U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issues Proposed Rule to Revise its Bald and Golden Eagle Regulations

May 6, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The Service promulgated its original eagle regulations in 2009. In its Proposed Rule, the Service seeks to revise the 2009 regulations by setting new objectives for eagle management, addressing how eagle populations will be managed and monitored, directing how data on permitted eagle mortality will be obtained and used, and modifying the eagle take permitting requirements. What will likely be the most controversial aspect of the Proposed Rule is the Service’s proposal to extend the maximum permit duration for a non-purposeful or incidental take from five years to 30 years. (The Service’s prior rulemaking in 2013 that authorized 30-year permits was met with stiff opposition, and was ultimately struck down by a Federal Court for failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).) The Service, however, continues to take the position that a 30-year permit duration is needed to allow permits to align better with the longer term duration of the industrial activities, most notably wind farms, that could pose a threat to eagles.

A 30-Year Take Permit

Under the Proposed Rule’s permitting provisions, a permit holder would be authorized to “take” a set number of eagles – which includes disturbing, injuring or killing eagles – in the course of undertaking an otherwise lawful activity for a period of up to 30 years. Applicants seeking permits must agree to implement measures to minimize and avoid eagle takes and, in the case of golden eagles, must fund conservation measures designed to protect more than one eagle for every eagle expected to be taken. The Service is also proposing to require permit holders to consult with the Service every five years during the permit term to ensure that the permitted activity is not exceeding the expected take levels and, where exceedances are occurring, the Service may impose additional avoidance, minimization or compensation requirements on permittees. 

Supporting Documents

In support of its Proposed Rule, the Service has issued a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) under NEPA and a report titled Bald and Golden Eagles, Status, Trends and Estimation of Sustainable Take Rates in the United States. The PEIS analyzes the proposed revisions to the eagle permit regulations, establishment of new Eagle Management Units (EMUs) based upon eagle flyways and different take levels for bald and golden eagles. The Service’s Report that accompanies the Proposed Rule and PEIS compiles current research on eagle population sizes, status and survival rates; serves as the biological basis for the Proposed Rule and DPEIS’ preferred alternative; and provides recommended take limits.

Change in Permit Fees

The Proposed Rule also changes the permitting fee structure for commercial permittees seeking a permit of five years of longer. Under the new structure, in addition to paying a $36,000 application fee, permittees must pay a $15,000 administration fee every five years to cover the costs of the five-year evaluation and the development of any additional avoidance, minimization or compensation requirements, as needed.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.