[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16848]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 12, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassify the Bald
Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in Most of the Lower 48 States;
Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC48
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassify the
Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in Most of the Lower 48 States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) in the lower
48 States, except Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, where it is listed as threatened. The bald eagle also occurs
in Alaska and Canada, where it is not at risk and is not protected
under the Act, and exists in small numbers in northern Mexico. The Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to reclassify the bald eagle
from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States except in certain
portions of the American Southwest and to classify those eagles in
adjacent Mexico as endangered. The bald eagle would remain threatened
in the five States where it is currently listed as threatened. The
special rule for threatened bald eagles would be revised. This action
would not alter those conservation measures already in force to protect
the species and its habitats. The Service seeks comments from the
public on this proposed reclassification.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October
11, 1994. Public hearing requests must be received by August 26, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to Chief, Division of Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1 Federal Drive, Whipple Federal Building, Fort Snelling,
Minnesota 55111-4056. Comments and materials received will be available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the above address.
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 4 to 6 years in 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 (Marshall and
Nickerson 1976). 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 meeting certain
requirements 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 (March 11, 1967; 32 FR 4001) as endangered under the Endangered
Species Protection Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc). By the time the
bald eagle was listed (February 14, 1978; 43 FR 6233) 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 nest on both coasts from Florida to Baja California, in the
south, and from Labrador to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska, in
the north (formerly to the Commander Islands, western Bering Sea). In
many of these areas they were abundant.
Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988) describe early population trends.
When Europeans first arrived on the North American continent, there
were an estimated quarter- to a 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 1960s and early 1970s, it was determined that
dichlorophenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE), the principal metabolite of DDT,
accumulated in the fatty tissues of the adult females and impaired
calcium release for egg shell formation, thus inducing thin shells and
reproductive failure.
In response to the decline following World War II, on March 11,
1967 (32 FR 4001), the Secretary of the Interior 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,
``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 (but is not in danger of
extinction) throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
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. Thus,
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 (February 14, 1978; 43 FR 6233).
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-
1970s, the Service divided the bald eagles of the lower 48 States into
five recovery populations, based on geographic location, termed
Recovery Regions. A recovery plan was prepared for each population 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 last two plans are under active revision and
expected to be available for public review within the next 12 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 16 years since it was listed throughout the conterminous 48
States, the bald eagle population has clearly improved. The improvement
is a direct result of the banning of DDT and other persistent
organochlorines and from 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 1993, about
4,000 occupied breeding areas were reported by the States with an
estimated average young per occupied territory of 0.93. Compared to
1974, for example, the number of occupied breeding areas in the lower
48 States has increased by 408 percent, and since 1990, there has been
a 32 percent increase. The species is doubling its breeding population
every 6-7 years since the late 1970s.
Table 1.--Number of Bald Eagle Pairs Counted in Lower 48 States, 1963-
1993
[Incomplete data for missing years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963......................................................... 417
1974......................................................... 791
1981......................................................... 1,188
1984......................................................... 1,757
1986......................................................... 1,875
1988......................................................... 2,475
1989......................................................... 2,680
1990......................................................... 3,020
1991......................................................... 3,391
1992......................................................... 3,747
1993......................................................... 4,016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act requires periodic review of the status of listed species.
The Service has reviewed the status of the bald eagle and is proposing
reclassification in all or portions of four Recovery Regions. The
review recognized the achievement of specific recovery plan
reclassification goals. The biological basis for the recovery goals is
described in each recovery plan.
The recovery plans were first approved in the early 1980's. The
five Recovery Regions are illustrated on the following map:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TP12JY94.001
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 proposed Service action. The terms ``occupied breeding
areas'' and ``occupied territories'' are used interchangeably. Either
term indicates that a pair of bald eagles has established a breeding
territory and a nest site but was not necessarily successful in
producing young. All numbers are based upon known eagle nests and not
estimates; surveys, particularly those before the late 1970s, miss some
pairs, so all counts are considered minimums.
Chesapeake Recovery Region
Threatened 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 5 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: 329 reported occupied breeding areas and 1.12
young per occupied area in 1993. 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. Threatened goals
have been met, delisting goals have not.
Service Proposal: Reclassify to threatened.
Northern Recovery Region
Threatened Goals: No goal for reclassification to threatened status
in present plan.
Delisting Goals: 1,200 occupied breeding areas over a minimum of 16
States with an average annual productivity of at least 1.0 young per
occupied nest.
Progress to Date: In 1993, there were 1602 known occupied breeding
areas distributed over 21 States with 0.95 young per occupied breeding
area. Productivity was 1.00 in 1990, 0.97 in 1991, and 1.01 in 1992.
(Productivity estimates exclude nest data from Minnesota and Wisconsin
in 1992, and from Wisconsin in 1990 and 1991, because there were no
productivity surveys done in these States during those years.)
Delisting goals have been met for occupied breeding areas and are close
to being met for productivity.
Service Proposal: Reclassify to threatened; the species would
remain threatened where it now has 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 the plan and revising the goals, if necessary.
Pacific Recovery Region
Threatened Goals: Nesting populations continue to increase annually
for the 5 years beginning with 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 1993, 1066 occupied breeding areas were
reported with 0.86 young per occupied breeding area. The number of
occupied breeding areas has consistently increased since 1986 and
exceeded 800 for 4 of the 5 years beginning in 1990 when 861 were
reported. Productivity has averaged about 1.0 since 1990. Threatened
goals have been met. Should this trend continue, the delisting goals
for number of nesting pairs and productivity may be met in the near
future. At present, less than 80 percent of the 37 specified management
zones have met their delisting goals. In 1993, 20 of those zones had
met or exceeded their recovery goals, and four other zones in addition
to the original 37 had nesting eagles that are not part of the recovery
goals for this region.
Threatened goals have been met. Delisting goals are close to being
met for all criteria except attainment of breeding population goals for
80 percent of the management zones. About 10 more zones need to meet
their goals to fulfill this criterion.
Service Proposal: Reclassify to threatened in California (except
the 10-mile strip along the Colorado River), Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
and Wyoming; the species would remain threatened where it now has that
status.
Southeastern Recovery Region
Threatened Goals: 600 occupied breeding areas distributed over at
least 75 percent of the historic 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 5 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: 982 occupied breeding areas were reported with an
average of 1.02 young per occupied territory in 1993. Nesting is
distributed over all 11 Southeastern States. The number of occupied
breeding areas reached 601 in 1991 and has exceeded 600 for three
successive years. Reproductive success for the years 1990-1993 averaged
1.53 young per successful nest (or 1.04 young per occupied territory),
and 68 percent of the nests were successful in raising at least one
young. Seven of eleven individual State goals have been met but these
are considered guidelines rather than requirements. Existing habitat is
deemed to be adequate to support and exceed overall recovery plan
goals. Threatened goals have been met and delisting goals will be met
in 5 years if the trend continues.
Service Proposal: Reclassify to threatened.
Southwestern Recovery Region
Threatened 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: 29 occupied breeding areas were reported for 1993
with 27 young produced. Since 1988, the number of occupied breeding
areas has increased by about 26 percent (six occupied territories) in
the Southwestern Region. Nationwide, occupied breeding areas have
increased by 62 percent (1540 occupied territories) in the same time
period. Some of the increase in the Southwestern Region is due to
finding previously unrecorded nest sites. 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).
Information to date indicates that breeding has expanded beyond the
Salt and Verde River systems. Eagles are now nesting in the Gila and
Bill Williams river systems in Arizona and the Rio Grande in New
Mexico. Thus, the threatened criteria have been fully met.
The population remains small, localized, with variable
productivity, and low adult survival. This population faces numerous
and increasing impacts from a rapidly growing human population. These
impacts include continued loss and modification of riparian habitat,
disturbance at nest sites, entanglement of nestlings in fish line, and
other human-caused influences.
The Southwestern Recovery Plan is undergoing revision to
incorporate new information gained from recent investigations by Hunt
et al. (1992). This research indicates that birds dispersing into west
Texas and Oklahoma are more likely to be bald eagles of the
Southeastern Region population than those of the Southwestern Region.
Thus, the revised recovery plan may propose the elimination of west
Texas and the western panhandle of Oklahoma from the Southwestern
Recovery Region. The plan revision will also consider the addition of
southern Utah and Mexico.
For the purposes of this reclassification proposal, however, the
boundaries for the Southwestern Recovery Region will remain as stated
in the recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). That is,
the Southwestern Region includes Arizona, New Mexico, and those
portions of Texas and Oklahoma west of the 100th meridian, and
southeast California within 10 miles of the Colorado River or its
mainstem reservoirs.
Service Action: Retain as endangered. Despite attaining all
recovery plan goals, current information indicates that the population
is at risk and remains in danger of extinction due to excessively low
survival rates and the need for intensive management, particularly at
nest sites.
Mexico
There are a small number of eagles nesting in Baja California and
Sonora, Mexico. In January 1994, a minimum of eight active pairs were
known with additional adults reported that may represent more active
pairs with undetected nests (Henny et al. 1993, Service files).
Productivity has been relatively high with more than 1.0 young per nest
for those years that data have been collected (Henny et al. 1993,
Service files). Although this population appears to be relatively
stable, such low numbers are clearly not sufficient to prevent any
sudden adverse environmental change to cause the extirpation of these
few pairs. These birds are presumed to be associated with the
Southwestern population and are considered in danger of extinction.
Threats to these birds include loss of habitat and disturbance from
human encroachment with the increasing population (particularly
tourists and recreational housing development) and potential for
inbreeding from such low numbers of breeding birds.
In summary, the Service is proposing to reclassify the bald eagle
from endangered to threatened in the Chesapeake and Southeastern
Recovery Regions and those portions of the Northern States and Pacific
Recovery Regions where it is currently classified as endangered. No
changes are proposed for the Southwestern Recovery Region, where the
bald eagle will remain classified as endangered. The Service is not
proposing to delist the bald eagle anywhere in the lower 48 States at
this time. The Service is also proposing to list those bald eagles in
Mexico as endangered.
On February 7, 1990, the Service published (55 FR 4209) an Advance
Notice of a Proposed Rule (ANPR) 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.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations Resulting From Advance
Notice
The responses received to the ANPR generally reflected the
Service's announcement that delisting, as well as reclassification, was
under consideration for the entire lower 48-State area. Not all
responses specifically addressed delisting or reclassification.
Nevertheless, the responses were useful in the formulation of the
present reclassification proposal.
Many responses reflected the writers' strong personal feelings and
concerns for bald eagles. Many respondents related the importance and
value of their personal bald eagle experiences. Further, they expressed
their desire that bald eagles be properly cared for and that the
opportunity to view wild eagles not be lost. The bald eagle's position
as our national bird was frequently mentioned.
In response to the ANPR, the Service received 4 responses from
other Federal government offices, 22 responses from State conservation
agencies, 23 responses from citizen groups, and 140 responses from
individuals.
Based on reclassification goals contained in the five regional Bald
Eagle Recovery Plans, one Federal agency favored reclassification to
threatened only in Florida and the development of State-by-State
recovery plans/criteria, with subsequent State-by-State
reclassification and delisting decisions.
Another Federal agency recommended reclassification to threatened
in selected areas based on circumstances in the individual recovery
regions, rather than for the nation as a whole, and recommended against
delisting.
A third Federal agency recommended reclassification of the bald
eagle to threatened in Arizona based on achievement of the Southwestern
Recovery Plan reclassification goals and on protection and management
measures presently in place.
The last Federal agency favored reclassification to threatened in
those recovery regions where the recovery plans' reclassification goals
have been met.
The Service received responses to the 1990 ANPR from 22 State
natural resource agencies. Seven State agencies concurred with
reclassification to or retention as threatened, including Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin, the three Northern Region States where the
bald eagle is presently designated as threatened. The remaining 15
responding States recommended against delisting and/or reclassification
in their States.
Of the 140 individual responses (some signed by more than one
individual), 135 opposed reclassification or delisting in some or all
areas of the lower 48 States; of the 23 citizen group responses, 19
opposed reclassification or delisting in some or all areas of the lower
48 States.
Individuals and citizen groups suggested that it would be
inappropriate to delist or reclassify the bald eagle to threatened
while direct and indirect impacts such as contaminants and development
on non-Federal lands remain a threat. The Service recognizes that
habitat loss is a major challenge to the recovery of the bald eagle.
The Service also recognizes that non-Federal, as well as Federal,
habitat must be protected from contaminants, disturbance, and
development or the secure population size will be diminished. However,
reclassification to threatened would not reduce present Federal legal
protection on non-Federal land nor would it allow habitat loss that
could not otherwise occur.
A concern expressed by 62 individuals and 11 citizen groups was
that bald eagle populations were below the higher levels of America's
pre-settlement days or other former era, or that populations did not
meet the abundance, distribution, or productivity goals for delisting
or reclassification contained in the bald eagle recovery plans. The
Act's designations of endangered and threatened are based on the
present or foreseeable threat of extinction of the species, not
historical levels. Recovery plan goals for reclassification have been
met at this time.
One individual suggested that the Service conduct a population
viability analysis (PVA) of the bald eagle, including a determination
of the minimum viable population (MVP). The Service recognizes PVA and
MVP as analytical tools and has funded and participated in the
production of PVA's for several endangered species. For the present
reclassification decision, however, it is unnecessary because the bald
eagles of the Chesapeake, Northern, Southeastern, and Pacific Recovery
Regions have reached the recovery plans' reclassification goals. Those
goals are conservative and meet the Act's definition of threatened.
The appearance of a lowered level of Federal legal protection was a
concern in 26 individual responses and in one citizen group response.
The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act are the same for threatened
and endangered species, with the exception that 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, 17.41). All
requirements of the Act under section 7 still apply. No changes in
other protective provisions of the Act would result, nor would any
other Federal law protecting bald eagles be affected.
Thirteen of the 135 individuals and 2 of the 19 citizen groups
recommending against reclassification or delisting were concerned that
the Service's own efforts for bald eagle recovery, habitat management,
habitat protection, and law enforcement might be diminished. The
Service's obligations to protect bald eagles under the Endangered
Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald Eagle Protection
Act, and all other applicable laws will remain undiminished by the
proposed reclassification.
Seven individuals and one citizen group recommending against
reclassification or delisting suggested that the Service might be
either collaborating with or yielding to economic interests who want
development restrictions relaxed in areas presently used by bald
eagles. The proposed reclassification eases no restrictions on the
development of bald eagle habitat because the Act and regulations
adopted under it make no distinction in the protection given to
habitats of threatened and endangered species.
Seven individual and two citizen group respondents suggested that
the Service might be delisting or reclassifying the bald eagle to
enhance its reputation or for other self-serving purposes. This
proposal to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened is
undertaken in fulfillment of section 4(c) of the Act, which requires
the Service to periodically review each listed species and to change
classifications when appropriate, to maintain the integrity of the
Act's endangered and threatened categories. Since the bald eagle has
met its recovery plan goals, the Service is now taking this action.
One individual and two citizen groups, in addition to the Maine and
New Hampshire State conservation agencies, suggested that the
northeastern part of the Northern States Recovery Region be separated
and considered distinct. The Northern States Recovery Team, which has
representation from the Northeast, has also considered this question
and does not recommend separating the northeastern States from the
present Northern States Recovery Region. The Service concurs with the
Northern States Recovery Team.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement the
listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures for
reclassifying species on the Federal lists. A species may 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 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 readily
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. Contamination enters bald eagles
through the food chain and may impair individual birds' reproductive
success and health. It may also reduce the abundance of preferred prey.
Steps to reduce these threats are underway at all levels of
government and public organizations nationwide. Increased protection of
nesting habitat and winter roost sites have 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.
Northern States Recovery Region: Development, particularly near
urban areas, remain as 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 over 1600 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 populations to increase
substantially overall. 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 the single greatest factor limiting the abundance and
distribution of the species in the Pacific Recovery Region (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1986). 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 1984, 1989).
In addition, many of the States have or have had active hacking/
reintroduction programs. Rehabilitation and release of injured eagles
occurs throughout the Southeastern Region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1984, 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 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 are subjected to a high adult rate of
mortality, isolation, heat stress, and nest parasites. The Arizona Bald
Eagle Nestwatch Program has significantly increased survival of young
by minimizing human disturbance during important incubation periods,
and by removing harmful material such as parasites and fishing line
debris from nests. However, the high death rate of adults and nestlings
and the lack of gene exchange with any adjacent nesting populations,
which may cause inbreeding to adversely affect the population's long-
term survival, remain limiting; this population continues to require
intensive management, particularly around each nest site.
Hunt et al. (1992) estimate a minimum annual mortality rate of 16
to 22 percent of adult breeding birds and believe it to be much higher.
Bald eagles commonly live 20 years in the wild and up to 50 years in
captivity (Stalmaster 1987). In the Southwestern Region, adult life
expectancy may not exceed 10-12 years (Hunt et al. 1992).
Historically, the bald eagle in Arizona was more widely distributed
but probably was never abundant (Hunt et al. 1992). Prior to 1970,
records can be found for 19 pairs of nesting bald eagles in Arizona
(Hunt et al. 1992). In 1993, 27 occupied territories were reported for
Arizona and 2 for New Mexico totalling 29 for the Southwestern Recovery
Region.
Research to date indicates there has been no immigration to this
population of bald eagles. According to Hunt et al., this small
population is isolated and thus is subject to the genetic, demographic,
and environmental threats known to be associated with small
populations. For these reasons, the population is in continued need of
strict protection and intensive management.
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)).
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 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 protection under Federal and State authorities.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Contaminants may affect the survival as well as the reproductive
success and health of the bald eagle. 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. 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. Organophosphates and carbamates are sometimes used
illegally for animal poison. The National Wildlife Health Research
Center has diagnosed over 100 cases of pesticide poisonings in bald
eagles in the past 15 years.
The western plains and Rocky Mountain States are reported to have
300-600 bald eagle deaths 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 baiting of carcasses with pesticides has
occurred in all western States and may occur in other States. Reducing
this level of illegal mortality is important for the complete recovery
of the species.
Chronic long-term exposure to contaminants is a much more extensive
problem than direct mortality. Lifetime exposure to contaminants may
limit the eagles' reproductive capabilities, alter their behavior and
foraging abilities, and increase their susceptibility to diseases.
(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 historic 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 from 1969-84
(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
the Great Lakes, those rivers accessible by anadromous fishes of the
Great Lakes, and in parts of Maine. Research on bald eagle productivity
in the vicinity of Great Lakes shorelines indicates significantly lower
productivity than for inland breeding birds. The reduced productivity
is correlated with concentrations of PCB's, DDE, dieldrin, and other
organochlorine compounds in addled eggs (Best et al. in press).
Bald eagles of the Pacific Recovery Region nesting 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). Wiemeyer et al. (1993) found
addled bald eagle eggs collected from 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 or Mexico.
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 frequently feed on waterfowl that are dead or dying
from lead poisoning or upon waterfowl crippled in 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, pers. comm.). High levels of mercury affect eagles with a
variety of neurological problems, where flight and other motor skills
can be significantly altered, and with reduced 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 from
mercury to bald eagles are currently under investigation in the
Southeastern Region.
Illegal shooting still poses threats to individual birds. Improved
law enforcement and public awareness has reduced shooting impacts from
a cause of large scale mortality in the first half of this century to
the deaths of occasional individuals at present. From 1985 to 1990, the
National Wildlife Health Research Center has diagnosed over 150 bald
eagle deaths due to gunshot. Hunter education courses routinely 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 generally new poles and lines are 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 young brooding periods because
disturbance can flush adults from nests.
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 in the area
proposed for reclassification, 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 to propose this
rule. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to reclassify
the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States
except the southwestern population in Arizona, New Mexico, the
southeast corner of California within 10 miles of the Colorado River or
the river's mainstem reservoirs, and those portions of Texas and the
panhandle of Oklahoma that are west of the 100th meridian. The latter
population appears to be isolated, to suffer from lower survival rates,
and to require intensive management to ensure nesting success. The bald
eagle would remain threatened in the five States where it is currently
listed as threatened and be listed as endangered in Mexico under this
proposal.
Recognition of Distinct Population of the Southwestern Recovery
Region
In 1978, the Service recognized distinct population segments of
this species 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 distinctness of these
population segments is questionable, given the dispersal capabilities
of the species across State lines.
In this proposal, the recognition of the southwest bald eagle
population as distinct from eagles elsewhere in the lower 48 States is
based on evidence that it appears to be reproductively isolated. Thus,
for purposes of this proposed rule, the Service still recognizes two
populations of bald eagles in the lower 48 States. Should this proposed
rule become final, the southwest population segment would remain
endangered, the adjacent Mexico population segment would be included in
the Southwestern population as endangered, and the remaining population
segment in the lower 48 States would be 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 those protections afforded to endangered
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 proposes to clarify the language of this special rule
for threatened bald eagles. If the proposed special rule is adopted,
only a permit issued under the authority of 50 CFR 21.22 or 50 CFR part
22 (subpart C) would be 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 (Sec. 22.22); and depredation (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 proposed reclassification, prohibitions outlined
under 50 CFR 17.41(a) would apply to bald eagles of the population
reclassified as threatened. Prohibitions under Secs. 17.21 and 17.22
would continue to apply to the endangered population. 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, 22.21-22.23).
Requirements of the Act under section 7 still apply to all Federal
agencies. There are no 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.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that the proposed reclassification correctly
reflect the bald eagle's status according to the Act's definition of
endangered and threatened and based upon the reclassification
guidelines for each bald eagle recovery region. Therefore, information
from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments are sought concerning:
(1) biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data
concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) the location of any additional nests or roosting sites of
this species, especially in the Southwestern Recovery Region;
(3) the appropriateness of the proposed limits and status of the
endangered population in the American Southwest and Mexico;
(4) additional information concerning the past and present
range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
(5) current or planned activities within the lower 48 States and
Mexico that might have possible long-term impacts on this species.
Final promulgation of the regulation(s) on this species will take
into consideration the comments and any additional information received
by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation
that differs from this proposal, including the possible complete
reclassification to threatened for all eagles south of Canada.
The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the
date of publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in
writing and addressed to Chief, Division of Endangered Species, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Whipple Federal Building, Fort
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056 (FAX: 612-725-3526).
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
American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American
birds. 5th Ed. Port City Press, Baltimore. 691 pp.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American
birds. 6th Ed. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.
Anthony, R.G., M.G. Garrett, and C.A. Schuler. 1993. Environmental
contaminants in bald eagles in the Columbia River estuary. Journal
Wildlife Management 57(1):10-19.
Bent, A.C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey.
Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Bulletin No. 170,
Washington.
Best, D.A., W.W. Bowerman, T.J. Kubiak, S.R. Winterstein, S.
Postupalsky, M.C. Shieldcastle and J.P. Giesy. In Press.
Reproductive impairment of bald eagles along the Great Lakes
shorelines of Michigan and Ohio. IV World Conference Birds of Prey
and Owls.
Buehler, D.A., T.J. Mersmann, J.D. Fraser, and Janis K.D. Seegar.
1991. Effects of human activity on bald eagle distribution on the
northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal Wildlife Management 55(2):282-290.
Carson, R.L. 1962. Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York.
Gerrard, J.M., and G.R. Bortolotti. 1988. The bald eagle: haunts and
habits of a wilderness monarch. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington and London.
Henny, C.J., B. Conant, and D.W. Anderson. 1993. Recent distribution
and status of nesting bald eagles in Baja California, Mexico.
Journal of Raptor Research 27(4):203-209.
Hunt, W.G., D.E. Driscoll, E.W. Bianchi, and R.E. Jackman. 1992.
Ecology of bald eagles in Arizona. Report to U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Contract 6-CS-30-04470. Biosystems Analysis, Inc.,
Santa Cruz, CA.
Lincer, J.L., W.S. Clark, and M.N. LeFranc, Jr. 1979. Working
bibliography of the bald eagle. National Wildlife Federation.
Scientific/Technical Series, no. 2, Washington. pp.217 + appendix.
Marshall, D.B., and P.R. Nickerson. 1976. The bald eagle: 1776-1976.
National Parks and Conservation Magazine. July: 14-19.
Nickerson, P.R. 1989. Bald eagle status report. Proceedings of
northeast raptor management symposium and workshop. National
Wildlife Federation, Washington. Pp. 30-36.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York. 22
pp.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1989. Effects of recreational activity on wintering
bald eagles on the Skagit wild and scenic river system, Washington.
Technical Report U.S. Forest Service. 15pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Southwestern bald eagle
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. 74pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Northern states region bald
eagle recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities,
Minnesota. 76pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Southeastern states region
bald eagle recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,
Georgia. 63pp.+ app.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific bald eagle recovery
plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Southeastern states region
bald eagle recovery plan. First revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 41pp.+ app.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Chesapeake Bay region bald
eagle recovery plan: First revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Hadley, Massachusetts. 80pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. The potential effects of Rocky
Mountain Arsenal clean-up and Denver Metropolitan Transportation
development on bald eagles. Final Study Report. Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado. 148pp.
Wiemeyer, Stanley N., Christine M. Bunck, and Charles J. Stafford.
1993. Environmental contaminants in bald eagle eggs--1980-84--and
further interpretations of relationships to productivity and shell
thickness. Archives Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
24:213-227.
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.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
PART 17--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the entries for ``Eagle,
bald'' under BIRDS, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
---------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Eagle, bald.............. Haliaeetus leucocephalus North America south to U.S.A. (AZ, NM, TX and E 1, 34 NA NA
Mexico. OK west of 100 deg. W,
and CA within 10 mi.
Colorado R. or mainstem
reservoirs), Mexico.
Do....................... ......do................ ......do................ U.S.A. (conterminous 48 T 1, 34 NA 17.41(a)
States, except where
endangered).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 would still be 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 27, 1994.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-16848 Filed 7-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
