Kelly, in response to your question, I have more questions :-)

How much has/does it cost to make/monitor these agreements with landowners?
(maybe as a percentage of funds/time of staff? or some relative rather
than absolute, value?)
What would happen to that money/time if this program was stopped?

I was going to say, "No, we shouldn't stop trying to save the habitat,
even if the target animal is recovering," but then I reread the part that
gave the goal of the rule (or whatever the right term is): paraphrase: to
preserve habitat to save the eagles so that they can be delisted. So, if
the best scientific evidence shows that the goal has been reached, I
guess it is time to discontinue that program. I don't think it's time to
stop trying to save ecosystems, though (just in case anyone thought so
;)).