[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