[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36000-36010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16981]




[[Page 35999]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 12, 1995 / 
Rules and Regulations   

[[Page 36000]]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC48


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to 
Reclassify the Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in All of the 
Lower 48 States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service reclassifies under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, the bald eagle 
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from endangered to threatened in the lower 
48 States. The bald eagle remains classified as threatened in Michigan, 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington where it is currently 
listed as threatened. The special rule for threatened bald eagles is 
revised to include all lower 48 States. This action will not alter 
those conservation measures already in force to protect the species and 
its habitats. The bald eagle also occurs in Alaska and Canada, where it 
is not at risk and is not protected under the Act. Bald eagles of 
Mexico are not listed at this time due to a recently enacted moratorium 
on listing additional taxa as threatened or endangered.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 4469-48th Avenue Court, Rock 
Island, Illinois, 61201 and at the Division of Endangered Species, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Whipple Federal Building, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle 
Recovery Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4469-48th Avenue 
Court, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (309/793-5800).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Literally translated, Haliaeetus leucocephalus means white-headed 
sea eagle. This large, powerful, brown bird with a white head and tail 
is well known as our Nation's symbol. Young bald eagles are mostly dark 
brown until they reach four to six years of age and may be confused 
with the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). The bald eagle is the only 
sea eagle regularly occurring on the North American continent (American 
Ornithologists' Union 1983). Its range extends from central Alaska and 
Canada to northern Mexico.
    The bald eagle is a bird of aquatic ecosystems (Gerrard and 
Bortolotti 1988). It frequents estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, 
major rivers, and some seacoast habitats. However, such areas must have 
an adequate food base, perching areas, and nesting sites to support 
bald eagles. In winter, bald eagles often congregate at specific 
wintering sites that are generally close to open water and that offer 
good perch trees and night roosts. Bald eagle habitats encompass both 
public and private lands.
    The bald eagle was first described in 1766 as Falco leucocephalus 
by Linnaeus. This South Carolina bird was later renamed as the southern 
bald eagle, subspecies Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus 
(Linnaeus), when, in 1897, Townsend identified the northern bald eagle 
as Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus (American Ornithologists' Union 
1957). These two subspecific names were in use when the southern bald 
eagle (arbitrarily declared to occur south of the 40th parallel) was 
listed (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967) as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Protection Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc). By the time the 
bald eagle was listed (43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978) for the entire 
lower 48 States, the subspecies were no longer recognized by 
ornithologists.
    The bald eagle historically ranged throughout North America except 
extreme northern Alaska and Canada and central and southern Mexico. 
Bald eagles nested on both coasts from Florida to Baja California, in 
the south, and from Labrador to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska, 
in the north. In many of these areas they were abundant.
    Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988) describe early population trends as 
follows. When Europeans first arrived on the North American continent, 
there were an estimated one-quarter to one-half million bald eagles. 
The first major decline in the bald eagle population probably began in 
the mid to late 1800's. It coincided with declines in numbers of 
waterfowl and shorebirds and other major prey species. Direct eagle 
killing was also prevalent, and, coupled with loss of nesting habitat, 
these factors reduced bald eagle numbers until the 1940's.
    In 1940, the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) was passed. 
This law prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer 
to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald 
eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed 
by permit. Take includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, 
capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb.
    The Bald Eagle Protection Act and increased public awareness of the 
bald eagle resulted in a partial recovery or a slower decline of the 
species in most areas of the country. However, persecution continued, 
notably in Alaska, which was exempted from the Bald Eagle Protection 
Act and maintained a bounty on bald eagles. In 1952, after lengthy 
studies demonstrated that bald eagles were not affecting salmon 
numbers, Alaska was no longer exempted.
    Shortly after World War II, the use of dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) and other organochlorine compounds became 
widespread. Initially, DDT was sprayed extensively along coastal and 
other wetland areas to control mosquitos (Carson 1962). Later it was 
used as a general insecticide. As DDT accumulated in individual bald 
eagles from ingesting contaminated food, the species' reproduction 
plummeted. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, it was determined that 
dichlorophenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE), the principal breakdown product 
of DDT, accumulated in the fatty tissues of the adult females and 
impaired calcium release that is necessary for egg shell formation, 
thus inducing thin shells and reproductive failure.
    In response to the decline following World War II, the Secretary of 
the Interior, on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), listed bald eagles south 
of the 40th parallel as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Preservation Act of 1966. The northern bald eagle was not included in 
that action primarily because the Alaskan and Canadian populations were 
not considered endangered in 1967. On December 31, 1972, DDT was banned 
from use in the United States.
    In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was 
passed. Among other provisions, it allowed the listing of distinct 
populations of animal species and the addition of a new category of 
``threatened.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that 
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. A threatened species is defined as any species that is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

[[Page 36001]]

    A nationwide bald eagle survey by the Service and a number of other 
agencies and conservation groups in 1974 revealed that, in parts of the 
northern half of the lower 48 States, bald eagle populations and 
reproductive success were lower than in certain southern areas. In 
1978, the Service listed the bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (no 
subspecies referenced) throughout the lower 48 States as endangered 
except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where 
it was designated as threatened (43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978).
    Restoring endangered and threatened animals and plants to the point 
where they are again viable, self-sustaining members of their 
ecosystems is the main goal of the Endangered Species Act. Thus, the 
Act contains recovery, as well as listing and protection, provisions. 
To effect recovery, section 4(f) of the Act provides for the 
development and implementation of recovery plans for listed species. 
According to the Act, a recovery plan is a plan for the conservation 
and survival of the species. It identifies, describes, and schedules 
the actions necessary to restore endangered and threatened species to a 
more secure biological condition.
    In establishing a recovery program for the species in the mid-
1970's, the Service divided the bald eagles of the lower 48 States into 
five recovery regions, based on geographic location. A recovery plan 
was prepared for each region by separate recovery teams composed of 
species experts in each geographic area. The teams set forth goals for 
recovery and identified tasks to achieve those goals. Coordination 
meetings were held regularly among the five teams to exchange data and 
other information. The five recovery regions and the dates of their 
approved recovery plans are as follows: Chesapeake Bay (1982, revised 
1990), Pacific (1986), Southeastern (1984, revised 1989), Northern 
States (1983), and Southwestern (1982). The Northern States plan is 
under revision and is expected to be available for public review within 
the next six months. Many of the tasks described within these recovery 
plans have been funded and carried out by the Service and other 
Federal, State, and private organizations. Annual expenditures for the 
recovery and protection of the bald eagle by public and private 
agencies have exceeded $1 million each year for the past decade 
(Service files).
    In the 17 years since it was listed throughout the conterminous 48 
States, the bald eagle population has clearly increased in number and 
expanded in range. The improvement is a direct result of the banning of 
DDT and other persistent organochlorines, habitat protection, and from 
other recovery efforts. In 1963, a National Audubon Society survey 
reported only 417 active nests in the lower 48 States, with an average 
of 0.59 young produced per active nest. In 1994, about 4,450 occupied 
breeding areas were reported by the States with an estimated average 
young per occupied territory (for 4110 territories) of 1.17. Compared 
to 1974, the number of occupied breeding areas in the lower 48 States 
has increased by 462 percent, and since 1990, there has been a 47 
percent increase. The species is doubling its breeding population every 
6-7 years since the late 1970's.

 Table 1.--Number of Bald Eagle Pairs Counted in Lower 48 States, 1963- 
                                  1994                                  
                [Missing years indicate incomplete data]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                                Number 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1963.........................................................        417
1974.........................................................        791
1981.........................................................       1188
1984.........................................................       1757
1986.........................................................       1875
1988.........................................................       2475
1989.........................................................       2680
1990.........................................................       3020
1991.........................................................       3391
1992.........................................................       3747
1993.........................................................       4016
1994.........................................................       4452
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act requires periodic review of the status of listed species. 
When the status of the bald eagle was reviewed the Service recognized 
the achievement of specific recovery plan reclassification goals. As a 
result of this review, the Service issued the proposed rule for 
reclassification to threatened status in all or portions of four 
recovery regions and proposed classification of those eagles in Mexico 
as endangered (59 FR 35584, July 12, 1994). The current action 
finalizes the reclassification to threatened for all five recovery 
regions where not already so listed but excludes the bald eagles of 
Mexico due to a recently imposed moratorium on new listings (PL 104-6, 
109 Stat 73, April 10, 1995).
    The five bald eagle recovery plans were first approved in the early 
1980's. The biological basis for the recovery goals is described in 
each recovery plan. The five recovery regions are illustrated on the 
following map:

BILLINB CODE 4310-55-P


[[Page 36002]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR12JY95.001



BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    A summary follows of each recovery region's reclassification and 
delisting goals, an estimation of progress to date in achieving those 
goals, and final Service action. The term ``occupied territories'' 
indicates that a pair of bald eagles has established a breeding 
territory and a nest site but was not necessarily successful in 
producing young. ``Young'' or ``young produced'' are fledged young. All 
numbers are based upon known eagle nests and are not estimates. 
Surveys, particularly those before the late 1970's, miss some pairs, so 
all figures are considered to be minimums.

Chesapeake Recovery Region

    Reclassification Goals: Sustaining 175-250 breeding pairs with a 
productivity level of 1.1 young per active nest, concurrent with 
sustained progress in habitat protection measures.
    Delisting Goals: Sustaining 300-400 pairs with an average 
productivity of 1.1 young per active nest over five years with 
permanent protection of sufficient habitat to support this nesting 
population and enough roosting and foraging habitat to support 
population levels commensurate with increases throughout the Atlantic 
coastal area.
    Progress to Date: 356 occupied territories and 1.1 young per 
occupied territory reported in 1994. Progress in habitat protection has 
been sustained and additional habitat is being protected. There have 
been in excess of 175 known occupied breeding areas since 1988; 1992 
was the first year in which there were more than 300. Reclassification 
goals have been met, and delisting goals have been met for three of the 
required five years.
    Service Action: Reclassify to threatened.

Northern Recovery Region

    Reclassification Goals: No goal for reclassification to threatened 
status in present plan.
    Delisting Goals: 1,200 occupied breeding areas distributed over a 
minimum of 16 States with an average annual productivity of at least 
1.0 young per occupied nest.
    Progress to Date: In 1994, there were 1772 known occupied 
territories distributed over 21 States with an estimated 1.26 young per 
occupied territory (based upon the 1473 territories included in 
productivity surveys). Productivity was 1.00 in 1990, 0.97 in 1991, 
1.01 in 1992, and 0.95 in 1993. (Productivity is estimated from 
incomplete surveys for Wisconsin and Minnesota in 1992 and 1993. 
Productivity data are also incomplete from Wisconsin in 1990 and 1991; 
partial productivity surveys were conducted during those years). 
Delisting 

[[Page 36003]]
goals have been met for occupied breeding areas and for productivity.
    Service Action: Reclassify to threatened; the species will remain 
threatened in the three States where it has had that status. The 
recovery plan describes the delisting goals as initial and tentative. 
The Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team has reconvened for the 
purpose of reviewing and updating the plan, and currently is critically 
reviewing the delisting goals.

Pacific Recovery Region

    Reclassification Goals: Nesting populations continue to increase 
annually for the five years beginning with the 1986 nesting season.
    Delisting Goals: A minimum of 800 nesting pairs with an average 
reproductive rate of 1.0 fledged young per pair with an average success 
rate per occupied site of not less than 65% over a 5-year period. 
Attainment of breeding population goals should be met in at least 80% 
of management zones. Wintering populations should be stable or 
increasing.
    Progress to Date: In 1994, 1192 occupied territories were reported 
with 1.03 young per occupied territory. The number of occupied 
territories has consistently increased since 1986 and exceeded 800 for 
5 years beginning in 1990 when 861 were reported. Productivity has 
averaged about 1.03 since 1990. Nesting targets for 37 specified 
management zones have been reached in 57 percent of the zones. In 1994, 
21 of those zones had met or exceeded their recovery goals, and 5 other 
zones in addition to the original 37 had nesting eagles that are not 
part of the recovery goals for this region. Reclassification goals have 
been met. Delisting goals have been met in all categories except 
distribution in zones with nesting targets.
    Service Action: Reclassify to threatened in California, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming; the species will remain threatened in 
Washington and Oregon.

Southeastern Recovery Region

    Reclassification Goals: 600 occupied breeding areas distributed 
over at least 75 percent of the historical range contingent upon 
greater than 0.9 young per occupied nest, greater than 1.5 young per 
successful nest, and at least 50 percent of the nests successful in 
raising at least one young; based on a 3-year average and documentation 
of population vigor and adequate support habitat. Individual State 
goals are given.
    Delisting Goals: Delisting may be considered if the recovery trend 
continues for five years after reclassification goals are met. The 
criteria for delisting will be developed when the species is 
reclassified from endangered to threatened.
    Progress to Date: 1099 occupied territories were reported with an 
average of 1.27 young per occupied territory (based upon 1059 
territories) in 1994. Nesting is distributed over all 11 Southeastern 
States. The number of occupied territories reached 601 in 1991 and has 
exceeded 600 for four successive years. Reproductive success for the 
years 1990-1994 averaged 1.47 young per occupied territory. All 
individual State goals have been met with Florida and South Carolina 
doubling their original goals. Existing habitat is deemed to be 
adequate to achieve and exceed overall recovery plan goals. 
Reclassification goals have been met and delisting goals as stated may 
be met next year.
    Service Action: Reclassify to threatened.

Southwestern Recovery Region

    Reclassification Goals: 10-12 young per year over a 5-year period; 
population range has to expand to include one or more river drainages 
in addition to the Salt and Verde Systems.
    Delisting Goals: None given.
    Progress to Date: 30 occupied breeding areas were reported for 1994 
with 21 young produced. Some of the increase in the Southwestern Region 
is due to finding previously unrecorded nest sites which may or may not 
be new. Ten or more young have been produced every year since 1981. 
Productivity has increased 10-20 percent through the assistance of the 
Arizona Nest Watch program (Hunt et al. 1992).
    Breeding has expanded beyond the Salt and Verde River systems. 
Eagles are now nesting in the Gila, Bill Williams, and most recently, 
the San Carlos river systems in Arizona, and the Rio Grande in New 
Mexico. Thus, the reclassification criteria have been fully met. 
Information received in response to the proposed rule indicates that 
the bald eagles of central Arizona are not reproductively isolated, as 
was previously believed. Commentors also pointed out that bald eagles 
were likely never abundant in this arid land. Though many unique 
threats persist, trends of this population segment appears stable or 
increasing.

Service Action: Reclassify to Threatened

    In summary, the Service is reclassifying the bald eagle from 
endangered to threatened in the Chesapeake, Southeastern, and 
Southwestern Recovery Regions and in those portions of the Northern 
States and Pacific Recovery Regions where it is currently classified as 
endangered. The Service is not delisting the bald eagle anywhere in the 
lower 48 States at this time.
    At this time the Service is deferring further action on listing the 
bald eagles of northern Mexico as threatened or endangered. Provisions 
included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions 
for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance Military 
Readiness Act of 1995 (Publ. Law 104-6, 109 Stat 73; April 10, 1995) 
preclude the listing of taxa as threatened or endangered species during 
the remainder of fiscal year 1995. The bald eagles of northern Mexico 
will retain their status as species proposed for listing as threatened 
or endangered until the Service takes additional action.

Previous Federal Action

    On February 7, 1990, the Service published an Advance Notice of a 
Proposed Rule (55 FR 4209) to announce that consideration was being 
given to the possible reclassification or delisting of the bald eagle 
in all or part of its range in the lower 48 States. A summary of those 
comments and Service responses to them were provided in the proposed 
rule of July 12, 1994 (59 FR 35584).
    On July 12, 1994, the Service published the proposed rule to 
reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in most of the 
lower 48 States (59 FR 35584). Comments were requested by October 11, 
1994. Newspaper notices were published on or about July 18, 1994, in 
papers of major cities or State capitals throughout the lower 48 
States. Notification letters were sent to each State resource agency, 
major Federal agencies, major public conservation organizations, and 
all parties who submitted comments in response to the 1990 Notice. 
Eight written requests were received for public hearings. Two public 
hearings were held, and to accommodate them the comment period was 
extended to November 9, 1994 (59 FR 49908, September 30, 1994).
    On March 23, 1995, (60 FR 15280) the Service published the 
announcement to reopen the comment period for 30 days due to the 
existence of substantial additional information concerning the possible 
inclusion of the Southwestern Bald Eagle Recovery Region in the 
reclassification. The reopened comment period was announced by a news 
release, and newspaper notices were published on or about March 24, 
1995, in the Washington Post and major newspapers of the Southwest. 

[[Page 36004]]
Notification letters were sent to all commentors on the proposed rule, 
State resource agencies, major Federal agencies, and major public 
conservation organizations. In addition, a public information meeting 
was held on April 3, 1995, in Phoenix, Arizona.

Summaries of Public Hearings, Comments, and Recommendations

    The first public hearing was held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on 
Tuesday, October 18, 1994, at the Somerset County Park Commission 
Environmental Education Center, 190 Lord Stirling Road, Basking Ridge, 
New Jersey. This hearing was held in response to requests from citizens 
living in Delaware and Rhode Island. The location was deemed to be 
centrally located for interested parties in both States. Notice of the 
public hearing was announced in local and regional newspapers. Four 
people attended this hearing and all provided comments. Major issues 
discussed included contaminants, particularly those associated with 
Delaware Bay, concern for low bald eagle breeding numbers in certain 
areas, recovery region boundaries, and scientific take permits.
    The second public hearing was held from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on 
Tuesday, October 25, 1994, at St. Michael's Chapter House, Window Rock, 
Arizona. The hearing was held in response to requests from the Navajo 
Nation and representatives of Apache County, Arizona. Notice of the 
public hearing was published in local and regional newspapers. Five 
people attended this hearing and three people provided comments. Major 
issues discussed included take permits, Southwestern Recovery Region 
boundaries, and support for retaining the endangered status in the 
Southwestern Recovery Region.
    Comments on the proposed rule were received from 72 parties 
including those attending the public hearings. Twenty-two State 
resource agencies responded to the proposed rule, of which 14 supported 
reclassification, three recommended the Southwestern Recovery Region be 
reclassified to threatened, one recommended bald eagles in its State be 
delisted, two did not object to reclassification but stated that they 
would retain State endangered status, and one provided comments, but 
gave no position.
    Eighteen commentors represented organizations. Of these, ten stated 
support for the proposal, four recommended against the proposed rule, 
and two requested additional information.
    Nineteen individuals provided comments, two of which provided 
surveys covering 157 people. Most individuals recommended against 
reclassification and several provided comments.
    In response to the reopened comment period beginning March 23, 
1995, the Service received 18 additional comments. Six State resource 
agencies responded with five of them supporting reclassification of the 
Southwestern Recovery Region and one requested delisting for a northern 
State. Four Federal entities responded. Three did not object to the 
reclassification, but two of those provided comments. One Federal 
entity requested the bald eagles of Mexico be listed as endangered. Two 
organizations opposed reclassification of the Southwestern bald eagles, 
as did two individuals. A third individual expressed opposition to any 
reduction of eagle protection. Three parties requested additional 
information but provided no comments.
    Written comments received during the comment periods and oral 
statements presented at the public hearing are discussed in the 
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into 
general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are 
discussed below.
    Issue 1: The bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region should 
be reclassified to threatened because recovery goals were met, genetic 
evidence does not indicate this population segment to be unique, and 
there is recent evidence of immigration.
    Service Response: The Service has reviewed this issue, and due to 
the new evidence of immigration, reopened the comment period to alert 
the public to the new data and to reconsider whether or not this 
population segment is distinct and if it should also be reclassified to 
threatened. In considering the comments and information received, the 
Service has determined the Southwestern Recovery Region to be part of 
the same bald eagle population as that of the remaining lower 48 
States. Therefore, the Service has included it in the reclassification. 
In 1994, a new pair of nesting bald eagles was discovered in the White 
Mountains at Luna Lake near Alpine, Arizona, bordering New Mexico. The 
male of this pair was trapped, and its band revealed that it had 
hatched in 1988 in southeastern Texas, south of Houston. This is the 
first known bald eagle to breed within Arizona's boundaries that 
originated in a different State and in a different recovery region 
(Southeastern).
    Mabie et al. (1994) provides additional evidence of inter-
population movements. Based on sight records, the authors believe that 
bald eagles fledged in Texas may enter breeding populations throughout 
the southern United States. Emigration of Texas-fledged eagles may also 
extend into Mexico (Driscoll, et al. 1993).
    Though Hunt et al. (1992) suggested that the central Arizona 
population may be reproductively isolated, that publication also stated 
that, ``neither enzyme electrophoresis nor DNA fingerprinting resolved 
any specific genetic markers from which Arizona eagles could be 
differentiated from those of other populations * * *.; Both techniques 
showed higher levels of genetic heterozygosity in the Arizona samples 
than the other populations tested * * *, [and] * * * these healthy 
levels of variation imply that the Arizona eagles are not currently 
experiencing inbreeding problems and may be capable of adapting to 
future environmental change. This, together with the occupancy and 
reproductive data, suggests that the population may be viable over the 
long term * * *'' and that, in spite of the smaller size of the Arizona 
eagles, ``We were unable to show a quality of uniqueness among the 
Arizona eagles that implies the existence of adaptations to the desert 
environment * * *''
    Thus, based on new information on immigration and previously known 
genetic data, the Service believes this population is not 
reproductively isolated and should be included with the 
reclassification of the lower 48 States population.
    Issue 2: Delisting goals have been met or exceeded in many cases. 
The bald eagle should be delisted in States where it has fully 
recovered.
    Response: In 1978, the Service recognized separate population 
segments of this species primarily on the basis of State boundaries, 
with bald eagles in five northern and Pacific States listed as 
threatened, and those in the remainder of the lower 48 States listed as 
endangered. The distinctiveness of these population segments is 
questionable, given the dispersal capabilities of the species across 
state lines. For the purposes of this rule, the Service recognizes only 
one population in the lower 48 States, although the five recovery 
regions remain valid for management purposes. Thus, delisting will only 
be considered for the listed bald eagle population as a whole and not 
on a State by State or recovery region basis. Delisting goals have only 
been met for the Northern States Recovery Region and these goals were 
developed and approved as ``tentative.'' Two recovery plans, those for 
the 

[[Page 36005]]
Southwestern and the Southeastern Recovery Regions, have not yet 
established delisting goals. These three plans are currently being 
updated and revised, with emphasis on developing biologically sound 
delisting goals. Delisting goals for the remaining regions are very 
close to being met.
    Issue 3: The number of occupied territories in several States or 
all the lower 48 States is too low to consider reclassification.
    Response: Reclassification and delisting criteria were developed by 
experts in bald eagle biology in all five recovery regions. The 
reclassification criteria were met for all five recovery regions in the 
lower 48 States. Each recovery plan included the number and 
distribution of occupied territories and productivity as factors in 
recovery and reclassification. The bald eagle has never been uniformly 
distributed, and there is no biological reason to require a more even 
distribution of the species as a precursor to reclassification. The 
Service believes that, in the unlikely event of a catastrophe 
decimating a State's bald eagle population, pioneering eagles from 
other States would likely venture into the unoccupied habitats within a 
short time.
    Issue 4: The Service should not proceed with reclassification until 
certain additional studies are conducted.
    Service Response: The Endangered Species Act does not require that 
the Service know the answers to all outstanding biological questions 
before declaring the bald eagle to be recovering and worthy of 
reclassification to threatened status. Reclassification is based on 
criteria set forth in the recovery plans; those criteria are set at a 
level which is believed to be sufficiently high so that relisting as 
endangered will not be necessary in the foreseeable future. The plans 
were developed by the Nation's bald eagle experts and approved by the 
Service. Additional studies are not deemed necessary for 
reclassification.
    Issue 5: Contaminants continue to depress reproduction and the prey 
base in many bald eagle nesting areas. Development continues to 
encroach on bald eagle habitat. Low level military aircraft flights may 
affect bald eagle reproduction. Many questions related to these factors 
remain unanswered.
    Response: Even States which are known to have localized areas of 
contamination or development pressures have experienced increased 
numbers of occupied territories in the past 10 years. Achieving the 
reclassification criteria does not mean that all the threats are gone; 
rather, it means that the species is doing much better than when it was 
listed as endangered. The reclassification will not alter those 
conservation measures already in force to protect the species and its 
habitats. Since these pressures are expected to continue, all levels of 
government and the public will need to continue to work toward 
protection of important bald eagle habitat.
    Issue 6: More bald eagles will be shot and killed if they are 
reclassified to threatened status.
    Response: Shooting bald eagles is illegal under the Endangered 
Species Act regardless of whether they are classified as threatened or 
endangered. Bald eagles are also protected from shooting by the Bald 
and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    Issue 7: The bald eagles of the Channel Islands off California were 
once part of the Southwest and Mexican population segment. They were 
extirpated due to DDT exposure and have since been reintroduced. 
Reproduction remains low due to lingering contaminants. These birds 
should be classified as endangered.
    Response: The Channel Island eagles are not a genetically unique 
population segment as they have recently been reintroduced to that 
area. The Service has also recognized the Southwestern population 
segment as not being reproductively isolated and, having met the 
reclassification criteria, is reclassified to threatened. Possible 
inclusion of the bald eagles of the Channel Islands with the 
Southwestern Recovery Region will be considered during the recovery 
plan updating and revision.
    Issue 8:  Bald eagles in western States should not be reclassified 
due to mortality from animal damage control methods.
    Response: Animal damage control methods, such as M-44 sodium 
cyanide devices and zinc phosphide, if used legally and according to 
label instructions, pose low potential for poisoning bald eagles. 
Illegal use of carbofuran and other highly toxic chemicals on bait for 
predator control has resulted in a number of eagle mortalities. Such 
actions are illegal now, and will remain illegal following 
reclassification of the bald eagle. Western States and their respective 
recovery regions have met reclassification goals in spite of these 
localized mortalities.
    Issue 9: The Service should prepare an environmental impact 
statement under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) based on 
increased permitted take that will result as land use changes occur on 
public lands.
    Service Response: Reclassification will not increase permitted take 
of bald eagles due to land use changes occurring on public lands. Take 
permits are only issued for activities that promote recovery goals or 
for activities that incidentally take endangered or threatened species 
during the course of otherwise legal activities. The Service is 
required to consider NEPA compliance prior to deciding whether to issue 
each take permit. Habitat protective mechanisms remain the same under 
the Endangered Species Act whether a species is in the endangered or 
threatened status. In addition, the take prohibitions of the Bald and 
Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will remain in 
effect following reclassification.
    Issue 10: The most current scientific information should be used 
for this reclassification based on the National Environmental Policy 
Act requirements.
    Service Response: The Endangered Species Act requires the use of 
the best scientific and commercial data when making a determination to 
list, delist, or reclassify a species. Annual bald eagle survey data 
collected primarily by State and Federal biologists is compiled 
nationwide each year by the Service. In addition, many university, 
State, and Federal life history studies have been completed and others 
are on-going. Furthermore, there have been two public comment periods 
following the proposed reclassification notice, and one comment period 
subsequent to the 1990 Advance Notice. These comment periods provided 
opportunities for submission of additional data to the Service. The 
Service considered all relevant data in regards to achieving recovery 
plan goals, and believes the best available scientific data were used 
in determining that reclassification is warranted for the bald eagle. 
National Environmental Policy Act compliance is discussed at the end of 
this document.
    Issue 11: The bald eagle should not be rushed into reclassification 
for political considerations, and it should be fully recovered before 
reclassification occurs.
    Service Response: The Endangered Species Act requires periodic 
review of the status of listed species. The listing status should 
accurately reflect the biological status. Fully recovered implies that 
the species is no longer likely to become an endangered species and is 
candidate for delisting. The Act does not require that a species be 
fully recovered prior to reclassification to threatened status. Rather, 
a species must no longer be in danger of extinction for it to be 
reclassified from endangered to 

[[Page 36006]]
threatened status. The Service used only biological information in 
determining to reclassify the bald eagle; political considerations were 
not a factor in the decision.
    Issue 12: The Service acknowledges a high level of mortality due to 
illegal use of pesticides, yet states that pesticides in recent times 
have not impacted the bald eagle on a population level. How high is 
this mortality?
    Service Response: The Service, with this rule, recognizes only one 
population of bald eagles in the lower 48 States and five recovery 
areas. Although full recovery may be faster if the Service were able to 
reduce all forms of mortality, the population and all management zones 
clearly have experienced significant improvement since completion of 
the recovery plans. The Service is using all available tools to 
minimize mortality to bald eagles from legal and illegal use of 
pesticides. Estimates of mortalities from illegal pesticide use cannot 
accurately be made, as many cases remain unreported.
    Issue 13: The remnant population of Baja California, Mexico, bald 
eagles and possibly those of Sonora, Mexico, should be classified as 
endangered.
    Service Response: The recent moratorium on listing new species 
prevents us from including the bald eagles of Mexico in this rule (PL 
104-6, April 10, 1995). However, Mabie, et al. (1994) indicates the 
possibility that bald eagles of Texas may be emigrating to Sonora and 
other areas in the southwest. The numbers of nesting bald eagles in 
Baja, though low, appear stable. Current information does not indicate 
the bald eagles of Mexico are a distinct population, and thus may not 
warrant a separate listing as endangered. Following removal of the 
listing moratorium, all available data will be re-examined prior to 
making a final determination on Mexican bald eagles.
    Issue 14: Recently, several bald eagles have died in Arkansas and 
Wisconsin from unknown causes.
    Service Response: In the winter of 1994-95, 29 bald eagles died in 
Arkansas and 9 died in Wisconsin from unknown causes. Infectious 
disease has been ruled out as a likely cause. It is believed that the 
Arkansas mortalities were caused by a toxic agent different from that 
of Wisconsin. These mortalities are too few in number to impact 
recovery. Although it is disturbing that the agents have not yet been 
identified, the causes of these deaths do not appear to be common 
diseases which might spread widely to other eagles.
    Issue 15: The new information regarding the successful nesting at 
Luna Lake, Arizona, which included a male from southeast Texas, does 
not constitute definitive proof that genetic interaction occurs between 
desert nesting bald eagle populations and wintering populations. The 
Service should retain the endangered status for these southwestern bald 
eagles.
    Service Response: The significance of the Luna Lake nesting pair 
was that the male was documented as originating in a different recovery 
region, i.e. the Southeastern Recovery Region. This supported existing 
genetic data indicating the southwestern birds are not experiencing 
inbreeding problems. We are not aware of Arizona nesting birds 
interbreeding with wintering birds, although it is possible that a 
wintering bird might replace the lost mate of a pair. Though many 
threats remain, the Southwestern eagles have far exceeded the criteria 
for threatened status as outlined in the Southwestern Recovery Plan.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all information 
available, the Service has determined that the bald eagle should be 
classified as a threatened species throughout the lower 48 States. 
Procedures found in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations implementing the provisions of the 
Act (50 CFR Part 424) were followed. A species may be determined to be 
listed or reclassified as threatened or endangered due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These five factors 
and their application to the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are 
as follows.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
    The bald eagle is associated with aquatic ecosystems throughout 
most of its range. Nesting almost never occurs farther than 3 km (2 
miles) from water (Gerrard and Bortolotti 1988). Fish predominate in 
the typical diet of eagles. Many other types of prey are also taken, 
including waterfowl and small mammals, depending on location, time of 
year, and population cycles of prey species. Dead animals or carrion, 
especially in the wintering areas, are also taken when available 
(Lincer et al. 1979).
    Nest sites are usually in large trees along shorelines in 
relatively remote areas. The trees must be sturdy and open to support a 
nest that is often 2-3 m (6-9 ft) across and more than a meter (3 ft) 
thick (Bent 1938). Bald eagles also select cliffs or rock outcrops for 
nest sites where large trees are not available. This dependence upon 
very large trees associated with water makes the eagle vulnerable to 
water-associated development pressures.
    One of the two major threats to the bald eagle at present and for 
the foreseeable future is destruction and degradation of its habitat 
(the other major threat is environmental contaminants--see Factor E 
below). This occurs through direct cutting of trees for shoreline 
development, human disturbance associated with recreational use of 
shorelines and waterways, and contamination of waterways from point and 
non-point sources of pollution.
    Steps to reduce these threats are underway by all levels of 
government and numerous private conservation organizations nationwide. 
Increased protection of nesting habitat and winter roost sites has 
occurred in many areas throughout the country. Guidelines to minimize 
human disturbance around nesting and winter roost sites have been 
developed in all parts of the country. Areas of contamination continue 
to be identified and reduced. Rehabilitation, captive propagation, 
reintroduction, and transplanting programs have all worked toward 
increasing the viability of the U.S. bald eagle population.
    Current threats to the bald eagle's habitat and range in the United 
States by recovery region are as follows:
    Chesapeake Bay Region--Buehler et al. (1991) reported that the bald 
eagle feeding and resting use of Chesapeake Bay shoreline was directly 
related to the distance of development from the shoreline. Eagles 
tended to avoid shorelines with nearby pedestrian or boat traffic. With 
human activity and development increasing, preferred bald eagle habitat 
is diminishing. Associated land clearing reduces bald eagle nesting and 
perching sites.
    To offset these impacts, the Service has expanded its National 
Wildlife Refuge System around the Chesapeake Bay area to protect bald 
eagle habitat. For example, the Service acquired 3,500 acres of nesting 
and roosting habitat in the James River area of Chesapeake Bay in 1991 
to be protected and managed for bald eagles. Acquisition of an 
additional 600 acres is planned. The Blackwater National Wildlife 
Refuge, which provides important eagle habitat on Chesapeake Bay, is 
also proposing to acquire more land. Nickerson (1989) estimates that 
enough suitable unoccupied nesting habitat remains that, if unaltered, 
it could sustain continued growth of the bald eagle population through 
the remainder of the 20th century. 

[[Page 36007]]

    Northern States Recovery Region--Development, particularly near 
urban areas, remains a primary threat. In spite of these localized 
problems, bald eagle nesting activity in the Northern States Recovery 
Region has more than doubled in the past 10 years from fewer than 700 
to nearly 1,800 territories known to be occupied. There also is ample 
unoccupied habitat still available throughout this region.
    In the Great Plains States, loss of wintering habitat is a major 
concern. Wintering areas have been lost through development of riparian 
areas for recreational, agricultural, and urban uses. Loss of wintering 
habitat also occurs due to lack of cottonwood regeneration. This 
results from changes in floodplain hydrology from construction of 
reservoirs and dam operations. Grazing also inhibits regeneration. A 
threat to some wintering populations of eagles in the Great Plains 
States is the destruction of prairie dog colonies and other important 
foraging areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992).
    However, management measures, reforestation, improved water 
quality, and a reduction in pesticide contamination (see factor E 
below) have enabled the Northern States bald eagle populations to 
increase substantially overall. Where reservoirs may adversely affect 
woody riparian growth, they have provided additional forage base for 
eagles. Much eagle nesting and wintering habitat is on publicly owned 
lands. Many of these lands are protected by habitat management plans 
and strict eagle nest protection and management guidelines.
    Pacific Recovery Region--Development-related habitat loss continues 
to be a major factor limiting the abundance and distribution of the 
species in the Pacific Recovery Region. Habitat conservation efforts, 
including laws and management practices by Federal and State agencies 
and efforts by private organizations, have helped to facilitate bald 
eagle population increases in the Pacific Recovery Region since the 
1960's. For example, interagency working teams in six of the seven 
Pacific Recovery Region States have developed implementation plans to 
address local issues more specifically than the recovery plan. Bald 
eagle habitat guidelines have also been incorporated into development 
covenants and land use. California and Washington have rules relating 
to bald eagles on private lands to encourage landowners to maintain 
nesting territory habitat.
    Southeastern Recovery Region--The accelerated pace of development 
activities within eagle habitat and the extensive area involved are the 
most significant limiting factors in the Southeastern Region. The 
cumulative effects of many water development projects impinge on the 
ability to maintain current nesting populations and ultimately may 
limit the extent to which recovery may occur.
    To reduce these threats, habitat management guidelines are used to 
minimize development disturbance in and around nests. Several counties 
and municipalities have adopted the guidelines in their land use and 
zoning policies. In addition, a significant amount of new habitat has 
been created in the form of manmade reservoirs. Reservoirs primarily 
provide wintering and non-nesting habitat, but are used by nesting 
eagles as well (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989).
    In addition, many of the States have, or have had, active 
reintroduction programs. Rehabilitation and release of injured eagles 
occurs throughout the Southeastern Region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1989). As a result of these and other efforts, the bald eagle 
nesting population in the Southeastern Region has more than doubled in 
the past 10 years.
    Southwestern Recovery Region--In addition to threats in common with 
other recovery regions, such as human disturbance and availability of 
adequate nesting and feeding habitat, the bald eagles of the 
Southwestern Recovery Region, and nestlings in particular, are 
subjected to heat stress, nest parasites, and entanglement in fishing 
line debris from intense fishing pressure. Extensive monitoring through 
the Arizona Bald Eagle Nestwatch Program has lessened the impact of 
mortality factors by educating the public, protecting breeding areas, 
and maximizing the number of fledglings produced. The protection, 
education, and intervention that this program and current management 
efforts provide help sustain this population segment.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    There is no legal commercial or recreational use of bald eagles. 
The Service considers present legal and enforcement measures sufficient 
to prevent bald eagle extinction or a need to reclassify as endangered. 
The Service exercises very strict control over scientific, educational, 
and Native American religious activities involving bald eagles or their 
parts. With reclassification to threatened, the Service could issue 
permits for limited exhibition and educational purposes, for selected 
research work not directly related to the conservation of the species, 
and for other special purposes consistent with the Act (50 CFR 17.32 
and 17.41(a)). The Service does not believe that the issuance of these 
additional permits would adversely impact the full recovery of the bald 
eagle.

C. Disease or Predation

    Predation is not a significant problem for bald eagle populations. 
Incidents of mortality due to territory disputes between bald eagles 
have been reported. Diseases such as avian cholera, avian pox, 
aspergillosis, tuberculosis, and botulism may affect individual eagles, 
but are not considered to be a significant threat to the population. In 
the winter of 1994-95, 29 bald eagles died in Arkansas and 9 died in 
Wisconsin. Infectious disease has been ruled out. Apparently the 
Arkansas mortalities were caused by a toxic agent different from that 
of Wisconsin. These mortalities, though significant, are too few in 
number to impact recovery. In the Southwestern population, the Mexican 
chicken bug, when abundant, is known to occasionally kill young. 
According to the National Wildlife Health Research Center, National 
Biological Survey, Wisconsin, only 2.7 percent of bald eagles submitted 
to the Center between 1985 and 1990 died from infectious disease.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The bald eagle is protected by the following Federal wildlife laws 
in the U.S.:

    *  Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) protect individual bald eagles (threatened or 
endangered) and their active nests on public and private land.
    *  The Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) prohibits 
without specific authorization the possession, transport, or take of 
any bald or golden eagle, their parts, nests, or eggs.
    *  The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703) prohibits 
without specific authorization the possession, transport, or take of 
any migratory bird (including bald eagles), their parts, nests, or 
eggs.
    *  The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3372 and 18 U.S.C. 42-44) among 
other provisions, makes it unlawful to export, import, transport, 
sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any bald eagle (1) taken or 
possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the 
United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law or (2) to be 
taken, sold, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in 
violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of 
any foreign law.

    This species is afforded uncommonly comprehensive statutory and 
regulatory 

[[Page 36008]]
protection under Federal and State authorities. These protections will 
remain in effect following reclassification to threatened status.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Contaminants may affect the survival as well as the reproductive 
success and health of bald eagles. The abundance, and, potentially more 
important, the quality of prey may be seriously affected by 
environmental contamination. Although many of the compounds implicated 
in reduced reproductive rates and direct mortality are no longer used, 
contaminants continue to be a major problem in some areas. Pesticides 
in recent times have not impacted the bald eagle on a population level; 
however, individual poisonings still occur.
    Carcasses baited with poison may attract bald eagles as well as 
target animals such as coyotes. Poisonings may occur secondarily, when 
predatory animals are poisoned and subsequently eaten by eagles. Crop 
insecticides may be taken up by prey animals and may also result in 
eagle mortality. In addition, organophosphates and carbamates are 
sometimes used illegally as animal poisons. The National Wildlife 
Health Research Center has diagnosed over 100 cases of pesticide 
poisonings in bald eagles in the past 15 years.
    Bald eagle deaths have been reported each year in the past decade 
on western rangelands due, in part, to illegal use of pesticides such 
as famphur, phorate, and carbofuran, and highly restricted chemicals, 
such as strychnine, Compound 1080, and others (Tom Jackson, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Denver, pers. comm.). This mortality on western 
rangelands corresponds with the primary wintering areas for most 
western bald eagles (other than Pacific Coast birds). Some illegal uses 
of pesticides are targeted at bald and golden eagles. Cases of 
suspected intentional mortality through treating carcasses with 
pesticides have occurred in most western States and may occur in other 
States. The Service is using all available means to reduce these 
incidents.
    Long-term exposure to contaminants is a much more extensive problem 
than is direct mortality. Lifetime exposure to contaminants may limit 
an eagle's reproductive capabilities, alter their behavior and foraging 
abilities, and increase their susceptibility to diseases or other 
environmental stresses. Organochlorines, such as DDT, are no longer 
legally used in the United States. Their presence in bald eagles is 
generally a consequence of their long persistence in the environment. 
Consequently, residues of such compounds from historical uses can still 
contaminate prey animals and be passed to eagles. Exposure to these 
compounds is also occurring at an early age. For example, approximately 
90% of the eaglets sampled in Maine in 1992 had detectable levels of 
DDE in their blood.
    In the Chesapeake Bay Region, Delaware Bay and the James River 
below Richmond continue to be a source of organochlorine and heavy 
metal contaminants that may impact eagle reproduction (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1990). However, DDE concentrations in addled bald 
eagle eggs in Chesapeake Bay have declined significantly during the 
years between 1969 and 1984 (Wiemeyer et al. 1993).
    In parts of the Northern States Region, contamination is depressing 
bald eagle productivity. This occurs notably in the coastal areas of 
Lakes Michigan and Huron, those rivers accessible by anadromous fishes 
of those lakes, and in parts of Maine. Research on bald eagle 
productivity in the vicinity of Lakes Michigan and Huron shorelines 
indicates significantly lower productivity than for inland breeding 
birds. The reduced productivity is correlated with concentrations of 
PCB's and DDE in addled eggs (Bowerman et al. 1994). DDT rapidly 
converts to DDE and is highly correlated with depressed productivity in 
bald eagles (Garcelon 1994).
    PCB's and DDE residue concentrations have markedly decreased for 
Lake Superior bald eagle eggs in Wisconsin. Recent data indicate DDE 
concentrations in eggs have declined from greater than 20 parts per 
million in the 1970's to less than four parts per million in the 1990's 
(Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, pers. 
comm.). This is significant because 4 parts per million is considered 
the no effect concentration for DDE (Wiemeyer et al. 1993).
    Bald eagles of the Pacific Recovery Region nesting on California's 
Channel Islands, near the Columbia River estuary, and Hood Canal, which 
is adjacent to Puget Sound, repeatedly have low reproductive success. 
DDE and PCB's have had a deleterious effect on the reproduction of bald 
eagles in the Columbia River estuary (Anthony et al. 1993). Residual 
DDE continues to depress reproduction in the eagles of the Channel 
Islands. Bald eagle eggs from Catalina Island had the highest reported 
individual concentration (60 parts per million) of those analyzed 
between 1968 and 1990, and highest average concentration (32.9 parts 
per million) compared to that of any region or State (Garcelon 1994). 
Wiemeyer et al. (1993) found addled bald eagle eggs collected from the 
Klamath Basin and Cascade Lakes regions in Oregon ranked second (behind 
Maine) in DDE concentrations among the fifteen States sampled. However, 
concentrations of other contaminants in the Oregon eggs were low.
    In spite of localized reproductive impairment, the Pacific Recovery 
Region population has increased by about 68 percent in the past 10 
years. Contaminants are not known to be a significant problem for 
eagles in the Southwestern Recovery Region.
    Lead poisoning has also contributed to bald eagle mortality. The 
National Wildlife Health Research Center has diagnosed lead poisoning 
in more than 225 bald eagles during the last 15 years. Lead can poison 
bald eagles when they ingest prey items that contain lead shot or lead 
fragments or where the prey has assimilated lead into its own tissues. 
In winter, eagles may feed on waterfowl that are dead or dying from 
lead poisoning or upon waterfowl crippled by lead shotgun pellets 
during the hunting season. Lead poisoning of eagles was a primary 
reason the Service required the nationwide use of non-toxic shot for 
waterfowl hunting. The requirement for use of non-toxic shot was phased 
in over a period of 5 years, and its use became mandatory for all 
waterfowl hunting in 1991. Use of lead shot is still permitted in many 
parts of Canada.
    Of particular concern for bald eagles in the southeastern region 
and in Maine are the toxic effects of mercury (Wiemeyer et al. 1993; C. 
Facmire, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, pers. comm.). High 
levels of mercury affect eagles with a variety of neurological problems 
in which flight and other motor skills can be significantly altered and 
reduce hatching rates of eggs. Mercury has entered the waterways as air 
emissions from solid waste incineration sites and other point and non-
point sources. Impacts to bald eagles from mercury are currently under 
investigation in the Southeastern Region.
    Illegal shooting still poses threats to individual birds. Increased 
law enforcement and public awareness have reduced shooting impacts from 
being a cause of large scale mortality in the first half of this 
century to being responsible only for the deaths of occasional 
individuals at present. From 1985 to 1990, the National Wildlife Health 
Research Center had diagnosed over 150 bald eagle deaths due to 
gunshot. Hunter education courses routinely 

[[Page 36009]]
include bald eagle identification material to educate hunters about 
bald eagles and the protections that the species is afforded.
    Electrocutions occur on power poles and lines that are not yet 
configured for the protection of raptors. Much research has been done 
in this area, and new poles and lines are usually configured to reduce 
raptor electrocutions.
    Human disturbance also remains a long-term threat. Significant 
declines in eagle use of the Skagit River, Washington, were noted in 
response to recreational activity (Stalmaster 1989). Human disturbance 
can be harmful during egg incubation and brooding periods, because 
disturbance can flush adults from nests and expose the eggs or young to 
adverse weather conditions.
    Land management practices can reduce or eliminate these disturbance 
problems. Management of bald eagle nesting sites has progressed in some 
areas to include zones of protection extending up to 2.5 miles (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). In the Bear Valley National Wildlife 
Refuge, Oregon, for example, public access is restricted from November 
1 through March 30 to prevent human disturbance to wintering bald 
eagles.
    Despite these various threats to the bald eagle, none are of 
sufficient magnitude, individually or collectively, to place the 
species at risk of extinction. Over most of the 48 States, the 
population is doubling every 6 or 7 years.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by this species in determining this rule. Based on 
this evaluation, the preferred action is to reclassify the bald eagle 
from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States. The bald eagle 
will remain threatened in the five States where it is currently listed 
as threatened. The threatened status is appropriate because the bald 
eagle is not in danger of extinction (i.e. endangered) throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range.

Recognition of One Population in the Lower 48 States

    In 1978, the Service recognized distinct population segments of 
this species and delineated them on the basis of State boundaries, with 
bald eagles in five northern States listed as threatened, and those in 
the remainder of the lower 48 States listed as endangered. The 
distinctiveness of these population segments is questionable, given the 
dispersal capabilities of the species across State lines.
    In the July 12, 1994, proposed rule, the southwest bald eagle 
population was recognized as distinct from eagles elsewhere in the 
lower 48 States based on evidence that it appeared to be reproductively 
isolated. However, new evidence of immigration coupled with genetic 
studies which were unable to demonstrate uniqueness in the Arizona 
eagles leads us to conclude that the population segment is not 
reproductively isolated. Thus, for purposes of this rule, the Service 
recognizes only one population of bald eagles in the lower 48 States. 
This population is now reclassified to threatened.

Special Rule

    The Act allows special rules to be adopted for threatened species 
as needed for the species' conservation; such special rules are 
typically provided to reduce or augment those protections afforded to 
threatened species under the Act. Section 17.41(a) is a special rule 
adopted at the time of the 1978 reclassification of the bald eagle. The 
original intent was to reduce the number of permits required for 
researchers working on threatened eagles (i.e., Oregon, Washington, 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) under both Sec. 17.32 and 50 CFR 
parts 21 and 22 (bird banding and eagle permits). The present special 
rule at Sec. 17.41(a) reads as follows:

    (a) Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) found in Washington, 
Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
    (1) Applicable provisions. The provisions of Secs. 17.31 and 
17.32 shall apply to bald eagles specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section to the extent such provisions are consistent with the Bald 
Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 
U.S.C. 703-711), and the regulations issued thereunder.

    The Service now clarifies the language of this special rule for all 
threatened bald eagles. Only a permit issued under the authority of 50 
CFR 21.22 or 50 CFR part 22 (subpart C) is needed for such purposes as 
banding (Sec. 21.22); scientific study or exhibition (Sec. 22.21), 
which includes taking, possession, rehabilitation, and transport; 
native American religious use (Sec. 22.22); and depredation reduction 
(Sec. 22.23). A permit under Sec. 17.32 would only be required when a 
permit under parts 21 and 22 do not provide for an otherwise lawful 
activity. The issuance of all such permits would remain subject to 
section 7 of the Act and part 402 of this title.

Effects of This Rule

    As a result of the reclassification, prohibitions outlined under 50 
CFR 17.41(a) would apply to all bald eagles of the lower 48 States. The 
Service could issue permits for exhibition and educational purposes, 
for selected research work (including banding and marking) not directly 
related to the conservation of the species, and for other special 
purposes. In allowing for a single permit, the Service seeks to foster 
further research and other uses of bald eagles consistent with the Act 
and the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald Eagle 
Act (50 CFR 17.32, 17.41(a), 21.22, 22.21-21.23).
    Requirements of the Act under section 7 still apply to all Federal 
agencies; there are no significant distinctions made in the Act or 
supporting regulations (part 402) between endangered and threatened 
species. The consultation and other requirements under section 7 apply 
equally to species with either classification.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental 
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Service offices listed in the Addresses section.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Jody Gustitus Millar, Bald 
Eagle Recovery Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4469-48th Avenue 
Court, Rock Island, Illinois 61201 (309/793-5800).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation
    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below: 

[[Page 36010]]


PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the two entries for 
``Eagle, bald'' under BIRDS and adding a new entry for ``Eagle, bald'' 
in its place to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species                                  Vertebrate                                                
---------------------------------                     population                                                
                                   Historic range       where         Status       When      Critical   Special 
  Common name    Scientific name                    endangered or                 listed     habitat     rules  
                                                      threatened                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
      *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *     
                                                           *                                                    
     Birds                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
      *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *     
                                                           *                                                    
Eagle, bald....  Haliaeetus       North America,   U.S.A.           T           1, 34, 580  NA          17.41(a)
                  leucocephalus.   south into       (conterminous                                               
                                   Mexico.          48 States).                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 17.41(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 17.41  Special rules--birds.

    (a) Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) wherever listed as 
threatened under Sec. 17.11(h).
    (1) Applicable provisions. All prohibitions and measures of 
Secs. 17.31 and 17.32 shall apply to any threatened bald eagle, except 
that any permit issued under Sec. 21.22 or part 22 of this chapter 
shall be deemed to satisfy all requirements of Secs. 17.31 and 17.32 
for that authorized activity, and a second permit shall not be required 
under Sec. 17.32. A permit is required under Sec. 17.32 for any 
activity not covered by any permit issued under Sec. 21.22 or part 22 
of this chapter.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    Dated: June 6, 1995.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-16981 Filed 7-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P