Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Petition to List the Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Distinct Population Segment, List that Distinct Population Segment as Endangered, and Designate Critical Habitat, 51549-51565 [06-7180]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Petition to List the
Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald
Eagle as a Distinct Population
Segment, List that Distinct Population
Segment as Endangered, and
Designate Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to reclassify
the Sonoran Desert population of the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in
central Arizona and northwestern
Mexico as a distinct population
segment, list that distinct population
segment as endangered, and designate
critical habitat for that distinct
population segment under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). On the basis of a review
of the information contained within the
petition, we find that the petition does
not provide substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
Therefore, we will not initiate a further
status review in response to this
petition. We ask the public to submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of this
population of the bald eagle or threats
to it.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on August 29,
2006.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this
finding is available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Arizona Ecological Services
Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road,
Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021–4951.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this species or this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle (see ADDRESSES);
telephone, 602–242–0210; facsimile,
602–242–2513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that
we make a finding on whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition, and publish
our notice of this finding promptly in
the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial information was
presented, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species, if one has not already been
initiated under our internal candidate
assessment process.
In making this finding, we relied on
information provided by the petitioners
and evaluated that information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our
process of coming to a 90-day finding
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
§ 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited
to a determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial information’’ threshold.
On October 6, 2004, we received a
formal petition, dated October 6, 2004,
from the Center for Biological Diversity
(Center), the Maricopa Audubon
Society, and the Arizona Audubon
Council requesting that the bald eagle
population found in the Sonoran Desert
(as defined by Brown 1994) or,
alternately, in the upper and lower
Sonoran Desert (as defined by Merriam)
be classified as a distinct population
segment (DPS) and this DPS be
reclassified as an endangered species, in
accordance with the Act. The petition
also requested that critical habitat be
designated concurrently for the DPS.
Because the Sonoran Desert described
by Brown (1994) encompasses a
different geographic area than that
defined as upper and lower Sonoran
Desert by Merriam, the Service
requested clarification on the intended
geographic boundaries for the Sonoran
population on February 11, 2005. The
petitioners responded with clarification
on March 5, 2005, requesting that we
consider in the DPS analysis those bald
eagles nesting along riparian areas in the
Sonoran Desert in Arizona and
northwestern Mexico. At that time,
further action on this petition was
precluded by higher listing priorities.
On January 19, 2006, we received from
the Center a 60-day Notice of Intent
(NOI) to sue the Service for failure to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51549
respond to the petition within the
statutory timeframe. On March 27, 2006,
the Center and the Maricopa Audubon
Society filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Service for failure to make a finding on
the petition within 90 days.
Species Information
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) is the only species of sea
eagle native to North America. Literally
translated, H. leucocephalus means
white-headed sea eagle (USFWS 1995,
p. 36000). Bald eagles are birds of prey
of the Order Falconiformes and Family
Accipitridae. Bald eagles vary in length
from 28 to 38 inches (71 to 97
centimeters), weigh between 6.5 to 14
pounds (2.9 to 6.4 kilograms), and have
a 66 to 96 inch (1.8 to 2.6 meter)
wingspan (Arizona Game and Fish
Department (AGFD) 1999, p. 3).
Distinguishing features include a yellow
hooked bill and yellow unfeathered legs
and feet. Adults of the species have a
dark brownish-black body color, black
talons, and a white head, neck, and tail.
Immature bald eagles are mostly dark
brown and lack a white head and tail
until they reach approximately 5 years
of age (AGFD 2006, pg. 3).
Gerrard and Bartolotti (1988, p. 2)
note that bald eagles are believed to
have nested on both coasts, along all
major rivers and large lakes in the
interior from Florida to Baja California
in the south, and north to Labrador and
Alaska. The species is known to have
bred in every State and province in the
United States and Canada except Hawaii
(Hunt et al. 1992, p. A–9).
Hunt et al. (1992, pp. A–11 and A–12)
summarized the earliest records from
the literature for bald eagles in Arizona.
Coues noted bald eagles in the vicinity
of Fort Whipple in 1866 (now Prescott),
and Henshaw reported bald eagles south
of Fort Apache in 1875. Bent reported
breeding eagles at Fort Whipple in 1866
and on the Salt River Bird Reservation
(since inundated by Roosevelt Lake) in
1911. Breeding eagle information was
also recorded in 1890, near Stoneman
Lake by S.A. Mearns. Additionally,
there are reports of bald eagles along
rivers in the White Mountains from
1937, and reports of nesting bald eagles
along the Salt and Verde Rivers as early
as 1930.
The bald eagle population of the
Southwest Recovery Region, as
identified in the final recovery plan for
the species, reaches throughout
Oklahoma and Texas west of the 100th
meridian, all of New Mexico and
Arizona, and the area of California
bordering the Lower Colorado River
(USFWS 1982, p. 1). The vast majority
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
51550
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of these breeding bald eagles are found
within the State of Arizona. The
occurrence of breeding bald eagles in
the State of New Mexico is very limited
(USFS 2004, p. 153). In 2001, the New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish
(NMDGF) reported the occurrence of
four bald eagle nest sites, all on private
lands, in New Mexico.
Nationwide, bald eagles are known to
nest primarily along seacoasts and
lakeshores, as well as along banks of
rivers and streams (Stalmaster 1987, p.
120). In the Southwest, bald eagle
breeding areas (BA) (eagle nesting sites
and the area where eagles forage) are
located in close proximity to a variety
of aquatic sites, including reservoirs,
regulated river systems, and freeflowing rivers and creeks. The term
‘‘BA’’ is used to define eagle nesting
sites and the area where they forage. In
the Southwest, nests are placed mostly
on cliff edges, rock pinnacles, and in
cottonwood trees. However, artificial
structures, junipers, pinyon pines,
sycamores, willows, ponderosa pines,
and snags of these trees also have
supported eagle nests (AGFD 2006, p.
4).
In Arizona, the majority of nests are
located in the Upper and Lower
Sonoran Life Zones (zones of plant and
animal life associated with a given
elevation), including the riparian
habitats and transition areas of both
zones (Hunt et al. 1992, p. A–17).
Representative vegetation of these life
zones includes Arizona sycamore
(Platanus wrightii), blue paloverde
(Parkinsonia florida), cholla (Opuntia
spp.), Fremont cottonwood (Populus
fremontii), Gooding willow (Salix
gooddingii), mesquite (Prosopis spp.),
saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), and
tamarisk or salt cedar (Tamarix
pentandra; an exotic species) (Brown
1994, p. 200).
Historical evidence to document bald
eagles nesting in New Mexico is lacking,
although unverified reports suggest one
or two pairs may have nested in
southwestern New Mexico prior to
1928. In the mid-1980s, a pair
established a territory in Colfax County
in an area where bald eagles
concentrated in winter, and in 1987, an
active nest was discovered nearby
which produced two fledglings that
year. In 1988, an active nest was
discovered in Sierra County, also in an
area of wintering eagle concentration;
the nest fledged one young that year.
Through 1999, those two nests together
fledged a minimum of 31 young, with
Colfax County being one of the more
productive nests in North America.
Additional nesting activity was
recorded elsewhere after the mid-1980s,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
always in areas of wintering
concentrations, including in San Juan,
Rio Arriba, Quay, and Sierra counties.
However, in each instance, eagles built
nests only to abandon the effort prior to
egg laying; such ‘‘practice’’ nests are not
uncommon among inexperienced
adults. In 1998, two additional nests
were discovered in Colfax County, and
each fledged young in both 1998 and
1999 (five young total) (Williams 2000,
abstract).
Bald eagles are long-lived bird
species. Southwestern bald eagles are
known to exceed 12 years of age
(USFWS 1999, p. 36454; Hunt et al.
1992, p. A–v). Bald eagles primarily eat
fish, but they will also eat amphibians,
reptiles, birds, small mammals, carrion
(dead animals), and carcasses of large
mammals (cows, elk, deer, etc.). Their
food habits can change daily or
seasonally, but when a choice is
available, bald eagles invariably select
fish over other prey. Bald eagles will
scavenge, steal, or actively hunt to
acquire food. Carrion constitutes a
higher proportion of the diet for
juveniles and subadults than it does for
adult eagles. Bald eagles are primarily
sit-and-wait hunters, perching in trees
in order to detect available prey
(Stalmaster 1987, p. 104).
Eagles in the Southwest frequently
construct nests on cliffs. By 1992, of the
111 nest sites known, 46 were in trees,
36 on cliffs, 17 on pinnacles, 11 in
snags, and 1 on an artificial platform
(Hunt et al. 1992, p. A–17). However,
for breeding areas where both cliff and
tree nests were available, one study
found that cliff nests were selected 73
percent of the time, while tree nests
were selected 27 percent of the time
(Hunt et al. 1992, p. A–17).
Additionally, eagles nesting on cliffs
were found to be slightly more
successful in raising young to fledgling,
though the difference was not
statistically significant. Nests may be
used year after year. Hunt et al. (1992,
p. A–20) determined the mean diameter
of nests was 5 feet (156 centimeters).
Food strongly influences bald eagle
productivity (Newton 1979, pp. 95–96,
101–106; Hansen 1987, p. 1389). A
female’s health in the months preceding
egg laying can affect egg production,
and the prey availability during the
breeding cycle affects the survivorship
of nestlings and post-fledging juveniles.
Thus, any factor affecting the adults’
ability to acquire food can influence
productivity and adult survivorship
(Newton 1979, pp. 95–96, 101–106). The
most common fish eaten in the
Southwest are Sonora and desert
suckers; channel and flathead catfish;
common carp largemouth, smallmouth,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
yellow, and white bass; and black
crappie. Less common are roundtail
chub, green sunfish, bluegill, tilapia,
and rainbow trout (USFWS 1982, p. 11;
AGFD 1999, p. 6). Prey availability has
decreased on the upper Salt River in
Arizona. The introduction of predatory
flathead catfish in the late 1970s nearly
extirpated native fish populations.
Flathead catfish, while available as bald
eagle prey when smaller, grow to large
sizes (up to 50 pounds, or 22.6
kilograms) making them too large for a
prey item. Flathead catfish populations
have increased while other fish species
have decreased (AGFD 2006, p. 19).
Productivity for the four bald eagle BAs
on the upper Salt River decreased from
1.12 young per year per occupied BA in
the 1980s to 0.29 young per occupied
BA in the 1990s.
Bald eagles in the Southwest establish
their breeding territories in December or
January and lay eggs in January or
February, which is early compared to
bald eagles in more northerly areas
(Stalmaster 1987, p. 63). Hunt et al.
(1992, p. C–16) indicate that this may be
a behavioral adaptation so that chicks
can avoid the extreme desert heat of
midsummer and adults can take
advantage of food resources for the
rearing of eaglets. Young fledgling
eagles can remain in their nest area
though June, learning how to fly and
land, while still being primarily fed by
adult eagles (Hunt et al. 1992, pp. C–6
and C–7).
About 45 days after leaving the nest,
young southwestern bald eagles migrate
to Canada, northern California, Idaho,
Montana, North and South Dakota,
Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming
(Hunt et al. 1992, pp. A–104 through A–
114), returning to Arizona in the fall of
the same year. They are known to repeat
this behavior for a minimum of 2 years
(Hunt et al. 1992a–112; p. A–122–A–
123). Resident adult bald eagles often
stay in their BAs year-round, although
local, short-term migrations are common
(AGFD 1999, p. 6).
The first major decline in bald eagle
populations began in the mid- to late1800s, when widespread shooting for
feathers and trophies led to extirpation
of eagles in some areas. 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 and other
factors contributed to a reduction in
bald eagle numbers through the 1940s
(USFWS 1999, p. 36455). In the late
1940s, the use of dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other
organochlorine compounds became
widespread. While DDT was initially
sprayed along coastal and other wetland
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
areas for mosquito control, it later was
used as a general crop insecticide. DDT
accumulated in individual bald eagles
that had ingested contaminated prey,
and reproductive success plummeted
(USFWS 1999, p. 36455). In the late
1960s and early 1970s, it was
determined that dichlorophenyldichloroethylene (DDE), a breakdown
product of DDT, accumulated in fatty
tissues of adult female eagles and
impaired the calcium release needed for
normal egg shell formation.
On March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), the
Secretary of the Interior listed bald
eagles south of the 40th parallel
(latitudinal line running roughly from
northern California to New Jersey) as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668aa–668cc). On December 31,
1972, DDT was banned from use in the
United States by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Nationwide bald eagle surveys
conducted in 1973 and 1974 revealed
the declining trend of bald eagle
population numbers throughout the
lower 48 States. We responded by
listing the bald eagle throughout the
lower 48 States as endangered except in
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Washington, and Oregon, where the
bald eagle was designated as threatened
(43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978).
Nesting populations of bald eagles have
more recently been increasing
throughout the United States. Data from
surveys conducted between 1963 and
1998 show that known active nest sites
in the lower 48 States have grown from
417 to over 5,748 occupied BAs
(USFWS 1995, p. 36001; USFWS 1999,
p. 36457). Today, the Service estimates
the population in the lower 48 states to
be at approximately 7,066 breeding
pairs (USFWS 2006, p. 8239).
The 1982 recovery plan for the
Southwestern Recovery Region states
that when the total reproduction for the
eagle population within the
Southwestern Recovery Region as a
whole has effectively doubled to 10–12
young per year over a 5-year period, and
the population range has expanded to
include one or more river drainages in
addition to the Salt and Verde River
Systems, the southwestern bald eagle
should be reclassified to threatened. The
1982 recovery plan indicated that
Arizona was the only State in the
recovery region containing nesting bald
eagles, with 42 unverified historical
nesting territories in the Salt and Verde
River systems, and one occupied
territory along the Colorado River. As
discussed in the February 16, 2006,
Federal Register notice reopening the
comment period on the proposed rule to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
delist the bald eagle through its range
(71 FR 8238), the downlisting goal
established in the recovery plan for the
southwestern bald eagle has been
exceeded. Further, on July 12, 1995, we
reclassified the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened in the lower
48 States (60 FR 36000).
The number of known BAs has
increased from a low of 3 in 1971, to a
high of 50 in 2006, while the number of
occupied BAs increased from a low of
3 in 1971, to a high of 43 in 2006. The
number of young hatched increased
from a low of 0 in 1972, to a high of 55
in 2006 (AGFD 2006, pp. 48–49; AGFD
unpubl. data 2006). Productivity has
also changed. Between 1975 and 1984,
average productivity was 0.95 young per
occupied BA. Between 1987 and 2005,
average productivity was 0.78 young per
occupied BA. These data take into
account productivity for BAs
throughout the Southwest, and they are
not restricted to the Sonoran Desert
population of bald eagles evaluated
under the petition.
While the number of BAs has
increased, there was no expectation that
these BAs would demonstrate a
corresponding increase in reproductive
performance. In part, this is because
early monitoring detected BAs with the
highest quality habitat that were easily
discovered. Following an intensive
survey effort, we now know of more
BAs, but habitat conditions within them
ranges from poor to excellent. As a
result, we are now tracking productivity
in BAs with a variety of habitat
conditions, rather than tracking
productivity in only those BAs that
were easily detected and were in prime
habitat. The result of having more
thorough, representative data from more
BAs in a variety of habitat types is that
we show fewer ‘‘boom and bust’’ years.
Productivity data between 1987 and
2005 indicates a more stabilized
performance. For example, in 1971,
with only three known BAs,
productivity was 1.33. In 1972, with the
same number of known BAs,
productivity was 0.0. In 1973,
productivity was at 1.5. By comparison,
with more BAs known, productivity
fluctations now typically vary by only
0.20 to 0.30 (AGFD 2006, pp. 48–49;
AGFD unpubl. data 2006).
AGFD (2006c, p. 5) additionally notes
that the change in productivity could be
due to a difference in monitoring
protocols. More importantly, they note
that an average productivity rate of 0.78
young/occupied breeding area is
consistent with the range of many other
areas in the species range with larger
bald eagle populations, including
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51551
Minnesota, British Columbia, Interior
Alaska, and Washington.
For the Sonoran Desert population of
bald eagles (i.e., excluding those BAs
not considered within the area of
analysis under this action), the number
of occupied BAs increased from a low
of 3 in 1971 to a high of 36 in 2004.
Productivity for only those BAs within
the Sonoran Desert population is that
same as that for the southwestern
population up until 1994, when BAs
outside of the Sonoran Desert
population were discovered. From 1994
forward, productivity within the
Sonoran Desert population has ranged
between 0.62 and 1.06, reaching a high
in 2004. Productivity remained high at
1.01 young per occupied BA for 2005
(AGFD 2004a, p. 15; AGFD 2004, p. 6;
AGFD 2005, p. 7; AGFD 2006, Table 7,
pp. 48–50). The average annual
productivity for this time period is at
0.78, which corresponds to that for the
overall southwestern population.
Previous Federal Actions
On March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), bald
eagles south of 40 degrees north latitude
were federally listed as an endangered
species. Bald eagles north of this line
were not listed at that time because
those populations had not experienced
the same threats and population
declines as of 1967. On February 14,
1978, we listed the bald eagle as
endangered in 43 States, and threatened
in 5 others (43 FR 6233). Bald eagles
were not listed in Alaska, and are not
found in Hawaii. On July 12, 1995, we
reclassified the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened in the lower
48 States (60 FR 36000). The bald eagle
remained classified as threatened in
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Oregon, and Washington, as originally
listed.
On July 6, 1999, we proposed to
remove the bald eagle from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
the lower 48 States, including the
Southwest Recovery Region (64 FR
36454). The original comment period
was open for 90 days, until October 5,
1999. We reopened the comment period
on that proposal on February 16, 2006
(71 FR 8238), for an additional 90 days,
until May 17, 2006, and we extended
the comment period on May 16, 2006
(71 FR 28369), for another 30 days, until
June 19, 2006.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
We consider a species for listing
under the Act if available information
indicates such an action might be
warranted. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the
Act as including any species or
subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants,
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
51552
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and any distinct vertebrate population
segment of fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). We, along with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (now the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration—Fisheries), developed
the Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(DPS policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), to help us in determining what
constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies
three elements that are to be considered
in a decision regarding the status of a
possible distinct population segment
(DPS). These elements include (1) the
discreteness of the population in
relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs; (2) the significance
of the population segment to the species
to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment’s conservation
status in relation to the Act’s standards
for listing. Our policy further recognizes
it may be appropriate to assign different
classifications (i.e., threatened or
endangered) to different DPSs of the
same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4721;
February 7, 1996).
In the Service’s final rule reclassifying
the bald eagle from endangered to
threatened (July 12, 1995, 60 FR 36000),
we determined that eagles in the
Southwestern Recovery Region were
part of the same bald eagle population
as that of the remaining lower 48 States,
and we determined it was appropriate to
include it in the reclassification.
However, the petition requests action
with respect to an area (i.e., Sonoran
Desert) that differs from the area that
was analyzed in the reclassification rule
(i.e., Southwestern Recovery
Region),and provides new information
not considered in 1995.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Discreteness
The DPS policy states that a
population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it
satisfies either one of the following two
conditions: It must be markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors, or it must be
delimited by international boundaries
within which significant differences in
control of exploitation, management or
habitat conservation status or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Our
evaluation of discreteness under the
DPS policy, based on information
provided in the petition and available in
our files, is presented below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Discreteness Criteria 1. The Population
Segment is Markedly Separated From
Other Populations of the Same Taxon as
a Consequence of Physical,
Physiological, Ecological, or Behavioral
Factors. Quantitative Measures of
Genetic or Morphological Discontinuity
May Provide Evidence of This
Separation
Ecological Factors
The petition notes the geographic
region occupied by Sonoran Desert bald
eagles is much drier and hotter than that
of any other bald eagle population, and
represents a significant departure from
the habitat selected by bald eagles in the
rest of North America. The petition
concludes that, in order to adapt to high
summer temperatures and to time
breeding cycles to the accessibility and
spawn of native fish (primarily suckers),
Sonoran Desert bald eagles breed earlier,
nest earlier, and fledge their young
sooner than bald eagles elsewhere
(AGFD 1999a, 2000; Gerrard and
Bortolotti 1988; Hunt et al. 1992;
Stalmaster 1987; USFWS 2003b). In
addition, the petition notes that, unlike
bald eagles elsewhere in North America,
Sonoran Desert bald eagles use cliff nest
sites and that 53 of 111 known nests, or
48 percent, are on cliffs or pinnacles.
They further note the only other place
this occurs is in the Aleutian Islands
(Hunt et al. 1992).
Response to the Petition
The information provided in the
petition on behavioral adaptations to the
Sonoran Desert is, in part, accurate.
While it is true that Sonoran Desert bald
eagles initiate nesting earlier than eagles
in some parts of the country, Stalmaster
(1987, p. 63) notes bald eagles in Florida
initiate breeding activities in October,
even earlier than Arizona bald eagles.
Florida bald eagles also lay eggs earlier
(Stalmaster 1987, p. 63; Gerrard and
Bortolotti 1988 p. 76). Accordingly,
Florida bald eagles hatch and fledge
earlier than those in Arizona. Stalmaster
(1987, p.63) concludes timing of various
breeding events is tied to latitude of the
nesting area, with eagles at more
northern latitudes breeding at later
dates.
With respect to cliff nesting, the
information presented on the use of cliff
nests is accurate. However, this is not
necessarily a unique trait of Sonoran
Desert bald eagles. Gerrard and
Bortolotti (1988, p. 41) note bald eagles
in other areas may nest on cliffs if
suitable trees are not available.
Stalmaster (1987) noted exceptions to
tree nests as well, but indicated that,
while eagles in other areas may rarely
use cliffs or other surfaces, this is an
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
exception, whereas in Arizona, cliff
nesting is common. In addition, bald
eagles are known to nest on cliffs on the
Channel Islands off California (Montrose
Settlements Restoration Program 2005).
Behavioral Factors
The petition provides information
alleging that the Sonoran Desert bald
eagles are reproductively isolated.
Specifically, the petition contends that
352 out of 353 individuals (99.997
percent) objectively identified while
participating in breeding activity in this
population came from within the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle population.
Additionally, the petition notes that,
since 1977, biologists in Arizona have
banded 256 nestlings with only one
individual identified as having
emigrated. According to the petition,
this indicates that 99.6 percent of
individuals born into the Sonoran
Desert remain in the desert (AGFD
1999a, 2000). The petition states that, to
date, evidence from the banding and
identification of breeding adults
supports the hypothesis that the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle breeding
population is not supported or
maintained by immigration from other
states or regions. They quote AGFD
(1999a, 2000):
‘‘[B]ecause adults return to the vicinity of
their natal area to breed, the large distance
between small breeding populations in the
Southwest decreases the chance for
movement between neighboring populations.
Probably most convincing are the results
from banding 256 nestlings over 20 years and
identifying 372 breeding adults over 8 years.
Only one individual from out-of-state entered
the breeding population and only one left.
Additionally, the proportion of breeding
adults with color bands had steadily
increased, while the presence of unmarked
Bald Eagles has decreased. Thus, continued
attention to the survivorship of all Arizona
Bald Eagles is vital to the maintenance of our
breeding population. We can not depend on
immigration to Arizona from nearby states to
make up for poor management in Arizona
* * *’’
The petition claims the AGFD (1994b)
warned that repopulation of the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle population
following a population crash would be
highly unlikely, and quote the AGFD
(1994b) as follows:
‘‘Because Arizona continues to possess
nearly the entire breeding population within
the Southwestern Region, concerns remain
over retaining the genetic integrity of this
population * * * Should a population crash
occur in Arizona, the pool of eagles to
repopulate the Southwest could be left to the
few pairs in the neighboring states or Mexico.
However, at this time, there is no
documentation of eagles from these
neighboring Southwestern states breeding in
Arizona or vice versa.’’
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
The petition further states that natal
site fidelity is common for bald eagles,
noting that, in a study of nine bald eagle
populations including thousands of
banded birds, only two nestlings were
found to have bred in other areas. One
of these birds moved 331 kilometers
(205 miles) north from its natal site in
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
(Harmata in litt.) while the other
traveled 418 kilometers (260 miles)
south from its natal site near Charleston,
South Carolina (T. Murphy, pers.
comm., Wood in litt.). They conclude
that the tendency for banded nestlings
to breed within their natal populations
is well known (Hunt et al. 1992).
understanding of genetics does not
refute the discrete and isolated nature of
the desert nesting bald eagle. The
petition notes a review of all
information regarding genetic analysis
of the southwestern desert nesting bald
eagle reveals consistent uncertainty, and
concludes current genetic data support
no definitive conclusions concerning
isolation or lack of isolation (CBD
2004e; Hunt et al. 1992; SWCBD 1999).
The petition states that, while no
definitive conclusions are supported by
the limited genetic data, this is not
required under the current DPS policy.
Specifically, the petition quotes from
the policy:
Response to the Petition
The information in the petition
appears to be accurate and reliable;
however, it should be noted the only
individual cited as entering the breeding
population from out-of-state refers to a
bald eagle from Texas (AGFD 2006, p.
27) that currently occupies the Luna BA,
which is not part of the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle population. As a result, the
appropriate conclusion is all birds
objectively identified while
participating in breeding activity in the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle population
came from within the population. It
should also be noted that sub-adult bald
eagles do migrate and return annually.
As noted above, about 45 days after
leaving the nest, young southwestern
bald eagles migrate to Canada, northern
California, Idaho, Montana, North and
South Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and
Wyoming (Hunt et al. 1992, p. A–104—
A–114), returning to Arizona in the fall
of the same year. They are known to
repeat this behavior for a minimum of
2 years (Hunt et al. 1992a–112; p. A–
122—A–123). Resident adult bald eagles
often stay in their BAs year-round,
although local short-term migrations are
common (AGFD 1999, p. 6).
We agree with the petitioners that,
should the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population experience a rapid decline,
there are few eagles in neighboring
southwestern states or Mexico which
could serve as a source population for
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population. Finally, we find the
information from Harmata et al. (1999,
p. 788) and Hunt et al. (1992, p. A–144)
supports the discussion on the natal
origins of breeding adults, and the
probability that adult bald eagle will not
immigrate to the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population from surrounding
southwestern states or farther.
‘‘Thus, evidence of genetic distinctness or
of the presence of genetically determined
traits may be important in recognizing some
DPS’s, but the draft policy was not intended
to always specifically require this kind of
evidence in order for a DPS to be recognized
* * *’’
Evidence of Genetic Discontinuity
With respect to genetic isolation, the
petition found that the current
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Similarly, the petition notes absolute
reproductive isolation is not required
under the policy, which states:
‘‘The Services do not consider it
appropriate to require absolute reproductive
isolation as a prerequisite to recognizing a
distinct population segment. This would be
an impracticably stringent standard, and one
that would not be satisfied even by some
recognized species that are known to sustain
a low frequency of interbreeding with related
species * * *’’
Response to the Petition
The information presented within the
petition on completed genetic studies
for bald eagles appears accurate and
reliable. Hunt et al. (1992, pp. E–96 to
E–110) contains the genetic work
completed to date on the southwestern
bald eagle population. Vyse (1992, p. E–
100, E–101) notes the data are
inconclusive, as evidenced by such
statements as ‘‘These findings must be
assumed to be preliminary (and treated
with due caution), because of a lack of
information concerning sampling
procedures. The results we have
obtained could easily be explained by
sampling procedures’’; and ‘‘At present
these data (HinfI/M–13) are too
incomplete to be considered further.’’ In
addition, Zegers et al. (1992, p. E–106 to
E–109) notes that ‘‘Question 4 * * * is
difficult to answer with precision
because of the different sample sizes
between 1985 and 1990. * * * [T]his
difference is possibly an artifact of the
many fewer samples in 1985’’; ‘‘six loci
may not be enough to give a reliable
estimate of the true genetic distance’;
and ‘‘We feel caution should be
exercised when interpreting these
results due to the low numbers of
individuals sampled from most states
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51553
but especially because of the few loci
examined.’’
Evidence of Morphological
Discontinuity
The term ‘‘morphological
discontinuity’’ refers to some difference
in physical characteristics that may
exist between two groups. The petition
contends that quantitative measures of
the physical differences between
Sonoran Desert bald eagles and bald
eagles elsewhere offers evidence of
morphological discontinuity. The
petition cites quantitative measures of
physical difference, stating that average
weights of male bald eagles are 3.3
kilograms (kg) (7.3 pounds (lbs.)) in
Arizona, 4.1 kg (9.0 lbs.) in California,
and 4.7 kg (10.4 lbs.) in Alaska.
Similarly, average weight for females is
4.5 kg (9.9 lbs.) in Arizona, 5.1 kg (11.2
lbs.) in California, and 5.8 kg (12.8 lbs.)
in Alaska (Hunt et al. 1992).
Response to the Petition
The information provided on size
differences appears to be accurate and
reliable, as found in Hunt et al. (1992,
p. A–159). Stalmaster (1987, pp. 16–17)
notes southern eagles are much smaller
and lighter than their northern
counterparts. This is consistent with
Bergmann’s Rule, which holds that
animal size increases with increasing
latitude. Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988, p.
14) note Florida birds are the smallest,
with a gradation of small to large from
south to north. The importance of this
morphological difference and its
potential isolating effects are discussed
by Hunt et al. (1992, p. A–165), who
notes morphological differences such as
small size may be an adaptation related
to desert conditions, noting a decision
to release birds into Arizona from
elsewhere should be considered only as
a last resort, as the introduction of
foreign genes into the Sonoran Desert
population might disrupt coadapted
gene complexes specific to the desert
population.
Discreteness Criteria 2. It is Delimited by
International Government Boundaries
Within Which Differences in Control of
Exploitation, Management of Habitat,
Conservation Status, or Regulatory
Mechanisms Exist That are Significant
in Light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act
No specific information was
identified in the petition for this
category. Therefore we will not address
this category in our analysis of
discreteness.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the information
presented in the petition, and have
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
51554
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
evaluated the information in accordance
with 50 CFR 424.14(b). On the basis of
our review, we find available genetic
studies on bald eagles are dated, the
sample size was small, and researchers
conducting the studies found the results
to be inconclusive. We therefore believe
that the best available genetic
information is inconclusive with regard
to the discreteness of the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle population. However, we
believe the petition presents substantial
information on the Sonoran Desert bald
eagles with respect to size. However,
size in birds is known to be a clinal
function of latitude and does not
necessarily indicate discreteness. We
believe the petition provides substantial
information on natal site fidelity in
breeding birds and the limited number
of other eagles in neighboring
southwestern states or Mexico. Finally,
we believe the data indicating that 20
years of monitoring have resulted in the
determination that no eagles have
immigrated to and only one eagle has
emigrated from the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population is substantial. We,
therefore, conclude that the petition
contains substantial information with
respect to the discreteness requirements
of the DPS policy to warrant considering
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population as discrete from other bald
eagle populations.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Significance
If we determine that a population
segment is discrete under one of the
above conditions, we must then
consider its biological and ecological
significance to the taxon to which it
belongs, within the context that the
Service’s authority to list DPSs be used
‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the
conservation of genetic diversity (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). This
consideration may include, but is not
limited to the following: (1) Evidence of
the persistence of the population
segment in an ecological setting that is
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that
loss of the population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range
of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside of its
historic range; and (4) evidence that the
discrete population segment differs
markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Significance Criteria 1. Persistence of
the Population Segment in an Ecological
Setting That Is Unusual or Unique for
the Taxon
Significance Criteria 2. Loss of the
Population Segment Would Result in a
Significant Gap in the Range of the
Taxon
Information Provided in the Petition
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition contends that the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle persists in the
unique ecological setting of the Sonoran
life zones of the desert Southwest
(AGFD 1999a, 2000; Hunt et al. 1992;
USFWS 2002a, 2003b). With the
exception of a single 8,000 foot (2,438
meter) elevation nest (Luna BA), the
petition states that all known Arizona
BAs are located in the Sonoran Desert
in the central part of the State in Upper
and Lower Sonoran Desert habitats from
elevations of 1,080 feet (330 meters) to
5,640 feet (1,720 meters), and are closely
associated with the Salt, Verde, and Gila
river drainage waters (Beatty and
Driscoll 1994, 1996a; Beatty et al. 1995a,
1995b, 1998; Driscoll and Beatty 1994;
Driscoll et al. 1992; Hunt et al. 1992).
The petition further identifies several
Arizona tree species native to the desert
Southwest as representative vegetation
for these areas (Brown 1994).
The petition contends that for more
than twenty years, the Service has
recognized the fact that the Southwest
represents a ‘‘significant portion of the
bald eagle range’’ and further states that
it follows logically then that the loss of
the [Sonoran] Desert nesting population
would result in a significant gap in the
range of the bald eagle (Hunt et al. 1992;
USFWS 1982, 1994a, 1995, 2001a). The
petition claims that bald eagles in the
Southwestern United States have been
considered as a distinct population for
the purposes of consultation and
recovery efforts under the Act (USFWS
2003b).
The petition further contends that
several authors have speculated about
the consequences of this population’s
loss (AGFD 1994b; Hunt et al. 1992),
and the petitioners can find no credible
evidence that bald eagles elsewhere
possess the ability to adapt to the
unique and hostile environmental
habitat in which the [Sonoran] Desert
nesting population has evolved.
Specifically the petition quotes Hunt et
al. (1992):
Response to the Petition
The breeding range of the bald eagle
is associated with aquatic habitats
(coastal areas, river, lakes, and
reservoirs) with forested shorelines or
cliffs in North America (Buehler 2000).
The ecological setting in which the bald
eagle persists in the Sonoran Desert may
at first seem unusual for the species.
However, despite the desert setting, bald
eagles of the Sonoran Desert are
consistently associated with preferred
bald eagle habitat, the riparian
ecosystem. The petition clearly states
that the Sonoran Desert nests are closely
associated with the Salt, Verde, and Gila
river drainage waters and cites Brown
(1994) when describing the riparian
vegetation of these areas. As with all
populations of bald eagles throughout
the lower 48 States, suitable riparian
habitat, or other comparable aquatic
habitat, is an essential prerequisite to
successful eagle reproduction in the
desert Southwest (USFWS 1982).
Riparian ecosystems occupied by
nesting bald eagles in the Sonoran life
zones of the desert Southwest, therefore,
do not constitute a unique setting for the
species. The persistence of the bald
eagle in this setting likely represents an
example of a species occupying the edge
of its range of suitable habitats.
Therefore, we conclude that the petition
does not present substantial evidence
that the population is persisting in an
ecological setting that is unique for the
taxon.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘[W]ere the [Southwestern Desert Nesting
Bald Eagle] population extirpated, there is no
firm reason to believe that bald eagles
released into Arizona from elsewhere would
posses [sic] the adaptations required to
increase their numbers.’’
The petition further quotes
correspondence from the Arizona Game
and Fish Department to the Service
(1994b):
‘‘Because Arizona continues to possess
nearly the entire breeding population within
the Southwestern Region, concerns remain
over retaining the genetic integrity of this
population. * * * Should a population crash
occur in Arizona, the pool of eagles to
repopulate the Southwest could be left to the
few pairs in the neighboring states or Mexico.
However, at this time, there is no
documentation of eagles from these
neighboring Southwestern States breeding in
Arizona or vice versa.’’
Response to the Petition
The petition cites several Service
publications (1982, 1994a, 1995, 2001a)
in addition to a report prepared by Hunt
et al. (1992) when making this claim,
but does not make specific reference to
instances in which the Service has
‘‘recognized the fact that the Southwest
represents a significant portion of the
Bald Eagle range.’’ Therefore, for this
analysis we will assume that the
petition is referring to the fact that the
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Service has continued to identify the
Southwest population of the bald eagle
as one of five recovery populations in
the lower 48 States for more than twenty
years (Hunt et al. 1992; USFWS 1982,
1994a, 1995, 2001a).
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
populations, based on geographic
location, termed Recovery Regions. This
was as a result of the wide distribution
of the bald eagle in the lower 48 States.
Recovery plans were prepared for the
five Recovery Regions, including the
Southwest Recovery Region (USFWS
1982), by separate recovery teams
composed of species experts in each
geographic area. The Service views the
establishment of recovery regions as a
management tool allowing for effective
regional coordination and planning
among State and Federal conservation
agencies and species experts. The
existence of a recovery region does not,
in itself, imply significance under the
DPS policy (USFWS and NMFS 1996),
as the petitioner claims, and therefore
the Southwestern Recovery Region is
not a DPS for the purposes of recovery.
In the 1994 proposed rule to reclassify
the bald eagle from endangered to
threatened (59 FR 35584; July 12, 1994),
the Service determined that current
information indicates the Southwestern
population is at risk and remains in
danger of extinction due to excessively
low survival rates and the need for
intensive management, particularly at
nest sites. This decision was based on
the understanding that the population
was isolated and thus subject to the
genetic, demographic, and
environmental threats known to be
associated with small populations. Data
provided in the Hunt et al. (1992)
publication indicated there had been no
immigration to the Southwestern
population of bald eagles. At that time
the Service recognized the
Southwestern Recovery Region as a DPS
based on evidence that it appeared to be
reproductively isolated (59 FR 35584;
July 12, 1994). However, in the 1995
final rule to reclassify bald eagles from
endangered to threatened, the Service
affirmed that the Southwestern
Recovery Region of the bald eagle is not
a DPS but instead part of the same bald
eagle population as that of the
remaining lower 48 States (USFWS
1995). This determination was based on
evidence of immigration into the
population (USFWS 1995), interpopulation movements (Mabie et al.
1994), and the then existing genetic
data, which did not support the
Service’s previous assertion that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
bald eagles of the Southwestern
Recovery Region are reproductively
isolated (Hunt et al. 1992).
On July 6, 1996, the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service
jointly published a policy that clarifies
the Agencies’ interpretation of the
phrase ‘‘distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife’’ for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying species
under the Act (USFWS and NMFS
1996). The policy identifies three
elements that are to be considered in a
decision regarding the status of a
possible distinct population segment
(DPS). These elements include (1) the
discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs; (2) the
significance of the population segment
to the species to which it belongs; and
(3) the population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing (USFWS and
NMFS 1996).
Subsequent to publication of the DPS
policy, the Service published a
proposed rule to remove the bald eagle
in the lower 48 States from the list of
endangered and threatened wildlife
(USFWS 1999). On February 16, 2006
the Service reopened the comment
period for the proposed rule (USFWS
2006). In both of these publications the
Service recognized a single listed
population of bald eagles throughout the
lower 48 States as had been done in the
earlier 1995 final rule (USFWS 1995),
although a formal analysis consistent
with the 1996 DPS policy had not been
completed for the Southwestern
Recovery Region (USFWS 1999, 2006).
The petition is correct in that early
biological opinions, as part of
consultations with Federal action
agencies under section 7 of the Act,
finalized by the Arizona Ecological
Services Office referred to the
Southwestern population as a DPS.
However, in the 1995 final rule to
reclassify bald eagles from endangered
to threatened (USFWS 1995), the
Service affirmed that the Southwestern
population of the bald eagle is not a
DPS. Some biological opinions dated
after the final rule note that the
Southwestern population of the bald
eagle was previously considered a DPS,
but no longer is considered as such. In
the February 16, 2006 reopening of the
comment period for the proposed rule to
delist the bald eagle, the Service further
explains that when preparing biological
opinions under section 7 of the Act the
potential effects to the Southwestern or
any of the other four recovery regions of
the bald eagle are considered in terms
of whether they appreciably reduce the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51555
likelihood of both survival and recovery
of the bald eagle throughout the lower
48 States, not solely for the geographic
area in which the impacts may occur
(USFWS 2006). Therefore, the bald
eagles in the Southwestern United
States are not considered as a distinct
population for the purposes of
consultation under the Act. Further, the
petition under consideration in this
finding requests action with respect to
a geographic area (i.e., Sonoran Desert)
that differs from the area that was
analyzed in the Service’s reclassification
rule (i.e., Southwestern Recovery
Region) (USFWS 1995). In this context,
claims regarding how the Service has
referred to the Southwest Recovery
Region are not relevant to the petitioned
action.
Finally, the bald eagle ranges
throughout much of North America,
nesting on both coasts from Florida to
Baja California in the south, and from
Labrador to the western Aleutian
Islands, Alaska in the north (Gerrard
and Bartolotti 1988). While the
statements of two authors who have
‘‘speculated’’ about the consequences of
the Sonoran Desert population’s loss are
accurately quoted, these statements do
not specifically address how the loss of
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population would constitute a
significant gap in the range of the
species. Furthermore, the petitioner
provides no supporting evidence to
substantiate the authors’ speculations.
We conclude that the bald eagles in
the Southwestern United States are not
considered as a distinct population for
the purposes of consultation or
recovery. Furthermore, the petition does
no provide substantial information to
support the claim that loss of the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle population
would result in a significant gap in the
range of the species.
Significance Criteria 3. The Population
Segment Represents the Only Surviving
Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That
May Be More Abundant Elsewhere as an
Introduced Population Outside Its
Historical Range
The petition does not address this
factor. The bald eagle occurs naturally
throughout the contiguous 48 States,
Alaska, Canada and Mexico (Buehler
2000). As such, the Sonoran Desert
population does not represent the only
surviving natural occurrence of the
taxon.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
51556
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Significance Criteria 4. The Discrete
Population Segment Differs Markedly
From Other Populations of the Species
in its Genetic Characteristics
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition contends that review of
all information regarding genetic
analysis of the Southwestern desert
nesting bald eagle reveals consistent
uncertainty and the current
understanding of genetics does not
refute the discrete and isolated nature of
the desert nesting bald eagle (CBD
2004e; Hunt et al. 1992; SWCBD 1999).
The petition specifically quotes excerpts
from Hunt et al. (1992), which discuss
genetics study methods, results, and
conclusions.
Response to the Petition
We have addressed the genetic
evidence provided by the petitioner in
the analysis of discreteness above.
Consistent with that analysis we have
determined that the best available
genetic information is inconclusive with
regard to significance. We conclude that
the petition does not present substantial
information that the population differs
markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
Further, the petition does not present
nor are we aware of any other factors
that would lead us to believe that the
Sonoran Desert population of the bald
eagle differs markedly from the taxon as
a whole.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Conclusion
We have reviewed the information
presented in the petition, and have
evaluated the information in accordance
with 50 CFR 424.14(b). On the basis of
our review, we find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
constitutes a valid DPS. Although the
population is discrete, the petition does
not present substantial scientific
information that the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle may be significant in relation
to the remainder of the taxon. Therefore,
we conclude that the Sonoran Desert
population is not a listable entity
pursuant to section 3(15) of the Act.
However, recognizing the volume of
information provided in the petition,
and the national importance of the bald
eagle, we have also conducted a threats
analysis.
Threats Analysis
Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we
may list a species, subspecies, or DPS of
vertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the
following five factors: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
curtailment of habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. The Act identifies the five
factors to be considered, either singly or
in combination, to determine whether a
species may be threatened or
endangered. Our evaluation of these
threats in terms of the petitioned action
to reclassify the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle from threatened to endangered,
based on information provided in the
petition and available in our files, is
presented below. Throughout this
finding we refer to the Sonoran Desert
population of the bald eagle, because
that is the petitioned entity; however, as
noted above, this reference does not
imply that we have determined, under
to our DPS policy, that this population
is a listable entity. Furthermore,
although we have proposed the bald
eagle in the lower 48 States for delisting
(71 FR 8238, February 16, 2006), our
petition finding does not address the
proposed delisting or conditions that
may occur if the delisting is finalized.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the
Species’ Habitat or Range
Development, Recreation, and Water
Use
The petition notes that the Southwest
has already lost more than 90 percent of
its historical riparian communities
(AGFD 1993; Krueper 1993; Lofgren et
al. 1990), and that the loss of riparian
communities is continuing due to
increasing development, dewatering via
groundwater pumping and diversions,
destructive cattle grazing, and lack of
vegetation-rejuvenating floods. The
petition contends that the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle population faces
imminent and accelerating loss of
increasing amounts of habitat vital to its
long-term survival. Specifically, the
petition notes that most of the BAs are
located along the Salt and Verde rivers
near the Phoenix metropolitan area and
the towns of Cottonwood and Camp
Verde in Yavapai County, where habitat
loss is occurring due to the increasing
human population in central Arizona.
The petition notes that the human
population in Maricopa County is
expected to double to more than six
million people over the next 30 years
(Arizona Republic 1998). Growth in
Cottonwood, on the Verde River, is
projected to increase by 148 percent and
in Camp Verde by 158 percent between
1994 and 2040 (Arizona Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Economic Security 1994). The petition
notes that increases in human
populations of this magnitude will
result in increased housing
development, water demands, and
recreational use.
The petitioners contend that
development will affect the suitability
of many BAs due to their proximity to
areas with large human populations and
projected population growth rates. The
petition notes that increased
recreational use, development, and
water use will follow increasing
population sizes, and cites examples of
past consultations, conducted by the
Service under section 7 of the Act,
addressing these issues.
The petition cites recent examples of
recreational impacts to Sonoran Desert
bald eagle BAs, including river tubing
on the Salt River, which increases the
human presence near the Blue Point BA,
as well as campground development at
Roosevelt Lake, which could affect the
Sheep and Tonto BAs. The petition
cites, as development examples, a 360home development and golf course
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers (km)) of
the Box Bar BA; the development of
lakeside resorts at Lake Pleasant near
the Pleasant BA; and continued
housing, road, and business
developments along lower Tonto Creek
near the Sheep and Tonto BAs (AGFD
1999a, 2000).
The petition notes that dewatering of
the middle portion of the Verde River is
accelerating so that flows have at times
been reduced to 12 cubic feet per
second (0.3 cubic meters per second) in
summer months near the Camp Verde
White Bridge gauge (Verde Natural
Resources Conservation District 1999).
The petition contends that this
dewatering is resulting in a reduction in
base flows, and increased populations
in Cottonwood and Camp Verde are
leading to increased groundwater
pumping. The petition indicates that
groundwater pumping in Arizona has
repeatedly been demonstrated to result
in a depletion of surface flows,
degradation and loss of riparian
communities, and adverse impacts and
local extirpation of aquatic flora and
fauna (ADWR 1994; Ewing et al. 1994;
Glennon 1995; Glennon and Maddock
1994; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984;
McGavock 1996, Miller 1961; OwenJoyce and bell 1983, Stromberg 1993;
Tellman et al. 1997).
The petition notes that increased
water demand is expected to have
adverse effects on flows within rivers
and resulting impacts on riparian
communities. The petition further notes
that 59.5 percent of all known desert
bald eagle nests in Arizona have been in
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
riparian trees and snags (Driscoll 1999;
E. Gardner, AGFD, pers. comm. 2006).
The petition notes that bald eagles at 11
BAs, including the Box Bar, Coolidge,
Doka, Fort McDowell, Perkinsville,
Pinto, 76, Sheep, Sycamore, Tonto, and
Winkelman BAs, nest solely in riparian
trees, and that the cottonwood trees
used for nesting in these BAs have
become overmature, are dying, and are
not being replaced (AGFD 1991a, 2000).
The petition contends that the loss of
habitat in these BAs is particularly
damaging to the future stability of the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle population,
as they have collectively contributed 22
percent of all recorded fledglings since
1971. The petition notes that the Fort
McDowell BA has fledged 34 young,
second only to the Blue Point BA,
which has fledged 35 young (AGFD
1999a, 2000).
Substantial detail is provided in the
petition regarding specific development
activities and resulting effects to
Sonoran Desert bald eagle BAs. The
petition notes that pressures associated
with human population growth are
increasing and will continue to do so as
the human population increases.
Response to the Petition
The information provided by the
petitioner indicating that human
population growth is expected to
continue in areas in close proximity to
or used by the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population appears accurate and
reliable. Human population growth is an
ongoing concern, and many of the bald
eagle BAs in the Sonoran Desert
population are within close proximity to
this anticipated growth, including the
Granite Reef, Orme, Rodeo, Sycamore,
Doka, Fort McDowell, Box Bar, Needle
Rock, and Bartlett BAs on the Verde
River, and the Bull Dog, Blue Point, and
Horse Mesa BAs on the Salt River, as
well as the Pleasant BA at Lake
Pleasant. As noted in the petition,
recreation, development, and water use
activities are ongoing and have
increased since the bald eagle was
listed. We have consulted on many of
these actions through section 7 of the
Act (including USFWS 1990b, 1996b,
1997b, 1998, 2001a and 2003b on water
developments and USFWS 1993a for
recreation, as cited in the petition). In
addition, the AGFD’s Projects
Evaluation Program is available for
Federal agencies or companies with a
Federal nexus. This program can be
used to evaluate the impacts of planned
or future projects in areas where there
may be a species of concern. The AGFD
believes the program will help to ensure
bald eagles and their habitat are
considered and evaluated for possible
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
effects from development projects
(AGFD 2006, p. 14).
Under section 7 of the Act, we have
concluded to date that these actions
would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the bald eagle. The AGFD
(2006c, p. 13) acknowledges that the
need to accommodate human
populations in proximity to a major
metropolitan area like Phoenix will
require ongoing management. However,
they conclude that the species can be
managed even under this scenario
through the ‘‘awareness, collaboration,
flexibility, planning, and willingness of
all wildlife, land, and recreation
managers (AGFD 2006, p. 13).’’
We work cooperatively with the
AGFD and Federal land managers to
minimize the potential threats to bald
eagle BAs in close proximity to the
major human population growth areas
in Arizona by establishing BA closures
and monitoring the sites. In 2006, the
Bartlett, Box Bar, Granite Reef, Orme,
and Tonto BAs were monitored through
the Arizona Bald Eagle Nestwatch
Program. The program not only interacts
with members of the public to provide
education, but can intervene if
individuals approach the nests too
closely. Similarly, the Southwest Bald
Eagle Management Committee,
composed of State, Tribal, Federal,
private, and military agencies, meets
twice each year to address ongoing and
new threats, funding for needed efforts,
and general issues affecting the bald
eagle.
With the exception of the Pleasant
and Bull Dog BAs, all of the BAs in
close proximity to Phoenix successfully
fledged young in 2006. One bird from
the Bull Dog BA was successfully
fledged following fostering in the
Granite Reef BA. Orme, Rodeo, Doka,
Fort McDowell, Box Bar, Blue Point,
and Horse Mesa fledged one young
each, while Sycamore, Needle Rock, and
Bartlett produced two young each.
Additionally, many of these BAs have
successfully produced young for many
years and, while nest failures do occur,
their overall productivity remains high.
For example, the Bartlett BA has fledged
28 young in 20 separate years between
1971 and 2002; the Blue Point BA has
fledged 38 young in 18 separate years
between 1971 and 2002; and the Fort
McDowell BA has fledged 41 young in
23 years between 1971 and 2002 (AGFD
2006, Table 7, pp. 48–50).
The petitioners presented reliable and
accurate data on the use of riparian
areas for bald eagles, and on the
potential loss of nest trees. In the 11
BAs referenced by the petitioners,
existing trees have become over-mature,
are dying, and are not being replaced
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51557
(AGFD 2006, p. 12). The eagles in the
Doka, Fort McDowell, Granite Reef,
Rodeo, 76, and Sheep BAs currently
nest in overmature live trees or snags
with few available replacements. Trees
may be lost to floodwaters, as at Fort
McDowell in 1995 and 2005, or
inundated due to reservoir level
increases, as at the Pinto and Tonto BAs
at Roosevelt Lake. In some cases,
alternate trees are not available, as is the
case at the Pinto BA. Housing
communities and water-table reductions
limit the available trees at the Tonto BA
(AGFD 2006, p. 13).
The AGFD (2006, p. 13) notes that the
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (FMYN)
and Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian
Community (SRPMIC) have submitted
proposals to the Arizona Water
Protection Fund and Wetlands
Protection Fund to plant riparian trees.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is
analyzing ground-water levels in the
Pinto BA for possible cottonwood pole
plantings, and has helped to implement
riparian restoration strategies within the
Tonto Creek Riparian Unit. Salt River
Project has purchased property for
riparian enhancements on Roosevelt
Lake. The exact impacts of increased
human population growth and riparian
losses, as well as the success of planting
efforts in riparian areas, are speculative
at this point. Through these
management efforts, however, managing
agencies can begin to minimize the
factors impairing riparian regeneration.
We agree with the petitioner that
human population growth, particularly
in Maricopa and Yavapai counties, will
continue. While we can anticipate the
types of impacts that might occur, the
exact results of those impacts on
occupancy and productivity are
speculative at this point. We remain
concerned for BAs such as Bartlett, Blue
Point, and Fort McDowell, which have
contributed much to the productivity of
bald eagles in the Southwest. However,
we find that productivity remains high
despite the ongoing nature of this threat.
While this is an ongoing threat, bald
eagles have continued to survive and
reproduce, as evidenced by the
increased number of BAs throughout
Arizona, and as evidenced by the
productivity of the BAs outlined above.
We therefore find that the petitioners
did not provide substantial information
to lead us to conclude that this threat
has increased the likelihood of
extinction for the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population.
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
51558
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
funding for the ABENWP (AGFD 1994a;
Arizona Republic 2003a, 2004c, 2004f)
and states that there are few binding
consultations for any agency to commit
funding to existing bald eagle programs;
funding assistance by agencies is
primarily based upon available funds
and where the agencies choose to
allocate them. The petition notes that
approximately 63 percent of all funds
spent on bald eagles comes from
agencies other than AGFD.
Management
The petition states that the Sonoran
Desert population’s survival is
dependent, in good part, on heroic
human support and management by the
Arizona Bald Eagle Nestwatch Program
(ABENWP). The petition notes that, over
a 2-year period in 1996 and 1997,
13,999 human activities and 4,000
gunshots were recorded within 0.5 mile
(0.8 km) of 13 nests. The petition
contends that signs, education, and the
threat of fines are insufficient deterrents
to people, and that monitoring by
nestwatchers has been, and continues to
be, a crucial component of Sonoran
Desert bald eagle management (AGFD
1999a, 2000).
The petition additionally notes that,
since 1983, 16 percent of all Sonoran
Desert bald eagle fledglings have been
saved by direct intervention of the
ABENWP, with that intervention
directly responsible for saving up to 60
percent of a single year’s nestlings in
some cases (USFWS 1992b). The
petition notes that BAs such as Bartlett,
Cliff, and 76 would rarely produce
young without the aid of nestwatchers
(Hunt et al. 1992).
The petition further notes that the
ABENWP could become inadequate in
the future as its funding is not secure.
The funding comes from State grants
such as AGFD’s Heritage Fund, Federal
agency contributions as mitigation for
takings of the bald eagle under the Act,
and volunteer funding. The petition
finds that Heritage funding is insecure
because it is derived from the State
lottery, and income from the lottery has
been decreasing. Additionally, the
petition notes that there have been
legislative attempts to divert lottery
funds from protective wildlife activities.
The petition contends that the proposed
removal of the bald eagle from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife list will terminate
mandatory Federal agency funding as
well; the petition provides an example
where the Bureau of Reclamation has
asked us for clarification on terminating
funding for one of its projects (USFWS
1996c). The petition provides additional
examples of the tenuous nature of
Response to Petition
Information in our files indicates that
funding for the ABENWP comes from a
variety of sources, including State
Wildlife Grants, donations, AGFD
Heritage Funds (State lottery), and
matching funds for Federal grants. The
petitioner’s contention that funding for
the program will be significantly
reduced or discontinued in the future is
speculative.
With regard to management and
existing regulatory mechanisms, we
evaluated whether a difference exists
between the regulatory mechanisms
currently protecting the bald eagle in
the lower 48 States of the United States
(inclusive of Sonoran Desert bald eagles)
as a threatened species and the
regulatory mechanisms protecting an
endangered species (i.e., the petitioned
action). As a threatened species with no
special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act, the bald eagle in the lower 48
States of the United States (inclusive of
Sonoran Desert bald eagles) is provided
protection equal to that of an
endangered species under the Act,
except for penalties for illegal take. The
prohibitions of the Act make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to take (includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, or collect, or to
attempt any of these), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the
course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any listed species. It is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that
has been taken illegally.
Further, the Service proposed to
remove the bald eagle in the lower 48
States from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife on July 6, 1999 (64
FR 36454) and reopened the comment
period on that proposal on February 16,
2006 (71 FR 8238). The comment period
was extended on May 16, 2006 (71 FR
28293). If this delisting action were to
be finalized, we believe other existing
regulatory protections afforded the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle will provide
adequate regulatory protection to this
population. Our determination is based
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
No specific threats were identified in
the petition for this category.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
C. Disease or Predation
No specific threats were identified in
the petition for this category.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on the analysis with our delisting
proposal and the fact that the existing
regulatory protections are national in
scope and not specific to the population
level of a species. With regard to these
existing regulatory protections, please
reference the February 16, 2006 notice
(71 FR 8238), reopening the comment
period on the proposed rule to delist the
bald eagle in the lower 48 States. In this
notice, we provide an in-depth
discussion of the protections afforded
the bald eagle (including the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle) by other Federal
wildlife laws, including the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)
(16 U.S.C. 688–668d) and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–
712). In summary, the BGEPA prohibits
taking, or possession of and commerce
in, bald and golden eagles, with limited
exceptions. Take under the BGEPA is
defined as ‘‘to pursue, shoot, shoot at,
poison, wound, kill, capture, trap,
collect, molest or disturb’’ (16 U.S.C.
668c). The MBTA implements various
treaties and conventions between the
United States and other countries and,
unless permitted by regulations, it
provides that it is unlawful to pursue;
hunt; take; capture; kill; possess; offer to
sell, barter, purchase, deliver; or cause
to be shipped, exported, imported,
transported, carried, or received any
migratory bird, part, nest, egg or
product, manufactured or not.
Based on information provided by the
petitioner and noted above, we find that
no measurable difference exists between
the regulatory protections provided the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle in its current
status as threatened than if it were
assigned an endangered status (i.e., the
petitioned action). Furthermore, we
believe that other existing Federal
wildlife laws will continue to provide
adequate regulatory protections to the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle if the bald
eagle is delisted. Thus, we find the
petitioner did not provide substantial
information to lead us to believe that
existing regulatory mechanisms may be
inadequate to protect the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle.
Habitual Violation of Law and Lack of
Agency Resolve
The petition states that the Service
has been engaged in efforts to downlist
the bald eagle since at least 1989. The
petition notes an attitudinal change
accompanying downlisting efforts, and
that this change contributes to
increasing threats to the continued
existence of the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle. Specifically, the petition contends
that the attitudinal shift perpetuates: (a)
Cattle grazing within riparian habitat
critical to Sonoran Desert bald eagles;
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(b) dam operations with water releases
that are improperly timed for
replenishment of riparian nest trees; (c)
dewatering of remnant, free-flowing
rivers; (d) introduction of exotic fishes
in native fish habitat; (e) continuing and
increasing low-flying aircraft; and (f)
approval of excessive amounts of take of
Sonoran Desert bald eagles. The petition
provides detailed information for each
of these categories, which is
summarized below.
(a) Cattle Grazing Within Riparian
Communities—The petition notes that
cattle grazing in riparian areas is known
to impede growth of replacement
cottonwood nest trees (AGFD 1999a,
2000). The petition cites numerous
biological opinions by the Service as
stating that riparian community loss is
due, in part, to livestock grazing; that
overgrazing continues as a threat and
disturbance to bald eagles; and that
overgrazing exacerbates adverse effects
to riparian growth, as well as to existing
eagle nesting, perching, and foraging
habitat (USFWS 2001a, 2002a, 2002b,
2003b).
(b) Dam Operations Result in
Improperly Timed Water Releases—The
petition notes that poorly timed water
releases are a threat to riparian
communities (Stromberg et al. 1991).
The petition further notes that loss of
riparian communities continues on the
lower Verde and Salt Rivers as a result
of dam operations, and that
maintenance of existing water
development features, such as dams or
diversion structures, is a continuing
threat and disturbance to bald eagles
(USFWS 2001a, 2003b). The petition
contends that dam operations degrade
existing eagle tree nesting and perching
habitat and retard riparian regeneration;
alter the hydrological regime of the
lower Verde River by reducing the
magnitude, frequency, and duration of
high flow events; and restrict the flow
of sediment, decreasing recruitment of
early successional riparian species. The
petition indicates that the effects of
dams and their operation are the most
important limiting factors in shaping the
riparian plant community (Beauchamp
2002).
(c) Dewatering of Remnant, Freeflowing Rivers—The petition notes that
flows in the Verde River have decreased
to as low as 12 cubic feet per second
(cfs) (3 cubic meters/second) during the
month of June in some years (Verde
Natural Resources Conservation District
1999). The petition also notes that
increasing groundwater pumping by the
growing human population of
Cottonwood and Camp Verde, which
threatens to render sections of the Verde
River intermittent (USFWS 1998). The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
petition further notes that the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR)
found that the Verde River baseflow is
provided by groundwater discharge
from the alluvium and Verde Formation,
so any withdrawal from this aquifer is
expected to eventually deplete Verde
River flows (ADWR 1994). The petition
again notes that the human population
in Cottonwood and Camp Verde is
expected to grow by 148 and 158
percent, respectively, between 1994 and
2040 (ADES 1994). The petition also
notes that Prescott and Prescott Valley
are developing a plan to use water from
the Big Chino Basin, which may affect
groundwater discharge into the upper
Verde River (Arizona Republic 2000,
2001).
(d) Exotic Fish Introductions—The
petition notes one study that found
native fish populations to be a crucial
component to suitable breeding habitat
(Hunt et al. 1992). The petition
indicates that at least 50 species of
nonnative fish have been introduced
into the Gila River basin (USFWS
2001a), with potentially another 10 to
15 incidental occurrences of other
nonnative species. They note that
nonnative species are considered to be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
remove once established (Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task Force 1994).
They also note that, in order to manage
for native species, fish barriers are
planned in areas like the upper Verde
River, and that construction and
maintenance of those barriers may result
in take of bald eagles through
harassment or harm due to the use of
mechanized equipment, dredging of
river channels to remove excess
sediment, completion of required
repairs, and added human activity to the
area. A discussion under Factor E below
indicates the petition’s concern on the
decline of native species, especially
Sonora sucker and desert sucker and
their use by bald eagles as prey.
(e) Continued and Increasing Low
Flying Aircraft—The petition notes that
there have been increases in low-flying
aircraft, including private, military, and
emergency aircraft, and that these
aircraft are a concern for BAs on the
lower Salt and Verde Rivers and for
those BAs under military training routes
(AGFD 1999a, 2000). The petition cites
examples of aircraft recorded less than
150 feet (45.7 meters) over active nests.
The noise disturbance and sonic booms
produced by military aircraft can flush
incubating adults from the nest. The
petition notes that the AGFD has
worked with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Arizona
Department of Transportation to
establish a 2,000-feet (610-meters) above
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51559
ground-level advisory along the Salt and
Verde Rivers, but although marked on
Arizona aeronautical maps, this
advisory is generally disregarded.
The petition notes that a biological
opinion evaluated the Department of the
Air Force proposal to widen and/or
realign segments of military training
routes in Arizona in 1994 (USFWS
1994c). According to the petition, the
Service acknowledged the loss of 9
eagles or eggs and 18 disturbances per
breeding season each year over the 50year life of the project. Disturbances in
the biological opinion are defined as
aircraft use that results in the
interruption of breeding or foraging
activities, including the flushing or
displacing of eagles engaged in breeding
or foraging activities (USFWS 1994c).
(f) Excessive Service Approval of
Sonoran Desert Bald Eagle Deaths—The
petition contends that the Service has
approved Federal activities responsible
for the deaths of at least 29 Sonoran
Desert bald eagles in the last decade and
claims that Federal activities reviewed
by the Service through section 7 of the
Act will result in a cumulative 491
taking deaths over the next 50 years
(USFWS 1992d, 1993a, 1994c, 1996b,
1997b).
Response to the Petition
As required by section 7 of the Act,
we have consulted on the potential
impacts of cattle grazing, dam
operations, dewatering of rivers,
introduction of exotic fishes in native
fish habitat, and low-flying aircraft to
eagles and their habitat. Such analyses
within biological opinions do not
indicate a lack of agency resolve. It is
our responsibility, under the Act, to
enter into consultation with Federal
action agencies when activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out may affect
a listed species or its critical habitat.
During this process, we evaluate the
impacts of the proposed project on
listed species and determine how such
impacts may be minimized and whether
or not the project will jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. If the
project does not result in a jeopardy
determination, we are responsible for
working with action agencies to develop
reasonable and prudent measures that
will minimize the adverse impacts of
the action on the species under
consultation. Reasonable and prudent
measures are restricted to actions that
result in only minor changes to the
proposed project and are within the
legal authority and jurisdiction of the
agency or applicant to carry out.
The biological opinions cited within
the petition analyze the impacts of
various activities on the bald eagle and
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
51560
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
its habitat, assess whether incidental
take will occur, make a jeopardy/no
jeopardy determination, and provide
reasonable and prudent measures to
minimize incidental take, when
appropriate. In addition, each
consultation includes sections on
environmental baseline and cumulative
effects, which are used to evaluate the
effects of the current action against the
background of previous impacts and
total expected take for the species. For
each of these opinions, we provided a
take statement and determined that the
level of take authorized would not
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. These indicate that,
although there may be some level of
adverse effect resulting from the
agency’s action, we do not believe the
threats imposed by the various actions,
when considered cumulatively with
previous actions, were likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species.
We do not believe, based on the above
discussion, we have authorized
excessive levels of take for bald eagles
in the Southwest. It is important to note
that we believe the high level of take
described in the petition with respect to
the items E and F above is a
misinterpretation on the part of the
petitioners. The petition indicates that,
for one consultation regarding
expansion of military training routes,
we allowed for the loss of 9 eagles or
eggs and 18 nest disturbances annually
over the 50-year life of the project. We
provided a take statement for overhead
flights that allows for take in the form
of direct mortality of one adult or
immature bald eagle, bald eagle
nestling, or bald eagle egg, or two
instances of disturbance per active nest
per nest season. Incidental take in the
form of mortality of more than one
eagle, nestling, or egg would require the
Air Force to reconsult immediately.
Further, the reasonable and prudent
measures require the Air Force to avoid
active bald eagle BAs during the
breeding season. The total take for this
opinion was therefore 1 bald eagle
mortality over the life of the project and
18 disturbance events per year (2 at each
of 9 BAs) outside of the breeding season
each year for the life of the project. The
total mortality associated with this
particular project is therefore 1 bald
eagle, rather than the 450 attributed to
it in the petition (USFWS 1994, p. 13).
With regard to existing protections
afforded the bald eagle, we briefly
discuss above the protections afforded
the bald eagle under the Act (through
listing as a threatened species and other
Federal wildlife laws including the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEA)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
(16 U.S.C. 668–668d) and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–
712). We also explain why we believe
these protections are adequate to protect
the bald eagle and maintain recovered
population levels. For a more in-depth
discussion of these protections, please
reference the February 16, 2006, notice
reopening the comment period on the
proposed rule to delist the bald eagle
(71 FR 8238).
We find that the petitioner did not
provide substantial information to lead
us to believe that existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle. We find
that much of the information provided
by the petitioner is speculative (e.g.,
reduced funding as a result of delisting)
and not reliable (e.g., approval of
excessive take). Additional information
provided by the petitioner with regard
to cattle grazing, dam operations,
dewatering, introduction of exotic
fishes, and low-flying aircraft does not
establish a connection to the petitioned
action, and does not indicate theses
actions are occurring at a level that
makes the Sonoran Desert bald eagle in
danger of extinction (i.e., ‘‘endangered’’
as defined under the Act). As noted
above in the Species Description, the
numbers of occupied BAs in the
Sonoran Desert population of bald
eagles has continued to increase,
reaching a total of 36 occupied BAs in
2004. Productivity has remained
relatively constant between 1987 and
2005, at an annual average of 0.78 young
per occupied BA for the Sonoran Desert
population. This rate is within the range
of many other states’ productivity rates
(AGFD 2006, p. 5).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Small Population Size
The petition notes that bald eagles
once nested along every major river and
large lake in the continental United
States, and that they are no longer found
in all areas of their historical range
(Gerard and Bartolotti 1988). The
petition further notes that the Sonoran
Desert population of the bald eagle is
extremely small and without prospect
for significant expansion. The petition
notes that there are fewer than 60
nesting pairs of bald eagles in the
population, and that the population
occupying BAs may be overestimated.
Their concern for overestimation of the
population is based on the fact that
members of breeding pairs recorded as
occupying, but not breeding, in a BA
may also occupy adjacent BAs. They
note that two males were observed to
move between BAs, and it is possible
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that adults recorded as occupying one
BA may have come from an adjacent
occupied BA.
The petition notes that BAs may have
been occupied in years prior to their
discovery, and that, if this is the case,
the continued increase in the number of
BAs represents an increase in the
number of discovered BAs, rather than
an increase in the actual number of
breeding birds. Undercounting of the
population in previous years has
resulted in a greater discrepancy
between past and current known
numbers of breeding birds, which
reflects a greater increase in the
population than that which might
actually have occurred.
The petition further notes that there is
not enough surviving suitable habitat
available to allow for the population to
increase substantially or expand its
distribution. They note that the AGFD
has concluded that riparian community
improvement and prey base
modifications will be necessary before
population sizes increase in Arizona
(AGFD 1999, 2000). Thus, the
petitioners believe that the Sonoran
Desert population will likely continue
to remain small into the foreseeable
future.
The petition notes that the small size
of the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population is, in and of itself,
problematic. Using AGFD survival
estimates of juveniles and nestlings, the
petitioners estimate that there are
approximately 166 individual eagles in
the Sonoran Desert population. The
petition maintains that the population
dynamics of such a population are
essentially similar to those of an
isolated metapopulation. The petition
references a study examining the effects
of widespread habitat destruction on
regional metapopulations of raptors, and
notes that the study found most species
persist regionally as metapopulations or
as sets of populations linked by
dispersing individuals (Thomas et al.
1990). This allows for recolonization of
unoccupied habitat patches following
local extinction events. However, the
petition states that the loss of suitable
habitat patches, or disturbances in the
surrounding landscape, can disrupt this
process and lead to the regional
extinction of a species. The cited study
indicates that the persistence of the
raptor species is at risk in significant
portions of its range due to continued
destruction and concomitant
fragmentation of its habitat. As this
pattern continues, a previously
continuous population is separated into
smaller, isolated demographic units that
are at higher risk of local extinction due
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
to demographic factors and/or
environmental phenomena.
The petition contends that four
‘‘categories of analysis’’ are applicable
to the question of the long-term
survivability for raptors in general,
including demographics, genetics, patch
dynamics, and environmental change.
The petition indicates that, based on
population biology principles, if a
typical vertebrate species such as a
raptor is reduced to a genetically
effective size of 50, it may suffer from
inbreeding depression (Barrowclough
and Coats 1985; Franklin 1980; Soule
1980). Further, demographic
stochasticity and inbreeding depression
may interact, with the effects of one
exacerbating the other, and hasten the
decline of a population (Gilpin and
Soule 1980). The petition states that
populations that are reduced in size
tend to lose genetic variability through
genetic drift, reduced average individual
heterozygosity, and a reduced pool of
allelic variation. The petition contends
that a population size of roughly 1,000
or larger is required to maintain all of
the genetic variation of that population
(Soule 1986). Below that size, the
population will lose genetic variation at
a rate proportional to the size of the
population. The petition concludes that
the Sonoran Desert population has
characteristics of extended adult
longevity, high juvenile mortality,
intense territoriality, and may be in a
position to enter a geometric population
decline (Lande 1987).
Mortality
The petition, which notes adult
mortality is higher than recruitment for
the population, contends that the level
of mortality in the Sonoran Desert
population is higher than can support a
stable population. The petition states
that, from 1987 to 1990, the rate of
mortality for breeding-adults has
averaged 16 percent of the breeding
population per year or 5.25 breeding
adult mortalities per year. From 1991 to
1998, the rate of mortality was 11.9
percent, or 5.13 breeding-adult
mortalities per year (Beatty and Driscoll
1996; AGFD 1999a, 2000).
The petition further contends that the
high presence of subadults in breeding
pairs likely reflects high adult mortality
rates. The petition notes that Hunt et al.
(1992) indicated that the presence of
subadults in breeding pairs may show
that excessive adult mortality is
draining the floating (i.e., non-breeding)
segment of adult bald eagles. As a result,
subadult eagles are recruited into the
breeding population, either forming a
new pair bond with another nonbreeding bird, or more frequently,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
replacing the mate of another breeding
eagle. Twelve subadult-plumaged birds
were observed holding territories in
Arizona from 1987 to 1990, with seven
subadult-plumaged birds observed
holding territories in Arizona since
1991. The petition notes that the AGFD
(1994b) found that, for 39 known
vacancies of BAs, 15 (38.5 percent) were
filled by adults and 24 (61.5 percent) by
near-adults or subadults. The petition
states that this pattern is not observed
in other populations (Gerrard et al.
1992), and that in Saskatchewan,
population stability was maintained in
part by bald eagles deferring first
breeding to age six. The petition states
that a 1992 survey of 14 bald eagle
biologists throughout North America
determined that the known incidence of
breeding subadults outside of Arizona
was 0.02 percent (Hunt et al. 1992). The
petition concludes that the persistent
presence of three- and four-year-old
breeding bald eagles in Arizona has
created concern for the health of the
breeding population.
The petition contends that mortality
for fledglings is also excessive, and that
most Sonoran Desert nestlings die
prematurely. The petition notes that,
according to AGFD data, from 1987 to
1998, 97 fledglings have been found
dead (Hunt et al. 1992; Mesta et al.
1992; Beatty and Driscoll 1996b; AGFD
1991, 2000), and concludes that few
Sonoran Desert bald eagles survive to
adulthood.
Productivity
The petition states that the
reproductive rates for the Sonoran
Desert population are lower than those
known for bald eagles in any other
location. The petition indicates that the
AGFD (1999a, 2000) determined that
productivity rates are lower than those
recorded throughout North America. For
the Sonoran Desert population,
productivity rates from 1975 to 1984
were 0.92 young per occupied BA, but
since then, the average productivity rate
has been 0.78 young per occupied BA.
The petition notes that productivity
rates over a similar time span in Alaska,
Florida, Washington, and Wisconsin
averaged 0.96 young per occupied BA
(Sprunt et al. 1973; McAllister et al.
1986; Kozie and Anderson 1991). The
petition adds that, in some areas of the
Sonoran Desert population, productivity
rates are even lower. For example,
productivity along the Salt River
declined to 0.26 young per occupied BA
in the 1990s.
The petition further contends that
BAs that formerly produced the majority
of the fledglings are producing fewer
fledglings, and that the most productive
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51561
nests are in relatively close proximity to
the rapidly growing Phoenix
metropolitan area, so that survivability
in these BAs is becoming increasingly
problematic. The petition states that the
Salt and Verde Rivers support the bulk
of the Sonoran Desert population, and
that it is in the lower parts of these
drainages and nearby lakes where prey
is most abundant and bald eagles are
most productive. However, the
proximity of these areas to Phoenix
results in high recreation use. Due to
predicted human population expansion
(see factor A above), the petition
predicts increased recreational and
development pressures in close
proximity to BAs along the Salt and
Verde Rivers (ADWR 1999a, 2000;
Arizona Republic 2000, 2001; Chino
Valley Review 2004; Prescott 2001;
Prescott Daily Courier 2004a, 2004b;
USFWS 2001a).
The petition further notes that
Sonoran Desert bald eagles on private
lands are either not reproducing or are
destined to fail. The petition cites the
Winkelman BA as an example, noting
that this BA on private property is now
surrounded by housing, recreation, and
industry. The petition states that the
Camp Verde and Perkinsville BAs are
also on private property, and are
surrounded by private lands that have
recently been sold or for which plans to
sell are underway. The petition cites the
reproductive history of these BAs,
noting that the Camp Verde and
Winkelman BAs have a record of
reproductive failure, and that the
Perkinsville BA failed in 2002 and faces
further threats from potential
dewatering of the upper Verde River.
The petition includes information
developed by the petitioners through
the use of Vortex (version 9) software,
which models wildlife population
dynamics and evaluates many of the
threats that may cause small
populations to go extinct. The petition
notes that the petitioners worked with
AGFD data. Some of the model
assumptions are that the population is
a closed population and not
demographically linked to other
populations, and that there is a 1:1 ratio
of males to females in the adult
population. Because the petitioners
determined that fecundity in the lower
Verde and Salt BAs were inflated
artificially by AGFD’s stocking of exotic
rainbow trout and Salt River Project’s
release of native fish captured from
irrigation canals, BAs were divided into
two groups: (1) Those on the lower Salt
and Verde Rivers, and (2) those in other
areas.
Additional detail regarding
parameters used in and determinations
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
51562
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
derived from the model are in the
petition. The petition notes that the
model determined that juvenile and
adult survival were the most critical
parameters for the model. The petition
indicates that the model demonstrates a
high risk of extinction for the Sonoran
Desert population within the next 57 to
82 years.
Response to the Petition
The majority of the data and
information presented in the petition is,
in part, consistent with the information
in our files. Our information indicates,
however, that there are no data
supporting the statement that nests on
private property are destined to fail
simply due to their location relative to
private land. While it is true that the
Winkelman BA has been abandoned, the
Camp Verde nest may have failed due
to flooding, which is unrelated to the
land’s ownership. Moreover, two BAs
on private land (Sheep and Beaver) are
currently occupied and produced young
in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
In addition, we do not believe the
population is overestimated due to
individuals occupying more than one
BA; this behavior has been observed at
only two BAs, and the survey protocols
and definition of occupancy currently in
use limit this type of bias from
occurring (E. Gardner, pers. comm.
2006, p. 3).
With respect to mortality, AGFD
(2006c, p. 24) notes that adult mortality
rates of 16 percent (from 1987 to 1990)
and 12 percent (from 1991 to 1998) are
higher than, but within the range of,
other populations, which ranged from 5
percent in Northern California to 17
percent in Chesapeake Bay. Bald eagles
in Maine experienced a nine-percent
mortality rate, while those in Coastal
Alaska were a 12-percent mortality rate.
For nestling mortality, the petition
concluded that few Sonoran Desert bald
eagles survive to adulthood. Stalmaster
(1987, p. 143) found that, of 433
nestlings surveyed in the southwestern
region, an average of 85 percent
survived to fledging, resulting in a mean
nestling morality rate of 15 percent. By
comparison, Hunt et al. (1992, p. C–108)
concluded that the nestling mortality
rate for the Arizona population was
approximately 0.9 percent higher, or at
15.9 percent. Following Hunt’s study,
from 1991 to 2006, nestling mortality
was approximately 24 percent. While
this represents an eight percent increase
from data provided by Hunt et al. (1992,
p. C–108), this may be due to increased
monitoring effort through the ABENWP
compared to earlier Arizona monitoring
efforts and those efforts in other states.
Daily monitoring through the ABENWP,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
monthly helicopter flights, and periodic
on-the-ground visits throughout the year
may have more accurately detected
surviving fledglings and fledgling
mortality than efforts that involved
fewer follow-up visits. While we believe
this nestling mortality rate warrants
continued monitoring, a 76-percent
survival rate does not indicate that most
Sonoran Desert nestlings die
prematurely, as contended by the
petition.
The information provided by AGFD
(2006c) and Stalmaster (1987) indicate
that mortality rates for bald eagles
within the Sonoran breeding population
are similar to those experienced in other
populations in the United States, as are
productivity rates. In addition, the
population has continued to increase in
terms of the number of breeding pairs
and productivity, as noted above under
the ‘‘Species Information.’’ Therefore,
we find that the petitioner did not
provide substantial information to
indicate that the level of mortality and
small population size may place the
Sonoran Desert population of bald eagle
in danger of becoming extinct.
Declining Prey Base
The petition notes that the primary
prey item for bald eagles during spring
is the native Arizona sucker population,
consisting of desert and Sonora suckers.
The petition cites recent reports
indicating that Sonora sucker and desert
sucker remain in approximately 73
percent and 74 percent, respectively, of
the locations in which they were
historically recorded. These fish
populations have a low probability of
local extirpation, but fragmentation of
their range and isolation of individual
populations could further reduce their
occurrence in a watershed (Desert
Fishes Team 2004). With respect to the
potential effects of a decline in the
native fish prey base, the petition quotes
the biological opinion completed for the
Central Arizona Project (CAP) (USFWS
2001a). The petition indicates that in
the CAP opinion the Service concluded
that take of bald eagles was anticipated
to occur as harm, through alteration of
the quantity and quality of the food
base.
The petition cites, as a specific
example, the effects of the decline of
native suckers on the Salt River. The
petition states that native suckers,
which are a crucial prey species during
the breeding season for bald eagles,
became absent from the Salt River
during the 1990s. The petition cites
studies that note that the lack of native
fish species along those portions of the
Salt River occupied by bald eagles may
have reduced productivity from 0.69
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
young per BA in the 1980s to 0.26 in the
1990s (Hunt et al. 1992).
Response to the Petition
The petition presents reliable and
accurate information to indicate that
native fishes are continuing to decline
and effects to the prey base can have
effects on the Sonoran Desert
population of bald eagles. As outlined
below, the effects of a reduced prey base
seem to be affecting productivity rather
than occupancy. Occupancy of these
BAs remains fairly constant through
2002. Between discovery in 1978 and
2002, the Cedar Basin BA was
unoccupied for only 1 year (1980). The
Canyon and Pinal BAs were unoccupied
for 2 years each (2001 and 2002 for the
Canyon BA, 1986 and 2001 for Pinal).
The Cibecue BA was unoccupied for 3
years (1974, 1976, and 1981). The Lone
Pine and Redmond BAs have remained
occupied since their discoveries in 1984
and 1975, respectively (AGFD 2006,
Table 7, pp. 48–50). Two BAs, Ash and
Mule Hoof, are no longer considered
occupied. The Ash BA was occupied in
1984 and 1985, but has been
unoccupied for 10 consecutive years,
and is no longer included in the list of
occupied BAs. Mule Hoof was
sporadically occupied in the 1980s and
the early 1990s, and was removed in
2002 after 10 consecutive years of
unoccupancy (AGFD 2006, Table 7, pp.
48–50).
However, while the upper Salt River
BAs have remained largely occupied,
productivity for the six BAs has
remained low, declining after 1992
although remaining somewhat constant.
From 1992 to 2002, between 0 and 3
total young have been produced each
year (AGFD 2006, Table 7, pp. 48–50).
Hunt et al. (1992, p. A–46) note that
bald eagles in central Arizona forage on
free-flowing and regulated rivers,
reservoirs, small tributary streams, and
on land, and that most, if not all pairs,
use more than one of these
environments during a given nesting
season. Data indicate eagles commonly
switch forage locations and/or prey
species in response to changes in the
distribution of prey and carrion. Hunt et
al. (1992, p. A–46) cite as an example
a study on a male eagle from the Blue
Point BA that took a variety of prey on
both reservoir and riverine habitats.
While those BAs that rely primarily on
riverine habitat for prey, such as those
in the upper Salt River, are showing a
reduction in productivity, overall
productivity for bald eagles throughout
Arizona and within the Sonoran Desert
population has remained stable between
1987 and 2005, and is comparable to
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
that in other portions of the species
range.
As the petitioners note, low
productivity has been an issue on the
upper Salt River since the 1980s.
However, as noted above, the BAs in
this area continue to remain occupied,
and productivity, while low, remains
fairly constant. Consequently, we do not
perceive a new or increased threat due
to a reduced prey base in this area. The
situation on the upper Salt River is
likely observed in other streams as well,
where eagles rely primarily on rivers for
foraging. This situation requires
continued monitoring, and
improvements need to be made in
managing for native fishes, and
increasing overall productivity in these
BAs. However, there has been increased
productivity in other BAs, including
some of those that also rely on rivers for
foraging. This increase is in part
attributable to the increase in the total
number of BAs throughout Arizona.
Therefore we find that the petitioner did
not provide substantial information to
indicate that threats from reductions in
prey base are occurring at a level that
leads us to conclude that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
Contaminants
The petition claims that insecticides,
such as carbofuran, endosulfan,
fenthion, phorate, and terbufos
(American Bird Conservancy 2004a,
2004b; Center for Biological Diversity
2004c; EPA 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f;
University of Arizona 2004; USDA 2001;
USFWS 1995), continue to threaten the
bald eagle, noting that hundreds of bald
eagle deaths have been linked to
carbofuran nationwide (American Bird
Conservancy 2004b). The petition
further states that DDT and its
derivatives are still found in Arizona
waterways, and states that toxic levels
of DDE (a breakdown product of DDT)
were found in an addled egg from the
Sycamore BA in 1997 (AGFD 1999a,
2000; USGS 2004).
The petition notes that chlorfenapyr
resulted in a decline in the number of
eggs, viable embryos, and hatchlings of
mallards, and that this chemical has
been put to use within the United States
(EPA 1999). The petition further states
that toxic levels of mercury have been
found in eggs from the Verde and Salt
River BAs, and that mercury
contamination has also been found in
the Tonto Creek BA and Gila River at
levels high enough to cause failure in
eggs (AGFD 1999a, 2000). The petition
notes that mercury concentrations in the
Sonoran Desert population were higher
than those reported for most other North
American populations (Grubb et al.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
1990). The petition states that studies
have determined that concentrations of
mercury above 2 parts per million (ppm)
are known to impair hatching (Newton
1979), and concentrations of 1.5 to 4.5
ppm are considered toxic (Ohlendorf
1993). The petition notes tha seven eggs
from the Tower, 76, Pinal, and
Winkelman BAs have toxic levels of
mercury ranging from 2.11 to 8.02 ppm,
and that elevated levels of mercury
between 1.5 and 2.0 ppm were found in
three eggs from the Tower and
Horseshoe BAs (AGFD 1999a, 2000).
The petitioners note that the Service
considered concentrations of heavy
metals to be a concern in Arizona
(USFWS 2001d).
The petition contends that mercury in
bald eagles comes primarily from their
prey, noting that contaminants studies
detected elevated levels of mercury in
prey items ranging from 0.06 to 0.97
micrograms per gram (µ/g) with the
highest mean levels recovered from
Lake Pleasant, the Salt River, and Alamo
Lake (King et al. 1991). The petition
contends that these highest means were
above the National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program’s
recommendation for no observable
effects of 0.1 µ/g (Eisler 1987).
The petition notes that
methylmercury is the form of mercury
that accumulates at greater rates than
inorganic mercury, and that most
mercury in fish or wildlife organisms is
in the form of methylmercury (Bloom
1989). The petitioners further note that
methylmercury is more efficiently
absorbed (Scheuhammer 1987) and
preferentially retained (Weiner 1995).
The effects of mercury contamination
have been studied in mallards. The
petition cites a study on the effects of
mallards that were fed 3.0 ppm
methylmercury dicyandiamide for 2
years. In these mallards lesions resulted,
including necrosis and hemorrhaging in
the lining of the brain (Heinz and Locke
1975). The petition contends that the
risk to bald eagles is increasing, as eggs
collected between 1982 and 1984 had
concentrations of approximately 0.39–
1.26 ppm (K. King, pers. comm.), while
those collected between 1994 and 1997
had concentrations ranging from 2.11 to
8.02 ppm (Beatty et al. unpub. data), up
to six times higher than those collected
between 1982 and 1984.
Response to the Petition
The petition provides information
specific to bald eagles in Arizona to
indicate that contaminants (in the form
of DDT and related breakdown
products, and mercury) continue to
present a potential threat to the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle population. We find
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51563
that some of the information presented
by the petitioner is in error. With
respect to carbofuran, it is important to
that note the granular form that caused
the extreme risks in grain-eating birds is
not registered for use in Arizona
(Extoxnet 2006, p. 1). Similarly,
chlorfenapyr is not registered for use in
Arizona (EPA 2006, p.1).
The discussion on mercury indicates
that mercury levels were found to
exceed 2 ppm for 13 eggs collected
between 1994 and 1997. AGFD (2006, p.
21) notes that, from 1994 to 2004, 27
addled bald eagle eggs in Arizona
showed mercury levels ranging from
0.55 to 8.02 ppm. The AGFD (2006, p.
21) classifies 10 of these eggs as toxic,
exceeding 2.0 ppm; 11 eggs as having
elevated levels of mercury (1.5 to 2.0
ppm), and four eggs as having lesser
concentrations (1.0 to 1.5 ppm). The 10
eggs classified as toxic came from the
Box Bar, Needle Rock, Pinal, 76, Tower,
and Winkelman BAs. While eggs tested
for mercury were addled and did not
produce young, successful production
of young has occurred at these BAs
following the year or years in which
mercury was detected (viable eggs are
not collected and tested for mercury).
For example, with toxic mercury levels
in 2003, the Box Bar BA successfully
produced young in 2004 and 2005.
Following toxic mercury level detection
in 2003, the Needle Rock BA
successfully produced young in 2004.
Following toxic mercury levels in 1995,
the Pinal BA successfully produced
young in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2005.
The 76 BA, which had the highest ever
recorded mercury level for eggs from
Arizona in 1995, successfully produced
young in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and 2001. Following toxic mercury level
detection in 1994 and 1995, the Tower
BA successfully produced young in
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002,
2003, and 2005. No information is
available for the Winkelman BA, which
has been unoccupied since 1999. These
data indicate that mercury in eggs at a
given nest site may cause nest failure for
one season, but does not prevent future
production of young.
DDE does continue to be detected in
eggs, with the recent measurement of
4.23 ppm wet weight in one egg from
the Rodeo BA in 2002. Weimeyer et al.
(1984, p. 541) found that reductions in
productivity occurred when DDE values
in bald eagle eggs were between 3 and
5 ppm (wet weight). This level has been
reached at the Tonto, Tower, Sycamore,
and Rodeo BAs. The most complete
DDE data set over time is from the
Tower BA, where DDE concentrations
declined from 3.2 ppm in 1994, to 0.91
ppm in 2001. The Tonto BA has
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
51564
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
produced young since DDE levels of
4.17 ppm wet weight were found in
q2001. Following DDE levels of 3.20
ppm wet weight, the Tower BA
produced young in 1996 through 2003,
2005, and 2006. At the Sycamore BA,
DDE levels of 7.00 ppm wet weight were
detected from an egg collected in 1997,
but the BA produced young in 1998,
1999, and 2001 through 2006. The
Rodeo BA, with DDE levels of 4.23 ppm
in 2002, produced young in 2004 and
2006 (AGFD 2006, Table 4, p. 22; 2006
unpubl. data).
The information presented on the
mercury levels found in eggs from the
Verde and Salt River BAs is generally
accurate, as is that for the Tonto Creek
and Gila River area. The information on
DDT and its breakdown products is also
generally accurate. Productivity at those
BAs affected by high levels of mercury
and DDE indicates that, while nest
failure may result when those levels are
detected, young are produced in
subsequent years. We have been
evaluating the effects of mercury, DDE,
and pesticides for many years, and we
conclude that these effects should be
monitored but are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. We do not believe that the
petitioner provided substantial
information to indicate contaminantrelated threats are present at a level that
leads us to conclude that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
Fishing Line and Tackle
The petition cites AGFD data that
finds fishing line and tackle have been
found in nests and have entangled bald
eagles. There have been 62 separate
instances involving entanglement, and
19 BAs with fishing line and/or tackle
in nests or entangled individuals since
1986 (Hunt et al. 1992; Beatty 1992;
Beatty and Driscoll 1994a; Beatty et al.
1998). The petition notes that
mortalities have resulted from
entanglement. The petition indicates
that bald eagles encounter fishing line
primarily by catching dead or dying fish
with fishing line or tackle still attached,
but that some birds have become
entangled while perched on the
shoreline or while feeding on dead
shorebirds and waterfowl that have
themselves been entangled.
The petition states that the persistent
occurrence of fishing line indicates the
level of recreational pressure in many of
the BAs, and contends that as the
human population of central Arizona
increases, so will the accompanying
recreational demands on riparian areas
(AGFD 1999a, 2000). The petition
concludes that these increased
recreational pressures will lead to even
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
greater incidences of fishing line and
tackle in nests and resulting in adverse
effects on Sonoran Desert bald eagles.
Response to the Petition
The petition does not mention
AGFD’s monofilament recovery
program. Although this program is
voluntary, it has helped to educate
anglers and reduce the amount of
improperly disposed monofilament. For
probable causes of mortality in bald
eagles in Arizona between 1987 and
2005, monofilament is listed as causing
one adult mortality and two nesting
mortalities. It is ranked as the fifteenth
most common cause of mortality, and
responsible for 3 out of 281 deaths, or
approximately 1.1 percent (AGFD 2006,
Table 6, p. 25). Monofilament is an
ongoing problem for Sonoran Desert
bald eagles, but represents a minor
threat. In part, we attribute this to the
active management of the ABENWP,
which we anticipate will continue.
Additionally, wildlife personnel
entering nests to conduct annual
banding are instrumental in removing
large quantities of monofilament (AGFD
2006, p. 11). We find the petitioner did
not provide substantial information to
indicate that monofilament
entanglement may represent a threat
that puts the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population in danger of extinction.
Climate Change
The petition notes that adaptation to
the Southwest’s combination of high
temperature and low humidity is
considered one of the characteristics
that demonstrate the uniqueness of the
Sonoran Desert eagle population. The
petition continues, however, to state
that heat stress is also a leading cause
of nestling mortalities. The petition
notes that the Service (USFWS 1990b)
determined that this situation will likely
become more common, citing more days
above 100 °Fahrenheit in 1990 than
1989. The petitioners indicate that older
nestlings have fallen from nest cliffs
while attempting to reach shade or have
fledged prematurely from nests without
shade, which usually results in their
mortality. The petition cites studies
indicating that 23 nestlings died and 7
pre-fledged due to heat stress (Hunt et
al. 1992). The petition cites additional
information regarding heat-related
mortalities.
In addition to heat, the petition notes
that global warming will lead to more
frequent drought cycles. The petitioners
note the Service (USFWS 2003b)
determined that, between 1993 and
2001, eagles that depend on Roosevelt
Lake for food had lower reproduction as
the lake’s surface area declined.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Response to the Petition
The petition presents some
information to indicate that heat is a
stressor for the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle, and that drought and declining
water levels at reservoirs may result in
decreased productivity. The AGFD
notes that heat stress is the fourthleading cause of known nestling
mortalities, behind predation,
parasitism, and starvation (E. Gardner,
AGFD, pers. comm. 2006). It is ranked
as the sixth greatest threat to bald eagles
in all age classes (AGFD 2006, Table 6,
p. 25).
Productivity for the Sonoran Desert
population of bald eagles has reached its
highest level yet for 2003 (at 0.62 young
per occupied BA), 2004 (at 1.06 young
per occupied BA), and 2005 (at 1.01
young per occupied BA), while the
Southwest experienced drought
conditions. Climate variability and
drought conditions may ultimately
cause adverse effects to the bald eagle;
however, the long-term effects of
ongoing drought for desert-adapted
birds like those of the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle population are unknown. The
bald eagle is successful in a wide range
of climate conditions. We do not find
that the petitioner provided substantial
information to demonstrate that drought
and increased heat will lead to adverse
effects to the Sonoran Desert population
of bald eagles that would cause them to
be in danger of becoming extinct.
Therefore, we find that the petitioner
did not provide substantial information
to indicate that climate-related threats
are occurring at a level that leads us to
conclude that the petitioned action may
be warranted.
Eggshell Thinning
The petition notes that eggshell
fragments from 32 Arizona bald eagle
BAs were collected, measured, and
averaged by nest from 1977 to 1997.
These means were then compared with
the 0.591 mm mean from Baja
California, which is the closest known
bald eagle population to Arizona with
pre-DDT eggshell measurements. The
petition cites Wiemeyer et al. (1984) in
noting that eggshell thinning of greater
than 10 percent causes problems in
reproduction for other bald eagle
populations. Similarly, the petition
notes that studies have determined that
a population would experience
reproductive problems when eggshell
thinning has become severe (15 to 20
percent) for a period of years (Anderson
and Hickey 1972).
Mean eggshell thicknesses were
compared with those from Baja
California, which had a mean of 0.591
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
mm (0.024 in). The petition cites four
studies on eggshell fragments for
southwestern bald eagles (Grubb et al.
1990; Hunt et al. 1992; Mesta et al.
1992, Driscoll and Beatty, unpublished
data). The results of these studies found
eggshell thickness means of 0.539 mm
(0.021 in) for 32 sets of eggshell
fragments from 14 BAs between 1977 to
1985; 0.562 mm (0.022 in) for 71 sets of
eggshell fragments from 23 BAs between
1987 and 1990; 0.552 mm (0.022 in) for
27 sets of eggshell fragments from 18
BAs between 1991 and 1992; and 0.534
mm (0.021 in) for 135 sets of shell
fragments collected from 27 BAs
between 1993 and 1997. In comparison
to the Baja California mean eggshell
thicknesses, these studies found a
comparative 8.8 percent thinning for
1977 to 1985; 4.9 percent from 1987 to
1990; 6.6 percent in 1991 and 1992; and
9.7 percent from 1993 to 1997 (Grubb et
al. 1990; Hunt et al. 1992; Mesta et al.
1992, Driscoll and Beatty, unpublished
data). The petition notes that, since
1993, the annual percent thinning
exceeded 10 percent in 1994 and 1995,
and remained high at 9.9 percent in
1996 and 1997.
The petition notes that the cause of
the eggshell thinning is not known at
this time. While chlordane and DDE
were the most frequently detected
organochlorines in fish sampled near
eagle nests, they were present at levels
below those associated with eggshell
thinning in bald eagles. The petition
further notes that studies found that
trace elements, especially mercury, were
elevated, as were aluminum, arsenic,
copper, and zinc (Hunt et al. 1992; King
et al. 1991).
Response to the Petition
AGFD (2006c, p. 23) notes that
eggshell thinning equaled or exceeded
10 percent on 5 separate occasions
between 1993 and 2004. These occurred
in 1994 at 10.7 percent, 1999 at 10.8
percent, in 2000 at 12.3 percent, in 2003
at 10.7 percent, and in 2004 at 10.0
percent. However, AGFD (2006c, p. 23)
concludes that, since the ban of DDT in
1973, other factors may have a greater
influence on productivity than DDT, but
that egg collection and eggshell
measurements will continue to ensure
that the effects of DDT and other
organochlorines do not affect
productivity. We agree with this
conclusion, and believe that eggshell
thinning warrants further study and
monitoring; however, at this time, we
are not aware of any data to indicate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
thinning at the levels cited is resulting
in losses of eggs. We find that the
petition did not provide substantial
information to indicate eggshell
thinning may place the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle population in danger of
becoming extinct.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition,
literature cited in the petition, and
information in our files. In evaluating
this petition, we sought to determine if
sufficient information was provided to
warrant continued consideration and
development of a 12-month finding. We
find available genetic studies on bald
eagles are dated, the sample size was
small, and researchers conducting the
studies found the results to be
inconclusive. We therefore believe that
the best available genetic information is
inconclusive with regard to the
discreteness of the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population. However, we believe
the petition presents substantial
information on distinct morphological
features of the Sonoran Desert bald
eagles with respect to size. Additionally,
we believe the petition provides
substantial information on natal site
fidelity in breeding birds and the
limited number of other eagles in
neighboring southwestern states or
Mexico. Finally, we believe the
strongest argument presented by the
petitioners for a positive discreteness
finding is provided by the data
indicating that 20 years of monitoring
have resulted in the determination that
no eagles have immigrated to and only
one eagle has emigrated from the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle population.
These three factors lead us to find that
the petition contains substantial
information that the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle population may be discrete
from other bald eagle populations.
However, on the basis of our review,
we find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
constitutes a valid DPS, pursuant to the
DPS policy (FR 61 4722). Although we
believe the population to be discrete,
the petition does not present substantial
scientific information that the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle may be significant in
relation to the remainder of the taxon.
Therefore, we conclude that the
Sonoran Desert population is not a
listable entity pursuant to section 3(15)
of the Act. However, recognizing the
volume of information provided in the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51565
petition, and the national importance of
the bald eagle, we conducted a threats
analysis.
We find that the petition contains
detailed information on numerous
threats affecting the Sonoran Desert
population of bald eagles. Largely, we
are in agreement that these threats are
present, and in some cases are having
some level of effect on Sonoran Desert
bald eagles. However, as we discuss
throughout our responses, no new
information on threats was presented by
the petitioner. Additionally, we did not
find that the petition presented
substantial information indicating an
increased level of any of the threats
discussed. The lack of information on
new or escalating threats, combined
with the increased number of occupied
breeding areas and increased
productivity levels, causes us to
conclude that the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population, while facing threats,
continues to increase in numbers of
adult birds and in productivity. We
therefore find that the petition did not
provide substantial information to lead
us to conclude that the petitioned action
to reclassify the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle as endangered may be warranted.
We encourage interested parties to
continue to gather data that will assist
with the conservation of the species. If
you wish to provide information
regarding the bald eagle, you may
submit your information or materials to
the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section
above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available, upon request, from
the Arizona Ecological Services Office
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES section above).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff of the Arizona Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 21, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 06–7180 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51549-51565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7180]
[[Page 51549]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Petition to List
the Sonoran Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Distinct
Population Segment, List that Distinct Population Segment as
Endangered, and Designate Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the Sonoran Desert
population of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in central
Arizona and northwestern Mexico as a distinct population segment, list
that distinct population segment as endangered, and designate critical
habitat for that distinct population segment under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). On the basis of a review of the
information contained within the petition, we find that the petition
does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we
will not initiate a further status review in response to this petition.
We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of this population of the bald eagle or
threats to it.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 29,
2006.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona
Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951. Please submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this species or this finding to the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle (see ADDRESSES);
telephone, 602-242-0210; facsimile, 602-242-2513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition. To the maximum extent
practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt
of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species, if one has not already been initiated under our internal
candidate assessment process.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Sec. 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited
to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
``substantial information'' threshold.
On October 6, 2004, we received a formal petition, dated October 6,
2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity (Center), the Maricopa
Audubon Society, and the Arizona Audubon Council requesting that the
bald eagle population found in the Sonoran Desert (as defined by Brown
1994) or, alternately, in the upper and lower Sonoran Desert (as
defined by Merriam) be classified as a distinct population segment
(DPS) and this DPS be reclassified as an endangered species, in
accordance with the Act. The petition also requested that critical
habitat be designated concurrently for the DPS.
Because the Sonoran Desert described by Brown (1994) encompasses a
different geographic area than that defined as upper and lower Sonoran
Desert by Merriam, the Service requested clarification on the intended
geographic boundaries for the Sonoran population on February 11, 2005.
The petitioners responded with clarification on March 5, 2005,
requesting that we consider in the DPS analysis those bald eagles
nesting along riparian areas in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona and
northwestern Mexico. At that time, further action on this petition was
precluded by higher listing priorities. On January 19, 2006, we
received from the Center a 60-day Notice of Intent (NOI) to sue the
Service for failure to respond to the petition within the statutory
timeframe. On March 27, 2006, the Center and the Maricopa Audubon
Society filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI) and the Service for failure to make a finding on the petition
within 90 days.
Species Information
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the only species of
sea eagle native to North America. Literally translated, H.
leucocephalus means white-headed sea eagle (USFWS 1995, p. 36000). Bald
eagles are birds of prey of the Order Falconiformes and Family
Accipitridae. Bald eagles vary in length from 28 to 38 inches (71 to 97
centimeters), weigh between 6.5 to 14 pounds (2.9 to 6.4 kilograms),
and have a 66 to 96 inch (1.8 to 2.6 meter) wingspan (Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AGFD) 1999, p. 3). Distinguishing features include a
yellow hooked bill and yellow unfeathered legs and feet. Adults of the
species have a dark brownish-black body color, black talons, and a
white head, neck, and tail. Immature bald eagles are mostly dark brown
and lack a white head and tail until they reach approximately 5 years
of age (AGFD 2006, pg. 3).
Gerrard and Bartolotti (1988, p. 2) note that bald eagles are
believed to have nested on both coasts, along all major rivers and
large lakes in the interior from Florida to Baja California in the
south, and north to Labrador and Alaska. The species is known to have
bred in every State and province in the United States and Canada except
Hawaii (Hunt et al. 1992, p. A-9).
Hunt et al. (1992, pp. A-11 and A-12) summarized the earliest
records from the literature for bald eagles in Arizona. Coues noted
bald eagles in the vicinity of Fort Whipple in 1866 (now Prescott), and
Henshaw reported bald eagles south of Fort Apache in 1875. Bent
reported breeding eagles at Fort Whipple in 1866 and on the Salt River
Bird Reservation (since inundated by Roosevelt Lake) in 1911. Breeding
eagle information was also recorded in 1890, near Stoneman Lake by S.A.
Mearns. Additionally, there are reports of bald eagles along rivers in
the White Mountains from 1937, and reports of nesting bald eagles along
the Salt and Verde Rivers as early as 1930.
The bald eagle population of the Southwest Recovery Region, as
identified in the final recovery plan for the species, reaches
throughout Oklahoma and Texas west of the 100th meridian, all of New
Mexico and Arizona, and the area of California bordering the Lower
Colorado River (USFWS 1982, p. 1). The vast majority
[[Page 51550]]
of these breeding bald eagles are found within the State of Arizona.
The occurrence of breeding bald eagles in the State of New Mexico is
very limited (USFS 2004, p. 153). In 2001, the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish (NMDGF) reported the occurrence of four bald eagle nest
sites, all on private lands, in New Mexico.
Nationwide, bald eagles are known to nest primarily along seacoasts
and lakeshores, as well as along banks of rivers and streams
(Stalmaster 1987, p. 120). In the Southwest, bald eagle breeding areas
(BA) (eagle nesting sites and the area where eagles forage) are located
in close proximity to a variety of aquatic sites, including reservoirs,
regulated river systems, and free-flowing rivers and creeks. The term
``BA'' is used to define eagle nesting sites and the area where they
forage. In the Southwest, nests are placed mostly on cliff edges, rock
pinnacles, and in cottonwood trees. However, artificial structures,
junipers, pinyon pines, sycamores, willows, ponderosa pines, and snags
of these trees also have supported eagle nests (AGFD 2006, p. 4).
In Arizona, the majority of nests are located in the Upper and
Lower Sonoran Life Zones (zones of plant and animal life associated
with a given elevation), including the riparian habitats and transition
areas of both zones (Hunt et al. 1992, p. A-17). Representative
vegetation of these life zones includes Arizona sycamore (Platanus
wrightii), blue paloverde (Parkinsonia florida), cholla (Opuntia spp.),
Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Gooding willow (Salix
gooddingii), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea),
and tamarisk or salt cedar (Tamarix pentandra; an exotic species)
(Brown 1994, p. 200).
Historical evidence to document bald eagles nesting in New Mexico
is lacking, although unverified reports suggest one or two pairs may
have nested in southwestern New Mexico prior to 1928. In the mid-1980s,
a pair established a territory in Colfax County in an area where bald
eagles concentrated in winter, and in 1987, an active nest was
discovered nearby which produced two fledglings that year. In 1988, an
active nest was discovered in Sierra County, also in an area of
wintering eagle concentration; the nest fledged one young that year.
Through 1999, those two nests together fledged a minimum of 31 young,
with Colfax County being one of the more productive nests in North
America. Additional nesting activity was recorded elsewhere after the
mid-1980s, always in areas of wintering concentrations, including in
San Juan, Rio Arriba, Quay, and Sierra counties. However, in each
instance, eagles built nests only to abandon the effort prior to egg
laying; such ``practice'' nests are not uncommon among inexperienced
adults. In 1998, two additional nests were discovered in Colfax County,
and each fledged young in both 1998 and 1999 (five young total)
(Williams 2000, abstract).
Bald eagles are long-lived bird species. Southwestern bald eagles
are known to exceed 12 years of age (USFWS 1999, p. 36454; Hunt et al.
1992, p. A-v). Bald eagles primarily eat fish, but they will also eat
amphibians, reptiles, birds, small mammals, carrion (dead animals), and
carcasses of large mammals (cows, elk, deer, etc.). Their food habits
can change daily or seasonally, but when a choice is available, bald
eagles invariably select fish over other prey. Bald eagles will
scavenge, steal, or actively hunt to acquire food. Carrion constitutes
a higher proportion of the diet for juveniles and subadults than it
does for adult eagles. Bald eagles are primarily sit-and-wait hunters,
perching in trees in order to detect available prey (Stalmaster 1987,
p. 104).
Eagles in the Southwest frequently construct nests on cliffs. By
1992, of the 111 nest sites known, 46 were in trees, 36 on cliffs, 17
on pinnacles, 11 in snags, and 1 on an artificial platform (Hunt et al.
1992, p. A-17). However, for breeding areas where both cliff and tree
nests were available, one study found that cliff nests were selected 73
percent of the time, while tree nests were selected 27 percent of the
time (Hunt et al. 1992, p. A-17). Additionally, eagles nesting on
cliffs were found to be slightly more successful in raising young to
fledgling, though the difference was not statistically significant.
Nests may be used year after year. Hunt et al. (1992, p. A-20)
determined the mean diameter of nests was 5 feet (156 centimeters).
Food strongly influences bald eagle productivity (Newton 1979, pp.
95-96, 101-106; Hansen 1987, p. 1389). A female's health in the months
preceding egg laying can affect egg production, and the prey
availability during the breeding cycle affects the survivorship of
nestlings and post-fledging juveniles. Thus, any factor affecting the
adults' ability to acquire food can influence productivity and adult
survivorship (Newton 1979, pp. 95-96, 101-106). The most common fish
eaten in the Southwest are Sonora and desert suckers; channel and
flathead catfish; common carp largemouth, smallmouth, yellow, and white
bass; and black crappie. Less common are roundtail chub, green sunfish,
bluegill, tilapia, and rainbow trout (USFWS 1982, p. 11; AGFD 1999, p.
6). Prey availability has decreased on the upper Salt River in Arizona.
The introduction of predatory flathead catfish in the late 1970s nearly
extirpated native fish populations. Flathead catfish, while available
as bald eagle prey when smaller, grow to large sizes (up to 50 pounds,
or 22.6 kilograms) making them too large for a prey item. Flathead
catfish populations have increased while other fish species have
decreased (AGFD 2006, p. 19). Productivity for the four bald eagle BAs
on the upper Salt River decreased from 1.12 young per year per occupied
BA in the 1980s to 0.29 young per occupied BA in the 1990s.
Bald eagles in the Southwest establish their breeding territories
in December or January and lay eggs in January or February, which is
early compared to bald eagles in more northerly areas (Stalmaster 1987,
p. 63). Hunt et al. (1992, p. C-16) indicate that this may be a
behavioral adaptation so that chicks can avoid the extreme desert heat
of midsummer and adults can take advantage of food resources for the
rearing of eaglets. Young fledgling eagles can remain in their nest
area though June, learning how to fly and land, while still being
primarily fed by adult eagles (Hunt et al. 1992, pp. C-6 and C-7).
About 45 days after leaving the nest, young southwestern bald
eagles migrate to Canada, northern California, Idaho, Montana, North
and South Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming (Hunt et al. 1992,
pp. A-104 through A-114), returning to Arizona in the fall of the same
year. They are known to repeat this behavior for a minimum of 2 years
(Hunt et al. 1992a-112; p. A-122-A-123). Resident adult bald eagles
often stay in their BAs year-round, although local, short-term
migrations are common (AGFD 1999, p. 6).
The first major decline in bald eagle populations began in the mid-
to late-1800s, when widespread shooting for feathers and trophies led
to extirpation of eagles in some areas. 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 and other factors contributed to a reduction in bald eagle
numbers through the 1940s (USFWS 1999, p. 36455). In the late 1940s,
the use of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and other
organochlorine compounds became widespread. While DDT was initially
sprayed along coastal and other wetland
[[Page 51551]]
areas for mosquito control, it later was used as a general crop
insecticide. DDT accumulated in individual bald eagles that had
ingested contaminated prey, and reproductive success plummeted (USFWS
1999, p. 36455). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was determined
that dichlorophenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE), a breakdown product of DDT,
accumulated in fatty tissues of adult female eagles and impaired the
calcium release needed for normal egg shell formation.
On March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), the Secretary of the Interior
listed bald eagles south of the 40th parallel (latitudinal line running
roughly from northern California to New Jersey) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc). On
December 31, 1972, DDT was banned from use in the United States by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Nationwide bald eagle surveys conducted in 1973 and 1974 revealed
the declining trend of bald eagle population numbers throughout the
lower 48 States. We responded by listing the bald eagle throughout the
lower 48 States as endangered except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Washington, and Oregon, where the bald eagle was designated as
threatened (43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978). Nesting populations of bald
eagles have more recently been increasing throughout the United States.
Data from surveys conducted between 1963 and 1998 show that known
active nest sites in the lower 48 States have grown from 417 to over
5,748 occupied BAs (USFWS 1995, p. 36001; USFWS 1999, p. 36457). Today,
the Service estimates the population in the lower 48 states to be at
approximately 7,066 breeding pairs (USFWS 2006, p. 8239).
The 1982 recovery plan for the Southwestern Recovery Region states
that when the total reproduction for the eagle population within the
Southwestern Recovery Region as a whole has effectively doubled to 10-
12 young per year over a 5-year period, and the population range has
expanded to include one or more river drainages in addition to the Salt
and Verde River Systems, the southwestern bald eagle should be
reclassified to threatened. The 1982 recovery plan indicated that
Arizona was the only State in the recovery region containing nesting
bald eagles, with 42 unverified historical nesting territories in the
Salt and Verde River systems, and one occupied territory along the
Colorado River. As discussed in the February 16, 2006, Federal Register
notice reopening the comment period on the proposed rule to delist the
bald eagle through its range (71 FR 8238), the downlisting goal
established in the recovery plan for the southwestern bald eagle has
been exceeded. Further, on July 12, 1995, we reclassified the bald
eagle from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States (60 FR
36000).
The number of known BAs has increased from a low of 3 in 1971, to a
high of 50 in 2006, while the number of occupied BAs increased from a
low of 3 in 1971, to a high of 43 in 2006. The number of young hatched
increased from a low of 0 in 1972, to a high of 55 in 2006 (AGFD 2006,
pp. 48-49; AGFD unpubl. data 2006). Productivity has also changed.
Between 1975 and 1984, average productivity was 0.95 young per occupied
BA. Between 1987 and 2005, average productivity was 0.78 young per
occupied BA. These data take into account productivity for BAs
throughout the Southwest, and they are not restricted to the Sonoran
Desert population of bald eagles evaluated under the petition.
While the number of BAs has increased, there was no expectation
that these BAs would demonstrate a corresponding increase in
reproductive performance. In part, this is because early monitoring
detected BAs with the highest quality habitat that were easily
discovered. Following an intensive survey effort, we now know of more
BAs, but habitat conditions within them ranges from poor to excellent.
As a result, we are now tracking productivity in BAs with a variety of
habitat conditions, rather than tracking productivity in only those BAs
that were easily detected and were in prime habitat. The result of
having more thorough, representative data from more BAs in a variety of
habitat types is that we show fewer ``boom and bust'' years.
Productivity data between 1987 and 2005 indicates a more stabilized
performance. For example, in 1971, with only three known BAs,
productivity was 1.33. In 1972, with the same number of known BAs,
productivity was 0.0. In 1973, productivity was at 1.5. By comparison,
with more BAs known, productivity fluctations now typically vary by
only 0.20 to 0.30 (AGFD 2006, pp. 48-49; AGFD unpubl. data 2006).
AGFD (2006c, p. 5) additionally notes that the change in
productivity could be due to a difference in monitoring protocols. More
importantly, they note that an average productivity rate of 0.78 young/
occupied breeding area is consistent with the range of many other areas
in the species range with larger bald eagle populations, including
Minnesota, British Columbia, Interior Alaska, and Washington.
For the Sonoran Desert population of bald eagles (i.e., excluding
those BAs not considered within the area of analysis under this
action), the number of occupied BAs increased from a low of 3 in 1971
to a high of 36 in 2004. Productivity for only those BAs within the
Sonoran Desert population is that same as that for the southwestern
population up until 1994, when BAs outside of the Sonoran Desert
population were discovered. From 1994 forward, productivity within the
Sonoran Desert population has ranged between 0.62 and 1.06, reaching a
high in 2004. Productivity remained high at 1.01 young per occupied BA
for 2005 (AGFD 2004a, p. 15; AGFD 2004, p. 6; AGFD 2005, p. 7; AGFD
2006, Table 7, pp. 48-50). The average annual productivity for this
time period is at 0.78, which corresponds to that for the overall
southwestern population.
Previous Federal Actions
On March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), bald eagles south of 40 degrees
north latitude were federally listed as an endangered species. Bald
eagles north of this line were not listed at that time because those
populations had not experienced the same threats and population
declines as of 1967. On February 14, 1978, we listed the bald eagle as
endangered in 43 States, and threatened in 5 others (43 FR 6233). Bald
eagles were not listed in Alaska, and are not found in Hawaii. On July
12, 1995, we reclassified the bald eagle from endangered to threatened
in the lower 48 States (60 FR 36000). The bald eagle remained
classified as threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and
Washington, as originally listed.
On July 6, 1999, we proposed to remove the bald eagle from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 States, including
the Southwest Recovery Region (64 FR 36454). The original comment
period was open for 90 days, until October 5, 1999. We reopened the
comment period on that proposal on February 16, 2006 (71 FR 8238), for
an additional 90 days, until May 17, 2006, and we extended the comment
period on May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28369), for another 30 days, until June
19, 2006.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
We consider a species for listing under the Act if available
information indicates such an action might be warranted. ``Species'' is
defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish and
wildlife or plants,
[[Page 51552]]
and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We, along with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), developed the Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS policy)
(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), to help us in determining what
constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies three elements that are to be
considered in a decision regarding the status of a possible distinct
population segment (DPS). These elements include (1) the discreteness
of the population in relation to the remainder of the species to which
it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the
species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing. Our
policy further recognizes it may be appropriate to assign different
classifications (i.e., threatened or endangered) to different DPSs of
the same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4721; February 7, 1996).
In the Service's final rule reclassifying the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened (July 12, 1995, 60 FR 36000), we determined
that eagles in the Southwestern Recovery Region were part of the same
bald eagle population as that of the remaining lower 48 States, and we
determined it was appropriate to include it in the reclassification.
However, the petition requests action with respect to an area (i.e.,
Sonoran Desert) that differs from the area that was analyzed in the
reclassification rule (i.e., Southwestern Recovery Region),and provides
new information not considered in 1995.
Discreteness
The DPS policy states that a population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following two conditions: It must be markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors, or it must be
delimited by international boundaries within which significant
differences in control of exploitation, management or habitat
conservation status or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant
in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Our evaluation of
discreteness under the DPS policy, based on information provided in the
petition and available in our files, is presented below.
Discreteness Criteria 1. The Population Segment is Markedly Separated
From Other Populations of the Same Taxon as a Consequence of Physical,
Physiological, Ecological, or Behavioral Factors. Quantitative Measures
of Genetic or Morphological Discontinuity May Provide Evidence of This
Separation
Ecological Factors
The petition notes the geographic region occupied by Sonoran Desert
bald eagles is much drier and hotter than that of any other bald eagle
population, and represents a significant departure from the habitat
selected by bald eagles in the rest of North America. The petition
concludes that, in order to adapt to high summer temperatures and to
time breeding cycles to the accessibility and spawn of native fish
(primarily suckers), Sonoran Desert bald eagles breed earlier, nest
earlier, and fledge their young sooner than bald eagles elsewhere (AGFD
1999a, 2000; Gerrard and Bortolotti 1988; Hunt et al. 1992; Stalmaster
1987; USFWS 2003b). In addition, the petition notes that, unlike bald
eagles elsewhere in North America, Sonoran Desert bald eagles use cliff
nest sites and that 53 of 111 known nests, or 48 percent, are on cliffs
or pinnacles. They further note the only other place this occurs is in
the Aleutian Islands (Hunt et al. 1992).
Response to the Petition
The information provided in the petition on behavioral adaptations
to the Sonoran Desert is, in part, accurate. While it is true that
Sonoran Desert bald eagles initiate nesting earlier than eagles in some
parts of the country, Stalmaster (1987, p. 63) notes bald eagles in
Florida initiate breeding activities in October, even earlier than
Arizona bald eagles. Florida bald eagles also lay eggs earlier
(Stalmaster 1987, p. 63; Gerrard and Bortolotti 1988 p. 76).
Accordingly, Florida bald eagles hatch and fledge earlier than those in
Arizona. Stalmaster (1987, p.63) concludes timing of various breeding
events is tied to latitude of the nesting area, with eagles at more
northern latitudes breeding at later dates.
With respect to cliff nesting, the information presented on the use
of cliff nests is accurate. However, this is not necessarily a unique
trait of Sonoran Desert bald eagles. Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988, p.
41) note bald eagles in other areas may nest on cliffs if suitable
trees are not available. Stalmaster (1987) noted exceptions to tree
nests as well, but indicated that, while eagles in other areas may
rarely use cliffs or other surfaces, this is an exception, whereas in
Arizona, cliff nesting is common. In addition, bald eagles are known to
nest on cliffs on the Channel Islands off California (Montrose
Settlements Restoration Program 2005).
Behavioral Factors
The petition provides information alleging that the Sonoran Desert
bald eagles are reproductively isolated. Specifically, the petition
contends that 352 out of 353 individuals (99.997 percent) objectively
identified while participating in breeding activity in this population
came from within the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population.
Additionally, the petition notes that, since 1977, biologists in
Arizona have banded 256 nestlings with only one individual identified
as having emigrated. According to the petition, this indicates that
99.6 percent of individuals born into the Sonoran Desert remain in the
desert (AGFD 1999a, 2000). The petition states that, to date, evidence
from the banding and identification of breeding adults supports the
hypothesis that the Sonoran Desert bald eagle breeding population is
not supported or maintained by immigration from other states or
regions. They quote AGFD (1999a, 2000):
``[B]ecause adults return to the vicinity of their natal area to
breed, the large distance between small breeding populations in the
Southwest decreases the chance for movement between neighboring
populations. Probably most convincing are the results from banding
256 nestlings over 20 years and identifying 372 breeding adults over
8 years. Only one individual from out-of-state entered the breeding
population and only one left. Additionally, the proportion of
breeding adults with color bands had steadily increased, while the
presence of unmarked Bald Eagles has decreased. Thus, continued
attention to the survivorship of all Arizona Bald Eagles is vital to
the maintenance of our breeding population. We can not depend on
immigration to Arizona from nearby states to make up for poor
management in Arizona * * *''
The petition claims the AGFD (1994b) warned that repopulation of
the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population following a population crash
would be highly unlikely, and quote the AGFD (1994b) as follows:
``Because Arizona continues to possess nearly the entire
breeding population within the Southwestern Region, concerns remain
over retaining the genetic integrity of this population * * * Should
a population crash occur in Arizona, the pool of eagles to
repopulate the Southwest could be left to the few pairs in the
neighboring states or Mexico. However, at this time, there is no
documentation of eagles from these neighboring Southwestern states
breeding in Arizona or vice versa.''
[[Page 51553]]
The petition further states that natal site fidelity is common for
bald eagles, noting that, in a study of nine bald eagle populations
including thousands of banded birds, only two nestlings were found to
have bred in other areas. One of these birds moved 331 kilometers (205
miles) north from its natal site in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
(Harmata in litt.) while the other traveled 418 kilometers (260 miles)
south from its natal site near Charleston, South Carolina (T. Murphy,
pers. comm., Wood in litt.). They conclude that the tendency for banded
nestlings to breed within their natal populations is well known (Hunt
et al. 1992).
Response to the Petition
The information in the petition appears to be accurate and
reliable; however, it should be noted the only individual cited as
entering the breeding population from out-of-state refers to a bald
eagle from Texas (AGFD 2006, p. 27) that currently occupies the Luna
BA, which is not part of the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population. As a
result, the appropriate conclusion is all birds objectively identified
while participating in breeding activity in the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population came from within the population. It should also be
noted that sub-adult bald eagles do migrate and return annually. As
noted above, about 45 days after leaving the nest, young southwestern
bald eagles migrate to Canada, northern California, Idaho, Montana,
North and South Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming (Hunt et al.
1992, p. A-104--A-114), returning to Arizona in the fall of the same
year. They are known to repeat this behavior for a minimum of 2 years
(Hunt et al. 1992a-112; p. A-122--A-123). Resident adult bald eagles
often stay in their BAs year-round, although local short-term
migrations are common (AGFD 1999, p. 6).
We agree with the petitioners that, should the Sonoran Desert bald
eagle population experience a rapid decline, there are few eagles in
neighboring southwestern states or Mexico which could serve as a source
population for the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population. Finally, we
find the information from Harmata et al. (1999, p. 788) and Hunt et al.
(1992, p. A-144) supports the discussion on the natal origins of
breeding adults, and the probability that adult bald eagle will not
immigrate to the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population from surrounding
southwestern states or farther.
Evidence of Genetic Discontinuity
With respect to genetic isolation, the petition found that the
current understanding of genetics does not refute the discrete and
isolated nature of the desert nesting bald eagle. The petition notes a
review of all information regarding genetic analysis of the
southwestern desert nesting bald eagle reveals consistent uncertainty,
and concludes current genetic data support no definitive conclusions
concerning isolation or lack of isolation (CBD 2004e; Hunt et al. 1992;
SWCBD 1999). The petition states that, while no definitive conclusions
are supported by the limited genetic data, this is not required under
the current DPS policy. Specifically, the petition quotes from the
policy:
``Thus, evidence of genetic distinctness or of the presence of
genetically determined traits may be important in recognizing some
DPS's, but the draft policy was not intended to always specifically
require this kind of evidence in order for a DPS to be recognized *
* *''
Similarly, the petition notes absolute reproductive isolation is
not required under the policy, which states:
``The Services do not consider it appropriate to require
absolute reproductive isolation as a prerequisite to recognizing a
distinct population segment. This would be an impracticably
stringent standard, and one that would not be satisfied even by some
recognized species that are known to sustain a low frequency of
interbreeding with related species * * *''
Response to the Petition
The information presented within the petition on completed genetic
studies for bald eagles appears accurate and reliable. Hunt et al.
(1992, pp. E-96 to E-110) contains the genetic work completed to date
on the southwestern bald eagle population. Vyse (1992, p. E-100, E-101)
notes the data are inconclusive, as evidenced by such statements as
``These findings must be assumed to be preliminary (and treated with
due caution), because of a lack of information concerning sampling
procedures. The results we have obtained could easily be explained by
sampling procedures''; and ``At present these data (HinfI/M-13) are too
incomplete to be considered further.'' In addition, Zegers et al.
(1992, p. E-106 to E-109) notes that ``Question 4 * * * is difficult to
answer with precision because of the different sample sizes between
1985 and 1990. * * * [T]his difference is possibly an artifact of the
many fewer samples in 1985''; ``six loci may not be enough to give a
reliable estimate of the true genetic distance'; and ``We feel caution
should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the low
numbers of individuals sampled from most states but especially because
of the few loci examined.''
Evidence of Morphological Discontinuity
The term ``morphological discontinuity'' refers to some difference
in physical characteristics that may exist between two groups. The
petition contends that quantitative measures of the physical
differences between Sonoran Desert bald eagles and bald eagles
elsewhere offers evidence of morphological discontinuity. The petition
cites quantitative measures of physical difference, stating that
average weights of male bald eagles are 3.3 kilograms (kg) (7.3 pounds
(lbs.)) in Arizona, 4.1 kg (9.0 lbs.) in California, and 4.7 kg (10.4
lbs.) in Alaska. Similarly, average weight for females is 4.5 kg (9.9
lbs.) in Arizona, 5.1 kg (11.2 lbs.) in California, and 5.8 kg (12.8
lbs.) in Alaska (Hunt et al. 1992).
Response to the Petition
The information provided on size differences appears to be accurate
and reliable, as found in Hunt et al. (1992, p. A-159). Stalmaster
(1987, pp. 16-17) notes southern eagles are much smaller and lighter
than their northern counterparts. This is consistent with Bergmann's
Rule, which holds that animal size increases with increasing latitude.
Gerrard and Bortolotti (1988, p. 14) note Florida birds are the
smallest, with a gradation of small to large from south to north. The
importance of this morphological difference and its potential isolating
effects are discussed by Hunt et al. (1992, p. A-165), who notes
morphological differences such as small size may be an adaptation
related to desert conditions, noting a decision to release birds into
Arizona from elsewhere should be considered only as a last resort, as
the introduction of foreign genes into the Sonoran Desert population
might disrupt coadapted gene complexes specific to the desert
population.
Discreteness Criteria 2. It is Delimited by International Government
Boundaries Within Which Differences in Control of Exploitation,
Management of Habitat, Conservation Status, or Regulatory Mechanisms
Exist That are Significant in Light of Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act
No specific information was identified in the petition for this
category. Therefore we will not address this category in our analysis
of discreteness.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the information presented in the petition, and
have
[[Page 51554]]
evaluated the information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). On the
basis of our review, we find available genetic studies on bald eagles
are dated, the sample size was small, and researchers conducting the
studies found the results to be inconclusive. We therefore believe that
the best available genetic information is inconclusive with regard to
the discreteness of the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population. However,
we believe the petition presents substantial information on the Sonoran
Desert bald eagles with respect to size. However, size in birds is
known to be a clinal function of latitude and does not necessarily
indicate discreteness. We believe the petition provides substantial
information on natal site fidelity in breeding birds and the limited
number of other eagles in neighboring southwestern states or Mexico.
Finally, we believe the data indicating that 20 years of monitoring
have resulted in the determination that no eagles have immigrated to
and only one eagle has emigrated from the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population is substantial. We, therefore, conclude that the petition
contains substantial information with respect to the discreteness
requirements of the DPS policy to warrant considering the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle population as discrete from other bald eagle
populations.
Significance
If we determine that a population segment is discrete under one of
the above conditions, we must then consider its biological and
ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs, within the
context that the Service's authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly''
while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). This consideration may include, but is not limited
to the following: (1) Evidence of the persistence of the population
segment in an ecological setting that is unique for the taxon; (2)
evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside of its historic range; and (4) evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
Significance Criteria 1. Persistence of the Population Segment in an
Ecological Setting That Is Unusual or Unique for the Taxon
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition contends that the Sonoran Desert bald eagle persists
in the unique ecological setting of the Sonoran life zones of the
desert Southwest (AGFD 1999a, 2000; Hunt et al. 1992; USFWS 2002a,
2003b). With the exception of a single 8,000 foot (2,438 meter)
elevation nest (Luna BA), the petition states that all known Arizona
BAs are located in the Sonoran Desert in the central part of the State
in Upper and Lower Sonoran Desert habitats from elevations of 1,080
feet (330 meters) to 5,640 feet (1,720 meters), and are closely
associated with the Salt, Verde, and Gila river drainage waters (Beatty
and Driscoll 1994, 1996a; Beatty et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1998; Driscoll
and Beatty 1994; Driscoll et al. 1992; Hunt et al. 1992). The petition
further identifies several Arizona tree species native to the desert
Southwest as representative vegetation for these areas (Brown 1994).
Response to the Petition
The breeding range of the bald eagle is associated with aquatic
habitats (coastal areas, river, lakes, and reservoirs) with forested
shorelines or cliffs in North America (Buehler 2000). The ecological
setting in which the bald eagle persists in the Sonoran Desert may at
first seem unusual for the species. However, despite the desert
setting, bald eagles of the Sonoran Desert are consistently associated
with preferred bald eagle habitat, the riparian ecosystem. The petition
clearly states that the Sonoran Desert nests are closely associated
with the Salt, Verde, and Gila river drainage waters and cites Brown
(1994) when describing the riparian vegetation of these areas. As with
all populations of bald eagles throughout the lower 48 States, suitable
riparian habitat, or other comparable aquatic habitat, is an essential
prerequisite to successful eagle reproduction in the desert Southwest
(USFWS 1982). Riparian ecosystems occupied by nesting bald eagles in
the Sonoran life zones of the desert Southwest, therefore, do not
constitute a unique setting for the species. The persistence of the
bald eagle in this setting likely represents an example of a species
occupying the edge of its range of suitable habitats. Therefore, we
conclude that the petition does not present substantial evidence that
the population is persisting in an ecological setting that is unique
for the taxon.
Significance Criteria 2. Loss of the Population Segment Would Result in
a Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition contends that for more than twenty years, the Service
has recognized the fact that the Southwest represents a ``significant
portion of the bald eagle range'' and further states that it follows
logically then that the loss of the [Sonoran] Desert nesting population
would result in a significant gap in the range of the bald eagle (Hunt
et al. 1992; USFWS 1982, 1994a, 1995, 2001a). The petition claims that
bald eagles in the Southwestern United States have been considered as a
distinct population for the purposes of consultation and recovery
efforts under the Act (USFWS 2003b).
The petition further contends that several authors have speculated
about the consequences of this population's loss (AGFD 1994b; Hunt et
al. 1992), and the petitioners can find no credible evidence that bald
eagles elsewhere possess the ability to adapt to the unique and hostile
environmental habitat in which the [Sonoran] Desert nesting population
has evolved. Specifically the petition quotes Hunt et al. (1992):
``[W]ere the [Southwestern Desert Nesting Bald Eagle] population
extirpated, there is no firm reason to believe that bald eagles
released into Arizona from elsewhere would posses [sic] the
adaptations required to increase their numbers.''
The petition further quotes correspondence from the Arizona Game
and Fish Department to the Service (1994b):
``Because Arizona continues to possess nearly the entire
breeding population within the Southwestern Region, concerns remain
over retaining the genetic integrity of this population. * * *
Should a population crash occur in Arizona, the pool of eagles to
repopulate the Southwest could be left to the few pairs in the
neighboring states or Mexico. However, at this time, there is no
documentation of eagles from these neighboring Southwestern States
breeding in Arizona or vice versa.''
Response to the Petition
The petition cites several Service publications (1982, 1994a, 1995,
2001a) in addition to a report prepared by Hunt et al. (1992) when
making this claim, but does not make specific reference to instances in
which the Service has ``recognized the fact that the Southwest
represents a significant portion of the Bald Eagle range.'' Therefore,
for this analysis we will assume that the petition is referring to the
fact that the
[[Page 51555]]
Service has continued to identify the Southwest population of the bald
eagle as one of five recovery populations in the lower 48 States for
more than twenty years (Hunt et al. 1992; USFWS 1982, 1994a, 1995,
2001a).
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 populations, based on geographic location, termed
Recovery Regions. This was as a result of the wide distribution of the
bald eagle in the lower 48 States. Recovery plans were prepared for the
five Recovery Regions, including the Southwest Recovery Region (USFWS
1982), by separate recovery teams composed of species experts in each
geographic area. The Service views the establishment of recovery
regions as a management tool allowing for effective regional
coordination and planning among State and Federal conservation agencies
and species experts. The existence of a recovery region does not, in
itself, imply significance under the DPS policy (USFWS and NMFS 1996),
as the petitioner claims, and therefore the Southwestern Recovery
Region is not a DPS for the purposes of recovery.
In the 1994 proposed rule to reclassify the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened (59 FR 35584; July 12, 1994), the Service
determined that current information indicates the Southwestern
population is at risk and remains in danger of extinction due to
excessively low survival rates and the need for intensive management,
particularly at nest sites. This decision was based on the
understanding that the population was isolated and thus subject to the
genetic, demographic, and environmental threats known to be associated
with small populations. Data provided in the Hunt et al. (1992)
publication indicated there had been no immigration to the Southwestern
population of bald eagles. At that time the Service recognized the
Southwestern Recovery Region as a DPS based on evidence that it
appeared to be reproductively isolated (59 FR 35584; July 12, 1994).
However, in the 1995 final rule to reclassify bald eagles from
endangered to threatened, the Service affirmed that the Southwestern
Recovery Region of the bald eagle is not a DPS but instead part of the
same bald eagle population as that of the remaining lower 48 States
(USFWS 1995). This determination was based on evidence of immigration
into the population (USFWS 1995), inter-population movements (Mabie et
al. 1994), and the then existing genetic data, which did not support
the Service's previous assertion that the bald eagles of the
Southwestern Recovery Region are reproductively isolated (Hunt et al.
1992).
On July 6, 1996, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service jointly published a policy that clarifies the Agencies'
interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying species under the Act (USFWS and NMFS
1996). The policy identifies three elements that are to be considered
in a decision regarding the status of a possible distinct population
segment (DPS). These elements include (1) the discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which
it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the
species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing
(USFWS and NMFS 1996).
Subsequent to publication of the DPS policy, the Service published
a proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 States from
the list of endangered and threatened wildlife (USFWS 1999). On
February 16, 2006 the Service reopened the comment period for the
proposed rule (USFWS 2006). In both of these publications the Service
recognized a single listed population of bald eagles throughout the
lower 48 States as had been done in the earlier 1995 final rule (USFWS
1995), although a formal analysis consistent with the 1996 DPS policy
had not been completed for the Southwestern Recovery Region (USFWS
1999, 2006).
The petition is correct in that early biological opinions, as part
of consultations with Federal action agencies under section 7 of the
Act, finalized by the Arizona Ecological Services Office referred to
the Southwestern population as a DPS. However, in the 1995 final rule
to reclassify bald eagles from endangered to threatened (USFWS 1995),
the Service affirmed that the Southwestern population of the bald eagle
is not a DPS. Some biological opinions dated after the final rule note
that the Southwestern population of the bald eagle was previously
considered a DPS, but no longer is considered as such. In the February
16, 2006 reopening of the comment period for the proposed rule to
delist the bald eagle, the Service further explains that when preparing
biological opinions under section 7 of the Act the potential effects to
the Southwestern or any of the other four recovery regions of the bald
eagle are considered in terms of whether they appreciably reduce the
likelihood of both survival and recovery of the bald eagle throughout
the lower 48 States, not solely for the geographic area in which the
impacts may occur (USFWS 2006). Therefore, the bald eagles in the
Southwestern United States are not considered as a distinct population
for the purposes of consultation under the Act. Further, the petition
under consideration in this finding requests action with respect to a
geographic area (i.e., Sonoran Desert) that differs from the area that
was analyzed in the Service's reclassification rule (i.e., Southwestern
Recovery Region) (USFWS 1995). In this context, claims regarding how
the Service has referred to the Southwest Recovery Region are not
relevant to the petitioned action.
Finally, the bald eagle ranges throughout much of North America,
nesting on both coasts from Florida to Baja California in the south,
and from Labrador to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska in the north
(Gerrard and Bartolotti 1988). While the statements of two authors who
have ``speculated'' about the consequences of the Sonoran Desert
population's loss are accurately quoted, these statements do not
specifically address how the loss of the Sonoran Desert bald eagle
population would constitute a significant gap in the range of the
species. Furthermore, the petitioner provides no supporting evidence to
substantiate the authors' speculations.
We conclude that the bald eagles in the Southwestern United States
are not considered as a distinct population for the purposes of
consultation or recovery. Furthermore, the petition does no provide
substantial information to support the claim that loss of the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle population would result in a significant gap in the
range of the species.
Significance Criteria 3. The Population Segment Represents the Only
Surviving Natural Occurrence of a Taxon That May Be More Abundant
Elsewhere as an Introduced Population Outside Its Historical Range
The petition does not address this factor. The bald eagle occurs
naturally throughout the contiguous 48 States, Alaska, Canada and
Mexico (Buehler 2000). As such, the Sonoran Desert population does not
represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon.
[[Page 51556]]
Significance Criteria 4. The Discrete Population Segment Differs
Markedly From Other Populations of the Species in its Genetic
Characteristics
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition contends that review of all information regarding
genetic analysis of the Southwestern desert nesting bald eagle reveals
consistent uncertainty and the current understanding of genetics does
not refute the discrete and isolated nature of the desert nesting bald
eagle (CBD 2004e; Hunt et al. 1992; SWCBD 1999). The petition
specifically quotes excerpts from Hunt et al. (1992), which discuss
genetics study methods, results, and conclusions.
Response to the Petition
We have addressed the genetic evidence provided by the petitioner
in the analysis of discreteness above. Consistent with that analysis we
have determined that the best available genetic information is
inconclusive with regard to significance. We conclude that the petition
does not present substantial information that the population differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Further, the petition does not present nor are we
aware of any other factors that would lead us to believe that the
Sonoran Desert population of the bald eagle differs markedly from the
taxon as a whole.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the information presented in the petition, and
have evaluated the information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). On
the basis of our review, we find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
Sonoran Desert bald eagle constitutes a valid DPS. Although the
population is discrete, the petition does not present substantial
scientific information that the Sonoran Desert bald eagle may be
significant in relation to the remainder of the taxon. Therefore, we
conclude that the Sonoran Desert population is not a listable entity
pursuant to section 3(15) of the Act. However, recognizing the volume
of information provided in the petition, and the national importance of
the bald eagle, we have also conducted a threats analysis.
Threats Analysis
Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we may list a species,
subspecies, or DPS of vertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the
following five factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered, either
singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be
threatened or endangered. Our evaluation of these threats in terms of
the petitioned action to reclassify the Sonoran Desert bald eagle from
threatened to endangered, based on information provided in the petition
and available in our files, is presented below. Throughout this finding
we refer to the Sonoran Desert population of the bald eagle, because
that is the petitioned entity; however, as noted above, this reference
does not imply that we have determined, under to our DPS policy, that
this population is a listable entity. Furthermore, although we have
proposed the bald eagle in the lower 48 States for delisting (71 FR
8238, February 16, 2006), our petition finding does not address the
proposed delisting or conditions that may occur if the delisting is
finalized.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
Development, Recreation, and Water Use
The petition notes that the Southwest has already lost more than 90
percent of its historical riparian communities (AGFD 1993; Krueper
1993; Lofgren et al. 1990), and that the loss of riparian communities
is continuing due to increasing development, dewatering via groundwater
pumping and diversions, destructive cattle grazing, and lack of
vegetation-rejuvenating floods. The petition contends that the Sonoran
Desert bald eagle population faces imminent and accelerating loss of
increasing amounts of habitat vital to its long-term survival.
Specifically, the petition notes that most of the BAs are located along
the Salt and Verde rivers near the Phoenix metropolitan area and the
towns of Cottonwood and Camp Verde in Yavapai County, where habitat
loss is occurring due to the increasing human population in central
Arizona. The petition notes that the human population in Maricopa
County is expected to double to more than six million people over the
next 30 years (Arizona Republic 1998). Growth in Cottonwood, on the
Verde River, is projected to increase by 148 percent and in Camp Verde
by 158 percent between 1994 and 2040 (Arizona Department of Economic
Security 1994). The petition notes that increases in human populations
of this magnitude will result in increased housing development, water
demands, and recreational use.
The petitioners contend that development will affect the
suitability of many BAs due to their proximity to areas with large
human populations and projected population growth rates. The petition
notes that increased recreational use, development, and water use will
follow increasing population sizes, and cites examples of past
consultations, conducted by the Service under section 7 of the Act,
addressing these issues.
The petition cites recent examples of recreational impacts to
Sonoran Desert bald eagle BAs, including river tubing on the Salt
River, which increases the human presence near the Blue Point BA, as
well as campground development at Roosevelt Lake, which could affect
the Sheep and Tonto BAs. The petition cites, as development examples, a
360-home development and golf course within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers
(km)) of the Box Bar BA; the development of lakeside resorts at Lake
Pleasant near the Pleasant BA; and continued housing, road, and
business developments along lower Tonto Creek near the Sheep and Tonto
BAs (AGFD 1999a, 2000).
The petition notes that dewatering of the middle portion of the
Verde River is accelerating so that flows have at times been reduced to
12 cubic feet per second (0.3 cubic meters per second) in summer months
near the Camp Verde White Bridge gauge (Verde Natural Resources
Conservation District 1999). The petition contends that this dewatering
is resulting in a reduction in base flows, and increased populations in
Cottonwood and Camp Verde are leading to increased groundwater pumping.
The petition indicates that groundwater pumping in Arizona has
repeatedly been demonstrated to result in a depletion of surface flows,
degradation and loss of riparian communities, and adverse impacts and
local extirpation of aquatic flora and fauna (ADWR 1994; Ewing et al.
1994; Glennon 1995; Glennon and Maddock 1994; Hendrickson and Minckley
1984; McGavock 1996, Miller 1961; Owen-Joyce and bell 1983, Stromberg
1993; Tellman et al. 1997).
The petition notes that increased water demand is expected to have
adverse effects on flows within rivers and resulting impacts on
riparian communities. The petition further notes that 59.5 percent of
all known desert bald eagle nests in Arizona have been in
[[Page 51557]]
riparian trees and snags (Driscoll 1999; E. Gardner, AGFD, pers. comm.
2006). The petition notes that bald eagles at 11 BAs, including the Box
Bar, Coolidge, Doka, Fort McDowell, Perkinsville, Pinto, 76, Sheep,
Sycamore, Tonto, and Winkelman BAs, nest solely in riparian trees, and
that the cottonwood trees used for nesting in these BAs have become
overmature, are dying, and are not being replaced (AGFD 1991a, 2000).
The petition contends that the loss of habitat in these BAs is
particularly damaging to the future stability of the Sonoran Desert
bald eagle population, as they have collectively contributed 22 percent
of all recorded fledglings since 1971. The petition notes that the Fort
McDowell BA has fledged 34 young, second only to the Blue Point BA,
which has fledged 35 young (AGFD 1999a, 2000).
Substantial detail is provided in the petition regarding specific
development activities and resulting effects to Sonoran Desert bald
eagle BAs. The petition notes that pressures associated with human
population growth are increasing and will continue to do so as the
human population increases.
Response to the Petition
The information provided by the petitioner indicating that human
population growth is expected to continue in areas in close proximity
to or used by the Sonoran Desert bald eagle population appears accurate
and reliable. Human population growth is an ongoing concern, and many
of the bald eagle BAs in the Sonoran Desert population are within close
proximity to this anticipated growth, including the Granite Reef, Orme,
Rodeo, Sycamore, Doka, Fort McDowell, Box Bar, Needle Rock, and
Bartlett BAs on the Verde River, and the Bull Dog, Blue Point, and
Horse Mesa BAs on the Salt River, as well as the Pleasant BA at Lake
Pleasant. As noted in the petition, recreation, development, and water
use activities are ongoing and have increased since the bald eagle was
listed. We have consulted on many of these actions through section 7 of
the Act (including USFWS 1990b, 1996b, 1997b, 1998, 2001a and 2003b on
water developments and USFWS 1993a for recreation, as cited in the
petition). In addition, the AGFD's Projects Evaluation Program is
available for Federal agencies or companies with a Federal nexus. This
program can be used to evaluate the impacts of planned or future
projects in areas where there may be a species of concern. The AGFD
believes the program will help to ensure bald eagles and their habitat
are considered and evaluated for possible effects from development
projects (AGFD 2006, p. 14).
Under section 7 of the Act, we have concluded to date that these
actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle.
The AGFD (2006c, p. 13) acknowledges that the need to accommodate human
populations in proximity to a major metropolitan area like Phoenix will
require ongoing management. However, they conclude that the species can
be managed even under this scenario through the ``awareness,
collaboration, flexibility, planning, and willingness of all wildlife,
land, and recreation managers (AGFD 2006, p. 13).''
We work cooperatively with the AGFD and Federal land managers to
minimize the potential threats to bald eagle BAs in close proximity to
the major human population growth areas in Arizona by establishing BA
closures and monitoring the sites. In 2006, the Bartlett, Box Bar,
Granite Reef, Orme, and Tonto BAs were monitored through the Arizona
Bald Eagle Nestwatch Program. The program not only interacts with
members of the public to provide education, but can intervene if
individuals approach the nests too closely. Similarly, the Southwest
Bald Eagle Management Committee, composed of State, Tribal, Federal,
private, and military agencies, meets twice each year to address
ongoing and new threats, funding for needed efforts, and general issues
affecting the bald eagle.
With the exception of the Pleasant and Bull Dog BAs, all of the BAs
in close proximity to Phoenix successfully fledged young in 2006. One
bird from the Bull Dog BA was successfully fledged following fostering
in the Granite Reef BA. Orme, Rodeo, Doka, Fort McDowell, Box Bar, Blue
Point, and Horse Mesa fledged one young each, while Sycamore, Needle
Rock, and Bartlett produced two young each. Additionally, many of these
BAs have successfully produced young for many years and, while nest
failures do occur, their overall productivity remains high. For
example, the Bartlett BA has fledged 28 young in 20 separate years
between 1971 and 2002; the Blue Point BA has fledged 38 young in 18
separate years between 1971 and 2002; and the Fort McDowell BA has
fledged 41 young in 23 years between 1971 and 2002 (AGFD 2006, Table 7,
pp. 48-50).
The petitioners presented reliable and accurate data on the use of
riparian areas for bald eagles, and on the potential loss of nest
trees. In the 11 BAs referenced by the petitioners, existing trees have
become over-mature, are dying, and are not being replaced (AGFD 2006,
p. 12). The eagles in the Doka, Fort McDowell, Granite Reef, Rodeo,