[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37078-37103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14761]



[[Page 37077]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 125

June 30, 2014

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the 
U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork From Endangered to 
Threatened; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 37078]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0020; FXES11130900000C2-134-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AX60


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of the U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork From Endangered to 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 
reclassify the United States (U.S.) breeding population of the wood 
stork from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Further, we establish the U.S. breeding 
population in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, 
and South Carolina as a distinct population segment (DPS). The 
endangered designation no longer correctly reflects the status of the 
DPS due to improvement in its overall status. This action is based on a 
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, which 
indicate that the U.S. wood stork DPS is not presently in danger of 
extinction across its range. While habitat loss and fragmentation 
continues to impact the U.S. wood stork DPS, the increase in the 
abundance of the breeding population and significant expansion of the 
breeding range reduce the severity and magnitude of these threats.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on July 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, as well as comments and materials received 
in response to the proposed rule, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-R4-ES-2012-0020]. 
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation 
used in preparation of this rule, will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Services, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 
7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Herrington, North Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office, (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 904-
731-3336; or by facsimile (fax) at 904-731-3045. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

Why We Need To Publish a Rule

     In September 2007, we completed a 5-year status review, 
which included a recommendation to reclassify the U.S. breeding 
population of the wood stork from endangered to threatened.
     In May 2009, we received a petition to reclassify the U.S. 
breeding population of wood stork; the petition incorporated the 
Service's 5-year review as its sole supporting information.
     On September 21, 2010, we published a 90-day finding that 
the petition presented substantial information indicating that 
reclassifying the wood stork may be warranted (75 FR 57426). We 
requested information that would assist us in our status review.
     On December 26, 2012, we published a 12-month finding that 
the petitioned action was warranted and concurrently a proposed rule to 
reclassify the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork from 
endangered to threatened and designate this population as a distinct 
population segment (DPS) (77 FR 75947). We requested peer and public 
review of the proposed rule.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Final Rule

     We reclassify the U.S. breeding population of wood stork 
from endangered to threatened.
     We determine that the U.S. breeding population of wood 
stork is a DPS.
     We amend the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
(50 CFR 17.11(h)) to reflect the status change to threatened and that 
the U.S. wood stork DPS is found in the States of Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

The Basis for the Action

     The U.S. breeding population of wood stork was listed 
under the Act in 1984, prior to publication of the joint policy of the 
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Services) regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population 
segments (61 FR 4722). We find that the U.S. breeding population of 
wood stork meets the elements of the Services' DPS policy and is a 
valid DPS (U.S. Wood Stork DPS).
     When the U.S. breeding population of wood stork was listed 
in 1984, the population was known to occur in Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, and South Carolina with breeding and nesting primarily in 
south and central Florida with a small number of nesting colonies in 
north Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Currently wood storks occur 
in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 
Carolina, with breeding and nesting documented in Florida, Georgia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina.
     The best available scientific and commercial data indicate 
that, since the U.S. breeding population of wood stork was listed as 
endangered in 1984, the breeding population has been increasing and its 
breeding range has expanded significantly.
     We have had 3-year population averages of total nesting 
pairs of wood storks higher than 6,000 nesting pairs since 2003. In 
addition, productivity appears to be sufficient to support a growing 
population. However, the 5-year average number of nesting pairs is 
still below the benchmark of 10,000 nesting pairs identified in the 
recovery plan for delisting.
     As a result of continued loss, fragmentation, and 
modification of wetland habitats in parts of the wood stork's range, we 
determine that the U.S. wood stork DPS meets the definition of a 
threatened species under section 3 of the Act, and we are reclassifying 
it from endangered to threatened.

Background

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on December 26, 2012 (77 FR 75947), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by February 25, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. In 
addition, the Service notified affected Tribes about the proposed rule. 
A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in 
several newspapers in the southeastern United States. We did not 
receive any requests for a public hearing; therefore, none were 
conducted.

Peer Review, State, and Tribal Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent expert opinions from four 
individuals who have scientific expertise that included familiarity 
with wood storks and their habitat, biological needs, recovery

[[Page 37079]]

efforts, threats, and conservation biology principles. We invited peer 
reviewers to comment on the specific assumptions and conclusions in the 
proposed reclassification of the U.S. breeding population. We received 
comments from all four of the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers 
supported our conclusions and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule.
    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must 
give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the 
State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, 
and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act states, 
``the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written 
justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the 
agency's comments or petition.'' The Service submitted the proposed 
regulation to the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina. We received formal comments from 
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and North Carolina Wildlife 
Resources Commission. All three agencies support reclassification of 
the wood stork from endangered to threatened. The Mississippi Museum of 
Natural Science provided additional information about wood storks in 
Mississippi for the Service to consider.
    In addition, the Service notified affected Tribes about the 
proposed rule. We did not receive any comments from Tribes.
    (1) Comment: A peer reviewer and the Georgia DNR stated concerns 
and challenges that may influence future recovery of the wood stork due 
to climate change.
    Our Response: Aspects of climate change such as sea level rise and 
associated tidal or storm surges, changes in rainfall patterns, storm 
frequency and intensity, and seasonal changes in temperature could 
affect the extent and quality of wood stork habitat, nesting success, 
and the range of the species. Any of these changes could impact the 
future viability of wood stork populations, either positively or 
negatively. Our assessments related to habitat (Factor A, below) and 
other natural and human influences (Factor E, below) have been expanded 
to more directly address observed changes and plausible projections of 
climate change, and related possible impacts to the wood stork. 
Although the information did not alter our decision to change the 
status of the wood stork DPS form endangered to threatened, we concur 
that the effects of climate change will influence the recovery of the 
wood stork.
    As additional data and modeling become available from various 
scientific sources, and as conservation recommendations from the 
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and others are developed for 
addressing the varied effects of climate change and its interactions 
with other conditions, it will no doubt inform recovery planning and 
implementation. We intend to further address climate change effects as 
we update the wood stork recovery plan, using the best scientific 
information available at that time.
    (2) Comment: A peer reviewer suggested adding information and 
citations regarding the accuracy of the annual synoptic nesting 
surveys.
    Our Response: We added information regarding synoptic nesting 
surveys in the Rangewide Status and Demographics section of this 
document. Rodgers et al. (1995, p. 656) indicates that aerial surveys 
generally underestimate counts and Rodgers et al. (2005, p. 230) 
indicates that by including ground counts in the survey and surveying a 
large proportion of the nesting colonies, the variability can be 
reduced. We have also incorporated this recommendation into the annual 
synoptic nest survey protocol.
    (3) Comment: Peer reviewers provided additional information and 
citations on several topics including: natural colony turnover rates, 
colony distribution in the northern range, colony threats and 
management, mercury, avian malaria and pythons.
    Our Response: We incorporated this information and the citations 
directly into the final determination.
    (4) Comment: The Georgia DNR commented that many years of 
productivity data exist for colonies in Georgia, though only data from 
2004 and 2005 were included in the reclassification proposal. Georgia 
DNR compiled, assessed, and provided the productivity data that it has 
collected for 32 colonies beginning in 1983, which represents more than 
6,400 nests, representing 158 colony-years.
    Our Response: We incorporated the data into the Mating and 
Reproduction section of this document. We have also compiled the 
productivity data from our files for the U.S. breeding population of 
wood storks and have made it available through our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm. We note that 
methods used to collect productivity data vary by colony and by area 
and that the USFWS recommends, when feasible, utilizing Rodgers (2005) 
Protocol for Monitoring the Reproductive Success of Wood Storks in the 
Southeast United States as the recommended scientific method for 
collecting productivity data to assess recovery.

Public Comments

    We received 16 comments and letters from the public: 12 
individuals, a timber company, and 3 conservation organizations. All 
substantive information provided during the comment period has either 
been incorporated directly into this final determination or addressed 
below.
    (5) Comment: Reclassification/downlisting should not occur when FWS 
lacks data to determine whether one of the criteria for 
reclassification/downlisting has been met.
    Our Response: Recovery plans are useful tools to guide conservation 
activities and to gauge the status of the species. However, there are 
many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be 
achieved without all recovery criteria being fully met. The overriding 
considerations in determining listing status are the five factors 
listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Current data indicate that since 
the U.S. breeding population of wood stork was listed as endangered in 
1984, it has been increasing and the breeding range has expanded 
significantly. Productivity has supported a growing population, 
reducing the relative negative effects of the remaining threats to this 
species to the extent that the species is no longer in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. On 
balance, and in consideration of the best scientific and commercial 
information available, the Service believes the species best meets the 
definition of a threatened species. For more details of our status 
review, see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species. For additional 
information on the role of recovery plans, see the Recovery Plan 
section of this document.
    (6) Comment: Wood stork populations in south Florida are too low 
and nesting success is too variable to warrant reclassification.
    Our Response: We have seen substantial population growth, but we 
acknowledge that wood storks have had variable nesting success in south 
Florida. However, nesting numbers in south Florida have increased since 
1986 with nesting goals being met in 5 of the past 12 years (Frederick 
2013, p. 35; Table 21). We believe the final rule adequately considers 
both the threats and positive management actions in south Florida and, 
in conjunction with improvements throughout an expanded range, the 
species warrants

[[Page 37080]]

reclassification from endangered to threatened. The U.S. wood stork DPS 
revised status as threatened acknowledges that threats to the long-term 
viability of the species remain.
    We share the concern that the timing of nesting is not improving in 
the Everglades and productivity has been variable and in some years 
low. As several commenters noted, in 2012, most of the wood stork nests 
in Everglades National Park failed. Later nesting increases the risk of 
mortality of nestlings that have not fledged prior to the onset of the 
wet season (Frederick 2012, p. 44). We acknowledge that restoration of 
key historical hydropatterns has not fully occurred under current water 
management regimes. These restoration efforts take time, and will need 
to be adjusted as appropriate in light of emerging information and 
conditions related to a changing climate.
    Additionally, we share the concern regarding the lack of wood stork 
nesting at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in recent years. Our recovery 
partners have indicated and documented that the loss of shallow, short 
hydroperiod wetlands is likely a leading factor causing or contributing 
to this issue. We also note that, during this time period, the average 
rainfall for the Southwest Coast basin has been below normal (http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xweb%20weather/rainfall%20historical%20%28year-to-date%29 for 2010-2012), resulting in 
drought conditions, which likely contributed to, magnified, or caused 
this problem. Various effects of a changing climate could influence the 
availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitat conditions in 
both negative and positive ways, depending on the magnitude and timing 
of changes in temperature and precipitation. We intend to work with 
partners to use the best scientific information available as we develop 
specific recovery actions regarding mitigation and restoration of 
shallow, short hydroperiod wetlands within the core foraging area of 
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and other colonies as necessary.

                             Table 3 \1\--Three-Year Averages of Wood Stork Nesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   South Florida
                 3-Year averages                  Everglades \1\     \2\ total     Florida total  U.S. total \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999-2001.......................................           1,538
2000-2002.......................................           1,868
2001-2003.......................................           1,596           3,179           4,838           7,417
2002-2004.......................................           1,191           2,889           5,332           8,349
2003-2005.......................................             742           2,109           4,278           7,588
2004-2006.......................................             800           2,814           4,749           8,410
2005-2007.......................................             633           2,516           3,691           7,086
2006-2008.......................................             552           2,374           3,536           7,268
2007-2009.......................................           1,468           3,393           4,273           7,748
2008-2010.......................................           1,736           3,700           5,031           8,993
2009-2011.......................................           2,263           4,628           6,183          10,147
2010-2012.......................................           1,182           3,022           4,553           8,724
2011-2013.......................................           1,686           3,671           5,593           9,692
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program Goal: 3-year average of 1,500-2,500; (Frederick 2013, p. 36,
  Table 21); Recovery Goal: 5-year average of 2,500.
\2\ Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Osceola, Palm
  Beach, Polk, Sarasota, St. Lucie; South Florida MSRP Goal: 5-year average of 3,500 (USFWS 2001).
\3\ Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina; Reclassification Goal: 3-year average of 6,000; Recovery
  Goal: 5-year average of 10,000 (USFWS 2013).

    (7) Comment: Several commenters stated that, under the Act, less 
protection is afforded to a threatened species than to an endangered 
species, referencing the Service's ``What Is the Difference Between 
Endangered and Threatened?'' document at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/t-vs-e.pdf. Another commenter specifically stated that 
downlisting the wood storks from endangered to threatened would allow 
USFWS to scale back protection, expanding the circumstances under which 
``take'' is permitted, and under which permits for ``take'' may be 
issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Table 3 has been created to address certain comments 
received. We have named it Table 3 even though it is included here 
before Tables 1 and 2, so as not to confuse readers by changing the 
Table numbering in the final rule with respect to the numbering in 
the proposed rule. Information from this table has been incorporated 
directly into the Background section of the final rule without 
repeating the entire table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our Response: Section 4(d) of the Act allows the Service to issue 
such regulations that the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary and 
advisable to conserve the species. It must be noted, however, that by 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.31(a), the Service affords a threatened species 
the same protections and prohibitions under section 9 of the Act as 
those given to endangered species (with an exception pertaining to take 
by an authorized agent of a State) unless or until a 4(d) rule is 
specifically promulgated. As no 4(d) rule was proposed for the U.S. 
wood stork DPS, the section 9 prohibitions against take continue to 
apply per 50 CFR 17.31(a) and, therefore, reclassification will not 
significantly change the protection afforded this species under the 
Act.
    (8) Comment: The Service should ``designate'' two regions of wood 
stork habitat, ``South Florida'' and ``Coastal Tidal Wetlands,'' as 
``Significant Portions of the Range'' as the Service considers the next 
steps for recovery.
    Our Response: ``Significant portion of the range,'' a term found in 
the definitions of endangered and threatened (Section 3 of the Act), is 
a consideration in the determination of whether the threats in one 
portion of a species' range are of such impact to the overall viability 
of the species that it warrants listing throughout the entire range. 
Current data show that the breeding range has now almost doubled in 
extent and shifted northward along the Atlantic coast as far as 
southeastern North Carolina. As a result, dependence of wood storks on 
any specific wetland complex has been reduced. See the Significant 
Portion of the Range Analysis of this rule for our detailed discussion 
of why South Florida does not represent a significant portion of the 
range. In addition, wood storks are known to utilize numerous habitat 
types. These include coastal tidal

[[Page 37081]]

wetlands and marsh, lakes, and ponds, interior marsh systems, and 
manmade impoundments (e.g., Harris Neck NWR and Washo Reserve). This 
ability is advantageous for the wood stork and is one of the reasons 
for its improved status.
    However, the commenter's recommendations will be considered during 
future recovery planning in determining whether the South Florida, 
Coastal Tidal Wetlands, or other regions should be considered as 
management or recovery units for the species. We intend to continue 
working with partners under our recovery program to restore and protect 
all types of habitat used by the U.S. wood stork DPS.
    (9) Comment: The Service should delay implementation of the 
proposed reclassification rule until the science questions and gaps, 
data analyses, and regulatory deficiencies have all been addressed.
    Our Response: The wood stork no longer meets the definition of 
endangered. The rule recognizes the improved status of the species from 
endangered (i.e., currently in danger of extinction) to threatened 
(i.e., one which is likely to become an endangered species in the 
foreseeable future) as a result of documented improvement in the 
species' population, and is based on the best available science 
including information regarding ongoing and likely foreseeable changes 
in conditions that are relevant to the DPS. The species' revised status 
as threatened acknowledges that threats to the long-term viability of 
the species remain. Implementation of the rule will not reduce any 
protective measures currently in place.
    (10) Comment: By citing predictions that the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) restoration, when fully realized, 
will result in large, sustainable, breeding populations of wading 
birds, the Service dismisses the potential for wood storks to be 
biologically extirpated from the Everglades. The commenter is reluctant 
to consider ongoing and long-term restoration efforts due to the multi-
generational timeframe of the anticipated benefits.
    Our Response: As Table 2 (see Background discussion) shows, wood 
storks continue to nest in South Florida (including the Everglades); 
for 7 of the last 10 years there have been over 1,200 nesting pairs. In 
addition, Table 3 indicates that since 2007, 3-year averages of nesting 
pairs in South Florida and the Everglades have been over 3,000 and 
1,100, respectively. We acknowledge that productivity has been variable 
in South Florida; however, wood storks continue to nest in this area. 
Wood storks are a long-lived species that demonstrates considerable 
variation in the habitat conditions it is able to utilize and in 
population numbers in response to changing hydrological conditions. As 
indicated in our analysis of the factors that are a basis for 
determining whether the DPS meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species, and in our section on ``Significant Portion of the 
Range,'' we have carefully considered various potential changes to the 
DPS. This includes recognizing that CERP restoration efforts and their 
outcomes in relation to the wood stork in South Florida may differ from 
what has been expected in the past, particularly due to the potential 
effects of climate change, and it also recognizes that adjustments in 
those restoration efforts may be needed as new information and 
conditions emerge. This does not mean, however, that we believe the 
data currently available support a conclusion that wood storks are 
likely to be biologically extirpated from the Everglades.
    (11) Comment: The proposed rule did not contain analysis of any of 
the available models projecting sea level rise within the wood stork's 
breeding range.
    Our Response: Please see our response to Peer Review Comment 1 and 
the information on projections of sea level rise that we have included, 
particularly in the material presented under Factor A, below.
    (12) Comment: The conservation of existing shallow wetlands and 
restoration of former shallow wetlands is essential to stabilizing and 
recovery of the wood stork in South Florida.
    Our Response: We agree and intend to further address this as a 
priority recovery action with partners in South Florida. We note also 
such actions will need to consider likely changing conditions (e.g., 
those that may result from sea level rise and associated tidal and 
storm surge, as well as changes in precipitation and other variables 
that may influence the near-term and long-term availability of suitable 
habitat conditions).

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    During the comment period, peer reviewers provided additional 
information and citations on several topics including: Natural colony 
turnover rates, colony distribution in the northern range, colony 
threats and management, mercury, avian malaria, and pythons. We 
incorporated this information and the citations directly into this 
final rule. State agencies provided updated productivity data that we 
added to the final rule along with additional productivity data we 
pulled and evaluated from sources. We also added information and 
citations regarding the accuracy of the annual synoptic nesting surveys 
and 2012 and 2013 data counts to Table 1 and Table 2. In addition, 
based on comments received, we provided more details about ongoing and 
projected climate change and associated effects in relation to the wood 
stork DPS covered by this rule. None of these changes from the proposed 
rule altered our conclusion that the DPS now meets the Act's definition 
of a threatened species.
    In this final rule, we intend to discuss only those topics directly 
relevant to the reclassification and new information provided during 
the open comment period. For more information on the biology of this 
species (specifically the Taxonomy and Species Description, Life Span, 
and Feeding sections), refer to the 12-month finding and proposed rule 
to reclassify the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork which 
published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2012 (77 FR 75947).
    The biological information has been updated with literature and 
information provided during the public comment period and from our 
files. The following section summarizes information found in a large 
body of published literature and reports, including the revised 
recovery plan for the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork (USFWS 
1997), The Birds of North America Online species account for wood stork 
(Coulter et al. 1999), and the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery 
Plan (USFWS 1999).

Mating and Reproduction

    Wood storks are seasonally monogamous, probably forming a new pair 
bond every season. First breeding has been documented at 3 and 4 years 
old. Nest initiation varies geographically. Wood storks can lay eggs as 
early as October and as late as June in Florida (Rodgers 1990, pp. 48-
51). Wood storks in north Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina initiate 
nesting on a seasonal basis regardless of environmental conditions 
(USFWS 1997, p. 6). They lay eggs from March to late May, with fledging 
occurring in July and August. Historically, nest initiation in south 
Florida was in November to January; however, in response to the altered 
habitat conditions (wetland drainage, hydroperiod alteration) in south 
Florida, wood storks nesting in Everglades National Park and in the Big 
Cypress

[[Page 37082]]

region of Florida have delayed initiation of nesting to February or 
March in most years since the 1970s. Colonies that start after January 
in south Florida risk having young in the nests when May-June rains 
flood marshes and disperse fish, which can cause nest abandonment. 
Frederick (2012, p. 44) states that later nesting increases the risk of 
mortality of nestlings that have not fledged prior to the onset of the 
wet season, which is likely the difference between the south Florida 
segment of the population being a source or a sink to the wood stork 
population. Based upon their analysis of fledgling survival, 
Borkhataria et al. 2012 (p. 525) also note the possibility that south 
Florida is acting as a population sink.
    Females generally lay a single clutch of two to five eggs per 
breeding season, but the average is three eggs. Females sometimes lay a 
second clutch if nest failure occurs early in the season (Coulter et 
al. 1999, p. 11). Average clutch size may increase during years of 
favorable water levels and food resources. Incubation requires about 30 
days and begins after the female lays the first one or two eggs. 
Nestlings require about 9 weeks for fledging, but the young return to 
the nest for an additional 3 to 4 weeks to be fed. Actual colony 
production measurements are difficult to determine because of the 
prolonged fledging period, during which time the young return daily to 
the colony to be fed.
    Wood storks experience considerable variation in production among 
colonies, regions, and years in response to local and regional habitat 
conditions and food availability (Kahl 1964, p. 115; Ogden et al. 1978, 
pp. 10-14; Clark 1978, p. 183; Rodgers and Schwikert 1997, pp. 84-85). 
Several recent studies documented production rates to be similar to 
rates published between the 1970s and 1990s. Rodgers et al. (2008, p. 
25) reported a combined production rate for 21 north- and central-
Florida colonies from 2003 to 2005 of 1.19  0.09 fledglings 
per nest attempt (n = 4,855 nests). Rodgers et al. (2009, p. 3) also 
reported the St. Johns River basin production rate of 1.49  
1.21 fledglings per nest attempt (n = 3,058 nests) and for successful 
nests an average fledgling rate of 2.26  0.73 fledglings 
per nest attempt (n = 2,105 nests) from 2004 to 2008.
    Bryan and Robinette (2008, p. 20) reported rates of 2.3 and 1.6 
fledged young per nesting attempt in 2004 and 2005, respectively, for 
South Carolina and Georgia. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 productivity rates 
for Georgia were 1.32, 1.13, and 0.67 (T. Keyes, Georgia DNR, pers. 
comm., 2012 and 2013). During the data collection period of 1983-2012 
in Georgia, the weighted average of all years and colonies was 
1.760.8 (158 colony-years) with a range of 0.33 to 2.65 (T. 
Keyes, Georgia DNR, pers. comm., 2013). Murphy and Coker (2008, p. 5) 
reported that since the wood stork was listed in 1984, South Carolina 
colonies averaged 2.08 young per successful nest with a range of 1.72 
to 2.73. In 2011, South Carolina productivity was 1.6 fledged young per 
nest at two colonies, 1.1 in 2012 at seven colonies monitored, and 1.4 
in 2013 at nine colonies monitored (C. Hand, South Carolina DNR, pers. 
comm., 2013).
    The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority colony was documented 
with 1.08, 0.46, and 0.52 fledgling per nesting attempt in 2011, 2012 
and 2013, respectively (M. Morrison, PBC, pers. comm., 2013). The 
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary colony near Naples, Florida (J. Lauritsen, 
Audubon, pers. comm., 2012), documented no nesting in 2010-13, which 
also coincides with years with drought conditions for this basin 
(http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xweb%20weather/rainfall%20historical%20%28year-to-date%29 for 2010-2012). Productivity 
was 2.29 fledglings per nesting attempt in 2009, and annual rates 
ranged from 0.00 (abandonment) to 2.55 (2001-2013). Cook (2011, p. 2) 
reports that the 2011 productivity in the Everglades was relatively 
low, that all 820 nests failed in 2012 (Cook 2012, p. 2). In 2013, wood 
storks were largely successful in the Water Conservation Areas, Tamiami 
West colony in the northern Everglades and lower in the southern 
Everglades (Cook 2013, p. 2). The U.S. breeding population of the wood 
stork's productivity data that have been collected using the method 
developed by Rogders (2005) is available at: fws.gov/northflorida/wood 
storks.

Habitat

    Wood storks use a wide variety of freshwater and estuarine wetlands 
for nesting, feeding, and roosting throughout their range and thus are 
dependent upon a mosaic of wetlands for breeding and foraging. For 
nesting, wood storks generally select patches of medium to tall trees 
as nesting sites, which are located either in standing water such as 
swamps, or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open 
water (Ogden 1991, p. 43). Colony sites located in standing water must 
remain inundated throughout the nesting cycle to protect against 
predation and nest abandonment. Connectivity to the mainland is a 
hazard to the colony longevity and persistence (Tsai et al. 2011, p. 
5). A wood stork tends to use the same colony site over many years, as 
long as the site remains undisturbed, and sufficient feeding habitat 
remains in the surrounding wetlands (Frederick and Ogden 1997, p. 320). 
Colony turnover is a typical and fairly rapid process for this species 
(Frederick and Meyer 2008, p. 12). Wood storks may also abandon 
traditional wetland sites if changes in water management result in 
water loss from beneath the colony trees.
    Typical foraging sites include a mosaic of shallow water wetlands. 
Several factors affect the suitability of potential foraging habitat 
for wood storks. Foraging habitats must provide both a sufficient 
density and biomass of forage fish and other prey and have vegetation 
characteristics that allow storks to locate and capture prey. Calm 
water, about 5 to 40 cm (2 to 16 in) in depth, and free of dense 
aquatic vegetation, is preferred (Coulter and Bryan 1993, p. 61). 
During nesting, these areas must also be sufficiently close to the 
colony to allow storks to deliver prey to nestlings efficiently. 
Hydrologic and environmental characteristics have strong effects on 
fish density, and these factors may be some of the most significant in 
determining foraging habitat suitability. Important to wood stork 
productivity is the timing of two different factors of wetland 
hydrology. The production of prey that support a wood stork colony is 
directly related to uninterrupted hydro periods of certain durations 
prior to the nesting season and then prey becoming available due to 
short-term drawdown of water levels that cue and support wood stork 
nesting.
    Alterations in the quality and amount of foraging habitats in the 
Florida Everglades and extensive drainage and land conversions 
throughout south Florida led to the initial decline of the wood stork 
nesting population and the change in the timing and location of nesting 
in response to the alterations in hydrology and habitat (Ogden 1994, p. 
566). The overall distribution of the breeding population of wood 
storks is in transition. The wood stork appears to have adapted to 
changes in habitat in south Florida in part by nesting later, nesting 
in colonies in the interior Everglades system (Ogden 1994, p. 566), and 
by expanding its breeding range north into Georgia, South Carolina, and 
North Carolina (Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 58). To date, many of the 
colonies in the more northern range extension are much smaller than 
historic colonies in south Florida and this may be the factor of a more 
linear distribution of foraging habitats with wetlands associated with 
rivers, inter-tidal wetlands, isolated

[[Page 37083]]

wetlands and marsh impoundments (Murphy and Coker 2008, p. 3).

Distribution

    The wood stork occurs in South America from northern Argentina, 
eastern Peru, and western Ecuador, north into Central America, Mexico, 
Cuba, Hispaniola, and the southern United States. The breeding range 
includes the southeastern United States in North America, Cuba and 
Hispaniola in the Caribbean, and southern Mexico through Central 
America (Figure 1). In South America, the breeding range is west of the 
Andes south from Colombia to western Ecuador, east of the Andes from 
Colombia south through the Amazonas in Brazil to eastern Peru, northern 
Bolivia and northern Argentina east to the Atlantic coast through 
Paraguay, Uruguay, and north to the Guianas and Venezuela (Figure 1; 
Coulter et al. 1999, p. 2). The winter range in Central and South 
America is not well studied, but wood storks are known to occur year-
round as a resident throughout the breeding range.
    At the time of listing in 1984, the range of the U.S. population of 
wood storks was Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. Breeding 
was restricted primarily to 22 nesting colonies in peninsular Florida 
in 1983 and only four colonies occurring in Georgia and South Carolina. 
The current breeding range includes peninsular Florida (39-57 colonies 
2010-2013), the coastal plain and large river systems of Georgia (17-28 
colonies) and South Carolina (14-23 colonies), and southeastern North 
Carolina (1-3 colonies). The breeding range has expanded west to south-
central Georgia and to the panhandle of Florida to the Apalachicola 
River system. The nesting colony database for the U.S. breeding 
population of the wood stork can be found at http://www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/frederickp/woodstork/. The nonbreeding season range includes 
all of Florida; the coastal plains and large river systems of Alabama, 
Georgia, South Carolina; and southern North Carolina and eastern 
Mississippi.

[[Page 37084]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN14.000

    Wood storks are not true migrants, but some individuals do undergo 
lengthy inter-regional travel in response to resource availability 
(Coulter et al. 1999, p. 3; Bryan et al. 2008, p. 39). Generally, wood 
storks disperse following breeding. As the rainy season begins in May 
in south Florida and the Everglades, post-breeding wood storks, 
fledglings, and juveniles disperse throughout peninsular Florida and 
many move northward along the coastlines and coastal plain of Georgia, 
South Carolina, North Carolina and westward along large river basins in 
Alabama and eastern Mississippi, while others do not disperse (Coulter 
et al. 1999, p. 2; Hylton 2004, pp. 50-52; Bryan et al. 2008, pp. 39-
40). Individuals from northern Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina 
colonies also disperse across the coastal plain and coastal marshes in 
the southeastern United States in July to August after the breeding 
season. Most wood storks in this population winter in south and central 
Florida and along the coast of peninsular Florida, Georgia, and South 
Carolina. These inter-regional movements have been documented through 
color marking, banding, radio-telemetry and satellite-telemetry studies 
(Comer et al. 1987, p. 165; Ogden 1996, p. 34; Coulter et al. 1999, p. 
4; Savage et al. 1999, p. 65; Bryan et al. 2008, pp. 39-41).

[[Page 37085]]

    Wood storks are seasonal visitors in Texas, Louisiana, the lower 
Mississippi Valley, and California. These are post breeders and 
juveniles from Central America (Rechnitzer 1956, p. 431; Coulter et al. 
1999, pp. 4-5). Bryan et al. (2008, pp. 39-40) suggest that wood storks 
observed in western Mississippi and Louisiana originate from Central 
America, and wood storks found in eastern Mississippi originate from 
the U.S. population. Behaviorally, wood storks are not predisposed to 
travel across open waters like the Gulf of Mexico, as they use thermals 
for soaring flight for long-distance movements. The lack of thermals 
over open water restricts movements back and forth across the Gulf of 
Mexico from Florida to Central and South America or the Caribbean.

Rangewide Status and Demographics

    At the global level, the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN) classifies the wood stork as a species of ``least 
concern.'' This is due to the apparent demographic stability documented 
in its large range that encompasses portions of North, Central, and 
South America (IUCN 2010, p. 1). Bryan and Borkhataria (2010, p. 2) 
compiled and summarized the conservation status for wood storks in 
Central and South America and provide the following description with 
regard to the rangewide status of the wood stork:

    The IUCN Red List/BirdLife International listing classifies the 
wood stork as a species of ``least concern'' for its entire range 
(BirdLife International 2008, 2009). This classification is based on 
breeding/resident range size, population trends, population size. 
This classification is due in part to an extremely large global 
breeding range (estimated at 14,000,000 km\2\) and a moderately 
small to large population estimate (38,000-130,000 birds). Although 
the species' global population trend is thought to be decreasing, 
the decline is not thought to be sufficiently rapid to reach 
critical thresholds to threaten the species (BirdLife 2009: a 
``vulnerable'' population exhibits a >30% decline over 10 years or 
three generations). Population size estimates for South America 
range from 50,000-100,000 wood storks (Byers et al. 1995) and 
approximately 48,000-70,000 wood storks in Central and North America 
(Kushlan et al. 2002).

    Also, a recent assessment aimed at identifying the world's most 
climate vulnerable species across many taxa included consideration of 
the wood stock throughout its entire range in North, Central and South 
America. The assessment concluded that the relative overall climate 
change vulnerability of the wood stork is low (Foden et al. 2013, 
Appendix A).
    The U.S. wood stork population decline between 1930 and 1978 is 
attributed to reduction in the food base necessary to support breeding 
colonies, which is thought to have been related to loss of wetland 
habitats and changes in hydroperiods (Ogden and Nesbitt 1979, p. 521; 
Ogden and Patty 1981, p. 97; USFWS 1997, p. 10; Coulter et al. 1999, p. 
18). The U.S. breeding population is considered regionally endangered 
by IUCN due to habitat degradation (IUCN 2011). Ogden (1978, p. 143) 
concluded the U.S. wood stork breeding population in the 1930s was 
probably less than 100,000 individuals, or between 15,000 and 20,000 
pairs. The estimated U.S. population of breeding wood storks throughout 
the southeastern United States declined from 15,000-20,000, to about 
10,000 pairs in 1960, to a low of 2,700-5,700 pairs between 1977 and 
1980 (Ogden et al. 1987, p. 752). The low of 2,700 nesting pairs was 
documented in 1978, during the severe drought when many wood storks 
likely did not breed.
    During the 29-year period since listing under the Act (1984 to 
2013), 20 synoptic surveys of nesting colonies of the wood stork in the 
U.S. population's breeding range (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and 
North Carolina) were completed. Fourteen of those resulted in counts 
exceeding 6,000 pairs. Ten of those higher counts occurred since 2002 
(2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013; Table 
1; USFWS 2013). Three counts of more than 10,000 pairs have occurred 
during the past 8 years, and the count of 12,720 pairs in 2009 is the 
highest on record since the early 1960s. This population estimate along 
with a conservative estimate of 4,000 pre-breeding age birds suggest 
30,000 storks were inhabiting the United States in 2009 (Bryan and 
Borkhataria 2010, p. 2). Nest counts were 8,149 in 2010, 9,579 in 2011, 
8,452 in 2012, and 11,046 in 2013 (Table 1).
    The Service and its partners have used synoptic aerial surveys to 
monitor the wood stork breeding population during the peak of the 
nesting season (April) since the mid-1970s. The Service acknowledges 
the limitations involved in relying on aerial surveys for developing 
wood stork population estimates as they may underestimate numbers of 
nests (Rodgers et al. 1995, p. 655). Frederick et al. (2003, p. 282) 
found that accuracy of aerial counts of wading birds can be quite high 
and Rodgers et al. (2005, p. 230) found that, by including ground 
counts in the survey and surveying a large proportion of the nesting 
colonies, the variability can be reduced. The Service notes that the 
wood stork is a long-lived species that demonstrates considerable 
variation in nesting population numbers in response to changing 
hydrological conditions. This long reproductive lifespan allows wood 
storks to tolerate reproductive failure in some years, and naturally 
occurring events have undoubtedly always affected the breeding success 
of this species, causing breeding failures and variability in annual 
nesting (USFWS 1997, p. 11) and productivity.

                                     Table 1--Wood Stork Nesting Data in the Southeastern United States [USFWS 2013]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Total                Florida               Georgia           South Carolina        North Carolina
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Year                      Nesting               Nesting               Nesting               Nesting               Nesting
                                              pairs     Colonies    pairs     Colonies    pairs     Colonies    pairs     Colonies    pairs     Colonies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975......................................      9,752         27      9,610         24        142          3
1976......................................      5,310         17      5,294         16         16          1
1977......................................      5,263         25      5,125         21        138          4
1978......................................      2,695         18      2,595         16        100          2
1979......................................      4,648         24      3,800         22         55          2
1980......................................      5,063         25      4,766         20        297          5
1981......................................      4,442         22      4,156         19        275          2         11          1
1982......................................      3,575         22      3,420         18        135          2         20          1
1983......................................      5,983         25      5,600         22        363          2         20          1
1984......................................      6,245         29      5,647         25        576          3         22          1
1985......................................      5,193         23      4,562         30        557          5         74          1
1986......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........        648          4        120          3
1987......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........        506          5        194          3

[[Page 37086]]

 
1988......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........        311          4        179          3
1989......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........        543          6        376          3
1990......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........        709         10        536          6
1991......................................      4,073         37      2,440         25        969          9        664          3
1992......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........      1,091          9        475          3
1993......................................      6,729         43      4,262         29      1,661         11        806          3
1994......................................      5,768         47      3,588         26      1,468         14        712          7
1995......................................      7,853         54      5,523         31      1,501         17        829          6
1996......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........      1,480         18        953          7
1997......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........      1,379         15        917          8
1998......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........      1,665         15      1,093         10
1999......................................      7,768         71      6,109         51      1,139         13        520          8
2000......................................  .........  .........       (**)  .........        566          7      1,236         11
2001......................................      5,582         44      3,246         23      1,162         12      1,174          9
2002......................................      7,855         70      5,463         46      1,256         14      1,136         10
2003......................................      8,813         78      5,804         49      1,653         18      1,356         11
2004......................................      8,379         93      4,726         63      1,596         17      2,057         13
2005......................................      5,572         73      2,304         40      1,817         19      1,419         13         32          1
2006......................................     11,279         82      7,216         48      1,928         21      2,010         13        125          1
2007......................................      4,406         55      1,553         25      1,054         15      1,607         14        192          1
2008......................................      6,118         73      1,838         31      2,292         25      1,839         16        149          1
2009......................................     12,720         86      9,428         54      1,676         19      1,482         12        134          1
2010......................................      8,149         94      3,828         51      2,708         28      1,393         14        220          1
2011......................................      9,579         88      5,292         45      2,160         19      2,031         23         96          1
2012......................................      8,452         77      4,539         39      1,905         17      1,827         19        181          2
2013......................................     11,046        100      6,948         57      1,873         19      2,020         21        205          3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** No survey data available for North and Central Florida.

Previous Federal Actions

    For more information on previous Federal actions, refer to the 12-
month finding and proposed rule to reclassify the U.S. breeding 
population of the wood stork (77 FR 75947).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis

    On February 7, 1996, we published in the Federal Register our 
``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722). 
For a population to be listed under the Act as a distinct vertebrate 
population segment, three elements are considered: (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, 
(i.e., is the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, 
endangered or threatened). The Act defines ``species'' to include ``. . 
. any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The best 
available scientific information supports recognition of the U.S. 
breeding population of the wood stork as a distinct vertebrate 
population segment. We discuss the discreteness and significance of the 
population segment within this section; the remainder of the document 
discusses the status of the U.S. wood stork DPS.

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 conditions:
    (1) It 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; or
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries 
between which significant differences exist in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms 
that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Globally, wood storks occur only in the Western Hemisphere and 
comprise a mosaic of breeding populations in North, Central, and South 
America, and the Caribbean, each with unique nesting sites, foraging 
areas, and seasonal movement patterns in response to regional 
environmental factors. Historically, wood storks nested in all Atlantic 
and Gulf coastal United States from Texas to South Carolina (Bent 1926, 
p. 65; Cone and Hall 1970, p. 14; Dusi and Dusi 1968, p. 14; Howell 
1932, pp. 113-115; Oberholser 1938, p. 76; Oberholser and Kincaid 1974, 
p. 124; Wayne 1910), although the colonies outside Florida formed 
irregularly and contained few birds (Ogden and Nesbitt 1979, p. 512).
    Currently, the range of the U.S. breeding population includes 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 
Carolina, with breeding and nesting documented in Florida, Georgia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina. The U.S. wood stork population 
represents the northernmost extent of the wood stork's range and the 
only population breeding in the United States (USFWS 1997, p. 1; 
Coulter et al. 1999, pp. 2-3). The U.S. population's breeding range is 
separated by the Strait of Florida from the next nearest nesting 
population, which is located in Cuba, 151 km (94 mi) away; it is 
approximately 965 km (600 mi) over the Gulf of Mexico from the other 
North American nesting colony, which breeds in southern Mexico. 
However, wood storks are not behaviorally predisposed to travel across 
the open ocean. Wood storks use thermals for soaring flight for

[[Page 37087]]

long-distance movements. The lack of thermals over water may restrict 
movements from Florida to the Caribbean or to Mexico and Central and 
South America (Coulter et al. 1999, p. 4). The available evidence does 
not suggest that wood storks have crossed the Florida Straits between 
the Caribbean islands and the United States or crossed the Gulf of 
Mexico to or from Central and South America.
    Lengthy inter- and intra-regional movements, related to food 
availability, to the wetlands of the Mississippi River Basin and 
adjacent coastal plain river basins have been documented from both the 
U.S. population and Central American wood storks (Coulter et al. 1999, 
p. 5; Bryan et al. 2008, pp. 40-41). These studies suggest post-
breeding dispersal occurs along the coastal plain, not across the Gulf 
of Mexico, and that wood storks observed in eastern Mississippi 
originate from the southeastern United States and those observed in 
western Mississippi and Louisiana originate from Central America. A 
small percentage of wood storks from both the United States and Central 
America apparently overlap during this post-breeding season dispersal 
within Mississippi. Some small but unknown level of mixing may occur 
between U.S. and Central American breeding populations in Mississippi 
(Bryan et al. 2008, pp. 40-41; R. Borkhataria, University of Florida, 
pers. comm., 2010). However, based upon satellite-telemetry studies 
(e.g., Hylton 2004, pp. 50-52; Bryan et al. 2008, pp. 39-40; 
Borkhataria 2009, pp. 120-124) and other marking studies, mixing 
appears negligible. Based on the above information, if the U.S. 
population were extirpated, it is our assessment that repopulation from 
the Central American wood storks would not be sufficient to replenish 
the depleted population in the foreseeable future.
    Genetic data support the conclusion that wood storks occurring in 
the southeastern United States function as one population. Stangel et 
al. (1990, p. 15) employed starch gel electrophoretic techniques to 
examine genetic variation in Florida wood stork colonies. The study did 
not indicate significant allozyme differences within or between 
colonies. Van Den Bussche et al. (1999, p. 1083) used a combination of 
DNA or allozyme approaches and found low levels of genetic variability 
and allelic diversity within Georgia and Florida colonies, suggesting 
one population of wood storks in the southeastern United States. A 
genetic comparison using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) between U.S. and 
Brazilian wood storks (the north and south ends of the geographic 
range) reveals that either a demographic decline or a recent 
evolutionary bottleneck reduced the levels of mtDNA variability of the 
U.S. population (Lopes et al. 2011, p. 1911). The genetic structuring 
assessment revealed no significant differentiation between the U.S. and 
Brazilian wood storks, indicating that either the populations were only 
recently separated or that gene flow continues to occur at low levels, 
and the haplotype network analysis indicated low levels of gene flow 
between populations that were closely related in the past (Lopes et al. 
2011, p. 1911). Genetic studies indicate no significant differences 
between U.S. and Brazilian wood storks. However, satellite-tracked 
movements of U.S. and Central American wood storks indicate that U.S. 
and Brazilian birds likely do not interbreed (Hylton 2004, pp. 50-52; 
Bryan et al. 2008, pp. 39-40; Borkhataria 2009, pp. 120-124). Based on 
the genetic information, we conclude that a past demographic decline 
has led to the reduced levels of genetic variability in all populations 
of wood stork that were studied, that U.S. and other populations were 
only recently separated, that the southeastern U.S. populations act as 
a single population, and negligible or very low gene flow occurs 
between the populations in the United States and Brazil.
    Consequently, we conclude, based on the best available information, 
that the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork is markedly 
separated from wood stork populations in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central 
America, and South America based on physical separation and wood stork 
dispersal behavior.

Significance

    The DPS policy states that populations that are found to be 
discrete will then be examined for their biological or ecological 
significance to the taxon to which they belong. This consideration may 
include evidence that the loss of the population would create a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon. The U.S. breeding population 
of the wood stork represents the northernmost portion of the species' 
range in the world (Coulter et al. 1999, p. 2) and the only population 
breeding in the United States. Loss of this population would result in 
a significant gap in the extent of the species' range. Because the 
nearest populations in the Caribbean and North America would not likely 
be able to naturally repopulate the U.S. breeding population if it were 
extirpated, wood storks would no longer breed in the Everglades and in 
the salt- and fresh-water wetlands of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 
and North Carolina. Maintaining a species throughout its historical and 
current range helps ensure the species' population viability and reduce 
impacts to the species as a whole due to localized stochastic events. 
Therefore, we find that loss of the U.S. breeding population of the 
wood stork, whose range has expanded to include Mississippi and North 
Carolina (USFWS 2007, p. 11), would constitute a significant gap in the 
range of the species as a whole.

Summary

    Based on the above analysis, we conclude that the U.S. breeding 
population of wood storks meets both the discreteness and significance 
elements of the 1996 DPS policy. Therefore, we recognize this 
population as a valid DPS.

Recovery Plan

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. The Act directs that, to the 
maximum extent practicable, we incorporate into each plan:
    (1) Site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve 
the plan's goals for conservation and survival of the species;
    (2) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in 
a determination in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the 
Act, that the species be removed from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List); and
    (3) Estimates of the time required and cost to carry out the plan's 
goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.
    Recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the Service, 
States, and other partners on methods of eliminating or ameliorating 
threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine 
when recovery is achieved. However, recovery plans are not regulatory 
documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and promulgation 
of regulations required under section 4(a)(1). Determinations to 
reclassify a species on the list made under section 4(a)(1) must be 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time 
of the determination, regardless of whether these data differ from the 
recovery plan. They must reflect determinations made in accordance with 
sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Specifically, section

[[Page 37088]]

4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is 
endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of five threat 
factors. Section 4(b) requires the determination made under section 
4(a)(1) as to whether a species is endangered or threatened because of 
one or more of the five factors be based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available.
    In the course of implementing conservation actions for a species, 
new information is often gained that requires recovery efforts to be 
modified accordingly. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of 
a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being 
fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded 
while other criteria may not have been accomplished, yet the Service 
may judge that, overall, the threats have been minimized sufficiently 
or are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude, and the 
species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from endangered to 
threatened. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been 
recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan.
    Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Overall, recovery of the species is a dynamic 
process requiring adaptive management, planning, implementing, and 
evaluating the degree of recovery of a species that may, or may not, 
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    Thus, while the recovery plan provides important guidance on the 
direction and strategy for recovery and indicates when a rulemaking 
process may be initiated, the determination to reclassify a species on 
the Federal List is ultimately based on an analysis of whether the 
species is endangered or threatened, as defined by the Act. The 
following discussion provides a brief review of the recovery planning 
for wood storks, as well as an analysis of the recovery objectives and 
criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of the species.
    We published the original recovery plan for the U.S. breeding 
population of wood stork on September 9, 1986, and revised it on 
January 27, 1997 (USFWS 1997). The recovery plan includes 
reclassification criteria and delisting criteria: The recovery criteria 
for the U.S. breeding population DPS of wood storks state that 
reclassification from endangered to threatened could be considered when 
there are 6,000 nesting pairs and annual average regional productivity 
is greater than 1.5 chicks per nest per year (both calculated over a 3-
year average). Delisting could be considered when there are 10,000 
nesting pairs (50 percent of historical population), and annual 
regional productivity greater than 1.5 chicks per nest per year (both 
calculated over a 5-year average from the time of reclassification). As 
a subset of the 10,000 pairs, a minimum of 2,500 successful nesting 
pairs must occur in the Everglades and Big Cypress systems and 3,500 in 
the South Florida Ecosystem as defined by the South Florida Multi-
Species Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999, p. 4-417).

Recovery Actions

    The recovery plan identifies four primary recovery actions for the 
U.S. breeding population of the wood stork: (1) Protect currently 
occupied habitat, (2) restore and enhance habitat, (3) conduct applied 
research necessary to accomplish recovery goals, and (4) increase 
public awareness. These primary recovery actions have been initiated. 
Many of the actions listed under these categories are of high priority 
to implement and are ongoing.
    Recovery Task (1): Protect currently occupied habitat. At a 
minimum, for continued survival of the U.S. breeding population, 
currently occupied nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat must be 
protected from further loss or degradation. Watersheds supporting 
natural nesting habitat should remain unaltered, or be restored to 
function as a natural system if previously altered. Recovery actions 
under this recovery task include: (1.1) Locate important habitat, (1.2) 
prioritize habitat, (1.3) work with private landowners to protect 
habitat, (1.4) acquire land, (1.5) protect sites from disturbance, and 
(1.6) use existing regulatory mechanisms to protect habitat.
    Recent habitat models (e.g., Gawlik 2002; Herring 2007; Borkhataria 
2009; Rodgers et al. 2010; Borkhataria et al. 2012); ongoing annual 
monitoring of nesting colonies (e.g., Cook and Koboza 2012; Brooks and 
Dean 2008; Murphy and Coker 2008; Winn et al. 2008; Frederick and Meyer 
2008); surveys of nesting colony core foraging areas in Florida, 
Georgia, and South Carolina (e.g., Herring 2007; Bryan and Stephens 
2007; Lauritsen 2010; Tomlinson 2009; Meyer 2010); and satellite-
telemetry studies (e.g., Hylton 2004; Hylton et al. 2006; Bryan et al. 
2008; Borkhataria 2009; Lauritsen 2010; Borkhataria et al. 2012) are 
helping to update conservation information and tools that are used to 
identify, prioritize, protect, restore, and acquire important wood 
stork habitats. Core foraging areas near large colonies on protected 
lands, like Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Florida, Harris Neck National 
Wildlife Refuge in Georgia, and Washo Reserve in South Carolina, have 
been identified. However, alteration and loss of foraging habitat 
continues as a threat to recovery, as such habitat continues to be lost 
today through the continual expansion of the human environment, 
resulting in new development and associated roads and other 
infrastructure. The Service has developed a brochure, Wood Stork 
Conservation and Management for Land Owners, to assist public and 
private land managers in protecting and restoring wood stork habitat 
(USFWS 2001). The Wood Stork Habitat Management Guidelines (Ogden 1990) 
have also been updated (Bryan 2006) and are an important conservation 
tool to provide guidance on protecting wood storks and their habitats. 
In an effort to minimize loss of wetland habitats important to wood 
stork recovery, like those within the core foraging area of a nesting 
colony, the Service's South and North Florida Ecological Services Field 
Offices have also developed a ``May Affect'' key to assist regulators 
with review of wetland dredge and fill permit applications.
    Lands being purchased for conservation through Federal, State and 
private acquisition programs also contribute to wood stork recovery. 
Florida Forever is the largest State public land acquisition program of 
its kind in the United States with approximately 9.9 million acres 
managed for conservation in Florida; more than 2.5 million acres were 
purchased under the Florida Forever and Preservation 2000 programs 
(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm). Listed species, 
wetlands quality, and other attributes that affect wood storks are 
considered in the ranking criteria for lands purchased in these 
programs. Southeastern U.S. State natural resource agency acquisition 
programs include: Florida Forever; Georgia Land Conservation Program; 
South Carolina Land Legacy and Conservation Bank Act; North Carolina 
Natural Heritage Trust Fund, Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, Clean 
Water Management Trust Fund, Agricultural Development and Farmland 
Preservation Trust Fund; Alabama Forever Wild Trust Fund; and 
Mississippi Wildlife Heritage Fund. The

[[Page 37089]]

purpose of these programs is to preserve statewide networks of land and 
water resources by providing land conservation funding options that may 
include grants, low interest loans, and tax incentives which augment 
other private, local, State, and Federal funding sources to achieve the 
permanent conservation of land through the acquisition of conservation 
easements and fee simple ownership.
    Consistent with the recent adoption of the Department of the 
Interior policy on climate change adaptation (523 DM 1; http://elips.doi.gov/elips/0/doc/3741/Page1.aspx) and a similar policy by the 
Service (056 FW 1; http://www.fws.gov/policy/056fw1.html), we will 
evaluate and address the impacts of climate change in our planning and 
decision making, as appropriate. Also, the Landscape Conservation 
Cooperative (LCC) initiative will likely provide information that 
informs wood stork recovery through landscape-level conservation 
strategies to restore, manage, and conserve the biodiversity of the 
region in the face of both climate change and intense development 
pressure associated with a rapidly growing human population. Ongoing 
and forthcoming efforts at State, county, and other local levels 
related to climate change adaptation also are likely to inform how we 
revise and implement the recovery plan for the wood stork. Future 
updates to the recovery plan will consider and include emerging 
information such as on-going and projected change in climate and 
related effects on wood stork habitat and will help to guide future 
recovery efforts.
    Recovery Task (2): Restore and enhance habitat. A prerequisite for 
recovery of the wood stork in the southeastern United States is the 
restoration and enhancement of suitable habitat throughout the mosaic 
of habitat types used by this species. Recovery actions include: (2.1) 
Restore the Everglades and Big Cypress systems, (2.2) enhance nesting 
and roosting sites throughout the range, and (2.3) enhance foraging 
habitat by modifying hydrologic regimes in existing artificial 
impoundments to maximize use by wood storks.
    Wood storks depend upon a mosaic of wetlands throughout the coastal 
plain of the southeastern United States for breeding and foraging. 
Ecosystems and wetlands are being restored throughout the southeastern 
United States through programs such as the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Program (CERP) (RECOVER 2009); Kissimmee River Restoration 
Project, which includes a goal to restore over 40 square miles of river 
and floodplain ecosystem including 43 miles of meandering river channel 
and 27,000 acres of wetlands (USACE 2011); and Upper St. Johns Basin 
Restoration Project, which has enhanced and restored 150,000 acres of 
marsh (SJRWMD 2011). These and other large-scale wetland restoration 
projects are significantly contributing to wood stork recovery by 
reducing the threat of habitat loss. Research by Tsai et al. (2011, p. 
5) provides recommendations for enhancing nesting habitat and concludes 
that management and conservation priority should be given to colonies 
that are large, have been in existence for more than 10 years, and are 
located on islands rather than mainland shorelines. Management actions 
that can enhance the isolation of colonies from the mainland apparently 
are very effective as colonies on true islands are less likely to be 
extirpated and are much more likely to be colonized than those that 
have partial or complete connection with the mainland (Tsai et al. 
2011, p. 5). These recommendations will inform efforts to update 
recovery actions and initiatives.
    Management plans such as State wildlife action plans (http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/) help to identify important habitats on 
which to focus conservation efforts. Other management plans such as the 
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (2002) and the North 
American Waterfowl Management Plan (USFWS 2011) also help to identify 
focus areas for conservation. By highlighting important habitats or 
areas, such as the ACE Basin and Winyah Bay in South Carolina, funds 
and conservation initiatives are directed towards restoring these 
important habitat areas and contribute to recovery by reducing the 
threat due to loss of habitat. Thousands of acres are being protected, 
enhanced, restored, and brought under conservation easements to assist 
in wildlife conservation through programs such as the Wetland Reserve 
Program (WRP) and the Farm Bill, including 70,000 acres of wetlands in 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 
Carolina in 2010 (NRCS 2011). The WRP is a voluntary program offering 
landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on 
their property.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial support to help 
landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. The goal of the NRCS 
is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with 
optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. This 
program offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term 
conservation and wildlife practices and protection and, therefore, 
provides some benefits to wood stork recovery. In Florida, the WRP 
program has restored over 200,000 acres of wetlands (Simpkins, Service, 
pers. comm., 2011) and more than 115,000 acres in Alabama, Georgia, and 
South Carolina. A majority of the Florida WRP-restored acres have been 
within the Everglades and Big Cypress systems. A 2006 WRP restoration 
of 200 acres of farmland in Camilla, Georgia, now supports the newest 
Georgia wood stork colony, with over 100 nesting pairs annually. This 
task will be complete once viable nesting occurs throughout the range 
of this DPS. The most significant wetland restoration goal for wood 
storks is to recover viable nesting subpopulations in the traditional 
Everglades and Big Cypress nesting areas, including Corkscrew Swamp 
Sanctuary, as outlined by CERP. Overall, future wetland restoration 
efforts in the southeast United States will be beneficial to wood stork 
recovery.
    Future updates to the recovery plan will consider emerging 
information on climate change and possible effects on wood stork 
habitat restorations and enhancements and will help to guide future 
recovery efforts.
    Recovery Task (3): Conduct applied research necessary to accomplish 
recovery goals. Recovery efforts for the wood stork will be more 
effective with a better understanding of population biology, movement 
patterns of U.S. and neighboring populations of wood storks, foraging 
ecology and behavior, the importance of roost sites, and the possible 
impacts of contaminants. Recovery actions include: (3.1) Determine 
movement patterns of U.S. and neighboring populations of wood storks, 
(3.2) determine population genetics, (3.3) monitor productivity of 
stork populations, (3.4) monitor survivorship of stork populations, 
(3.5) determine extent of competition/cooperation between wood storks 
and other wading birds in mixed nesting colonies, (3.6) determine 
foraging ecology and behavior, (3.7) determine the importance of roost 
sites, and (3.8) determine the impacts of contaminants on wood stork 
populations. The following is a summary of several recent monitoring 
and research findings.
    The South Florida Wading Bird Report (1996-2012) annually reports 
on habitat monitoring and research with respect to the CERP and 
foraging and nest monitoring projects for wood storks and wading birds 
utilizing the Everglades and Big Cypress systems. This report provides 
an annual

[[Page 37090]]

assessment on the Restoration Coordination and Verification Program 
(RECOVER), the system-wide science arm of the CERP. Per Recovery Action 
3.1 and 3.6, satellite-telemetry studies are providing new insight into 
movement patterns (e.g., Hylton 2004; Bryan et al. 2008; Borkhataria 
2009; Lauritsen 2010). Surveys to determine foraging distances from 
nesting colonies and satellite-telemetry research are helping to update 
our understanding of wood stork foraging ecology and of core foraging 
areas (e.g., Herring 2007; Bryan and Stephens 2007; Borkhataria 2009; 
Borkhataria et al. 2012; Meyers 2010; Lauritsen 2010; Tomlinson 2009). 
Satellite-telemetry data and initiation of additional banding studies 
are helping to refine survival estimates (Borkhataria 2009, pp. 63-64) 
for population modeling (Borkhataria 2009) as identified under Recovery 
Action 3.4. This population viability analysis demonstrated that, 
despite the recent population growth, the south Florida portion of the 
population could decline to a level that cannot be reversed even if 
some individuals remain in the coming 50-year period (Borkhataria 2009, 
p. 15).
    Recent and ongoing systematic reconnaissance flights of the 
Everglades, Kissimmee River, water conservation areas, Big Cypress 
National Preserve, and Upper St. Johns River are monitoring wood stork 
abundance and distribution in south Florida (Cheek 2012, pp. 23-26; 
Alvarado 2012, pp. 32-42; Nelson 2010, p. 40; D. Hall, SJRWMD, pers. 
comm., 2008). Annual synoptic nesting colony surveys help to monitor 
the status of the breeding population. Per Recovery Action 3.3, recent 
productivity research and monitoring efforts have documented 
productivity rates to be similar to rates documented between the 1970s 
and 1990s (Rodgers et al. 2008; Bryan and Robinette 2008). Rodgers et 
al. (2008, p. 25) recommends developing an unbiased estimator of 
productivity that takes into consideration the lack of nesting during 
some years to more accurately estimate wood stork productivity at the 
regional level.
    A prime example of how research can influence management for wood 
stork recovery is Borkhataria et al. (2012). This research documented 
the effects of water management on juvenile stork survival in south 
Florida and confirms the CERP goal of returning Everglades wood stork 
nest initiation to an earlier time frame so that chicks are fledging 
prior to the summer rainy season. To be successful reproductively, wood 
storks in south Florida require prey be available during the nesting 
season, with particularly high energy demands when chicks are growing 
and fledging (Frederick et al. 2008, p. 3). This typically happens 
during the winter/spring dry season in south Florida when water levels 
recede most reliably.
    A genetic structuring and haplotype network analysis comparison 
indicates that either a demographic decline or a recent evolutionary 
bottleneck reduced the levels of genetic variability in the U.S. 
population (Lopes et al. 2011, p. 1911). The genetic structuring 
assessment revealed no significant differentiation, indicating that 
U.S. and Brazilian wood stork populations were only recently separated 
or that gene flow between these populations continues to occur at low 
levels. The haplotype network analysis indicated low current levels of 
gene flow between populations that were closely related in the past 
(Lopes et al. 2011, p. 1911).
    Recovery Task (4): Increase public awareness. Wood storks utilize a 
wide variety of wetland habitats. They are visually unique and generate 
interest from the public. These factors have made the wood stork the 
subject of many environmental education materials and programs. Many 
brochures, videos, and educational packets are available. Recovery 
actions include: (4.1) Increase awareness and appreciation through 
educational materials, and (4.2) provide opportunities for the public 
to view wood storks in captivity.
    Examples of such wood stork educational efforts to increase public 
awareness can be found on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm) and the Web sites of many of 
our recovery partners, including the Everglades National Park (http://www.nps.gov/ever/naturescience/woodstork.htm), Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission (http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/birds/wood-storks/), Georgia Department of Natural Resources (http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/birds/mycteria_americana.pdf), South Carolina Department 
of Natural Resources (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Woodstork.pdf), 
University of Florida (http://www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/frederickp/woodstork/), Audubon Society (http://birds.audubon.org/species/woosto), 
Corkscrew Sanctuary Swamp (http://www.corkscrewsanctuary.org/Wildlife/Birds/profiles/wost.pdf), and others.
    Opportunities for the public to view wood storks in the wild 
include almost all National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and National Parks 
and Preserves in Florida and coastal Georgia and South Carolina, 
including the Everglades National Park, Ten Thousand Island NWR, J.N. 
Ding Darling NWR, Loxahatchee NWR, Pelican Island NWR, Merritt Island 
NWR, Harris Neck NWR, and ACE Basin NWR. Several wood stork nesting 
colonies can also be seen at public observation areas that do not 
disturb the colony, such as Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, 
Parotis Pond in Everglades National Park, Pelican Island NWR, St. 
Augustine Alligator Farm, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, and Harris Neck 
NWR.

Recovery Achieved

    The recovery criteria for the U.S. breeding population DPS of wood 
storks state that reclassification from endangered to threatened could 
be considered when there are 6,000 nesting pairs and annual average 
regional productivity is greater than 1.5 chicks per nest per year 
(both calculated over a 3-year average). Although variable, 
productivity appears to be sufficient to support continued population 
growth as evidenced by the increasing nesting population and range 
expansion.
    1. Nesting pairs. The U.S. breeding population of the wood stork 
has been increasing since it was listed in 1984 (Brooks and Dean 2008, 
p. 58; Borkhataria 2009, p. 34). Regional synoptic nesting surveys to 
census wood stork colonies have been continuous in south Florida and 
Georgia since 1976 and in South Carolina since 1981. Nest censuses of 
the entire breeding range were conducted in 1975-1986, 1991, 1993-1995, 
1997, 1999, and 2001-2013 (Table 1) with a census of almost every 
active colony. The 3-year average for nesting pairs has exceeded the 
reclassification criterion of 6,000 every year since 2003 (Table 2). 
However, the nesting pair average is well below the 5-year average of 
10,000 nesting pairs (a benchmark for delisting), and the 5-year 
averages for nesting in the Everglades and Big Cypress Systems are 
below 2,500 nesting pairs (another benchmark for delisting), as nesting 
in south Florida remains variable (Table 2).

[[Page 37091]]



  Table 2--Wood Stork Nesting Data in the Southeastern United States and 3-Year Averages (USFWS 2013). South Florida Includes Wood Stork Nesting in the
                          Following Florida Counties: Broward, Collier, Hendry, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total             South FL        Central/North FL           GA                  SC                  NC
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                 Nesting             Nesting             Nesting             Nesting             Nesting             Nesting
                                    pairs   3-yr avg    pairs   3-yr avg    pairs   3-yr avg    pairs   3-yr avg    pairs   3-yr avg    pairs   3-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981............................     4,442  ........     2,428  ........     1,728  ........       275  ........        11
1982............................     3,575  ........     1,237  ........     2,183  ........       135  ........        20
1983............................     5,983     4,667     2,858     2,174     2,742     2,218       363       258        20        17
1984............................     6,245     5,268     1,245     1,780     4,402     3,109       576       358        22        21
1985............................     5,193     5,807       798     1,634     3,764     3,636       557       499        74        39
1986............................  ........  ........       643       895  ........  ........       648       584       120        72
1987............................  ........  ........       100       514  ........  ........       506       570       194       129
1988............................  ........  ........       755       499  ........  ........       311       488       179       164
1989............................  ........  ........       515       457  ........  ........       543       453       376       250
1990............................  ........  ........       475       582  ........  ........       709       521       536       364
1991............................     4,073  ........       550       513     1,890  ........       969       740       664       525
1992............................  ........  ........     1,917       981  ........  ........     1,091       923       475       558
1993............................     6,729  ........       587     1,018     3,675  ........     1,661     1,240       806       648
1994............................     5,768  ........       741     1,082     2,847  ........     1,468     1,407       712       664
1995............................     7,853     6,783     1,140       823     4,383     3,635     1,501     1,543       829       782
1996............................  ........  ........     1,215     1,032  ........  ........     1,480     1,483       953       831
1997............................  ........  ........       445       933  ........  ........     1,379     1,453       917       900
1998............................  ........  ........       478       713  ........  ........     1,665     1,508     1,093       988
1999............................  ........  ........     2,674     1,190  ........  ........     1,139     1,394       520       843
2000............................  ........  ........     3,996     2,383  ........  ........       566     1,123     1,236       950
2001............................     5,582  ........     2,888     3,186       358  ........     1,162       956     1,174       977
2002............................     7,855  ........     3,463     3,449     2,000  ........     1,256       995     1,136     1,182
2003............................     8,813     7,417     1,747     2,699     4,057     2,138     1,653     1,357     1,356     1,222
2004............................     8,379     8,349     1,485     2,232     3,241     3,099     1,596     1,502     2,057     1,516
2005............................     5,572     7,588       591     1,274     1,713     3,004     1,817     1,689     1,419     1,611        32
2006............................    11,279     8,410     2,648     1,575     4,568     3,174     1,928     1,780     2,010     1,829       125
2007............................     4,406     7,086       696     1,312       857     2,379     1,054     1,600     1,607     1,679       192       116
2008............................     6,118     7,268       344     1,229     1,494     2,306     2,292     1,758     1,839     1,819       149       155
2009............................    12,720     7,748     5,816     2,285     3,612     1,988     1,676     1,674     1,482     1,643       134       158
2010............................     8,141     8,993     1,220     2,460     2,600     2,571     2,708     2,225     1,393     1,571       220       168
2011............................     9,579    10,147     2,131     3,056     3,161     3,124     2,160     2,181     2,031     1,635        96       141
2012............................     8,452     8,620     1,234     1,528     3,305     3,137     1,905     2,258     1,827     1,750       181       166
2013............................    11,046     9,692     3,059     2,141     3,889     3,452     1,873     1,979     2,020     1,959       205       161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Productivity. Researchers need to systematically determine 
reproductive success (number of fledged young per nest and number of 
fledged young per successful nest) for a majority of the colonies in 
the same year(s) to better estimate productivity of the breeding 
population (USFWS 1997, p. 24). Since nesting success often exhibits a 
significant negative trend with hatching date (Rodgers and Schwikert 
1997, p. 85), the entire nesting season must be sampled to avoid 
biasing reproductive success data based on a few visits (Rodgers 2005, 
p. 1). The Service acknowledges that the productivity dataset is 
incomplete, with less than 25 percent of the colonies surveyed for 
productivity during recent years and 50 percent surveyed between 2003 
and 2007. During this time period, Brooks and Dean (2008, p. 56) 
indicate the average productivity rate for all colonies monitored in 
the southeastern United States was 1.2 chick/nest attempt between 2003 
and 2005; 1.5 chick/nest attempt between 2004 and 2006; and 1.5 chick/
nest attempt between 2003 and 2006 (Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 56). Due 
to funding and manpower constraints, rangewide, statewide, and regional 
monitoring of wood stork productivity only has occurred episodically 
(e.g., early 1980s and 2000s). As 80 to 90 wood stork colonies are now 
active annually, Rodgers et al. (2008, p. 32) identifies that there is 
a need to develop a long-term program of monitoring that relies on 
monitoring of fewer colonies. The following are summaries of recent 
productivity monitoring in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. The 
full productivity data set can be viewed at: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm.
    Florida: Rodgers et al. (2008, p. 25) reported a combined 
production rate for 21 north- and central-Florida colonies from 2003 to 
2005 of 1.19+0.09 fledglings per nest attempt (n = 4,855 nests). 
Rodgers et al. (2009, p. 3) reported the St. Johns River basin 
production rate of 1.49+1.21 fledglings per nest attempt (n = 3,058 
nests) and, for successful nests, an average fledgling rate of 
2.26+0.73 fledglings per nest attempt (n = 2,105 nests) from 2004 to 
2008. The Jacksonville Zoological Gardens and Disney Wilderness 
Preserve colonies report productivity rates of 2.0 and 0.5, 
respectively, in 2011 and 2.2 and 0.8 for 2012. The Palm Beach County 
Solid Waste Authority colony was documented with 1.08 and 0.46 
fledgling per nesting attempt in 2011 and 2012, respectively (M. 
Morrison, PBC, pers. comm., 2013). The Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary colony 
near Naples, Florida, documented no nesting in 2010-12 (Lauritsen 2010, 
p. 12; 2011, p. 14; and 2012, p. 12). Cook (2011, p. 2) reports that 
the 2011 productivity in the Everglades was relatively low and that all 
820 nests failed in 2012 (Cook, 2012, p. 2).
    Georgia: Bryan and Robinette (2008, p. 20) reported rates of 2.3 
and 1.6 fledged young per nesting attempt in 2004 and 2005, 
respectively, for South Carolina and Georgia. The 2011 and 2012 
productivity rates for Georgia were 1.32 and 1.13 (T. Keyes, Georgia 
DNR, pers. comm., 2012). During the past 29 years of data collection 
(1983-2012) in

[[Page 37092]]

Georgia, the weighted average of all years and colonies was 1.76+0.8 
(158 colony-years) with a range of 0.33 to 2.65 (T. Keyes, Georgia DNR, 
pers. comm., 2013).
    South Carolina: Murphy and Coker (2008, p. 5) reported that since 
the wood stork was listed in 1984, South Carolina colonies averaged 
2.08 young per successful nest with a range of 1.72 to 2.73. In 2011, 
South Carolina productivity was 1.6 fledged young per nest at two 
colonies and 1.1 in 2012 at seven colonies monitored (C. Hand, SC DNR, 
pers. comm., 2013).
    Based upon the nesting population criteria in the recovery plan, we 
considered reclassifying the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork 
to threatened status because wood storks and their habitat would 
continue to receive the protections of the Act, and management efforts 
continue to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore habitat to support 
a growing population. The U.S. breeding population of the wood stork 
has surpassed the recovery criteria for nesting pairs outlined as 
necessary for reclassification. As shown in Table 2 of this document, 
the nesting population is increasing and well above the 
reclassification benchmark (Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 58; and Table 2). 
The total number of nesting colonies has remained stable in south 
Florida, and the number of colonies in central and north Florida, 
Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina continue to increase (Ogden 
et al. 1987, p. 754; Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 54; Table 1). The nesting 
range continues to expand with new colonies documented in North 
Carolina, South Carolina, western Georgia, and northern Florida. 
Although variable and not well documented, productivity appears to be 
sufficient to support continued population growth, as evidenced by the 
increasing population and range expansion described above. Population 
trends suggest that the overall population may approach the delisting 
benchmark of 10,000 nesting pairs during the next 15 to 20 years. 
Nesting numbers show a stable or increasing population, however, data 
are not available to evaluate the productivity criterion of 1.5 chicks 
per nest per year.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing a 
species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 
Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its 
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range.'' The word ``range'' refers to the range in which the 
species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to the 
value of that portion of the range being considered to the conservation 
of the species. The ``foreseeable future'' is the period of time over 
which events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or 
trends extrapolated. A species may be determined to be an endangered or 
threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting or that are likely to affect the wood stork within the 
foreseeable future:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Throughout its range in the southeastern United States, wood storks 
are dependent upon wetlands for breeding and foraging. Preventing loss 
of wood stork nesting habitat and foraging wetlands within a colony's 
core foraging area is of the highest priority. In addition, winter 
foraging habitat is important to recovery, as it may determine the 
carrying capacity of the U.S. wood stork DPS. While the immediacy and 
the magnitude of this factor are substantially reduced when compared to 
when this species was originally listed, as the population is larger 
and occupies a much larger breeding season and nonbreeding season 
range, the destruction, fragmentation, and modification of its wetland 
habitats continues to occur and could accelerate in the absence of the 
protections of the Act.
    Hefner et al. (1994, p. 21) estimated that 1.3 million acres of 
wetlands lost in the southeastern United States between the mid-1970s 
and mid-1980s were located in the Gulf-Atlantic Lower Coastal Plain, an 
area upon which wood storks are dependent. Ceilley and Bartone (2000, 
p. 70) suggest that short hydroperiod wetlands provide a more important 
pre-nesting food source and provide for a greater early nestling 
survivorship for wood storks than previously known. Wetlands that wood 
storks use for foraging are being lost through permitted activities 
where mitigation is provided. However, it is not known if wood stork 
foraging wetlands are being replaced with like-quality foraging 
wetlands within the core foraging area of an impacted colony. Lauritsen 
(2010, pp. 4-5) suggests that today's mitigation practices lead to a 
disproportionate loss of short hydroperiod wetlands. The impacts of the 
loss of short hydroperiod (isolated) wetlands, which supply most of the 
food energy for initiating reproduction (Fleming et al. 1994, p. 754), 
may result in no nesting or abandonment of nesting attempts by wood 
storks at colonies like Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Lauritsen (2010, 
p.2) indicates the historic extent of wet prairies within the core 
foraging area of the Corkscrew Swamp colony has decreased by 70 
percent, while deep marsh habitat has increased when compared to pre-
development conditions. Frederick and Meyer (2008, p. 15) suggest that 
the decline in colony size in Florida reflects the increasingly 
fragmented nature of Florida's wetlands resulting from development. 
Future projections from reports like Florida 2060 (1000 Friends of 
Florida, http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/connecting-people/florida-smart-growth-advocates-2/) suggest 7 million acres of land could be 
converted from rural and natural to urban uses and wetland habitats 
will become more isolated and degraded.
    The decline of south Florida's Everglades and Big Cypress 
ecosystems is well-documented (e.g., Davis and Ogden 1994). Prior to 
1970, a majority (70 percent) of the wood stork population nested south 
of Lake Okeechobee and declined from 8,500 nesting pairs in the early 
1960s to around 500 pairs in the late 1980s and early 1990s (USFWS 
1997, p. 10). The primary cause of this decline was the loss of wetland 
function of these south Florida ecosystems that resulted in reduced 
prey availability or loss of wetland habitats (USFWS 1997, p. 10).
    Wood storks use manmade wetlands for foraging and breeding 
purposes. Human-made wetlands include, but are not limited to, storm 
water treatment areas and ponds, golf course ponds, borrow pits, 
reservoirs, roadside ditches, agricultural ditches, drainages, flow-
ways, mining and mine reclamation areas, and dredge material sites. The 
impacts can be positive in certain scenarios as these wetlands can 
provide protected foraging and nesting habitat, and may offset some 
losses of natural wetlands caused by

[[Page 37093]]

development. A significant number of wood stork colonies are located 
where water management practices can impact the nesting habitat 
negatively. Colonies that are perpetually flooded will have no tree 
regeneration. Draining surface waters of a colony's wetland or pond 
will prevent wood storks from nesting, and lowered water levels after 
nest initiation facilitate raccoon predation. Lowering surface water or 
water table may occur through water control structures, manipulating 
adjacent wetlands, or water withdrawals from the local aquifer and can 
prevent wood storks from nesting or cause colony failure.
Water Management and Prey Availability
    Water management and the effect it has on prey availability to 
nesting wood storks in south Florida and the Everglades continue to 
impact wood stork recovery. A key wood stork goal and prediction of 
CERP relates to the ecological bird-prey-hydrology relationship. The 
goal to return natural flows and hydropatterns is predicted to result 
in a return to natural timing of nesting, the restoration of large wood 
stork nesting colonies in the coastal zone and recovery of wood stork 
breeding populations in the Everglades. The early results from CERP 
suggest that wood storks are responding to the altered water management 
regimes and other factors by nesting more consistently in the coastal 
zone and by increasing populations (Frederick 2012, p. 38), however, 
there is little evidence that timing of nesting is improving for 
breeding wood storks in south Florida. Based upon their analysis of 
fledgling survival, Borkhataria et al. 2012 (p.525) notes the 
possibility that south Florida is currently acting as a population 
sink. Frederick (2012, p. 44) states that later nesting increases the 
risk of mortality of nestlings that have not fledged prior to the onset 
of the wet season, which is likely the difference between the south 
Florida segment of the population being a source or a sink to the wood 
stork population. CERP is a significant long-term conservation effort 
that, if successful in restoring natural flows and hydropatterns, will 
greatly benefit wood stork recovery. Frederick (2012, p. 38) indicates 
that full restoration of wading bird populations in the Everglades is 
predicted as a result of full restoration of key historical 
hydropatterns, which have not occurred yet as there are many 
restoration projects and management regimes yet to be implemented. 
Another concern, Borkhataria et al. (2012, p. 517) show a relationship 
between temporally fluctuating hydrologic factors and juvenile wood 
stork survival rates, highlighting the need for water management to 
also consider the timing of managed wetland manipulations, as human-
induced changes have impacts on when birds nest and ultimately how the 
population is fairing. In years with high water levels that resulted in 
unsuitable foraging habitat for post-fledging juveniles studied in the 
Everglades, the young birds moved into more terrestrial agricultural 
and developed landscapes and were more vulnerable to mortality, which 
may have been related to relatively low aquatic prey density in those 
areas (Borkhataria et al., p. 524)
    Conservation managers implement water management regimes at several 
large impoundments in Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina that 
support wood stork recovery. Several impounded sites support nesting 
colonies and the water management at these sites help to promote 
nesting and provide protection from predators. Other impoundments near 
nesting colonies are managed to make prey available to the nesting wood 
storks to feed their chicks and to chicks when they fledge from the 
colonies through water drawdowns that help concentrate prey at optimal 
times during the nesting season.
Sea-Level Rise
    Climate change is on-going and one of its many effects involves sea 
level rise (SLR), which poses widespread and continuing threats to 
coastal environments at global, regional, and local levels (Melillo et 
al. 2014, pp. 9-10, 397). The effects of sea level rise can include 
complete inundation of coastal habitat, as well as intrusion of 
saltwater into estuaries and more inland areas, including freshwater 
marshes, which can result in changes in the suitability of habitat for 
various animal species. These and other changes both now and in the 
future depend on the magnitude of the SLR and other factors such as 
storm surges (e.g., SCDNR 2013 p. 52; Williams 2013, pp. 188, 191).
    Since about 1880, when reliable record-keeping began for sea level, 
global sea level has risen about 200 mm (8 in) (Melillo et al., 2014, 
p. 21). For more than a century the rate of global mean SLR has been 
greater than at any time over the previous two millennia, and the rate 
is accelerating: from 1901-2010 the average increase was 1.7 mm/yr 
(0.07 (in/yr), from 1971-2010 it was 2.0 mm/yr (0.08 in/yr), and 
between 1993-2010 it was 3.2 mm/yr (0.13 in/yr) (Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, p. 11). Although SLR is due in 
part to natural variability in the climate system, scientists attribute 
the majority of the observed increase in recent decades to human 
activities that contribute to ocean thermal expansion related to ocean 
warming, and melting of ice: The IPCC reported that approximately 75 
percent of the observed increase in global mean SLR since the early 
1970's can be explained due to melting of glaciers and ocean thermal 
expansion from warming (ibid.), and an estimated 87 percent of the 
trend in ocean thermal expansion since 1970 has been induced by human 
activity (Marcos and Amores 2014).
    Trend data show increases in sea level have been occurring 
throughout the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts and according to 
Mitchum (2011, p. 9) the overall magnitude in the region has been 
slightly higher than the global average. At local levels, SLR varies by 
location as well as seasonally. State-by-state averages are available 
based on tidal gauge measurements. Measurements summarized for stations 
at various locations in Florida indicate SLR there has totaled 
approximately 200 mm (8 in.) over the past 100 years, with an average 
of about 3.0 mm/yr (0.12 in/yr) since the early 1990's (Ruppert 2014, 
p. 2). The relatively few tidal gauges in Georgia, South Carolina, and 
southern North Carolina also show increases, the largest being in South 
Carolina (NOAA Web site http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml, accessed May 2 and May 9, 2014).
    Continued global SLR is considered virtually certain to occur 
throughout this century and beyond (Stocker et al., 2013, p. 100; 
Levermann et al. 2013, entire). Depending on the methods and 
assumptions used, however, the range of possible scenarios of global 
average SLR for the end of this century is relatively large, from a low 
of 0.2 meters (m) (approximately 8 in.) to a high of 2 m (approximately 
78 in., i.e., 6.6 ft) (Parris et al. 2012, pp. 2, 10-11). Although this 
relatively wide range reflects considerable uncertainty about the exact 
magnitude of change, it is notable that increases are expected in all 
cases, and at rates that will exceed the SLR observed since the 1970's 
(IPCC 2013, pp. 25-26).
    The highest projection of global sea level rise typically cited is 
2 m (approximately 6 ft 7 in) by 2100, which is the high end of the 
range of projections provided in a paper by Pfeffer et al. (2008). In 
that paper, the projections range from 0.8-2.0 m (2 ft 7.5 inches-6 ft 
7 inches). Based on analysis of glaciological conditions that would be 
required for a sea level rise of 2 m or more, however, the authors

[[Page 37094]]

concluded that: (1) increases of more than 2 m are ``physically 
untenable;'' (2) a rise of about 2 m by 2100 ``could occur under 
physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables 
are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits''; and (3) ``more 
plausible but still accelerated conditions'' would result in a rise of 
about 0.8 m (2.6 ft) by 2100. They also stated that the assumptions 
underlying their range of sea level rise contained ``substantial 
uncertainties'' and recognized the need for more study in order to 
support improvements in projections (Pfeffer et al., 2008, p. 1342). 
Thus it is logical to conclude that although SLR of 2 m (6 ft 7 in) by 
the end of the century is theoretically possible, it is not 
particularly plausible. This interpretation has been supported in 
subsequent literature on SLR. For example, in their review of SLR 
projections, Nichols et al. concluded that the upper part of the 
projected ranges are possible but not likely to occur (Nicholls et al. 
2011, pp. 165, 168).
    The IPCC's most recent projections of SLR are based on the four 
climate change scenarios they currently use, with a base period of 
1986-2005 for comparison. The range of global mean SLR they project for 
2046-2065 is 0.24-0.30 m (9.5-11.8 in.), and for 2081- 2100 the range 
is 0.40-0.63 m (15.8-24.0 in.) (IPCC 2013, pp. 23-26). The IPCC 
acknowledges that higher projections have been made using other types 
of sea-level rise models and underlying assumptions, but notes a lack 
of consensus in the scientific community about those processes and thus 
the IPCC's assessed confidence in those projections (which include the 
higher projections of SLR), is low (IPCC 2013, p. 26).
    The Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) projects that global 
mean sea level will rise another 1-4 feet (i.e., approximately 0.3-1.2 
m) in this century (Melillo et al. 2014, pp. 9, 21, 44-45). The NCA 
also acknowledges the future scenarios of global SLR range from 8 in to 
6.6 ft (0.2-2 m) by the end of the Century, and notes that the 
relatively large range reflects differences in climate models, natural 
climate variability, uncertainties regarding melting of glacier and the 
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets especially, and future rates of 
greenhouse gas emissions (Melillo et al. 2014, p. 45; Carter et al. 
2014, p. 414; see also Williams 2013, entire, for a discussion of 
various influences on SLR). Emerging scientific information reflects 
further concern about possible acceleration in the rate of ice sheet 
melting (e.g., Levermann et al., 2013, Moore et al. 2013, Menel and 
Levermann 2014). This includes new modeling which indicates early stage 
collapse of portions of the West Antarctic Ice sheet has begun, with 
enough ice to raise global sea level by 1.2 m (3 ft. 11 in) and no 
known obstacles that would preclude continued further melt, although 
the time period of melting and effects is somewhat uncertain and is 
expected to be moderate during this century and generally increase 
after that, and could span two or more centuries (Joughlin et al 2014, 
entire; Rignot et al 2014, entire). This information was not available 
when the IPCC conducted its modeling, and suggests the ``high'' end of 
the IPCC's projected range of SLR, at about 2 feet, may be too 
conservative, whereas the higher end (2-4 feet) of the NCA projection 
of 1-4 ft. for average global SLR by the end of this Century appears 
reasonable. Current modeling capability does not allow precise 
projections of SLR at local scales (e.g., see Parris et al. 2012, p. 5; 
Williams 2013, pp. 189-190).
    The effects of sea level rise include inundation of coastal habitat 
and intrusion of saltwater into estuaries and more inland areas 
including freshwater marshes, which can result in changes in vegetation 
and in the presence and density of various animal species; these and 
other changes both now and in the future depend on the magnitude of the 
SLR and other factors such as storm surges (e.g., SCDNR 2013 p. 52; 
Williams 2013, pp. 188, 191). Although we expect SLR will continue to 
occur and even accelerate, the information presented above makes it 
clear that the magnitude (with most estimates being in the range of 1-4 
feet by the end of this century and as described above the lower half 
of the range appears more plausible) as well as the extent to which SLR 
will inundate current wood stork habitat is relatively uncertain at 
this time.
    There also is considerable uncertainty about the likely effects of 
SLR on wood stork habitat, and at this point in time we do not have 
quantitative predictions of how much nesting habitat or foraging 
habitat might be affected by such impacts. Based on the best scientific 
information currently available, the effects appear likely to be 
mixture of both positive and negative influences on habitat. As noted 
in our description of habitat for this species (above) and under Factor 
C (below), wood stork colony sites located in standing water must 
remain inundated throughout the nesting cycle to protect again 
predation and nest abandonment. Sea level rise could result in more 
favorable conditions of inundation throughout the nesting cycle in some 
areas that currently become seasonally too dry to be suitable. 
Conversely, additional inundation could make render some currently 
suitable foraging habitat adjacent to nesting colonies too deep to be 
suitable as foraging habitat.
    The duration of inundation by SLR also will make a difference: As 
noted earlier, colonies that are perpetually flooded have no tree 
regeneration and thus SLR could result in loss of some colonies over 
time at locations where inundation becomes perpetual. At the same time, 
SLR could result in development of estuaries and suitable habitat for 
nesting and foraging at sites relatively more inland than currently 
suitable habitat and thus support range expansion, although human 
development and climate change adaptation measures aimed at protecting 
human communities and infrastructure could substantially affect the 
extent and location of new estuaries that might become established in 
the face of a changing climate (e.g., Feagin et al. 2010 entire; Torio 
and Chmura 2013 entire).
    To summarize, although we acknowledge that SLR is on-going and is 
certain to continue at global to local levels, likely at an accelerated 
rate, there is considerable uncertainty as to what the magnitude and 
rate will be in areas that are part of the wood stork's range, and 
inland parts of the range may not be effected at all by SLR. Further, 
although we are concerned about the potential effect of SLR on wood 
stork habitat, it appears that SLR could result in both positive and 
negative changes for the wood stork and we cannot determine what the 
net overall effect will be in the foreseeable future in relation to the 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or 
range of the DPS.
Habitat Protection, Acquisition, Restoration
    While habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation continue to 
occur throughout the range of the U.S. population of wood stork, 
protection, acquisition, and restoration efforts are also in progress. 
Natural wetlands are being targeted for acquisition to be protected 
through the management of public lands for wildlife and water 
conservation (NRCS 2006, p. 1); also see Recovery Task (1) Protect 
currently occupied habitat in the Recovery Plans section. The Wetlands 
Reserve Program has restored over 200,000 acres of wetlands in Florida 
and over 115,000 acres in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina during 
the past 18 years. Thousands of acres of wetlands are also being 
protected on private lands through conservation easements to

[[Page 37095]]

assist in habitat and wildlife protection through restoration (Dahl 
2006, p. 16). Wetland losses are being avoided, minimized, and 
mitigated through the regulatory process (Votteler and Muir 2002, pp. 
1-2). Recommendations for improved implementation and tracking of 
wetland mitigation with respect to monitoring and protecting important 
wood stork habitat are laying the groundwork for improving the 
regulatory system to better protect wood storks. Large-scale 
restoration projects like the CERP, Kissimmee River Restoration 
Project, and St. Johns River Headwaters Restoration Project are 
significant conservation efforts that greatly benefit wood stork 
recovery.
    Additionally, the species' response to the threat of habitat loss 
and degradation indicates its ability to seek out new nesting and 
foraging areas. Since 1980, wood storks have expanded their breeding 
range north into Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the 
total number of breeding adults is now approaching the delisting 
criterion set out in the species' recovery plan. Seventy percent of the 
population now breeds north of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades 
(Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 53). These positive indicators throughout the 
range suggest that the viability of the U.S. wood stork DPS may no 
longer be as closely tied to the health of the Everglades for 
reproduction.
    With regard to important wood stork habitats, a number of the 
nesting colonies occur on Federal conservation lands and are 
consequently afforded protection from development and large-scale 
habitat disturbance. Wood stork colonies also occur on a variety of 
State-owned properties, and existing State and Federal regulations 
provide protection on these sites. However, approximately half of known 
wood stork colonies occur on private lands. Through conservation 
partnerships, colonies can be protected through the owners' 
stewardship. In an effort to minimize potential loss of colony sites, 
partnerships have been developed through conservation easements, 
wetland restoration projects, and other conservation means. Also, the 
wetland areas near nesting colonies play a vital role in the success of 
a nesting colony. Due to the regulatory status of wetlands, 
conservation of wetlands shown to be important to wood storks can be 
largely achieved through the application and improved implementation of 
existing wetland laws and mitigation practices, such as the Clean Water 
Act (CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the interagency cooperation 
provisions under section 7 of the Act.
    In summary, loss, fragmentation, and modification of wetland 
habitats continue as threats to wood storks. Changes in local habitat 
conditions are known to impact wood storks. Based on the best available 
scientific information, it is our assessment that the species is 
showing the ability to respond to these threats through expansion of 
its range, adjusting reproductive timing, and utilizing a variety of 
wetlands for foraging, roosting, and breeding, including manmade 
wetlands. Historically, the core of the wood stork breeding population 
was located in the Everglades and Big Cypress systems of south Florida. 
Populations there had diminished because of deterioration of the 
habitat. In recognition of the importance of the Everglades and Big 
Cypress systems to wood stork recovery, the recovery plan states that, 
as a prerequisite for full recovery, these ecosystems should once again 
provide the food resources that are necessary to support traditional 
wood stork nesting patterns at historical nesting areas. However, 
current data show that the breeding range has now almost doubled in 
area and shifted northward along the Atlantic coast as far as 
southeastern North Carolina. As a result of their range expansion, 
dependence of wood storks on any specific wetland complex has been 
reduced. Even though habitat destruction and modification are still a 
threat to full recovery, the improved wood stork population statistics 
suggest that wetland habitat is not yet limiting the population, at 
least at the landscape level (USFWS 2007, p. 16). Habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and modification of wetland habitats continue around 
nesting colonies and core foraging areas, and still threaten the 
viability of the U.S. wood stork DPS. There is also considerable 
uncertainty about the likely effects of for example SLR on wood storks 
and their habitat. Based on the best scientific information currently 
available, the effects appear likely to be mixture of both positive and 
negative influences on habitat.

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

    Monitoring of and research on wood storks over the past 20 years 
has increased. A few scientific research permits with potential to harm 
individual wood storks have been issued. This level of take/harm is not 
expected to adversely impact wood stork recovery or present a threat to 
the species.
    Wading birds and other waterbird species, including wood storks, 
can impact production at fish farms. A Georgia catfish farmer located 
approximately 25 miles west of the Chewmill and Birdsville colonies in 
Jenkins County, Georgia, has documented hundreds of wood storks 
aggregating and foraging on the littoral edges of the ponds during the 
late summer in recent years. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife 
Services Division (Wildlife Services) has documented hundreds of wood 
storks, and in one case 1,000 wood storks, roosting on fish pond dikes 
in the eastern Mississippi, west-central Alabama area (J. Taylor, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, pers. comm., 2007). Wildlife Services found 
that the wood storks were generally loafing, and if they were feeding, 
they were taking diseased and oxygen-deprived fish and not impacting 
production. Nonetheless, operators of fish farms often respond to such 
activities by taking wood storks. Unpermitted wood stork take has been 
documented at a Mississippi catfish farm and a Florida tropical fish 
farm. Each of these incidents ended in prosecution for shooting wood 
storks. However, wood stork take at aquaculture facilities likely still 
occurs. To what extent this type of take occurs is unknown. Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) depredation permits 
assist in minimizing unauthorized take. Depredation permits are issued 
to allow the take of migratory birds that are causing serious damage to 
public or private property, pose a health or safety hazard, or are 
damaging agricultural crops or wildlife. Wildlife Services provides 
expert technical advice and information regarding hazing and harassment 
techniques.
    Research permits are issued to eliminate or minimize impacts to 
wood storks from scientific research. Overutilization was not 
identified as a threat at the time of listing in 1984, and we conclude 
that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes is not a threat to the U.S. wood stork DPS now or 
in the foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

    Limited information is available regarding potential impacts from 
disease or parasites. Hematozoa (blood parasites) have been documented 
to a limited extent in wood storks in Florida and Georgia (Forrester et 
al. 1977, p. 1273; Fedynich et al. 1998, p. 166). Avian malaria has 
recently been documented in U.S. wood storks, but the available 
information does not indicate that avian malaria is a significant 
factor affecting the DPS.

[[Page 37096]]

    Adequate water levels under nesting trees or surrounding nesting 
islands deter raccoon predation of wood stork colonies. Water level 
manipulation or prolonged drought that keeps levels too low can 
facilitate raccoon predation of wood stork nests. In many cases, 
colonies also have a population of alligators nearby that deter raccoon 
predation (Coulter and Bryan 1995, p. 242), and removal of alligators 
from a nesting colony site could lead to increased raccoon predation. 
On the other hand, as described above (see Factor A), in some areas sea 
level rise may result in more favorable water levels that can help 
deter predation by raccoons. However, human disturbance may cause 
adults to leave nests, exposing the eggs and downy nestlings to 
predators (e.g., fish crows), sun, and rain. Great horned owls have 
been documented nesting in and near colonies and likely impact the 
colony to some degree.
    A breeding population of Burmese pythons has been documented in the 
Florida Everglades, and a study has documented that pythons preyed upon 
wood storks (Dove et al. 2011, p. 128). Given the observed impact they 
have had on small mammal populations in south Florida (Dorcas et al. 
2012, p. 2418), if these snakes or other species of nonnative reptiles 
become established in additional areas within the south Florida 
ecosystem, they could pose a significant threat to nesting wood storks 
and other species of colonial-nesting water birds. Monitoring and 
research is underway to determine the impacts and effects of Burmese 
python on wading bird nesting colonies and specifically wood storks and 
also to alligator populations in the Everglades. At the present time, 
research does not indicate that predation by pythons occurs at a level 
that would threaten the U.S. wood stork DPS, now or in the foreseeable 
future.
    A small number of the nonindigenous sacred ibis (Threskiornis 
aethiopicus) were discovered breeding in the Everglades in 2005 and the 
exponential population growth rates and expanding distribution of this 
species in France demonstrate the potential for this species to become 
invasive in Florida (Herring and Gawlik 2008, p. 969). Recent research 
has documented the sacred ibis as a predator of both eggs and chicks in 
colonial nesting colonies in their native region (Williams and Ward 
2006, p. 321), and they could have a negative impact on wood storks and 
other colonial nesting birds if a breeding population is established in 
Florida. Palm Beach County, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission, and Wildlife Services recently teamed up to eradicate 
invasive sacred ibises where they were known to occur in south Florida, 
2007-09. Experts believe that all sacred ibises living in the wild in 
south Florida have been removed and are cautiously hopeful that the 
sacred ibis has proven to be a ``success story'' for invasive species 
management (Johnson and McGarrity 2009, p. 5).
    As summarized above, we have a few documented instances of disease 
and predation within the range of the U.S. wood stork DPS. However, 
this information does not indicate that disease or predation occur at a 
level that would threaten the U.S. wood stork DPS, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In addition to the Act, the MBTA provides Federal protection to the 
U.S. wood stork DPS. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, 
Alabama, and Mississippi wildlife laws also list and protect wood 
storks. These Federal and State laws prohibit the taking of a wood 
stork, their nests, or their eggs, except as authorized through 
permitted activities such as scientific research and depredation 
permits. However, the MBTA and State laws do not prohibit clearing, 
alteration, or conversion of wetland foraging habitats or nesting 
colony sites during the non-nesting season.
    The CWA regulates dredge and fill activities that would adversely 
affect wetlands, which constitute wood stork habitat. Section 404 of 
the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into 
wetlands. Discharges of dredged or fill materials are commonly 
associated with projects to create dry land for development sites, 
water-control projects, and land clearing. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share 
the responsibility for implementing the permitting program under 
section 404 of the CWA. These Federal actions must not jeopardize the 
continued existence of any species protected under the Act.
    When impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided or minimized, wetland 
mitigation is often employed to replace an existing wetland or its 
functions by creating a new wetland, restoring a former wetland, or 
enhancing and preserving an existing wetland. This is done to 
compensate for the authorized destruction of the existing wetland. As 
discussed earlier, it is not known if wood stork foraging wetlands are 
being replaced with like-quality foraging wetlands within the core 
foraging areas of impacted colonies. Lauritsen (2010, pp. 4-5) 
indicates that the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/mitigation/umam/index.htm) does not 
accomplish type-for-type wetland mitigation, which can result in 
considerable losses to wetland functions performed only by shallow 
short hydroperiod wetlands.
    Section 404 of the CWA currently provides little protection for 
isolated wetland habitats. A 2001 U.S. Supreme Court opinion (Solid 
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001)) substantially reduced the jurisdiction 
of the Federal Government in regulating isolated wetlands. While many 
States in the southeastern United States regulate those activities 
affecting wetlands that are not protected by section 404 of the CWA, 
Florida is the only State known to regulate isolated wetlands. In South 
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina, no State laws protect 
isolated wetlands. The EPA and the Corps have developed a proposed rule 
to clarify whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is protected by 
the CWA and have sent this proposed rule to the Office of Management 
and Budget for interagency review. The EPA/Corps proposed rule will 
provide greater consistency, certainty, and predictability nationwide 
by providing clarity in determining where the CWA applies. The proposed 
rule is limited to clarifying current uncertainty concerning the 
jurisdiction of the CWA that has arisen as an outgrowth of Supreme 
Court decisions. It focuses on clarifying protection of the network of 
smaller waters that feed into larger ones, to keep downstream water 
safe from upstream pollutants. It would also clarify protection for 
wetlands that filter and trap pollution, store water, and help keep 
communities safe from floods. However, the proposed rule does not 
propose changes to existing regulatory exemptions and exclusions. For 
more information see (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm).
    Within the range of the wood stork in the southeastern U.S., a wide 
array of activities have begun at Federal, State, County, and local 
levels which involve analysis and planning for climate change, 
especially with regard to sea level rise and associated storm surge in 
coastal areas. These efforts are in the early stages of development and 
the situation is complicated by uncertainty about the magnitude and 
rate of climate change and its effects, including the possibility of 
both positive and negative effects on the wood stork. Thus we do not 
have a basis at this time for

[[Page 37097]]

assessing the possible effectiveness of such that will assist us in 
addressing climate change in relation to wood stork populations and 
habitat.
    The Service's Wood Stork Habitat Management Guidelines (Ogden 1990) 
recommend that active colony sites be protected from local hydrologic 
changes and from human activities (e.g., timber harvesting, vegetation 
removal, construction, and other habitat-altering activities) that are 
likely to be detrimental to the colony (USFWS 1997, p. 18). The Service 
also recommends that feeding sites be protected to the maximum extent 
possible. The Service's North and South Florida Ecological Services 
Field Offices have developed ``May Affect'' keys to assist regulators 
with review of wetland dredge and fill permit applications and in an 
effort to minimize loss of wetland habitats important to wood stork 
recovery, like those within the core foraging area of a nesting colony.
    In summary, a number of regulatory mechanisms implemented by 
Federal and State agencies protect wood storks and conserve their 
habitat. Take of wood storks is illegal under both the Act and MBTA. 
The CWA minimizes impacts on jurisdictional wetlands that are important 
to wood storks; however, the CWA alone is not sufficient to eliminate 
all impacts, as discussed in Factor A. Whether existing habitat 
protections and conservation mechanisms are inadequate can be assessed 
only by monitoring the status of the wood stork population. Recent 
trends indicate that the range is expanding and the breeding population 
has increased, suggesting that the combination of the CWA, the Act, the 
MBTA, and State regulations are adequate to protect jurisdictional 
wetlands to allow population growth. However, non-jurisdictional 
wetlands continue to be lost to development due to lack of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, and, therefore, loss of these wetlands continues 
as a threat to this species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Changes in Climate Suitability
    One of the concerns related to the effects of climate change is 
whether the size of the area with climate conditions that are suitable 
for a species will shrink substantially or change in location relative 
to the current range of a species, as well as the ability of a species 
to shift its range in a timely way, if needed. One approach for 
assessing such possibilities involves climate envelope modeling (CEM), 
which is a type of species distribution modeling that involves 
predicting the future locations of climate suitability for a species 
based on a correlation between its current or past occurrence and 
climate information, such as the minimum and maximum climate conditions 
(the ``climate envelope'') where the species occurs (Watling et al. 
2013, p. 36). The wood stork is one of several species in the 
southeastern U.S. for which climate modeling has been conducted to make 
predictions for the 20-year period 2041-2060, and the wood stock is one 
of the species for which the climate envelope (i.e., area of climate 
suitability) is predicted to expand (Bucklin et al. 2012, entire; 
Watling et al., 2012, pp. 1-8).
    More specifically, the results of Watling et al. (2012, p. 6) 
predict that for 2041-2060 the relative size of the climate envelope 
for the wood stork will expand to approximately 5.6 times the size of 
the contemporary climate envelope in the Southeast. (Data for this 
prediction are available via http://crocdoc.ifas.ufl.edu/projects/climateenvelopemodeling/ and maps depicting the current and predicted 
climate envelopes for the wood stock based on these data are in our 
files.) Also, although a comparison of two different approaches for 
dealing with climate projections yielded somewhat different predictions 
of the likely area of climate suitability for 2041-2060, both 
approaches predicted increases in the size of the area of the climate 
envelope in the southeast for the woodstork (Bucklin et al. 2012, pp. 
7-10). The climate envelope information does not mean that the wood 
stork will change its range to match the changing conditions that were 
modeled. Nevertheless, the study results, plus the fact that the wood 
stork is capable of expanding its range (as described in the 
Distribution section, above), lead us to conclude that the potential 
changes in temperature and precipitation associated with a changing 
climate over the next several decades, as considered in the models, are 
not going to be limiting for the southeastern U.S. DPS of the wood 
stork. It also is significant that a recent assessment which considered 
the wood stork throughout its entire range (i.e., not limited to the 
southeast U.S. DPS) concluded that the species has overall low 
vulnerability to various impacts of climate change (Foden et al. 2013, 
Appendix A).
Contamination Events
    Contamination events can be triggered by restoration or natural 
events, such as hurricanes or flooding, that can expose concentrations 
of contaminants. For example, from November 1998 through early April 
1999, a bird mortality event occurred on the north shore of Lake 
Apopka, Florida, on former farmlands that had been purchased by the St. 
Johns River Water Management District and NRCS. An estimated 676 birds 
died on-site, mostly white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) and 
various species of wading birds, including the wood stork. Of the 
estimated 1,991 wood storks present in the area, 43 died on-site 
(Rauschenberger 2007, p. 16). The cause of death was attributed to 
organochlorine pesticide (OCP) toxicosis (Rauschenberger 2007, p. 16). 
The birds were exposed to OCPs by eating OCP-contaminated fish, which 
became easy prey as fish moved from ditches into the flooded fields, 
located in the eastern part of the restoration area (Rauschenberger 
2007, p. 16).
    Mercury, heavy metals, and other contaminants that may impair 
reproduction and cause other health issues are being studied in wood 
storks and many other wading bird species (Bryan et al. 2012; Gallagher 
et al. 2011; Martin 2010; Frederick and Jayasena 2010; Brant et al. 
2002; Bryan et al. 2001; Gariboldi et al. 2001). Wetlands in the 
southeastern United States have many ecosystem attributes ideal for 
promoting high methylmercury production rates (inorganic mercury 
converts to methylmercury in the natural environment and fish-eating 
birds will accumulate this toxin in their systems) (Hall 2008, p. 124) 
and are probably a threat throughout the range. Frederick and Jayasena 
(2010, p. 1851) suggest reduced productivity from sublethal effects of 
mercury in white ibis; it is possible that wood storks could also be 
impacted but this theory requires further investigation. Also, exposure 
to contaminants by foraging in manmade wetlands may pose a potential 
risk to wood stork health and reproduction. On the other hand, 
pesticide contamination has not generally been considered to adversely 
affect wood stork reproduction (Bowerman et al. 2007, p. 1506; 
Ohlendorf et al. 1978, p. 616).
    Oil spills are a concern for the U.S. wood stork DPS; however, very 
few cases of actual oiled wood storks have been documented. The 
magnitude of the threat that oil spills play to wood stork recovery and 
their habitats is unknown and is dependent on the frequency and extent 
and timing of a spill. Wood stork protection should be specified 
explicitly in contaminant spill contingency plans which involve State 
and Federal agencies, along with local oil spill control groups, in 
efforts to contain and

[[Page 37098]]

clean up leaks and spills which could impact wood stork habitat; haze 
wood storks away from the spill areas and capture and treat individuals 
that become seriously contaminated.
Algal Blooms (Red Tide Events)
    Harmful algal blooms, specifically red tide events, have become 
more prevalent along Florida's coast. Hallegraeff (2010, p. 1) and 
Moore et al. (2008, p. 220) suggest the likelihood that harmful algal 
blooms will increase due to climate change. Brevetoxicosis (caused by 
taking in a brevetoxin produced by Karenia brevis) was documented in 
2005 as the cause of death of a wood stork (Spalding 2006). Wood storks 
can be exposed to harmful microalgae and their toxins through a variety 
of mechanisms, including aerosolized transport (i.e., respiratory 
irritation in mammals, turtles, birds); bioaccumulation through 
consumption of prey containing toxins or toxic cells (crustaceans, 
gastropods, fish, birds, turtles, mammals); and mechanical damage by 
spines, setae, or other anatomical features of the cells (FWC 2007, p. 
1). In addition to dead fish, large numbers of aquatic birds, 
particularly double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), red-
breasted mergansers (Mergus merganser), and lesser scaup (Aythya 
affinis), were found moribund or dead in red tide areas during the 
Florida west coast Karenia brevis red tide of October 1973 to May 1974 
(FWC 2007).
Electrocution
    Electrocution mortalities of wood storks from power lines have been 
documented and reported to us by power companies and by State and 
Federal wildlife law enforcement. In most cases, when a problem 
location is identified, it is retrofitted using standard avian 
protection guidelines to prevent electrocutions. The guidelines 
recommend using heavily insulated wire, spreading the wires apart to 
prevent grounding as body parts touch the wires, or burying the wires 
underground. The Service's Wood Stork Habitat Management Guidelines 
(Ogden 1990) include recommendations that new transmission lines be at 
least 1 mile away from colony sites and tall transmission towers no 
closer than 3 miles from active colonies. The Service also recommends 
similar guidance for cell phone towers and wind turbines. These 
recommended distances are provided to help minimize the risk of 
powerline and tower collisions. The guidelines are intended to protect 
both adult wood storks making foraging forays to and from the colony to 
feed chicks and also fledglings that are learning to fly and making 
foraging forays to and from the colony.
Other Threats
    The following is a list of threats that have also been documented 
to occur, but we have concluded that, due to low incident numbers and 
minimal documentation, the impacts at this time are very low and do not 
impede recovery.
    Human disturbance is known to have a detrimental effect on wood 
stork nesting (USFWS 1997, pp. 10, 12). Wood storks have been 
documented to desert nests when disturbed by humans, thus exposing eggs 
and young birds to the elements and to predation by gulls and fish 
crows (Coulter et al. 1999, p. 19).
    Documentation of road kill mortalities of wood storks has increased 
(B. Brooks, USFWS, pers. comm., 2010). Many factors may contribute to 
this, such as better reporting or more storks using roadside ponds, 
ditches, swales, and flow-ways as foraging habitat.
    Hurricanes are an environmental factor that can impact large areas 
of the 6 state geographic range in the southeast U.S. of the U.S. wood 
stork DPS both in positive and negative ways depending upon frequency 
and intensity. According to the National Climate Assessment, there is 
considerable uncertainty about the details of hurricane activity prior 
to the 1980s, when data from satellites became available. Since the 
1980s, measures of the Atlantic hurricane activity have increased 
substantially, including the intensity, frequency, duration, and number 
of strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes. There also is uncertainty 
about the role of natural variability in these recent changes in 
hurricane activity, as compared to the role of human-caused changes in 
climate. As for the future, on average, models project a slight 
decrease in the annual number of tropical cyclones, but an increase in 
the number of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes over this 
century. Most of the existing studies also project greater rainfall 
rates during hurricanes in a warmer climate (Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 41-
42; 65; Carter et al. 2014, p. 399).
    Stochastic events, including hurricanes but also severe 
thunderstorms, do pose other potential risks. Loss of nesting trees due 
to storm events can have a negative impact on nesting habitat. Severe 
local storm events have impacted individual colonies, causing chick 
mortality and even blowing nests out of trees. There are also benefits 
to wood stork habitat from large rain events associated with hurricanes 
and other storm systems. Timing of rain events can impact active 
colonies and local foraging conditions. However, large rain events can 
also improve hydrologic conditions locally and regionally for current 
and future nesting seasons. They can also reduce impacts of the 
nutrient overload to the nesting vegetation and dilute the nutrient 
load within the wetland from the guano produced by a colony.
    As described previously, most wood stork colonies in the 
southeastern United States have relatively short survival histories and 
only a handful of colonies have survived more than 20 years. The large 
numbers of short-lived colonies indicate that colony abandonment and 
novel colony initiation seems to be typical of the species (Tsai et al. 
2011, p. 2). The wood stork's ability to seek out new locations for 
nesting indicates they will continue to respond in a similar fashion to 
changes in habitat availability that result from changes in habitat 
suitability associated with hurricanes or other storm events. With 
regard to foraging, they respond to habitat changes on daily, seasonal, 
and annual basis, and in drought vs wet years, as well as in the 
breeding vs non-breeding seasons. This has included responding to major 
changes that have occurred in the Everglades, where some still nest. 
They also have expanding their breeding range. Consequently despite 
past, on-going, and plausible future changes in hurricanes and other 
severe storms, we anticipate both positive and negative effects 
depending upon timing, frequency and intensity.
    The invasion of exotic plants into natural wetland areas can 
prevent wood storks from foraging due to high density and canopy cover 
of the plants (USFWS 2010, p. 127). Invasion into natural nesting 
habitats by exotic species, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus 
terebinthifolius), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and Australian 
pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), may present a problem; however, wood 
storks are using exotic species for nesting habitat at many manmade 
wetland colony sites, such as borrow pits. Even though wetlands 
overgrown with exotics may preclude wood storks from foraging within, 
they do have a conservation benefit as they flood during the wet season 
and provide a prey source to adjacent wetlands. Wood storks are also 
documented utilizing Brazilian pepper as nesting substrate (USFWS 1999, 
p. 4-396).

[[Page 37099]]

Summary of Factor E
    In summary, other natural or manmade factors affecting the wood 
stork's continued existence, such as contaminants, harmful algal 
blooms, electrocution, road kill, invasion of exotic plants and 
animals, human disturbance, and stochastic events, are all documented 
at minimal levels to affect wood storks.
    We have no evidence that observed increased temperatures associated 
with climate change have had an adverse effect on the U.S. wood stork 
DPS or its habitat. The climate envelope modeling (described above) 
indicates a substantial increase in the area of suitable temperature 
conditions and precipitation for the species in the coming decades. 
Hurricane activity has increased since the 1980s, and although the 
number of tropical cyclones may decrease in the future, there may be an 
increase in severe, i.e., class 4 and class 5, hurricanes. The wood 
stork has evolved under conditions that have included considerable 
variability habitat distribution and abundance, and conditions that 
include exposure to hurricanes of varying magnitude. The wood stork 
utilizes a wide variety of habitats throughout its range in the 
southeastern United States; this ability to use alternative habitats 
(as evidenced by the wood storks' expansion from the Everglades of 
Florida into marshes and tidal areas throughout the southeastern United 
States (Brooks and Dean 2008, p. 58), helps to buffer this species from 
some of the impacts to its habitat through natural or manmade threats. 
We conclude that other natural or manmade factors are not a significant 
factor affecting the U.S. wood stork DPS, now or in the foreseeable 
future.

Conclusion

    Whether a species is currently on the brink of extinction in the 
wild depends on the life history and ecology of the species, the nature 
of the threats, and the species' response to those threats. Loss, 
fragmentation, and modification of wetland habitats continue as threats 
to U.S. wood storks. Based on the best available scientific 
information, our assessment is that the species is showing the ability 
to respond to these threats through expanding its range, adjusting its 
reproductive timing, and utilizing a variety of wetlands, including 
manmade wetlands, to forage, roost, and breed. Current data show that 
the breeding range has now almost doubled in extent and shifted 
northward along the Atlantic coast as far as southeastern North 
Carolina. As a result, dependence of wood storks on any specific 
wetland complex has been reduced. Even though habitat destruction and 
modification are still a threat to recovery, the improved wood stork 
population statistics also suggest that wetland habitat is not yet 
limiting the population, at least at the landscape level.
    A number of regulatory mechanisms are being implemented by Federal 
and State agencies to protect wood storks and conserve their habitat. 
Take of wood storks is illegal under both the Act and MBTA. Whether 
habitat protection and conservation mechanisms are inadequate must be 
assessed in terms of the wood stork population. Recent trends indicate 
that the range of the U.S. wood stork DPS is expanding and that the 
breeding population has increased, suggesting that existing regulatory 
mechanisms are adequate to allow population growth. However, we remain 
concerned that the status of this species would be expected to 
deteriorate should the Act's requirements to consult on all Federal 
actions affecting the species' habitat or the prohibition on take 
(including significant habitat modification) be removed. We recognize 
there are significant recommendations that we can make to help improve 
implementation of regulatory mechanisms to further minimize impacts to 
wetland habitats and we intend to work with our partners to work on and 
address these issues.
    Other threats such as overutilization of the species for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease 
and predation; and other natural or manmade factors (e.g., 
contaminants, harmful algal blooms, electrocution, road kill, invasion 
of exotic plants and animals, human disturbance, and stochastic events) 
are known to occur but are not significant.
    While there continue to be ongoing threats, the U.S. wood stork DPS 
is increasing and expanding its overall range. Population criteria for 
reclassification have been exceeded with 3-year population averages 
higher than 6,000 nesting pairs since 2003 (range of 7,086 to 10,147 
nesting pairs). Delisting criteria of 10,000 nesting pairs (5-year 
average) has not been achieved. The wood stork population has exceeded 
10,000 nesting pairs twice during the past 5 years (2006 and 2009), and 
the 2009 count of 12,720 nesting pairs represents the highest count 
since the early 1960s. Productivity, though variable, is sufficient to 
support a growing population. Based on the analysis presented above and 
the fact that the nesting pair reclassification criteria has been met 
and exceeded and productivity appears to be supporting a growing 
population, we have determined the U.S. wood stork DPS is not presently 
in danger of extinction throughout its range. Because loss, 
fragmentation, and modification of wetland habitats continue around 
nesting colonies and core foraging areas, and biological goals of the 
recovery plan are still applicable, we conclude that the U.S. wood 
stork DPS is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
and, therefore, should be reclassified as threatened under the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Having determined that the U.S. wood stork DPS meets the definition 
of threatened, we must next consider whether there is a significant 
portion of the range where the wood stork remains in danger of 
extinction. The phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is 
not defined by the Act, and we have never addressed in our regulations: 
(1) The outcome of a determination that a species is either endangered 
or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range, 
but not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of 
a range as ``significant.''
    Two district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR 
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of 
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the 
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and 
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. 
Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to 
list the Gunnison's prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, 2008). The 
Service had asserted in both of these determinations that it had 
authority, in effect, to protect only some members of a ``species,'' as 
defined by the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. 
Both courts ruled that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious 
on the grounds that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous 
language of the Act. The courts concluded that reading the SPR language 
to allow protecting only a portion of a species' range is inconsistent 
with the Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts concluded that, 
once a determination is made that a species (i.e., species, subspecies, 
or DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species,'' it must be placed on the list in its entirety and the Act's 
protections applied consistently to all members of that species 
(subject to modification of

[[Page 37100]]

protections through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the 
Act).
    Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this 
rule, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' in 
the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened 
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing a species in its 
entirety; thus there are two situations (or factual bases) under which 
a species would qualify for listing: A species may be endangered or 
threatened throughout all of its range; or a species may be endangered 
or threatened in only a significant portion of its range. If a species 
is in danger of extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an 
``endangered species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened 
species.'' Therefore, the consequence of finding that a species is 
endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of its range is 
that the entire species will be listed as endangered or threatened, 
respectively, and the Act's protections will be applied across the 
species' entire range.
    We conclude, for the purposes of this rule, that interpreting the 
SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the best 
interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the purposes 
and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it does not 
conflict with established past agency practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's Opinion), as no consistent, 
long-term agency practice has been established; and it is consistent 
with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined this issue. 
Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
provides an independent basis for listing and protecting the entire 
species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine 
the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
    Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a 
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the 
purposes of this rule, that the significance of the portion of the 
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the 
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold 
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction 
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of 
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation. 
Thus, for the purposes of this rule, a portion of the range of a 
species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the 
species is so important that, without that portion, the species would 
be in danger of extinction.
    We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of 
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species 
that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. Redundancy (having 
multiple populations distributed across the landscape) may be needed to 
provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic 
events. Representation (the range of variation found in a species) 
ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. 
Redundancy, resiliency, and representation are not independent of each 
other, and some characteristic of a species or area may contribute to 
all three. For example, distribution across a wide variety of habitats 
is an indicator of representation, but it may also indicate a broad 
geographic distribution contributing to redundancy (decreasing the 
chance that any one event affects the entire species), and the 
likelihood that some habitat types are less susceptible to certain 
threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability of the species to 
recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is intended to be 
mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range may be determined 
to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under any one of these 
concepts.
    For the purposes of this rule, we determine if a portion's 
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as 
``significant'' by asking whether, without that portion, the 
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so 
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to 
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of 
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not 
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if 
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger 
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of 
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
    We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' establishes a 
threshold that is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the 
outcome of finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR 
would be listing the species throughout its entire range, it is 
important to use a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It 
would not be meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low 
threshold whereby a portion of the range can be considered 
``significant'' even if only a negligible increase in extinction risk 
would result from its loss. Because nearly any portion of a species' 
range can be said to contribute some increment to a species' viability, 
use of such a low threshold would require us to impose restrictions and 
expend conservation resources disproportionately to conservation 
benefit: Listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the 
range of minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On 
the other hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for 
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the 
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be 
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in 
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a 
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the 
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 
(9th Cir. 2001).
    The definition of ``significant'' used in this rule carefully 
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we 
minimize the degree to which restrictions would be imposed or resources 
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation. 
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a 
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning. 
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the 
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation. 
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so 
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species 
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of 
``significant'' used in this rule, the portion of the range need not 
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance. 
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises 
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that 
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that 
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.) 
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be 
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were 
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need 
not be so important that even being in danger of extinction in that 
portion would be sufficient to cause the remainder of the

[[Page 37101]]

range to be endangered; rather, the complete extirpation (in a 
hypothetical future) of the species in that portion would cause the 
remainder of the range to be endangered.
    The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions 
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be 
significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those 
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there 
is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be 
``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction 
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending 
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it 
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question 
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a 
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the portion status analysis 
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If 
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its 
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the 
species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based 
definition of ``significant,'' such portions will not warrant further 
consideration.
    Applying the process described above, we evaluated the U.S. wood 
stork DPS's range to determine if any areas could be considered a 
significant portion of its range, and a key portion of that 
determination is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in 
some manner. As detailed in the threat analysis in this rule, the 
primary threat to the wood stork--habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
modification--is a relatively uniform threat across the species' range.
    It could be argued that, at the time of listing, the threat of 
habitat destruction and fragmentation to the U.S. wood stork DPS at one 
time was concentrated in south Florida. With the current habitat 
regimes, nesting wood storks have persisted in south Florida with 
nesting numbers below historic counts but also varying annually from 
hundreds to several thousand in many years (Table 2). Even though we 
note above that no concentration of threats currently occurs in the 
range of this DPS, we provide here more detail on south Florida to 
determine whether it is a significant portion of the range in light of 
the emphasis on south Florida in the wood stork recovery plan.
    The wood storks nesting in south Florida (the region south of Lake 
Okeechobee from Lee County on the west coast to Palm Beach County on 
the east coast, and the Everglades and Big Cypress systems) now 
represent approximately 25 percent of the breeding wood storks in the 
United States during the past 10 years (Tables 1 and 2). Total nesting 
pairs in this region have been variable, but showed a general pattern 
of decline during the 1970s and remained low through the mid-1980s. 
However, wood stork nesting increased in south Florida from the mid-
1990s (an average of 400 to 500 pairs) to a high of 5,816 pairs in 
2009. A 3-year running average since the time of listing in 1984 ranges 
from 457 to 3,449 pairs, with considerable variability. These observed 
fluctuations in the nesting between years and nesting sites have been 
attributed primarily to variable hydrologic conditions during the 
nesting season and timing of the nesting season (Crozier and Gawlik 
2003, p. 1; Crozier and Cook 2004, pp. 1-2; Frederick 2012, p. 44). 
Frequent, heavy rains during nesting can cause water levels to increase 
rapidly. The abrupt increases in water levels during nesting, termed 
reversals (Crozier and Gawlik 2003, p. 1), may cause late nest 
initiation, nest abandonment, re-nesting, and poor fledging success.
    For example, optimal foraging conditions in 2006 resulted in high 
nesting success, but the 2-year drought that followed in 2007 and 2008 
resulted in no nesting success in the Corkscrew Sanctuary rookery 
(Lauritsen 2007, p. 11; Lauritsen 2008, p. 12). However, 2009 nesting 
data for Corkscrew Sanctuary rookeries noted 1,120 nests producing 
2,570 nestlings (Lauritsen 2009, p. 13). Similar rebounds in nesting 
activity were recorded for other south Florida rookeries in 2009, with 
possibly the largest number of nest starts since 1975, estimated at 
about 4,000 nests throughout the Everglades and Big Cypress Systems 
(Newman 2009, p. 51) and a total of 5,816 nesting pairs in south 
Florida and counts of 2,100 and 1,200 in 2011 and 2012, respectively 
(Table 2). Frederick (2012, p. 44) states that later nesting increases 
the risk of mortality of nestlings that have not fledged prior to the 
onset of the wet season, which is likely the difference between the 
south Florida segment of the population being a source or a sink to the 
wood stork population.
    The CERP established performance measures and related goals for 
wood storks and other wading bird species. Metrics include the number 
of pairs of nesting wood storks and the location of the wood stork 
colonies. The timing of nesting, which shifted from historical periods 
of November through December to January through March, is also a 
metric. These metrics have shown some recent positive measures in 
Everglades restoration. Restoration models predict that the return of 
natural flows and hydrologic patterns will result in large, sustainable 
breeding wading bird populations, with large colonies in the coastal 
zone of the Everglades and a return to natural timing of nesting, with 
wood stork nest initiation in November or December. Cook and Kobza 
(2010, p. 2) suggest that Everglades National Park may be more 
attractive to nesting birds in recent years and that the 2009 breeding 
season was the best nesting year in south Florida since the 1940s. The 
2009-2010 nesting year did show an improvement in nest timing with wood 
stork nesting in January, which is earlier than previous years, but 
still outside the nesting onset target of November to December (Newman 
2009, p. 52; Gottlieb 2010, p. 42). Cook and Kobza (2010, p. 2) report 
a general shift of colony locations to the coast in recent years. 
Frederick (2012, p. 44) also confirms more wood storks nesting in 
coastal colonies and an increase in the number of wood storks nesting 
in the Everglades since 1986; however, there appears to be little 
improvement on the timing of nesting (Frederick 2012, p. 44).
    Although the variability of habitat conditions affects the nesting 
efforts in south Florida and at times total failure of a colony occurs 
or little to no nesting, we do not believe such variability will cause 
extirpation of wood storks in south Florida. Wood storks are a long-
lived species that demonstrate considerable variation in population 
numbers in response to changing hydrological conditions (USFWS 1997, p. 
10). We are not aware of any other threat within this portion of the 
range that would act synergistically and heighten our level of concern 
for the wood stork population. Consequently, we recognize that it is 
desirable to improve the nesting success of wood storks in south 
Florida, and timing of nest initiation appears to be a key factor. 
However, we conclude that the present level of habitat threat, when 
combined with the restoration efforts of CERP and the significant 
number of wood storks nesting in south Florida and throughout

[[Page 37102]]

the range, is not of a magnitude that leads us to delineate the wood 
storks in and around south Florida as being more in danger of 
extirpation than wood storks breeding in central/north Florida through 
North Carolina, nor as being a significant portion of the range of the 
U.S. wood stork DPS.
    In summary, the primary threats to the U.S. wood stork DPS (habitat 
loss, fragmentation, and modification) are relatively uniform 
throughout the DPS's range.
    A growing population with an expanding distribution provides less 
risk to the species and the breeding range extension makes them less 
vulnerable to the potential threats. We have determined that none of 
the existing or potential threats currently place the U.S. wood stork 
DPS in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The best available information indicates the U.S. wood stork 
DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range due to the impacts of habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and modification. Thus, the U.S. wood stork DPS meets 
the definition of a threatened species throughout its range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing increases public awareness of 
threats to the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork, and promotes 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with the States, and for recovery planning 
and implementation. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in part below.
    A number of the nesting colonies of the U.S. wood stork DPS occur 
on Federal conservation lands and are consequently afforded protection 
from development and large-scale habitat disturbance. Wood stork 
colonies also occur on a variety of State-owned properties, and 
existing State and Federal regulations provide protection on these 
sites. A significant number of wood stork colonies occur on private 
lands, and through conservation partnerships, many of these colonies 
are protected through the owners' stewardship. In many cases, these 
partnerships have been developed through conservation easements, 
wetland restoration projects, and other conservation means. The fact 
that wood stork habitat is primarily wetlands also assures the 
opportunity for conference or consultation on most projects that occur 
in wood stork habitat under the authorities described below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to the U.S. breeding population of 
the wood stork. If a Federal action may affect the wood stork or its 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency must consult with the Service 
to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such 
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wood 
stork. Federal agency actions that may require consultation with us 
include Corps' involvement in projects such as residential development, 
mining operations, construction of roads and bridges, or dredging that 
requires dredge/fill permits. Protecting and restoring wetlands that 
wood storks are dependent upon through the environmental regulatory 
review process is the most important action that Federal, State, and 
local regulatory agencies can undertake and is key to wood stork 
recovery.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to 
the wood stork. These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 (17.31 for 
threatened wildlife species), make it illegal for any person subject to 
the jurisdiction of the U.S. to ``take'' (including to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt 
any of these) within the United States or upon the high seas, import or 
export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 
foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or to sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any endangered 
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation 
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are codified at Sec.  17.32 for 
threatened species. Such permits are available for scientific purposes, 
to enhance the propagation or survival of the species and for 
incidental takes in the course of otherwise lawful activities. For 
threatened species, permits are also available for zoological 
exhibition, educational purposes, and special purposes consistent with 
the purposes of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of 
the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 
200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (telephone 404-679-7313, facsimile 404-679-
7081).

Effects of This Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reclassify the U.S. wood 
stork DPS from endangered to threatened on the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. This rule formally recognizes that the U.S. wood 
stork DPS is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. This reclassification does not 
significantly change the protections afforded this species under the 
Act. Based on new information about the range of the U.S. wood stork 
DPS and where nesting is now occurring, this rule also revises 50 CFR 
17.11(h) to reflect that the U.S. wood stork is a DPS and the range of 
the U.S. wood stork DPS has expanded from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
and South Carolina to also include North Carolina and Mississippi (see 
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis section).
    The regulatory protections of section 9 and section 7 of the Act 
will remain in place for the wood stork. Anyone taking, attempting to 
take, or otherwise possessing a wood stork, or parts thereof, in 
violation of section 9 of the Act is subject to a penalty under section 
11 of the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all Federal agencies 
must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the U.S. wood stork 
DPS.
    Recovery actions directed at the wood stork will continue to be 
implemented as outlined in the recovery plan (Service 1997). Highest 
priority recovery actions include: (1) Locate nesting habitat; (2) 
locate roosting and foraging habitat; (3) inform landowners; (4) 
protect (nesting) sites from disturbance; (5) use existing regulatory 
mechanisms to protect habitat; and (6) monitor nesting and productivity 
of stork populations.

[[Page 37103]]

    Finalization of this rule does not constitute an irreversible 
commitment on our part. Reclassification of the U.S. wood stork DPS 
from threatened status to endangered status could occur if changes 
occur in management, population status, or habitat, or if other factors 
detrimentally affect the DPS or increase threats to the species' 
survival. Such a reclassification would require another rulemaking.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not 
impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local 
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C 4321 et seq.), in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have considered possible 
effects on and have notified the Native American Tribes within the 
range of the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork about this 
rule. They have been advised through a written informational mailing 
from the Service. If future activities resulting from this rule may 
affect Tribal resources, a Plan of Cooperation will be developed with 
the affected Tribe or Tribes.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the North Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
North Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    We amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Stork, wood'' under 
``BIRDS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species                                           Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------                      population
                                                  Historic range        where            Status         When listed       Critical        Special rules
         Common name            Scientific name                     endangered or                                          habitat
                                                                      threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
BIRDS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Stork, wood..................  Mycteria          U.S.A. (CA, AZ,   U.S.A. (AL, FL,  T                       142, 837  NA                NA
                                americana.        TX, to            GA, MS, NC,
                                                  Carolinas),       SC).
                                                  Mexico, C. and
                                                  S. America.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Date: May 23, 2014.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-14761 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P