Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

Part III

Department of the Interior

_______________________________________________________________________

Fish and Wildlife Service

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove

the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF21

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To

Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service), propose to

remove the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 States of the United

States. We propose this action because the available data indicate that

this species has recovered. The recovery is due in part to habitat

protection and management actions initiated under the Endangered

Species Act. It is also due to reduction in levels of persistent

organochlorine pesticides such as DDT occurring in the environment.

Section 4(g) of the Act requires the Service to monitor recovered

species for at least 5 years following delisting. This rule describes

our proposed post-delisting monitoring plan for bald eagles. Removal of

the bald eagle as a threatened species under the Act will not affect

the protection provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and many other state laws.

) of the Act requires the Service to monitor recovered

species for at least 5 years following delisting. This rule describes

our proposed post-delisting monitoring plan for bald eagles. Removal of

the bald eagle as a threatened species under the Act will not affect

the protection provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and many other state laws.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties concerning the proposal to

delist the bald eagle in the lower 48 States must be received by

October 5, 1999. Public hearing requests must be received by August 20,

1999.

Comments from all interested parties on the collection of

information from the public during the 5-year monitoring period will be

considered if received on or before September 7, 1999. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove

information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to

ensure maximum consideration, your comments should be received by OMB

by August 5, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments and other information concerning the

proposal to delist the bald eagle in the lower 48 States to: Jody

Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 4469-48th Avenue Court, Rock Island, IL 61201 or

comments may be sent through our web site at www.fws.gov/r3pao/eagle.

Also send your comments and suggestions on specific information

collection requirements to Rebecca Mullin, Service Information

Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 224

ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle

Recovery Coordinator at the above address, telephone 309/793-5800 ext.

524, or refer to our website at www.fws.gov/r3pao/eagle.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

ents to Rebecca Mullin, Service Information

Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 224

ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle

Recovery Coordinator at the above address, telephone 309/793-5800 ext.

524, or refer to our website at www.fws.gov/r3pao/eagle.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, is well known as our

Nation's symbol. Its large and powerful appearance is distinguished by

its white head and tail contrasting against its dark brown body. Though

once endangered, the bald eagle population in the lower 48 States has

increased considerably in recent years. Regional bald eagle populations

in the northwest, Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Florida have

increased 5-fold in the past 20 years. Bald eagles are now repopulating

areas throughout much of the species' historic range that were

unoccupied only a few years ago.

Note: Unless otherwise noted with specific citations, the

following life history information is derived from our 5 recovery

plans for the bald eagle and from Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988), see

References.

The bald eagle ranges throughout much of North America, nesting on

both coasts from Florida to Baja California, Mexico in the south, and

from Labrador to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska in the north. The

earliest known record of a bald eagle comes from a cave in Colorado.

Deposits from that cave are dated at 670,000 to 780,000 years old (Dr.

Steve Emslie, University of North Carolina, pers. comm. 1998). An

estimated quarter to a half million bald eagles lived on the North

American continent before the first Europeans arrived.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (literally, sea eagle with a white head)

is the only species of sea eagle native to North America. It was first

described in 1766 as Falco leucocephalus by Linnaeus

0 years old (Dr.

Steve Emslie, University of North Carolina, pers. comm. 1998). An

estimated quarter to a half million bald eagles lived on the North

American continent before the first Europeans arrived.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (literally, sea eagle with a white head)

is the only species of sea eagle native to North America. It was first

described in 1766 as Falco leucocephalus by Linnaeus. This South

Carolina specimen was later renamed as the southern bald eagle,

subspecies Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus (Linnaeus) when

Townsend identified the northern bald eagle as Haliaeetus leucocephalus

alascanus in 1897 (Peters 1979). By the time the bald eagle was listed

throughout the lower 48 States under the Endangered Species Act in

1978, the subspecies were no longer recognized by ornithologists

(American Ornithologists Union 1983).

The bald eagle is a bird of aquatic ecosystems. It frequents

estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, major rivers, and some seacoast

habitats. Fish is the major component of its diet, but waterfowl,

seagulls, and carrion are also eaten. The species may also use prairies

if adequate food is available. Bald eagle habitats encompass both

public and private lands.

Bald eagles usually nest in trees near water, but are known to nest

on cliffs and (rarely) on the ground. Nest sites are usually in large

trees along shorelines in relatively remote areas that are free of

disturbance. The trees must be sturdy and open to support a nest that

is often 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep. Adults tend to use the same

breeding areas year after year, and often the same nest, though a

breeding area may include one or more alternate nests. A 35-year old

nest at Vermilion, Ohio, measured 8\1/2\ feet across at the top and 12

feet deep before it blew down in 1925 (Herrick 1932). In winter, bald

eagles often congregate at specific wintering sites that are generally

close to open water and offer good perch trees and night roosts.

Bald eagles are long-lived

e same nest, though a

breeding area may include one or more alternate nests. A 35-year old

nest at Vermilion, Ohio, measured 8\1/2\ feet across at the top and 12

feet deep before it blew down in 1925 (Herrick 1932). In winter, bald

eagles often congregate at specific wintering sites that are generally

close to open water and offer good perch trees and night roosts.

Bald eagles are long-lived. The longest living bald eagle known in

the wild was reported near Haines, Alaska as 28 years old (Schempf

1997). Bald eagles from Arizona are known to have exceeded 12 years of

age (Hunt et al. 1992). In captivity, bald eagles may live 40 or more

years.

It is presumed that once they mate, the bond is long-term, though

documentation is limited. Variations in pair bonding are known to

occur. If one mate dies or disappears, the other will accept a new

partner. The female bald eagle usually weighs 10 to 14 pounds in the

northern sections of the continent and is larger than the male, which

weighs 8 to 10 pounds. The wings span 6 to 7 feet. The northern birds

are larger and heavier than southern birds, with the largest birds in

Alaska and Canada, and the smallest in Arizona or Florida.

Bald eagle pairs begin courtship about a month before egg-laying.

In the south, courtship occurs as early as September, and in the north,

as late as May. The nesting season lasts about 6 months. Incubation

lasts approximately 35 days and fledging takes place at 11 to 12 weeks

of age. Parental care may extend 4 to 11 weeks after fledging (Wood,

Collopy, and Sekerak 1998). The fledgling bald eagle is generally dark

brown except the underwing linings which are primarily white. Between

fledging and adulthood, the bald eagle's

nter food in

terrestrial habitats far from open water.

The first major decline in the bald eagle population probably began

in the mid to late 1800s. Widespread shooting for feathers and trophies

led to extirpation of eagles in some areas. Shooting also reduced part

of the bald eagle's prey base. Big game animals like bison, which were

seasonally important to eagles as carrion, were decimated. Waterfowl,

shorebirds and small mammals were also reduced in numbers. Carrion

treated with strychnine, thallium sulfate and other poisons were used

as bait to kill livestock predators and ultimately killed many eagles

as well. These were the major factors, in addition to loss of nesting

habitat from forest clearing and development, that contributed to a

reduction in bald eagle numbers through the 1940s.

In 1940, the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) was

passed. This law prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase,

barter, or 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 (16 U.S.C. 668(a)). ``Take'' includes

pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect,

molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The Bald Eagle

Protection Act and increased public awareness of the bald eagle's

status resulted in partial recovery or at least a slower rate of

decline of the species in most areas of the country.

In the late 1940s, 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 crop insecticide. As DDT accumulated in

individual bald eagles from ingesting prey containing DDT and its

metabolites, reproductive success plummeted

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 crop insecticide. As DDT accumulated in

individual bald eagles from ingesting prey containing DDT and its

metabolites, reproductive success plummeted. In the late 1960s and

early 1970s, it was determined that dichlorophenyl-dichloroethylene

(DDE), the principal breakdown product of DDT, accumulated in the fatty

tissues of the adult female bald eagles. DDE impaired calcium release

necessary for normal egg shell formation, resulting in thin shells and

reproductive failure.

In response to this decline, 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 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc). Bald eagles north of this line were 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 by the Environmental

Protection Agency. The following year, the Endangered Species Act of

1973 (the Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) was passed.

Nationwide bald eagle surveys, conducted in 1973 and 1974 by us,

other cooperating agencies, and conservation organizations, revealed

that the eagle population throughout the lower 48 States was declining.

We responded in 1978 by listing the bald eagle, Haliaeetus

leucocephalus, 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). Sub-specific

designations for northern and southern eagles were dropped.

The Act contains provisions for listing, protection, and recovery

of imperiled species

by listing the bald eagle, Haliaeetus

leucocephalus, 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). Sub-specific

designations for northern and southern eagles were dropped.

The Act contains provisions for listing, protection, and recovery

of imperiled species. An endangered species is defined under the Act 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 endangered within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act

and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any listed

species. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,

kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt any of these acts. It

also prohibits shipment in interstate commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sale or offer for sale in interstate or foreign

commerce. The Act requires review of all activities funded, permitted

or conducted by Federal agencies to consider impacts to endangered and

or threatened species. The purpose of the Act is to restore endangered

and threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again

viable, self-sustaining components of their ecosystems.

To facilitate the recovery of the bald eagle and the ecosystems

upon which it depends, we divided the lower 48 States into 5 recovery

regions. Separate recovery teams composed of experts in each geographic

area prepared recovery plans for their region. The teams established

goals for recovery and identified tasks to achieve those goals.

Coordination meetings were held regularly among the 5 teams to exchange

data and other information.

What Are the Five Recovery Regions Established for the Bald Eagle

and the Dates of Their Approved Recovery Plans?

ry teams composed of experts in each geographic

area prepared recovery plans for their region. The teams established

goals for recovery and identified tasks to achieve those goals.

Coordination meetings were held regularly among the 5 teams to exchange

data and other information.

What Are the Five Recovery Regions Established for the Bald Eagle

and the Dates of Their Approved Recovery Plans?

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

Date of recovery

Recovery region plan States

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

Chesapeake Bay................ 1982, rev. 1990.. Virginia east of the

Blue Ridge

Mountains, Delaware,

Maryland, the

eastern half of

Pennsylvania, the

``panhandle'' of

West Virginia, and

the southern two-

thirds of New

Jersey.

Pacific....................... 1986............. Idaho, Nevada,

California, Oregon,

Washington, Montana,

and Wyoming.

Southeastern.................. 1984, rev. 1989.. Alabama, Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North

Carolina, South

Carolina, Tennessee,

and eastern Texas.

Southwestern.................. 1982............. Oklahoma and Texas

west of the 100th

meridian, New

Mexico, Arizona, and

that area of

California bordering

the Lower Colorado

River.

Northern States............... 1983............. All remaining 25

States and parts

thereof.

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

Recovery Accomplishments

d eastern Texas.

Southwestern.................. 1982............. Oklahoma and Texas

west of the 100th

meridian, New

Mexico, Arizona, and

that area of

California bordering

the Lower Colorado

River.

Northern States............... 1983............. All remaining 25

States and parts

thereof.

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

Recovery Accomplishments

The Service and other Federal, State, tribal, and local cooperators

from across the Nation have funded and carried out many of the tasks

described within the recovery plans. 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 records). State fish and wildlife agencies have played a vital

role in restoring eagles to areas from which they were extirpated or in

which their numbers were greatly reduced. These activities include

conducting annual surveys of breeding and productivity, purchasing

lands for the protection of bald eagle habitat, reintroduction and

habitat management programs, and public outreach.

A partial survey conducted by the National Audubon Society in 1963

reported on 417 active nests in the lower 48 States, with an average of

0.59 young produced per nest. Surveys we coordinated in 1974 resulted

in a population estimate of 791 occupied breeding areas for the lower

48 States.

Breeding and productivity surveys have been conducted annually on a

State-by-State basis since the early 1980s. Data collection methods

vary somewhat from State to State but generally include surveys by

aircraft or visits to the site each year during the breeding season to

determine the number of occupied breeding areas, and a second survey

just before fledging to count the number of young produced at the site

ctivity surveys have been conducted annually on a

State-by-State basis since the early 1980s. Data collection methods

vary somewhat from State to State but generally include surveys by

aircraft or visits to the site each year during the breeding season to

determine the number of occupied breeding areas, and a second survey

just before fledging to count the number of young produced at the site.

Some States conduct the surveys themselves with agency personnel,

others collate data from partners (including cooperating agencies),

while some data is collected by personal interviews with reliable

sources. Though the data collection methods may vary, most States agree

that the data provided to us is a minimum number.

Since the development and implementation of the recovery plans, the

bald eagle's population growth has exceeded most of the goals

established in the various plans. In 1994, our cooperators reported

about 4,450 occupied breeding areas with an estimated average young per

occupied territory of 1.16. Compared to surveys conducted in 1974, the

number of occupied breeding areas in 1994 in the lower 48 States had

increased by 462 percent (Figure 1). Between 1990 and 1994, there was a

47 percent increase.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY99.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

The bald eagle was reclassified in 1995 from endangered to

threatened as a result of the significant increase in numbers of

nesting pairs, increased productivity and expanded distribution (60 FR

36000, July 12, 1995).

Recovery continues to progress at an impressive rate. In the past

10 years, the bald eagle's nesting population has increased at an

average rate of about 8

LING CODE 4310-55-C

The bald eagle was reclassified in 1995 from endangered to

threatened as a result of the significant increase in numbers of

nesting pairs, increased productivity and expanded distribution (60 FR

36000, July 12, 1995).

Recovery continues to progress at an impressive rate. In the past

10 years, the bald eagle's nesting population has increased at an

average rate of about 8

percent per year (Figure 1). The current nesting population in the

lower 48 States constitutes more than a tenfold increase from the known

population level in 1963. We estimate that the breeding population

exceeded 5,748 occupied breeding areas in 1998. The bald eagle

population has essentially doubled every 7 to 8 years during the past

30 years.

Recovery has been broadly distributed throughout the bald eagle's

range. In 1984, 13 states had no nesting pairs of bald eagles. By 1998,

all but 2 of the lower 48 States supported nesting pairs. In 1984, the

6 States of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington and

Oregon contained 73 percent of all nesting pairs in the lower 48

States. By 1998, these six States had a reduced share of 56 percent of

all nesting pairs, due to increased nesting in other states. Much of

the greater distribution of nesting sites is due to reoccupancy of

vacant nesting habitat where competition for nest sites is minimal and

an adequate prey base exists.

An expanding population requires the successful production of

young. Reproduction has generally met or exceeded target values

established by recovery teams nationally for the past 10 years. Certain

geographically restricted areas still have contamination threats, such

as southern California, the Columbia River, along the Great Lakes and

parts of Maine (see E. under the Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species section). Because the adults are long-lived, a minimum of 0.7

young per occupied breeding area is necessary to maintain a stable

population (Sprunt, et al. 1973)

10 years. Certain

geographically restricted areas still have contamination threats, such

as southern California, the Columbia River, along the Great Lakes and

parts of Maine (see E. under the Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species section). Because the adults are long-lived, a minimum of 0.7

young per occupied breeding area is necessary to maintain a stable

population (Sprunt, et al. 1973). With a national average of more than

one fledgling per occupied breeding area since 1990, the eagle

population continues to increase in overall size and maintain a healthy

reproductive rate.

Recovery within recovery regions has also been successful. Recovery

plans and objectives were designed to guide and measure recovery

efforts. They are intended to be general goals rather than absolute

numeric targets. We discuss recovery goals for the 5 regions and the

bald eagle's attainment of those goals discussed below.

What Are the Goals for Bald Eagle Recovery in Each Recovery Region

and What Has Been Achieved?

Chesapeake Recovery Region

Delisting Goals: Sustain 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.

Achievements: Numeric delisting goals were met in 1996 with more

than 300 occupied breeding areas estimated since 1992 and average

productivity of 1.1 young per occupied breeding area. In 1998, 538

occupied breeding areas were estimated with an average productivity of

1.21. Habitat protection work continues.

Protecting bald eagle habitat remains a concern in the Chesapeake

Recovery Region. The area contains large, expanding human population

centers contributing to rapid development pressures and high land

values that can conflict with bald eagle habitat needs

reeding area. In 1998, 538

occupied breeding areas were estimated with an average productivity of

1.21. Habitat protection work continues.

Protecting bald eagle habitat remains a concern in the Chesapeake

Recovery Region. The area contains large, expanding human population

centers contributing to rapid development pressures and high land

values that can conflict with bald eagle habitat needs. However, since

1990, occupied breeding areas for the bald eagle have doubled in the

Chesapeake Recovery Region. This increase is greater than that found in

any other recovery region. This indicates that adequate habitat is

still available for an increasing population of bald eagles despite

land development pressures. The Endangered Species Act has been a key

factor in protecting eagle habitat in the Chesapeake area, particularly

through the application of buffer zones around nest trees.

Northern States Recovery Region

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.

Since reclassification, the Northern States Recovery Team has

reconvened to review the plan. The team supported the numerical goals

established in 1983 but emphasized continued habitat protection

concerns.

Achievements: Delisting goals were met in 1991 with 1,349 occupied

breeding areas distributed over 20 States and an estimated average

productivity since 1991 of greater than 1.0. In 1998 the estimated

number of occupied breeding areas for the Northern States Recovery

Region exceeded 2,204. Some of the most rapidly expanding areas of bald

eagle nesting are in states with the majority of their lands held in

private ownership. For example, between 1990 and 1998, the bald eagle

population in Iowa increased from 8 to 83 occupied breeding areas

nce 1991 of greater than 1.0. In 1998 the estimated

number of occupied breeding areas for the Northern States Recovery

Region exceeded 2,204. Some of the most rapidly expanding areas of bald

eagle nesting are in states with the majority of their lands held in

private ownership. For example, between 1990 and 1998, the bald eagle

population in Iowa increased from 8 to 83 occupied breeding areas. In

this same period, Missouri has gone from 11 to 45 occupied breeding

areas; Illinois increased from 8 to 43 occupied breeding areas; and

Oklahoma has gone from 0 to 26 occupied breeding areas. The Northern

States Recovery Region includes large tracts of federally owned land

that is prime bald eagle habitat. The three States with the largest

bald eagle populations in the Northern States Recovery Region

(Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) contain large proportions of

public land, and eagle numbers did not quite double during the same 8-

year span. Thus, habitat on private property has proven to be very

important for the continued expansion of the bald eagle population in

this region.

Pacific Recovery Region

Delisting Goals: A minimum of 800 nesting pairs with an average

reproductive rate of 1.0 fledged young per occupied breeding area, and

an average success rate for occupied breeding areas of not less than

65% over a 5 year period are necessary for recovery. Attainment of

breeding population goals should be met in at least 80% of management

zones. Wintering populations should be stable or increasing.

Achievements: Numeric delisting goals have been met since 1995.

Productivity has averaged about 1.0 young per occupied breeding area

since 1990. The average success rate for occupied breeding areas has

exceeded 65 percent for the past five years. For 1998, six of the seven

Pacific region States reported an average success rate of 75 percent.

However, the plan goal for distribution among management zones is not

yet fully achieved for all areas

since 1995.

Productivity has averaged about 1.0 young per occupied breeding area

since 1990. The average success rate for occupied breeding areas has

exceeded 65 percent for the past five years. For 1998, six of the seven

Pacific region States reported an average success rate of 75 percent.

However, the plan goal for distribution among management zones is not

yet fully achieved for all areas. The number of occupied breeding areas

exceeded 800 in 1990 and has continued to increase. In 1998, 1,480

occupied breeding areas were estimated. Twenty-eight of 37 (76%)

management zone targets have been met. The zone targets were based on a

best estimate for each area at the time, and several management zones

that still lack nesting bald eagles may not contain preferred habitat.

Of the 28 zones where target levels have been met, at least 11 have

more than doubled the established goal. Wintering populations have been

tracked in the Pacific and many other States using the mid-winter bald

eagle surveys. However, wintering populations are difficult to assess

because concentrations are dependent on weather and food supply and

thus can be quite variable from year to year.

Southeastern Recovery Region

Delisting goals: Consider delisting if the recovery trend continues

for 5 years after reclassification goals are met. Develop the criteria

for delisting when the species is reclassified from endangered to

threatened.

After the reclassification to threatened in 1995, the Southeastern

States Bald Eagle Recovery Team reconvened to

quite variable from year to year.

Southeastern Recovery Region

Delisting goals: Consider delisting if the recovery trend continues

for 5 years after reclassification goals are met. Develop the criteria

for delisting when the species is reclassified from endangered to

threatened.

After the reclassification to threatened in 1995, the Southeastern

States Bald Eagle Recovery Team reconvened to

consider criteria for delisting. The most recent recommendations of the

recovery team are to achieve an average of 1,500 occupied breeding

areas over the most recent 3-year period, with an average production of

greater than 0.9 young per occupied breeding area over the same 3 year

period, and 8 of 11 states meeting their nesting and productivity

goals.

Achievements: Reclassification goals have been met and exceeded

from 1991 through the most current data year of 1998. At the current

rate of increase, the team expects the southeastern region to exceed

1,500 pairs in 1999 and meet the newly recommended delisting criteria

by the year 2000. Production since 1991 averaged 1.17 young per

occupied territory, exceeding the goal of greater than 0.9. In 1998,

1,485 occupied breeding areas were estimated with a productivity of

1.15 per occupied breeding area. Newly revised individual state goals

are expected to be met by 6 of 11 States by the year 2000.

Southwestern Recovery Region

Delisting Goals: None given. 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.

Achievements: 40 occupied breeding areas were reported for 1998

with 36 of those in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico. Productivity was

estimated at 0.63 per occupied breeding area. Breeding has expanded

beyond the Salt and Verde Systems into the Gila, Bill Williams, and San

Carlos River systems in Arizona and the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The

number of breeding pairs has more than doubled in the last 15 years

: 40 occupied breeding areas were reported for 1998

with 36 of those in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico. Productivity was

estimated at 0.63 per occupied breeding area. Breeding has expanded

beyond the Salt and Verde Systems into the Gila, Bill Williams, and San

Carlos River systems in Arizona and the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The

number of breeding pairs has more than doubled in the last 15 years.

Bald eagle recovery team members met in 1996 and discussed

delisting criteria for the region. Potential reduction of support for

the Arizona Nestwatch Program is a significant regional concern. Since

the 1980's, the Nestwatch Program has rescued 48 eagles and eggs, and

documented 52 cases of fishing line or tackle posing a threat to the

nesting eagles and eaglets. At least 15 percent of the bald eagle

production is due to the assistance provided by Nestwatch volunteers

and staff. The State of Arizona is working with us and other partners

to develop a Conservation Agreement which would insure the longevity of

the Nestwatch Program.

Previous Federal Action

On July 12, 1995, we published the final rule to reclassify the

bald eagle from threatened in 5 States and endangered in the remaining

lower 48 States, to threatened throughout the lower 48 States (60 FR

36000). With that action, the Service recognized one population of bald

eagles in the lower 48 States. Previous to that action, the proposed

rule to reclassify the bald eagle was published on July 12, 1994, (59

FR 35584) and an advanced notice of a proposed rule was published on

February 7, 1990 (55 FR 4209). Listing actions are discussed in the

Background section.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

hat action, the Service recognized one population of bald

eagles in the lower 48 States. Previous to that action, the proposed

rule to reclassify the bald eagle was published on July 12, 1994, (59

FR 35584) and an advanced notice of a proposed rule was published on

February 7, 1990 (55 FR 4209). Listing actions are discussed in the

Background section.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and the regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement its listing provisions, set forth the

procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species on the

Federal lists. A species will be listed if the Secretary of the

Interior determines that one or more of 5 factors listed in section

4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A

species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best

scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species

is neither endangered nor threatened for one of the following reasons:

(1) Extinction; (2) recovery; or (3) original data for classification

of the species were in error.

The bald eagle is proposed for delisting due to recovery.

Discussion of the 5 listing factors and their application to the

recovery of the bald eagle are discussed below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of Its Habitat or Range

Nesting and wintering habitats are both critical to the continued

survival of the bald eagle. Based on increasing population trends,

neither nesting nor wintering habitats appear to be limiting, and there

are no indications that availability of these habitats will limit the

bald eagle population in the near future. Bald eagle habitat on Federal

lands will remain protected under the regulatory mechanisms listed in

factor D below, though to a lesser degree. Activities on private lands

involving a Federal action will be subject to many of the laws listed

in factor D

ear to be limiting, and there

are no indications that availability of these habitats will limit the

bald eagle population in the near future. Bald eagle habitat on Federal

lands will remain protected under the regulatory mechanisms listed in

factor D below, though to a lesser degree. Activities on private lands

involving a Federal action will be subject to many of the laws listed

in factor D. With the knowledge of habitat management gained through

the recovery process, we expect that federal actions that result in a

loss of habitat will be at an acceptable level and will not affect the

population's stability.

B. Over-Utilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

There is no legal commercial or recreational use of bald eagles. We

consider future legal and enforcement measures sufficient to protect

the bald eagle from illegal activities, including trade. We exercise

very strict control over the use of bald eagles or their parts for

scientific, educational, and Native American religious activities. To

respond to the religious needs of Native Americans, we have established

the National Eagle and Wildlife Property Repository in Commerce City,

Colorado, which serves as a collection point for dead eagles. As a

matter of policy, all Service units transfer salvaged bald eagle parts

and carcasses to this center. Members of Federally recognized tribes

can obtain a permit from us authorizing them to receive and possess

whole eagles, parts, or feathers from the repository for religious

purposes. After removal from protection under the Endangered Species

Act, we will still issue permits for limited exhibition and educational

purposes, selected research work, and other special purposes consistent

with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). We

will not issue these permits if the status of the bald eagle will be

adversely effected.

C. Disease or Predation

rposes. After removal from protection under the Endangered Species

Act, we will still issue permits for limited exhibition and educational

purposes, selected research work, and other special purposes consistent

with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). We

will not issue these permits if the status of the bald eagle will be

adversely effected.

C. Disease or Predation

Predation is not a significant problem for bald eagle populations.

Incidents of mortality due to territorial disputes have been reported

by National Wildlife Health Research Center pathologists based on

examination of carcasses.

Diseases such as avian cholera, avian pox, aspergillosis,

tuberculosis, Mexican chicken bug, and botulism may affect individual

eagles, but are not considered to be a significant threat to the

population. According to the National Wildlife Health Research Center

in Madison, Wisconsin, only 2.7 percent of bald eagles submitted to the

Center between 1985 and 1990 died of infectious disease. Its widespread

population distribution generally helps to protect the bald eagle from

these catastrophic events.

From 1994-1999, 58 eagles died at man-made lakes in Arkansas from

apparent avian brain lesion syndrome (also referred to as vacuolar

myelinopathy), and more recently, the disease has been detected in

eagles in North Carolina. At present, this is a poorly understood

disease and is present in other avian species (primarily coots and

recently found in several species of waterfowl) in the southeast. While

a toxic agent is suspected in the deaths of the eagles and other avian

species, cooperative efforts are underway to determine the prevalence

of this disease and its origin. Although these mortalities can have a

localized

impact on bald eagles, there is currently no evidence that the overall

recovery of the population is affected.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

st. While

a toxic agent is suspected in the deaths of the eagles and other avian

species, cooperative efforts are underway to determine the prevalence

of this disease and its origin. Although these mortalities can have a

localized

impact on bald eagles, there is currently no evidence that the overall

recovery of the population is affected.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

After removal from the list of species protected by the Act, the

bald eagle remains fully protected by the following Federal wildlife

laws in the United States. We believe these laws and related State

statutes are adequate to protect and sustain a recovered bald eagle

population.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d)

prohibits without specific authorization take, possession, selling,

purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, or barter, transport, export

or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead or any part, nest

or egg thereof. Use of bald eagles for falconry is prohibited. Take

under this act is defined as ``to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison,

wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb'' (50 CFR 22.3).

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) prohibits,

without specific authorization, the possession, transport, or take of

any migratory bird (including bald eagles), their parts, nests or eggs.

Take prohibitions under this statute includes actions to pursue, hunt,

take, capture, kill, possess, sell, barter, purchase, ship, export or

import protected species.

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

, 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.

In addition to Federal laws governing the taking of bald eagles

within the United States, international agreements govern the transport

of bald eagles across international borders. International trade in

bald eagles to and from the United States is strictly regulated. The

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is an

international treaty for the regulation of trade in species threatened

with extinction and those that may become threatened if trade is not

regulated. The bald eagle is currently listed under Appendix I of

CITES, and, as a result, international trade in bald eagles not

otherwise prohibited is restricted by the United States and 145 other

signatory nations.

Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-13287)

states that the objective of this law is to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters and

provides the means to assure the ``protection and propagation of fish,

shellfish, and wildlife'' (section 101 (a)(2)). This statute

contributes in a significant way to the protection of bald eagles and

their food supply through provisions for water quality standards,

protection from the discharge of harmful pollutants, contaminants

(section 303(c), section 304(a), and section 402) and discharge of

dredge or fill material into all waters, including wetlands (section

404).

Another important regulatory mechanism affecting bald eagles is the

requirement that pesticides be registered with the Environmental

Protection Agency

sions for water quality standards,

protection from the discharge of harmful pollutants, contaminants

(section 303(c), section 304(a), and section 402) and discharge of

dredge or fill material into all waters, including wetlands (section

404).

Another important regulatory mechanism affecting bald eagles is the

requirement that pesticides be registered with the Environmental

Protection Agency. Under the authority of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136), the Environmental

Protection Agency requires environmental testing of new pesticides.

Testing the effects of pesticides on representative wildlife species

before the pesticide is registered is specifically required. It is

meant as a safeguard to avoid the type of environmental catastrophe

that occurred from organochlorine pesticides which led to the listing

of this species.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701-1784)

requires that public lands be managed to protect the quality of

scientific, ecological, and environmental qualities and to preserve and

protect certain lands in their natural condition to provide food and

habitat for fish and wildlife.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c)

requires that Federal agencies sponsoring, funding, or permitting

activities related to water resource development projects request

review of these actions by us and the State natural resources

management agency. These comments must be given equal consideration

with other project purposes.

The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d)

requires the Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of

their proposed actions on the human environment and requires the

preparation of an environmental impact statement whenever projects may

result in significant impacts

es

management agency. These comments must be given equal consideration

with other project purposes.

The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d)

requires the Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of

their proposed actions on the human environment and requires the

preparation of an environmental impact statement whenever projects may

result in significant impacts. Federal agencies must identify adverse

environmental impacts of their proposed actions and develop

alternatives that undergo the scrutiny of other public and private

organizations as a part of their decision making process.

Recovery actions developed under the Endangered Species Act have

provided the baseline of knowledge for management of bald eagles.

Recommendations for management and protection of bald eagles will

continue to be made in accordance with all applicable environmental

laws.

Removal of the bald eagle from the Federal list of endangered and

threatened species will not affect its status under State laws as a

threatened or endangered species or suspend any other legal protections

provided by State law. States may have more restrictive laws protecting

wildlife, and these will not be affected by this Federal action. Also,

some States may choose to remove the bald eagle from their list of

threatened and endangered species.

Finally, the Endangered Species Act remains an important regulatory

mechanism should an unexpected decline in bald eagle numbers occur. In

the event that a significant decrease in the bald eagle population

occurs, we could relist the species through normal or emergency

procedures as a threatened or endangered species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

ies.

Finally, the Endangered Species Act remains an important regulatory

mechanism should an unexpected decline in bald eagle numbers occur. In

the event that a significant decrease in the bald eagle population

occurs, we could relist the species through normal or emergency

procedures as a threatened or endangered species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Bald eagles are subject to direct and indirect mortality from a

variety of human related activities. Intentional shooting, poisoning,

and smuggling still occur, as well as deaths due to electrocution and

strikes by wind turbines. Death and reproductive failure resulting from

exposure to pesticides and secondary lead poisoning are well

documented.

In recent years, the use of harmful chemicals known to impair

reproduction in bald eagles has declined throughout the United States.

A few areas still exist where concentrations of these chemicals impair

reproductive success. However, these areas are geographically

restricted and have not prevented recovery of the population

nationally. There is no evidence to indicate that the use of harmful

organochlorines in Latin America impact the bald eagle since the

eagle's southern range is not known to extend south of northern Mexico.

The pesticide DDT came into widespread use after World War II. DDT

ingested through the eagle's diet of fish, waterfowl, gulls, and other

prey resulted in egg shell thinning. As a result, many eggs broke when

incubated by the parent, while others suffered embryonic mortality and

failed to hatch. By the early 1960s, recruitment had dropped and

population numbers plummeted. In response to human health risks

associated with DDT it was banned from

use in 1972. Reductions in DDT levels in freshwater fish over time have

coincided with a steady increase in bald eagle numbers (Figure 2).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY99.003

ed embryonic mortality and

failed to hatch. By the early 1960s, recruitment had dropped and

population numbers plummeted. In response to human health risks

associated with DDT it was banned from

use in 1972. Reductions in DDT levels in freshwater fish over time have

coincided with a steady increase in bald eagle numbers (Figure 2).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY99.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

By 1976, registrations of dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane, and

other toxic persistent pesticides, were canceled for all but the most

restricted uses in the United States. Most uses of PCBs were restricted

in 1977 and continued to be phased out during the 1980s (Schmitt and

Bunck 1995).

During the 1970s, the Service implemented a monitoring program to

examine the long-term trends in the presence of pesticides and other

harmful chemicals in fish and wildlife (Schmitt and Bunck 1995). Fish,

starlings and duck wings were collected nationwide between 1972 and

1985. The program tracked a downward trend of DDT concentrations in

fish, starlings, and duck wings paralleled by declining DDE (a

degradation product of DDT) concentrations in bald eagle eggs and

increasing eagle eggshell thickness (Wiemeyer et al. 1993).

Concentrations of other persistent insecticides such as heptachlor,

dieldrin, endrin, and chlordane were also documented as declining

nationally in fish, starlings and duck wings.

While there has been a national decline in concentrations of these

harmful organochlorine compounds, some areas of the country still

harbor high concentrations and reproduction of bald eagles in these

areas is depressed. For instance, the Channel Islands area of southern

coastal California continues to have severe problems related to DDE

impacts to bald eagle productivity (Garcelon 1994, Sharpe and Garcelon

1999). The Palos Verdes Shelf is contaminated from historic releases

from a nearby manufacturing plant. Bald eagles in the Channel Islands

are present only through reintroduction efforts

reas is depressed. For instance, the Channel Islands area of southern

coastal California continues to have severe problems related to DDE

impacts to bald eagle productivity (Garcelon 1994, Sharpe and Garcelon

1999). The Palos Verdes Shelf is contaminated from historic releases

from a nearby manufacturing plant. Bald eagles in the Channel Islands

are present only through reintroduction efforts. Wiemeyer et al. (1993)

found that addled bald eagle eggs collected from the Klamath Basin and

Cascade Lakes region in Oregon ranked second (behind Maine) in DDE

concentrations among the fifteen States sampled, indicating potential

residual problems. Coastal areas which were sprayed for mosquitos and

for cotton and orchard

pests still have higher concentrations of DDE than other lands (Schmitt

and Bunck 1995). DDE concentrations along the Great Lakes remain a

concern for that area.

Residues of PCBs, which are persistent and toxic much like DDT,

have also declined throughout the United States (Figure 2). They remain

a problem in some areas, most notably the Great Lakes. Atmospheric

transport and the internal cycling of contaminants already present in

these lakes will likely keep PCB concentrations elevated (Schmitt and

Bunck 1995). Bowerman (1993) has documented lower reproduction among

eagles nesting along the coasts of the Great Lakes in Michigan compared

to those nesting further inland. The severity of the problem along the

Great Lakes coast apparently is being compensated for by eagles

produced from the interior of the State seeking territories along the

Great Lakes coast. Michigan's bald eagle population has increased,

though at a slower rate than other states with major bald eagle

populations.

High concentrations of mercury cause a variety of neurological

problems in bald eagles. Flight and other motor skills can be

significantly altered. High mercury concentrations may also reduce the

hatching rate of eggs

e seeking territories along the

Great Lakes coast. Michigan's bald eagle population has increased,

though at a slower rate than other states with major bald eagle

populations.

High concentrations of mercury cause a variety of neurological

problems in bald eagles. Flight and other motor skills can be

significantly altered. High mercury concentrations may also reduce the

hatching rate of eggs. Concentrations of mercury in fish declined

significantly from 1969 through 1974 as a result of restriction on its

uses, but concentrations have not changed appreciably since 1974.

Recent findings have highlighted the importance of atmospheric

transport in the maintenance of elevated concentrations and the

accumulation of mercury in certain areas, such as Lake Champlain and

the Florida Everglades (Schmitt and Bunck 1995).

The most important source of lead affecting bald eagles is

waterfowl wounded with lead shot. The requirement in 1991 to use non-

toxic shot for waterfowl hunting has greatly reduced the threat of lead

poisoning to bald eagles.

New chemicals are entering the environment and though they may not

be as persistent as their predecessors, many are toxic and their

breakdown products are poorly understood. Maintaining a contaminant

profile of bald eagles nationwide will be an integral part of our

monitoring program. It will serve as a safeguard to reduce the

possibility of population level effects from harmful contaminants.

The shooting of bald eagles was prohibited in 1918 with the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and again in 1940 with the Bald Eagle

Protection Act (golden eagles were added in 1962). Large-scale

mortality from unregulated shooting, like that which occurred early in

this century, has been significantly reduced. Hunter education courses

routinely include bald eagle identification material to educate hunters

about bald eagles and the protections that the species is afforded

d Treaty Act, and again in 1940 with the Bald Eagle

Protection Act (golden eagles were added in 1962). Large-scale

mortality from unregulated shooting, like that which occurred early in

this century, has been significantly reduced. Hunter education courses

routinely include bald eagle identification material to educate hunters

about bald eagles and the protections that the species is afforded.

Although some illegal shooting of eagles is likely to occur, this is no

longer considered a significant threat to the survival of species.

Other causes of mortality to individual eagles continue to occur.

Many electrical power lines have been configured to reduce

electrocution to raptors, though electrocutions still occur. Problem

power lines still need to be identified and modified to prevent

electrocutions. Areas where road-killed animals are left near the

highway can result in car collisions with bald eagles, particularly in

winter when eagles feed on carrion more frequently. Efforts to reduce

these mortalities are being undertaken locally.

Human disturbance of bald eagles is a continuing threat which may

increase as numbers of bald eagles increase and human development

continues to expand into the rural areas. Numerous studies have

documented that most bald eagles will flush from the nest site if

disturbed by human presence. If the disturbance occurs frequently,

nesting can fail, and the adults may or may not nest again. Through the

Endangered Species Act recovery process, management guidelines have

been developed for bald eagle nesting and wintering sites in various

portions of the species' range. Specific conservation measures and

recommendations have also been developed through the section 7

consultation process to reduce disturbance at feeding sites. In areas

throughout the country, land management practices have been

successfully modified to reduce human disturbance to bald eagles

been developed for bald eagle nesting and wintering sites in various

portions of the species' range. Specific conservation measures and

recommendations have also been developed through the section 7

consultation process to reduce disturbance at feeding sites. In areas

throughout the country, land management practices have been

successfully modified to reduce human disturbance to bald eagles. We

will make these guidelines readily available to agencies and the public

to promote their widespread use.

Human-related impacts will continue after the bald eagle is removed

from protection under the Endangered Species Act, and may increase

locally with the continued growth of the eagle population and

subsequent conflicts with expanding human activities. However, through

remaining statutes, knowledge gained and partnerships developed in the

recovery process, many of these conflicts can be avoided or minimized.

Conclusion of Recovery Analysis and Status Review

Due to the wide distribution of the bald eagle, we established five

recovery regions to outline recovery planning goals and needs on a

regional basis leading to the development of five separate recovery

plans for the species. The five plans, originally developed in the

1980s, described a variety of numerical target levels for breeding

pairs and productivity for different regions to measure recovery

success and to set criteria for reclassification and/or delisting. In

1994, after the implementation of the five recovery plans and steady

increases in the population, the status of the bald eagle was reviewed.

The analysis included an assessment of known movement and migratory

patterns among and between recovery regions, and concluded that a

rangewide status of ``threatened'' for a single population of bald

eagles throughout the lower 48 States was appropriate. The bald eagle

was then formally reclassified as a threatened species on that basis in

1995

on, the status of the bald eagle was reviewed.

The analysis included an assessment of known movement and migratory

patterns among and between recovery regions, and concluded that a

rangewide status of ``threatened'' for a single population of bald

eagles throughout the lower 48 States was appropriate. The bald eagle

was then formally reclassified as a threatened species on that basis in

1995. Treating the bald eagle as a single listed population is

consistent with our 1996 ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct

Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act'' (61

FR 4722).

This proposal is based on an internal status review of bald eagle

recovery achievements conducted in 1998 and 1999, including an

assessment of long-term nesting and productivity data (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1999, unpublished data), coordination with States and

Tribes, an analysis of the five listing factors, and the definition of

a ``threatened'' species under the Act. Decisions regarding the status

of the overall bald eagle population as listed, take into consideration

all of the regional recovery plan goals and established criteria, but

ultimately address the status and the degree of remaining threats on a

rangewide level.

Bald eagle recovery goals have generally been met or exceeded for

the species on a rangewide basis. There is no sizeable area in the

lower 48 states where we have not seen substantial increases in eagle

numbers. Conversely, there is no sizeable area where eagle numbers

continue to decline. We believe the surpassing of recovery targets over

broad areas and on a regional basis, and the continued increase in

eagle numbers since reclassification, effectively compensates for any

local shortfall in meeting targets in a few recovery sub-areas or

units.

Recovery planning for wide ranging species such as the eagle,

involves

is no sizeable area where eagle numbers

continue to decline. We believe the surpassing of recovery targets over

broad areas and on a regional basis, and the continued increase in

eagle numbers since reclassification, effectively compensates for any

local shortfall in meeting targets in a few recovery sub-areas or

units.

Recovery planning for wide ranging species such as the eagle,

involves

assumptions about habitat suitability and carrying capacity over large

areas. In practice, the response of a species to management protections

and subtle differences in habitat quality should be expected to vary

across a large landscape, in this case involving many States and

physiographic regions. Although we acknowledge that not every sub-area

recovery target has been met for each plan, we conclude that recovery

as outlined for the species as a whole, has been achieved.

We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial data

and conclude the following:

(1) A widespread reduction in use of persistent pesticides and

their adverse effects on the bald eagle is evident.

(2) Other threats are not currently of sufficient magnitude,

individually or collectively, to place the species at risk of

extinction.

(3) Sufficient knowledge has been gained through the recovery

process to properly manage the bald eagle in the future.

(4) Widespread trends in the population indicate that the bald

eagle has recovered and no longer in danger of extinction nor is it

likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

For these reasons we propose to remove the bald eagle from the List

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Effects of This Rule

e future.

(4) Widespread trends in the population indicate that the bald

eagle has recovered and no longer in danger of extinction nor is it

likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

For these reasons we propose to remove the bald eagle from the List

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Effects of This Rule

This rule as proposed will remove the protection afforded the bald

eagle under the Endangered Species Act. The provisions of the Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act including

prohibitions on the taking of bald eagles will remain in place. Bald

eagles are prohibited for use in falconry under provisions of the Bald

and Golden Eagle Protection Act (50 CFR 22.24). These and other laws

affecting bald eagles are discussed in factor D above. This rule will

not affect the bald eagle's status as a threatened or endangered

species under State laws or suspend any other legal protections

provided by State law. States may have more restrictive laws protecting

wildlife, and these will not be affected by this Federal action.

However, this rule may prompt some States to remove protection for the

bald eagle under their endangered species laws.

Future Conservation Measures

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the

Interior, through the Service, monitor species for at least 5 years

after removal from the list of endangered and threatened species. If

evidence acquired during this monitoring period shows that the bald

eagle should be relisted to prevent it from becoming threatened with

extinction, we may use the normal or emergency listing authority, as

appropriate, provided for by the Act. At the end of the 5-year

monitoring period, we intend to coordinate with our partners regarding

bald eagle monitoring and will review all available information to

determine if relisting is appropriate.

Monitoring Plan

eagle should be relisted to prevent it from becoming threatened with

extinction, we may use the normal or emergency listing authority, as

appropriate, provided for by the Act. At the end of the 5-year

monitoring period, we intend to coordinate with our partners regarding

bald eagle monitoring and will review all available information to

determine if relisting is appropriate.

Monitoring Plan

The bald eagle was listed under the Act in 1978. Since that time

bald eagle nesting and productivity have been monitored throughout the

lower 48 States. The monitoring has provided us with information

regarding the status and health of the bald eagle population. At a

minimum, monitoring included a census of the number of occupied

breeding areas, defined as a pair defending a nesting territory in

nesting season, and the number of young produced, which has been

censused near the age of fledging. This effort has produced an

excellent data set and forms the basis of this delisting proposal. If

the historic population monitoring effort is continued following bald

eagle delisting, we believe that monitoring for contaminants may be the

only additional effort needed.

In preparation of this rule, we requested each State to indicate

its intentions regarding post-delisting monitoring should this rule

become final. More than 80 percent of all States in the lower 48 intend

to continue the same monitoring effort for at least 5 years post-

delisting. Many of our Federal partners have also indicated a

willingness to continue bald eagle monitoring.

As a result of the strong support from our partners, we will work

to ensure that nationwide monitoring of bald eagle nesting continue

annually for the 5 years following delisting. The monitoring will be

the same as it has been through the time the bald eagle has been listed

following the guidelines set forth in the recovery plans. It includes

the following:

to continue bald eagle monitoring.

As a result of the strong support from our partners, we will work

to ensure that nationwide monitoring of bald eagle nesting continue

annually for the 5 years following delisting. The monitoring will be

the same as it has been through the time the bald eagle has been listed

following the guidelines set forth in the recovery plans. It includes

the following:

(1) Number of Occupied Breeding Areas. We will work with partners

to monitor numbers of occupied breeding areas in each state annually

and collate the data. This will continue the extensive data set that

has been developed over the past 20 years.

(2) Number of Young Produced. This requires a second visit to the

nesting site near time of fledging. Number of young fledged is an

important indicator of reproductive health and may act as an early

warning for problems such as disease, contaminant effects, lack of

adequate habitat, disturbance, etc.

(3) Contaminant Analysis and Archiving. We are proposing to examine

contaminant effects on reproduction by collecting addled eggs from

those areas having past problems and where present or suspected

problems occur. The eggs would be taken every year for the first 5

years, and possibly a reduced number of collections would be made

thereafter. Collections should be taken from the same immediate nest

site area. We are also proposing to sample blood from a small subset of

nesting pairs covering a broad geographic range and a broad range of

human influences. All eggs and blood will be archived by freezing at

-80 deg.C. In the event contamination or poisoning is suspected,

archived samples will be withdrawn and properly analyzed by Service-

approved laboratories. In addition, a subset of the egg samples will be

analyzed each year for organochlorines which are known to adversely

impact bald eagle reproductive success. A subset of blood samples will

be analyzed where contaminant exposure is suspected.

Five-Year Post-Delisting Assessment

or poisoning is suspected,

archived samples will be withdrawn and properly analyzed by Service-

approved laboratories. In addition, a subset of the egg samples will be

analyzed each year for organochlorines which are known to adversely

impact bald eagle reproductive success. A subset of blood samples will

be analyzed where contaminant exposure is suspected.

Five-Year Post-Delisting Assessment

(4) At the end of 5 years post-delisting, we will review the most

current bald eagle data set for the lower 48 States, assess the results

and make this information available to the public. We will also consult

with States and other partners to determine the need for future

monitoring efforts which may include consideration of national or

regional monitoring protocols.

(5) At the end of 5 years post-delisting, we will also consider

evidence of any factors significantly affecting the population which

may indicate that a serious decline is occurring and that relisting

should be considered. These factors include but are not limited to the

following: a) contaminant-related concerns which result in mortality or

effects on breeding activities; b) declining numbers of occupied

breeding areas; c) declining reproduction; and d) significant changes

in distribution.

Public Comments Solicited

We request comments on three aspects of this proposed rulemaking:

A. Proposed Delisting

We are soliciting comments or suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or

any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Send your

comments to the Service's bald eagle recovery

coordinator (see ADDRESSES section). We are particularly seeking

comments concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species;

party concerning this proposed rule. Send your

comments to the Service's bald eagle recovery

coordinator (see ADDRESSES section). We are particularly seeking

comments concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species;

(3) Current or planned activities in the range of this species and

their possible impacts on this species;

(4) Data on population trends;

(5) Information and comments pertaining to the proposed monitoring

program contained in this proposal.

The final decision on this proposal for the bald eagle will take

into consideration comments and additional information we receive

during this comment period.

The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings

on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45

days of the date of publication of this proposal. Such requests must be

made in writing and sent to the Service's bald eagle recovery

coordinator (see ADDRESSES section).

B. Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that

are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this

proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as

the following.

(1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary Information'' section

of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposal?

(2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity?

to write regulations that

are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this

proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as

the following.

(1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary Information'' section

of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposal?

(2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity?

(3) Does the format of the proposal (groupings and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? What else could the Service do to make the proposal easier to

understand?

(See ADDRESSES section)

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.) require that interested members of the public and affected

agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency information

collection and record keeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). We

intend to collect information from the public during the 5-year

monitoring period following delisting of the bald eagle. A description

of the information collection burden and the comments requested on this

collection are included in the Paperwork Reduction Act section below.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Simultaneous with publication of this proposed delisting rule, we

have submitted an application for information collection approval from

OMB. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number.

Section 4(g) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all

species that are delisted due to recovery be monitored for a minimum of

5 years. A general description of the information that will be

collected during the monitoring period was provided above in the

Monitoring section of this proposal

respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number.

Section 4(g) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all

species that are delisted due to recovery be monitored for a minimum of

5 years. A general description of the information that will be

collected during the monitoring period was provided above in the

Monitoring section of this proposal.

We intend to collect information from States, researchers and land

managers associated with a variety of organizations and agencies. Some

of the information gathered will be part of already ongoing State,

Federal, or private monitoring programs. We will also use information

from other study areas where appropriate data are available.

The information collected will allow us to detect any failure of

the species to sustain itself following delisting. If during this

monitoring period we determine that the species is not sufficiently

maintaining its recovered status, we could relist the species as

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

We estimate approximately 60 respondents to requests for

information on the status of the bald eagle per year. Different

respondents may provide one or more types of information. A total of

125 burden hours per year is estimated for these 60 respondents.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the

public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on

information collection and record keeping activities (see 5 CFR

1320.8(d))

may provide one or more types of information. A total of

125 burden hours per year is estimated for these 60 respondents.

OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the

public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on

information collection and record keeping activities (see 5 CFR

1320.8(d)). Comments are invited on (1) whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of

the agency, including whether the information will have practical

utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the

collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,

including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technical collection techniques or other forms of

information technology. Send comments on information collection to OMB

and the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer (see

ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement, 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. We published a notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

mental Impact Statement, 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. We published a notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American

birds. 6th Edition. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

Bowerman, William Wesley IV. 1993. Regulation of bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) productivity in the Great Lakes Basin: An

ecological and toxicological approach. PhD Thesis. Michigan State

Univ., Dept. of Fish. and Wildlife, Inst. for Env. Tox., and Ecol.

and Evol. Biol. Program. 291 pp.

Carson, R.L. 1962. Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York.

368pp.

Garcelon, David L. 1994. Effects of organochlorine contaminants on

bald eagle reproduction at Santa Catalina Island. Institute for

Wildlife Studies, Arcata, California. 16pp.

Gerrard, J.M., and G.R. Bortolotti. 1988. The bald eagle: Haunts and

habits of a wilderness monarch. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington and London. 177pp.

Herrick, R.H. 1932. Daily life of the American eagle: Early phase.

Auk 49: 219-323.

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. p. A-149.

Peters, J.L. 1979. Check-list of Birds of the World. Vol. 1. 2nd Ed.

Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. p.301.

Schempf, P.F. 1997. Bald eagle longevity record from southeastern

Alaska. J. Field Ornithology; 68:1:150-151.

Schmitt, C.J. and C.M. Bunck. 1995. Persistent environmental

contaminants in fish and wildlife. IN: Our Living Resources,

National Biological Service. pp.413-416.

Sharpe P.B. and D.K. Garcelon. 1999

ist of Birds of the World. Vol. 1. 2nd Ed.

Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. p.301.

Schempf, P.F. 1997. Bald eagle longevity record from southeastern

Alaska. J. Field Ornithology; 68:1:150-151.

Schmitt, C.J. and C.M. Bunck. 1995. Persistent environmental

contaminants in fish and wildlife. IN: Our Living Resources,

National Biological Service. pp.413-416.

Sharpe P.B. and D.K. Garcelon. 1999. Restoration and Management of

Bald Eagles and Santa Catalina Island, California, 1998. Report to

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office.

Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA. 26pp.

Sprunt, Al, IV, W.B. Robertson, Jr., S. Postupalsky, R.J. Hensel,

C.E. Knoder, and F.J. Ligas. 1973. Comparative productivity of six

bald eagle populations. Trans. of 38th N. American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conf. Washington, D.C. pp.96-106.

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 bald eagle

recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities,

Minnesota. 76pp.

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.

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.

Wood, P.B., M.W. Collopy, and C.M. Sekerak. 1998. Post fledging nest

dependence period for bald eagles in Florida

80pp.

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.

Wood, P.B., M.W. Collopy, and C.M. Sekerak. 1998. Post fledging nest

dependence period for bald eagles in Florida. Journal of Wildlife

Management 62:333-339.

Author. The primary author of this proposed rule is Jody Gustitus

Millar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter

I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

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.

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for ``Eagle,

bald, Haliaeetus leucocephalus'' under ``BIRDS'' from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Sec. 17.41 [Amended]

3. Section 17.41 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(a).

Dated: June 21, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-16924 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P