequence of their long persistence in the environment.
Consequently, residues of such compounds from historical uses can still
contaminate prey animals and be passed to eagles. Exposure to these
compounds is also occurring at an early age. For example, approximately
90% of the eaglets sampled in Maine in 1992 had detectable levels of
DDE in their blood.
In the Chesapeake Bay Region, Delaware Bay and the James River
below Richmond continue to be a source of organochlorine and heavy
metal contaminants that may impact eagle reproduction (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1990). However, DDE concentrations in addled bald
eagle eggs in Chesapeake Bay have declined significantly during the
years between 1969 and 1984 (Wiemeyer et al. 1993).
In parts of the Northern States Region, contamination is depressing
bald eagle productivity. This occurs notably in the coastal areas of
Lakes Michigan and Huron, those rivers accessible by anadromous fishes
of those lakes, and in parts of Maine. Research on bald eagle
productivity in the vicinity of Lakes Michigan and Huron shorelines
indicates significantly lower productivity than for inland breeding
birds. The reduced productivity is correlated with concentrations of
PCB's and DDE in addled eggs (Bowerman et al. 1994). DDT rapidly
converts to DDE and is highly correlated with depressed productivity in
bald eagles (Garcelon 1994).
PCB's and DDE residue concentrations have markedly decreased for
Lake Superior bald eagle eggs in Wisconsin. Recent data indicate DDE
concentrations in eggs have declined from greater than 20 parts per
million in the 1970's to less than four parts per million in the 1990's
(Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, pers.
comm.). This is significant because 4 parts per million is considered
the no effect concentration for DDE (Wiemeyer et al. 1993).
Bald eagles of the Pacific Recovery Region nesting on California's
Channel Islands, near the Columbia River estuary, and Hood Canal, which
is adjacent to Puget Sound, repeatedly have low reproductive success.
DDE and PCB's have had a deleterious effect on the reproduction of bald
eagles in the Columbia River estuary (Anthony et al. 1993). Residual
DDE continues to depress reproduction in the eagles of the Channel
Islands. Bald eagle eggs from Catalina Island had the highest reported
individual concentration (60 parts per million) of those analyzed
between 1968 and 1990, and highest average concentration (32.9 parts
per million) compared to that of any region or State (Garcelon 1994).
Wiemeyer et al. (1993) found addled bald eagle eggs collected from the
Klamath Basin and Cascade Lakes regions in Oregon ranked second (behind
Maine) in DDE concentrations among the fifteen States sampled. However,
concentrations of other contaminants in the Oregon eggs were low.
In spite of localized reproductive impairment, the Pacific Recovery
Region population has increased by about 68 percent in the past 10
years. Contaminants are not known to be a significant problem for
eagles in the Southwestern Recovery Region.
Lead poisoning has also contributed to bald eagle mortality. The
National Wildlife Health Research Center has diagnosed lead poisoning
in more than 225 bald eagles during the last 15 years. Lead can poison
bald eagles when they ingest prey items that contain lead shot or lead
fragments or where the prey has assimilated lead into its own tissues.
In winter, eagles may feed on waterfowl that are dead or dying from
lead poisoning or upon waterfowl crippled by lead shotgun pellets
during the hunting season. Lead poisoning of eagles was a primary
reason the Service required the nationwide use of non-toxic shot for
waterfowl hunting. The requirement for use of non-toxic shot was phased
in over a period of 5 years, and its use became mandatory for all
waterfowl hunting in 1991. Use of lead shot is still permitted in many
parts of Canada.
Of particular concern for bald eagles in the southeastern region
and in Maine are the toxic effects of mercury (Wiemeyer et al. 1993; C.
Facmire, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, pers. comm.). High
levels of mercury affect eagles with a variety of neurological problems
in which flight and other motor skills can be significantly altered and
reduce hatching rates of eggs. Mercury has entered the waterways as air
emissions from solid waste incineration sites and other point and non-
point sources. Impacts to bald eagles from mercury are currently under
investigation in the Southeastern Region.
Illegal shooting still poses threats to individual birds. Increased
law enforcement and public awareness have reduced shooting impacts from
being a cause of large scale mortality in the first half of this
century to being responsible only for the deaths of occasional
individuals at present. From 1985 to 1990, the National Wildlife Health
Research Center had diagnosed over 150 bald eagle deaths due to
gunshot. Hunter education courses routinely
[[Page 36009]]
include bald eagle identification material to educate hunters about
bald eagles and the protections that the species is afforded.
Electrocutions occur on power poles and lines that are not yet
configured for the protection of raptors. Much research has been done
in this area, and new poles and lines are usually configured to reduce
raptor electrocutions.
Human disturbance also remains a long-term threat. Significant
declines in eagle use of the Skagit River, Washington, were noted in
response to recreational activity (Stalmaster 1989). Human disturbance
can be harmful during egg incubation and brooding periods, because
disturbance can flush adults from nests and expose the eggs or young to
adverse weather conditions.
Land management practices can reduce or eliminate these disturbance
problems. Management of bald eagle nesting sites has progressed in some
areas to include zones of protection extending up to 2.5 miles (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). In the Bear Valley National Wildlife
Refuge, Oregon, for example, public access is restricted from November
1 through March 30 to prevent human disturbance to wintering bald
eagles.
Despite these various threats to the bald eagle, none are of
sufficient magnitude, individually or collectively, to place the
species at risk of extinction. Over most of the 48 States, the
population is doubling every 6 or 7 years.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by this species in determining this rule. Based on
this evaluation, the preferred action is to reclassify the bald eagle
from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States. The bald eagle
will remain threatened in the five States where it is currently listed
as threatened. The threatened status is appropriate because the bald
eagle is not in danger of extinction (i.e. endangered) throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
Recognition of One Population in the Lower 48 States
In 1978, the Service recognized distinct population segments of
this species and delineated them on the basis of State boundaries, with
bald eagles in five northern States listed as threatened, and those in
the remainder of the lower 48 States listed as endangered. The
distinctiveness of these population segments is questionable, given the
dispersal capabilities of the species across State lines.
In the July 12, 1994, proposed rule, the southwest bald eagle
population was recognized as distinct from eagles elsewhere in the
lower 48 States based on evidence that it appeared to be reproductively
isolated. However, new evidence of immigration coupled with genetic
studies which were unable to demonstrate uniqueness in the Arizona
eagles leads us to conclude that the population segment is not
reproductively isolated. Thus, for purposes of this rule, the Service
recognizes only one population of bald eagles in the lower 48 States.
This population is now reclassified to threatened.
Special Rule
The Act allows special rules to be adopted for threatened species
as needed for the species' conservation; such special rules are
typically provided to reduce or augment those protections afforded to
threatened species under the Act. Section 17.41(a) is a special rule
adopted at the time of the 1978 reclassification of the bald eagle. The
original intent was to reduce the number of permits required for
researchers working on threatened eagles (i.e., Oregon, Washington,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) under both Sec. 17.32 and 50 CFR
parts 21 and 22 (bird banding and eagle permits). The present special
rule at Sec. 17.41(a) reads as follows:
(a) Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) found in Washington,
Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
(1) Applicable provisions. The provisions of Secs. 17.31 and
17.32 shall apply to bald eagles specified in paragraph (a) of this
section to the extent such provisions are consistent with the Bald
Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16
U.S.C. 703-711), and the regulations issued thereunder.
The Service now clarifies the language of this special rule for all
threatened bald eagles. Only a permit issued under the authority of 50
CFR 21.22 or 50 CFR part 22 (subpart C) is needed for such purposes as
banding (Sec. 21.22); scientific study or exhibition (Sec. 22.21),
which includes taking, possession, rehabilitation, and transport;
native American religious use (Sec. 22.22); and depredation reduction
(Sec. 22.23). A permit under Sec. 17.32 would only be required when a
permit under parts 21 and 22 do not provide for an otherwise lawful
activity. The issuance of all such permits would remain subject to
section 7 of the Act and part 402 of this title.
Effects of This Rule
As a result of the reclassification, prohibitions outlined under 50
CFR 17.41(a) would apply to all bald eagles of the lower 48 States. The
Service could issue permits for exhibition and educational purposes,
for selected research work (including banding and marking) not directly
related to the conservation of the species, and for other special
purposes. In allowing for a single permit, the Service seeks to foster
further research and other uses of bald eagles consistent with the Act
and the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald Eagle
Act (50 CFR 17.32, 17.41(a), 21.22, 22.21-21.23).
Requirements of the Act under section 7 still apply to all Federal
agencies; there are no significant distinctions made in the Act or
supporting regulations (part 402) between endangered and threatened
species. The consultation and other requirements under section 7 apply
equally to species with either classification.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Service offices listed in the Addresses section.
Author
The primary author of this notice is Jody Gustitus Millar, Bald
Eagle Recovery Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4469-48th Avenue
Court, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (309/793-5800).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
[[Page 36010]]
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the two entries for
``Eagle, bald'' under BIRDS and adding a new entry for ``Eagle, bald''
in its place to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
--------------------------------- population
Historic range where Status When Critical Special
Common name Scientific name endangered or listed habitat rules
threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Birds
* * * * * *
*
Eagle, bald.... Haliaeetus North America, U.S.A. T 1, 34, 580 NA 17.41(a)
leucocephalus. south into (conterminous
Mexico. 48 States).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 17.41(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.
(a) Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) wherever listed as
threatened under Sec. 17.11(h).
(1) Applicable provisions. All prohibitions and measures of
Secs. 17.31 and 17.32 shall apply to any threatened bald eagle, except
that any permit issued under Sec. 21.22 or part 22 of this chapter
shall be deemed to satisfy all requirements of Secs. 17.31 and 17.32
for that authorized activity, and a second permit shall not be required
under Sec. 17.32. A permit is required under Sec. 17.32 for any
activity not covered by any permit issued under Sec. 21.22 or part 22
of this chapter.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Dated: June 6, 1995.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-16981 Filed 7-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
