[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9830-9850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03123]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BF53


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the 
Southeast U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Wood Stork From the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove the Southeast U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of the wood 
stork (Mycteria americana) from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife due to recovery. This determination is based on a 
thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial data, 
which indicate that this wood stork DPS has recovered and the threats 
to it are being adequately managed such that the DPS no longer meets 
the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If we finalize this 
rule as proposed, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided 
by the Act, particularly through section 7, and our regulations would 
no longer apply to the wood stork DPS. We are seeking information

[[Page 9831]]

and comments from the public regarding this proposed rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
April 17, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by April 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and 
supporting documents including the recovery plan and the species status 
assessment (SSA) report are available at https://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0099, and at the Florida Ecological 
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and 
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida 
Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 
Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; telephone: 904-731-3134. Individuals in 
the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, the term ``species'' 
includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 
which interbreeds when mature. A species warrants delisting if it no 
longer meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or a 
threatened species (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). The 
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork is listed as a threatened species. 
We are proposing to remove it from the List because we have determined 
that it no longer meets the Act's definition of a threatened species, 
nor does it meet the Act's definition of an endangered species. 
Delisting a species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule proposes to remove the Southeast 
U.S. DPS of the wood stork from the List.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 
of five factors: (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 determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same factors.
    Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at 
least once every five years. We must delist a species if we determine, 
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, that 
the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species. 
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11 identify three reasons why we might 
determine a species shall be delisted: (1) The species is extinct; (2) 
the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species; or (3) the listed entity does not meet the 
definition of a species. Here, we have determined that the Southeast 
U.S. DPS of the wood stork does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species due to recovery; therefore, 
we are proposing to delist it.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. Due to the ongoing 
challenges regarding the 2019 regulations, we also seek comments on 
whether and how applying the regulations that were in effect before the 
2019 regulations would alter any of these analyses.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Reasons we should or should not remove the Southeast U.S. DPS 
of the wood stork from the List;
    (2) New information on the historical and current status, range, 
distribution, and population size of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood 
stork.
    (3) New information on the known and potential threats to the 
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork.
    (4) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and 
habitat use of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork.
    (5) New information on current or planned activities within the 
geographic range of the DPS that may have adverse or beneficial impacts 
on the species.
    (6) Relevant data concerning any threats (of lack thereof) to the 
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork, particularly any data on the 
possible effects of climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as 
the extent of State protection and management that would be provided to 
this bird as a delisted species;
    (7) Considerations for post-delisting monitoring, including 
monitoring protocols and length of time monitoring is needed, as well 
as triggers for reevaluation.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available.

[[Page 9832]]

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this 
proposal. For example, based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the DPS should 
remain listed as threatened instead of being delisted.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 28, 1984, we listed the U.S. breeding population of the 
wood stork as an endangered species under the Act because it had 
declined by more than 75 percent over a 50-year time period starting in 
the 1930s (49 FR 7332). We developed a recovery plan for the U.S. 
breeding population of the wood stork in 1987 and updated it in 1997.
    Following increases in the wood stork's population, breeding range, 
and overall range, a 5-year status review in 2007 (Service 2007, p. 32) 
recommended the species be downlisted from endangered to threatened 
status, and in 2009, the Service was petitioned to do so. On September 
21, 2010, the Service published a 90-day finding that the petition 
presented substantial information indicating that downlisting the U.S. 
breeding population of the wood stork may be warranted (75 FR 57426). 
On December 26, 2012, the Service found that the petitioned action was 
warranted and proposed to downlist the U.S. breeding population of the 
wood stork from endangered to threatened (77 FR 75947). In that 
document, we announced our conclusion that the continental U.S. 
breeding population of wood stork meets the discreteness and 
significance elements of the joint policy of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the 
recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments (see 61 FR 4722, 
February 7, 1996). On June 30, 2014, we finalized the rule downlisting 
the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork from endangered to 
threatened and establishing the U.S. breeding population in Alabama, 
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina as a 
DPS (79 FR 37078).
    On June 20, 2019, we initiated a 5-year review for the U.S. 
breeding population of the wood stork and requested new information 
that could have a bearing on the status of this DPS (84 FR 28850). This 
document completes that 5-year review.
    The currently listed entity on the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife in 50 CFR 17.11(h) is the ``Southeast U.S. DPS of 
wood stork,'' and the action being taken in this document is to propose 
removal of that entity from the List. However, for the sake of brevity, 
throughout the rest of this document we will refer to the Southeast 
U.S. DPS of wood stork simply as ``wood stork'' or ``the listed entity 
of wood stork'' when needed for clarity. We believe this abbreviated 
terminology should not be confusing as the Southeast U.S. DPS of wood 
stork is currently the only population of wood stork on the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork. The SSA team was composed of 
Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA 
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial 
data available concerning the status of the DPS, including the impacts 
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting the DPS.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the SSA report. We sent the SSA 
report to 6 independent peer reviewers and received two responses. 
Results of this structured peer review process can be found at https://regulations.gov. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the 
results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the final SSA report, 
which is the foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We also received feedback from 
our state wildlife agency partners. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report.
    Peer and state agency expert reviewers generally concurred with our 
methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and editorial recommendations to help improve clarity 
for the reader. We were asked to bolster our discussion of how the 
recovery criteria apply to our interpretation of current condition, to 
clarify our use of the term ``adaptability,'' and for further 
development of and emphasis on future climate factors, including 
drought, affecting wetland habitat conditions rangewide and within the 
Breeding Regions. We updated version 1.0 of the SSA report with these 
and other clarifications, additional pieces of information, and more 
detailed explanations that were requested during the peer and partner 
review, but did not find substantive changes to our analysis or 
conclusions necessary.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
wood stork is presented in the SSA report (Service 2021, chapters 1-3).

Distribution

    Genetic analyses of wood storks (Mycteria americana) nesting in the

[[Page 9833]]

southeastern United States indicate that these birds represent a single 
population that shows no evidence of discrete subpopulations (Lopes et 
al. 2011, p. 1911; Stangel et al. 1990, p. 618; Van Den Bussche et al. 
1999, p. 1083). When the wood stork was listed in 1984, the population 
was estimated at 4,000-5,000 nesting pairs. At that time, the overall 
range of the wood stork included Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South 
Carolina, with breeding and nesting primarily occurring in south and 
central Florida, and a small number of nesting colonies in north 
Florida and coastal Georgia and South Carolina (Ogden et al. 1987, p. 
752). Currently, the listed entity of wood stork has a distribution 
that includes the coastal plain of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, with breeding 
occurring in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The 
most recent survey data (2021) indicate that there are 107 known active 
wood stork breeding colony sites, which is more than 3.5 times the 
number of breeding colonies (29) that were in existence at the time of 
listing. Within the breeding range, wood stork colonies and nest 
numbers generally cluster into four regions (in the south, central, 
northwest, and northeast portions of the breeding range) (Service 2021, 
p. 27). Hereinafter, we refer to these regions as the South, Central, 
Northwest, and Northeast Breeding Regions.

Ecology

    Wood storks are colonial breeders, typically nesting with 
conspecifics and other wading bird species within a landscape 
containing sufficient wetland foraging habitats. Suitable foraging 
wetlands generally contain aquatic prey that is concentrated by 
decreasing water levels (e.g., tidal creeks at low tide, ephemeral 
ponds, shallow wetlands, and flood plains during seasonal dry down). 
Colonies also occur in human-impacted areas, including in artificially 
impounded waters, as well on dredge spoil islands, in wastewater 
treatment wetlands, and on artificial nest platforms (Coulter et al. 
2020, unpaginated). A large proportion of the nesting colonies in 
Georgia and South Carolina occur in close proximity to the expansive 
coastal salt marshes in these States, and foraging during the breeding 
and post breeding season focuses on this highly productive ecosystem 
(Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). Primary prey species vary 
geographically and include fish (primarily), crustaceans, amphibians, 
insects, snails, and reptiles (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated).

Life History

    Wood storks are a relatively long-lived species, with the maximum 
age of more than 22 years documented in the wild (Coulter et al. 2020, 
unpaginated). Wood storks breed annually (typically only one brood per 
season) and exhibit extensive parental care, with nesting and brooding 
lasting approximately 4 months of the year. Wood storks undergo a 3-
year ``sub-adult'' (non-breeding) stage before most initiate breeding 
at 4 years of age (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated).
    Breeding seasonality varies regionally and is related to rainfall 
amounts and timing. Wood storks typically breed during periods when 
wetland water levels are decreasing, which concentrates prey during the 
period when stork nestlings are growing at a maximum rate (Coulter et 
al. 2020, unpaginated). After the lengthy nesting period when wood 
storks are associated with their colony site area, they can exhibit 
intra-regional movements in response to environmental conditions (e.g., 
availability of shallow foraging habitat) (Coulter et al. 2020, 
unpaginated).

Recovery Criteria

    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. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
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 Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species, is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the 
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may 
discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery 
plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these 
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. 
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we 
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent 
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of 
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring 
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance 
provided in a recovery plan.
    The recovery plan for the U.S. breeding population of wood storks, 
first published in 1987, was revised in 1997 (Service 1997, entire). 
The major objectives identified to accomplish the recovery objective 
are (1) protect currently occupied habitat, (2) restore and enhance 
habitat, (3) conduct applied research, and (4) increase public 
awareness. The primary long-term recovery actions being implemented 
include large-scale wetland ecosystem restorations, enhancements, and 
management of multiple wetland systems occupied by the wood stork.
    The recovery plan for the wood stork outlines the following 
criteria that, if met, could result in the recovery of the wood stork 
to the extent that it no longer warrants listing under the Act (Service 
1997, p. 17):
     Criterion 1: An average of 10,000 nesting pairs (which 
constitutes 50 percent of the historical population) calculated over 5 
years, beginning at the time of reclassification (2014).
     Criterion 2: Annual regional productivity (in each of four 
breeding regions) greater than 1.5 chicks per nest per year, calculated 
over a 5-year average.
     Criterion 3: As a subset of the 10,000 nesting pairs 
calculated over 5 years, a minimum of 2,500 successful nesting pairs 
must occur in the Everglades and Big Cypress systems (i.e., the South 
Breeding Region).
    Criterion 1 for delisting, which is an average of 10,000 nesting 
pairs

[[Page 9834]]

calculated over 5 years, has been met since 2016 (see table 1).

                      Table 1--Five-Year Moving Averages of Wood Stork Nest Counts From the Time of Reclassification (2014) to 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2014          2015          2016          2017          2018          2019          2020          2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Breeding Population (entire DPS)...        9,226         9,941        10,171        10,650        11,012        10,582      10,713 *      11,139 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2020 COVID protocols precluded a survey of all the nesting colonies in the U.S. Breeding Population. Thus, the 2020 average is a 4-year average using
  the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019; similarly, the 2021 average is calculated using the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021.

    We also note that criterion 1 implies that the wood stork must 
exhibit a positive population growth trend to reach a breeding 
population of 10,000 nesting pairs. The long-term trend (1974 to 2019) 
shows an increase in nest counts at a rate of 153 nests per year. The 
current trend during the past 10 years (5-year averages from 2010 to 
2019) shows an increase in nest counts at a rate of 344 nests per year.
    Criterion 2 for delisting is a 5-year average annual productivity 
of at least 1.5 chicks per nest per year in each breeding region 
calculated over 5 years. This productivity metric has been achieved or 
exceeded in each region except for the South Breeding Region since 2018 
or earlier (see table 2).

   Table 2--Five-Year Moving Averages of Wood Stork Productivity (Chicks per Nest per Year) From 2014 to 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Region/year                 2014         2015         2016         2017         2018         2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast.........................          1.6          1.7          1.7          1.9          2.0          1.9
Northwest.........................          1.3          1.3          1.0          1.2          1.5          1.7
Central...........................          1.4          1.5          1.5          1.7          1.7          1.8
South.............................          0.7          0.8          0.7          1.0          1.0          0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Criterion 3, which requires that at least 2,500 pairs (5-year 
average) breed in the South Breeding Region, has been achieved in each 
of the past five years (2017-2021) (see table 3).

            Table 3--Five-Year Moving Averages of the Number of Breeding Pairs of Wood Storks in the South Breeding Region From 2012 to 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2012        2013        2014        2015        2016        2017        2018        2019        2020        2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-yr avg........................      2,116       2,650       2,021       2,048       1,941       3,033       2,895       2,576       2,722       3,088
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although criteria 2 has not been satisfied as specifically defined 
in the recovery plan, we conclude that the essential intent of this 
recovery goal has been achieved, mainly due to new information that has 
come to light since the recovery criteria were defined in the original 
1987 recovery plan and carried forward to the 1997 update to the 
recovery plan.
    For example, when the wood stork recovery criteria were originally 
defined, there was a focus on breeding success in the South Breeding 
Region, given its historical importance to the species. However, since 
then, wood storks have expanded their breeding range to include not 
only new regions, but also new habitat types such as coastal salt marsh 
and human-made wetlands. Coastal salt marsh in Georgia and South 
Carolina is now being exploited by wood storks to support breeding, and 
provides year-round consistent foraging, with prey concentrations being 
tidally dependent and less impacted by the factors that dictate prey 
availability in the inland freshwater wetlands. Coastal salt marsh 
habitat provides previously unexploited food resources and breeding 
habitat. It is also plentiful and widespread throughout the 
southeastern U.S. coastal plain from north Florida to Virginia. The 
expansion of the wood stork's breeding range, and its novel 
exploitation of other abundant wetland habitat types (such as coastal 
salt marsh and manmade and managed wetlands) for breeding, indicates 
that it is no longer as dependent on the Everglades system as once 
thought, and ultimately that the South Breeding Region is now less 
critical to the species' viability than it was historically.
    At the time that the recovery criteria were established, there were 
only about a third of the number of wood stork colonies that exist 
today, as multiple breeding colonies are now present in Georgia, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina, where few or none had existed 
historically (see figure 1, below). As such, we conclude that 
productivity and breeding pair numbers are sufficient for wood stork 
viability and continue to support a growing population across the wood 
stork's range. Productivity is highly variable on an annual basis and 
slightly under the target set originally as a recovery criterion in the 
South Breeding Region; however, the target for this metric has been met 
or exceeded in all other breeding regions, and the wood stork is much 
less dependent on the South Breeding Region than it was historically. 
Thus, although criteria 2 has not been fully realized in the manner 
specifically identified in the recovery plan, we conclude that the 
intent of the criterion to ensure that productivity is sufficient for 
the long-term viability of the wood stork has been satisfied.

[[Page 9835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15FE23.004

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR 
part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and 
threatened species and the criteria for designating listed species' 
critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the same day the 
Service also issued final regulations that, for species listed as 
threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the Service's 
general protective regulations automatically applying to threatened 
species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies to 
endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a 
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an

[[Page 9836]]

individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and 
its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect 
of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the 
cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and 
conditions that will have positive effects on the species--such as any 
existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary 
determines whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered 
species'' or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this 
cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species 
now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the wood stork, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the wood stork. The SSA report does not represent our 
decision on whether the listed entity of wood stork should be proposed 
for delisting. However, it does provide the scientific basis that 
informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application 
of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and 
policies.
    To assess the wood stork's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and DPS levels, and 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the wood stork's 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated individual life-history needs of 
the wood stork. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the wood stork's demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the wood stork arrived 
at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the wood stork's responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of the wood stork to sustain populations in 
the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2022-0099 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the wood 
stork and its resources, and the threats that influence the wood 
stork's current and future condition, in order to assess the wood 
stork's overall viability and the risks to that viability. In addition, 
the SSA (Service 2021, entire) documents our comprehensive biological 
status review for the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species.
    The following is a summary of this status review and the best 
available information gathered since that time that have informed this 
decision.

Species Needs

    Wood storks are a wetland-dependent species. They use a wide 
variety of freshwater and estuarine wetlands for nesting, feeding, and 
roosting throughout their range (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). 
Local hydrologic conditions correlate to annual nesting effort (Klassen 
et al. 2016, pp. 1450-1460). Wood storks feed primarily on fish and 
other aquatic prey by tactilocation. They forage most efficiently in 
shallow wetlands where prey is concentrated, and their intra-regional 
movements during the breeding and non-breeding seasons are typically in 
response to the availability of such shallow wetlands (Coulter et al. 
2020, unpaginated).
    Wood storks are colonial breeders, typically nesting with 
conspecifics and other wading bird species. Wood stork breeding 
colonies are found within landscapes containing sufficient wetland 
foraging habitats, and wood storks nest over or surrounded by water in 
natural and human-altered freshwater and marine-estuarine forested 
habitats (Rodgers et al. 1996, pp. 18-19). Inundation of trees prior to 
and during nesting reduces predation at nests, and thus reduces nest 
abandonment and nest failure. Alligators are typically present in wood 
stork colonies and limit access to nests by mammalian predators such as 
raccoons. However, drought conditions can result in drying under the 
nest trees and increased predation (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated).
    In the southeastern United States, wood storks use a large variety 
of wetland habitats and use native and nonnative trees for nesting 
substrate (Rodgers et al. 1996, pp. 2-17). In recent years, an 
increasing number of colonies have established in wetlands in close 
proximity to human development such as housing, roads, and active 
waterways (Tsai et al. 2016, p. 644). Wood storks feed on fish and 
other aquatic prey in natural and artificial wetlands where water 
depths are appropriately shallow (less than 50 cm or 20 in, and often 
10-30 cm (4-12 in)), and the habitat is not densely vegetated (Coulter 
et al. 2020, unpaginated; Service 1997, pp. 3-4). The presence of wood 
storks feeding in human-altered landscapes has become more common in 
recent years, and, as such, observations of wood storks foraging in 
urban environments and

[[Page 9837]]

manmade wetlands during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons is 
not uncommon (Evans and Gawlik 2020, p. 1).
    Wood storks typically roost in trees, over or surrounded by water, 
and may roost at breeding colony sites and foraging sites. Wood storks 
may also roost or rest on the ground (e.g., levees, open grassy fields, 
mud flats) close to foraging areas (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated).
    Thus, wood storks throughout all phases of life depend upon various 
types of shallow wetlands, both natural and manmade, both freshwater 
and estuarine, for foraging and nesting habitat both inside and outside 
of the breeding season. They need forested wetlands of various types in 
proximity to foraging habitat, that host a variety of suitable emergent 
native and nonnative tree and shrub species, for breeding colonies 
(nest substrate), as well as for roosting outside of the breeding 
season. Wood storks also require an adequate abundance of prey items, 
which include a wide variety of aquatic animal species, but especially 
fish, such as sunfish (see figure 2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15FE23.005

Threats

    Threats to wood storks are described in detail in the SSA report 
(Service 2021, chapter 5). The primary threats to wood storks, or those 
that affect the species at the population level, are habitat loss, 
conversion, and degradation (acting on populations currently and into 
the future), and climate change effects including warming temperatures 
and drought, precipitation changes, and sea level rise (acting on 
populations primarily in the future).
Habitat Loss, Conversion, and Degradation
    Land conversion due to development, agriculture, and mining impact 
wood storks through habitat loss, degradation, and conversion (Coulter 
et al. 2020, unpaginated). This stressor directly reduces the 
availability and quality of breeding and roosting habitat, and 
indirectly impacts food resources in those habitats and in other 
foraging habitat (Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). Conversion and 
loss of habitat may also exacerbate the normal effects of periodic 
drought on wood storks, which do poorly in all aspects of their life 
cycle when prolonged dry conditions prevail (Borkhataria et al. 2012, 
p. 524; Gaines et al. 2000, p. 64). One of the primary reasons for the 
historical decline of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork was the 
dredging of canals and draining of wetlands to accommodate the 
settlement of south Florida and provide means of flood control, which 
altered the hydrologic regimes of the Everglades and Big Cypress 
ecosystems (Ogden and Nesbitt 1979, p. 512; Ogden and Patty 1981, pp. 
99-100; Service 1997, p. 10). Drainage of wetlands throughout the wood 
stork's range resulted in loss of habitat available to wood storks. 
Many wetlands were historically converted for agricultural production; 
however, the rate of land conversion to agriculture has slowed from 
historical levels (Nickerson and Borchers 2012, entire), primarily due 
to laws and regulatory review with goals to avoid and minimize impacts 
to wetlands.
    Increased water consumption, especially that which is associated 
with industrial and agricultural lands, is another factor accompanying 
land conversion that impacts wood storks through habitat degradation. 
Large water withdrawals can alter the water table and reduce water 
levels in wetlands. Further, changes in hydrological regimes and 
reduced fire frequency can create drier wetland conditions, which can 
exacerbate the encroachment of woody vegetation into wetlands, and the 
subsequent succession of wetland to upland habitat (Clem et al. 2019, 
p. 370; Hall et al. 2017, p. 52). However, ongoing large-scale wetland 
restorations continue to mitigate some of these negative effects, and 
based on the best available information, we conclude that these factors 
are not occurring at such a magnitude to cause population decline for 
wood storks.
    Despite the negative impacts to wetland habitats, wetlands of the 
southeastern U.S. coastal plain are extensive and significant large- 
and small-scale wetland restoration efforts have occurred and are 
underway throughout the wood stork's range (Service 2021, pp. 71-74). 
Further, wetland habitat loss is avoided, minimized, and mitigated 
through existing wetland laws and regulations, such as the Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Additionally, wood storks use habitat 
opportunistically and will exploit urban and suburban environments, and 
even use human-created and human-converted wetlands for foraging, 
roosting, and nesting (Evans and Gawlik 2020, p. 1). Thus, while there 
are still cases where natural wetland habitat is being lost or becoming 
fragmented due to human-related habitat conversion, the abundance and 
distribution of human-made wetlands that incidentally provide food 
resources and nesting habitat for wood storks have increased. 
Currently, numerous wood stork colonies throughout the wood stork's 
range are located in human-modified and human-created wetlands.
Climate Change
    Climate change is causing a variety of changes to the various 
ecosystems and

[[Page 9838]]

wetland habitats that wood storks depend upon throughout their life 
cycle. Climate change is driving numerous stressors that will impact 
the resources and conditions needed by wood storks, thereby having the 
potential to affect the wood stork's demographic rates (nest success, 
juvenile and adult survival) and resulting viability. The stressors to 
wood storks associated with climate change include warming 
temperatures, precipitation changes, drought, and sea level rise. Many 
of these climate-related stressors can exacerbate the stressors caused 
by habitat loss, described above. However, effects of climate change 
may result in both negative and positive effects to wood storks under 
certain circumstances.
    Warming temperatures--Climate change predictions suggest overall 
warming temperatures throughout North America, including throughout the 
range of the wood stork, under all greenhouse gas emission scenarios 
(IPCC 2014, p. 58). If we examine current projections under plausible 
future greenhouse gas concentrations (termed ``representative 
concentration pathways,'' or RCPs) over the 2050 to 2074 timeframe 
relative to the 1981 to 2010 timeframe, the 50th percentile (median) 
annual mean maximum air temperature for the South Atlantic-Gulf Region 
(which includes the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork's range) warms 
by 3.9 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (2.2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) under 
RCP4.5, whereas the region warms by 5.7 [deg]F (3.2 [deg]C) under 
RCP8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire).
    Warming temperatures contribute to increased drying and drought 
conditions (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire), which can also increase 
the access terrestrial predators have to wood stork nests and nestlings 
(Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). Warming also contributes to sea 
level rise (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire), the effects of which are 
discussed below. Conversely, warming temperatures may also be one of 
the factors that is leading to the expansion of the wood stork's 
breeding range beyond its historical boundaries (including into North 
Carolina), as has been documented for many other North American bird 
species (Hitch and Leberg 2007, p. 534). Warming may also contribute to 
changes in nesting phenology and the extension of the breeding season, 
as evidenced by asynchronous nesting that is being documented 
throughout the breeding range. For example, wood storks may have more 
opportunity to renest after previously failed attempts, or to nest 
later in the season in order to take advantage of optimal habitat 
conditions in other portions of the range.
    Changes in precipitation--Climate change is expected to change 
precipitation patterns throughout the wood stork's range, but the 
impacts vary among important habitat types. An overall increase in 
rainfall due to climate change is expected throughout much of the 
range. Relative to 1981-2010, the 50th percentile (median) for annual 
mean precipitation under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 is expected to increase in 
the South Atlantic-Gulf Region in 2050-2074 by a relatively small 
amount (0.2 to 0.3 in (5.1 to 7.6 millimeters (mm)) per month) (Alder 
and Hostetler 2013, entire). Scaled-down models indicate that 
precipitation increases will vary regionally, however. For example, in 
the Ogeechee-Savannah watershed (Northeast Breeding Region), 
precipitation is expected to increase slightly more (0.3 to 0.4 in (7.6 
to 10.2 mm) per month) than in the Everglades watershed (South Breeding 
Region) (increase of 0.1 to 0.3 in (2.5 to 7.6 mm) per month) in the 
same time period (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire).
    The timing and amount of precipitation in wood stork habitat 
influences wood stork prey development, availability, and dispersion. 
Adequate precipitation can help maintain good hydrologic conditions, 
which help bolster wood stork survival and productivity, and large rain 
events can offset drought conditions. However, excessive rainfall 
generally has a negative impact by dispersing prey and effectively 
inhibiting wood stork nutrient consumption. This phenomenon is 
magnified during the breeding season, when it can result in nest 
abandonment and/or reduced chick survival (caused by inadequate 
provisioning of chicks by adults) (Cook 2021, p. 5). A rainfall deficit 
on the other hand, especially in combination with warming temperatures, 
could contribute to drying and drought conditions, which are discussed 
below. In general, precipitation is also likely one of the primary 
drivers that cause segments of the wood stork population to migrate, 
depending upon local and regional habitat conditions.
    Drying--Rising temperatures are expected to increase evaporation, 
meaning that wood storks could face increased drought-like conditions, 
which can be measured by a metric called the evaporative deficit. In 
the time period between 2050-2074, the 50th percentile (median) 
evaporative deficit across the South Atlantic-Gulf Region indicates 
drier conditions under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, relative to 1981-2010 (Alder 
and Hostetler 2013, entire). For example, the deficit increases 
modestly by 0.2 in (5.1 mm) per month in the Ogeechee-Savannah 
watershed under both scenarios during the same time period. Similarly, 
the deficit increases by 0.2 to 0.3 in (5.1 to 7.6 mm) in the 
Everglades under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively. Further, standardized 
precipitation index data from 2000-2015 suggest that extended periods 
of dry weather are likely going to increase in the future throughout 
Florida, particularly in the northern part of the State (i.e., the 
panhandle) and areas around Lake Okeechobee (Collins et al. 2017, p. 
585). In Georgia and South Carolina, even if average annual 
precipitation remains constant, higher temperatures will likely 
increase drought intensity (Service 2021, pp. 58-62).
    Drought conditions generally lead to poor nesting success and 
productivity. However, the timing of drought conditions dictates when 
and how impacts to wood stork productivity will be realized. Initially, 
a drought can concentrate prey and lead to efficient foraging and good 
productivity for wood storks, but an extended drought also lowers prey 
productivity, which in turn lowers prey availability for wood storks in 
future years, and can thereby negatively impact future wood stork 
nesting and productivity. In addition, drought conditions can increase 
colony predation by making it easier for terrestrial predators to 
access wood stork nests and chicks.
    Data on wood stork habitat selection and availability are not 
currently available range-wide, but wetland habitat throughout the 
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork's range is widely available. The 
southeastern United States has nearly 48 million acres of wetlands, 
which account for more than 43 percent of the nation's palustrine and 
estuarine wetlands (Sucik and Marks 2015, p. 11). Our assessment of 
core foraging area supporting the current active wood stork nesting 
colonies includes over 11 million acres of suitable wetland habitat 
(Service 2021, p. 129). Historically, wetland habitat loss or 
degradation was the main driver of wood stork population decline, 
primarily in south Florida which supported nearly the entire breeding 
population. Human activity during the decades prior to listing of the 
species in 1984 had reduced wetland areas in this region by 35%, and 
construction of canals and ditches changed the hydrology of ecosystems 
like the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, Kissimmee River, and Big Cypress 
Swamp. However, since that time

[[Page 9839]]

Everglades restoration efforts have been underway, and the species now 
has additional breeding strongholds in north Florida, Georgia, South 
Carolina, and North Carolina, where it exploits new habitat types such 
as coastal saltmarsh, and palustrine and manmade freshwater wetlands. 
As a result, suitable breeding and foraging habitat is widely available 
across the species' current range. While climate change may cause an 
increase in conditions that degrade or convert wetland habitat used by 
wood storks for nesting and foraging, currently habitat availability 
does not appear to be limiting wood stork resiliency.
    Changes in hurricane patterns--The frequency and intensity of 
hurricanes and other heavy precipitation events will likely be affected 
by climate change in North America (IPCC 2014, p. 53). The projected 
warmer climate will potentially decrease the frequency of tropical 
cyclones but increase the intensity of these events when they occur in 
the Atlantic Basin (Collins et al. 2017, p. 610). Direct mortality of 
wood storks due to storms is not common, and although damage to nesting 
vegetation at colony sites has been documented, nesting generally 
continues in following years (Cook & Baranski 2019, p. 1). In many 
cases, wood storks will have a very productive breeding season in the 
year following one where a hurricane impacted the breeding habitat due 
to improved wetland hydrologic conditions resulting from the additional 
precipitation brought by a hurricane event (Cook & Baranski 2019, p. 
1). Hurricanes also commonly act as an erosional agent and may deliver 
significant volumes of sediment to the marsh surface, which could aid 
wood stork resiliency by increasing vertical accretion of salt marsh 
habitat (Staro et al. 2021, p. 1). Therefore, while it is difficult to 
predict the long-term, population-level effects to wood storks of 
hurricane patterns influenced by climate change, the best available 
information does not indicate that hurricane impacts are limiting to 
wood stork resiliency, nor are they predicted to do so in the future.
    Sea level rise--Warming temperatures, coupled with other factors 
influenced by climate change such as the melting of continental ice, 
will cause sea levels to rise (Vermeer and Rahmstorf. 2009. Entire). 
Because wood storks mainly forage in water less than 20 in (50 cm) 
deep, projected sea level rise exceeding 39 in (0.99 m) by the end of 
the century would make portions of the currently occupied coastal 
habitat unusable for foraging. As such, sea level rise and the 
associated flooding of coastal wetlands may result in the loss and 
degradation of both foraging and coastal nesting habitats. Sea level 
rise is also likely to increase the storm surge potential along major 
coastlines (Collins et al. 2017, p. 611). Storm surge is the rise in 
water level during a storm, which can cause flooding of coastal 
wetlands and uplands as the storm's winds push water onshore.
    However, while sea level rise is expected to cause the degradation 
and loss of existing coastal wetland habitats in some areas, it is also 
likely to create new salt marsh habitat in other adjacent habitats 
(Colombano et al. 2021, pp. 1639 and 1642; Fagherazzi et al. 2020, 
entire). Sea level rise will cause shifts in wetlands landward, with 
salt and brackish marshes transgressing upslope into coastal freshwater 
wetlands and low-lying upland areas. Vertically, saltmarsh has to 
accumulate enough material to contrast rising water levels or drown; 
horizontally, salt marsh erosion at the ocean side will be compensated 
by landward expansion of salt marsh up slope, but the upslope extent 
will depend upon the slope gradient of the adjacent uplands 
(Fagherazzi, et al. 2020, entire). Therefore, although we can project 
through modeling where currently occupied wood stork habitat is likely 
to be inundated by sea level rise, it is less clear where and how much 
new brackish and saltmarsh habitat likely to be exploited by wood 
storks as a foraging or nesting resource will be created as coastal 
estuarine marshes migrate upslope in response to sea level rise. As 
such, the negative impacts to wood stork resiliency caused by habitat 
loss or degradation due to inundation by sea level rise is likely to be 
mitigated at least in part by positive impacts to resiliency from newly 
created salt marsh.
    Predicted climatic changes that could impact future wood stork 
populations include changing of precipitation patterns, increased 
temperature/drying, and sea level rise. The potential influence of 
precipitation, hydroperiod, and drying conditions on wood stork 
foraging habitat quantity and quality, and ultimately on wood stork 
breeding success, will vary considerably relative to local landscape 
conditions. For example, the type, abundance, underlying topography, 
and connectivity of the wetlands associated with each breeding colony 
will influence how these changes in the climate will impact wood stork 
resiliency. In general, projected changes in precipitation, 
temperature, and drying are expected to vary among breeding regions and 
even among colonies in a single breeding region and could result in 
either positive or negative effects on breeding success from year to 
year. For example, initially drought conditions may concentrate prey 
and lead to increased productivity in a given year, but multi-year 
droughts would likely lead to lower productivity years when prolonged 
low water conditions inhibit the regeneration of prey species. 
Similarly, it is unclear how more intense hurricane and tropical storm 
events will impact wood storks, as previously mentioned. Therefore, we 
have limited our future climatic impact scenario to sea level rise, for 
which the negative effects to occupied habitat and the wood stork's 
response to these effects can be projected with reasonable certainty.
    In summary:
     Changes in seasonal rainfall patterns coupled with warming 
temperatures could increase the occurrence and severity of drought and 
wetland drying. Multi-year droughts could negatively impact breeding 
and survival demographics, but effects will vary among breeding regions 
and even among colony sites.
     Changes to the quantity and intensity of precipitation 
(including hurricanes), depending on timing, will alter foraging 
habitat availability and associated wetland forage resources for wood 
storks; however, these factors could have a positive and/or negative 
affect on demographics.
     Warming temperatures contribute to increased sea level 
rise, which is expected to result in the loss of coastal wetland 
habitat. Sea level rise will result in the loss of some foraging, 
nesting, and roosting habitat that is currently occupied. However, 
coastal marshes are projected to transgress upslope along with sea 
level rise at the land and water interface, so some habitat will shift 
rather than be lost. To what extent the breadth and width of salt marsh 
will migrate upslope and elevate through accretion is yet to be fully 
modeled.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the wood stork, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the wood stork. To assess the current 
and future condition of the wood stork, we undertake an iterative 
analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and 
then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may 
be influencing

[[Page 9840]]

the wood stork, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the 
SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to 
what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire Southeast 
U.S. DPS of the wood stork, our assessment integrates the cumulative 
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects 
analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    The long-term survival and recovery of the wood stork requires the 
presence of a mosaic of wetland habitats for breeding, foraging, and 
roosting scattered throughout its range during varying climatic and 
seasonal conditions. Current management actions that address foraging 
and breeding habitats include maintenance and protection of existing 
wetlands, creation of new wetland habitats, and restoration of 
previously impacted habitats. Details of conservation efforts can be 
found in the SSA report (Service 2021, chapter 5.1.4), but are 
summarized below:
     Lands with natural and manmade wetlands which contribute 
to wood stork recovery have and continue to be targeted for acquisition 
for conservation through Federal, State, and private acquisition 
programs. The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and 
Conservation Area initiated in 2012 includes 2.6 million acres of 
grassland savannah with wet and dry prairie that encompasses the 
Kissimmee River Valley. Conservation easements and acquisitions 
purchases for the 150,000 acre approved acquisition boundary are 
underway, and will provide conservation benefits to wood storks.
     Large-scale watershed and wetland ecosystem restoration 
initiatives with regionwide impacts have and continue to help restore 
wetland ecosystems throughout the southeastern United States, 
including: Everglades (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan have 
completed 24 of the 68 restoration elements identified in the plan), 
Picayune Strand (fifty percent hydraulic restoration achieved through 
road removal, plugging canals, and pump stations), Southern Corkscrew 
Watershed (4,000 acres of willow infested wetlands treated thus far), 
Kissimmee River (restoration has already been completed with more than 
40 miles of river floodplain ecosystem), Upper St. Johns River Basin 
(166,000 acres of the headwaters already restored), Everglades 
Headwaters (lands and conservation easements being actively acquired), 
Tampa Bay Estuary, Lake Apopka (15,000 acres of wetlands restored on 
former farms), Altamaha River Watershed, Lower Savannah River 
Watershed, and Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Rivers Basins (over 160,000 
acres of upland and wetland habitat protected).
     Smaller scale, more localized wetland restoration projects 
on individual public, private, industrial, and Department of Defense 
properties within the range of the wood stork have and continue to 
improve wood stork habitat, through various programs including: 
National Coastal Wetlands Program, Wetland Reserves Program (restored 
over 325,000 acres across several states, and one site now supports a 
nesting colony), Partners for Wildlife, Stewardship Incentive Program, 
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act (77 projects across several states affecting 250,000 
acres of wetlands).
     Colony sites have been and continue to be managed, 
enhanced, and restored, resulting in wood stork recolonization (Woody 
Pond colony in Georgia; Dugannon Plantation and Green Pond colonies in 
South Carolina; Duck Lake, Orlando Wetlands, Se7en Wetlands, and 
Wakadohatchee Wetlands colonies in Florida).
     Suitable foraging wetlands have been and continue to be 
created within diked ``impoundments,'' through modifications of 
existing impoundments, restoration of impacted wetlands, and creation 
of shallow short hydro-period wetlands.
     Tidal impoundments (e.g., former rice fields) in South 
Carolina (40,000 acres with dike and water management infrastructure 
for management, and 190,000 acres reverted tidal marsh bottom lands, 
hardwoods, and forests) and Georgia are now managed to provide winter 
habitat for waterfowl and foraging for wood storks year-round; and, by 
staggering drawdowns, concentrated prey is being made available to wood 
storks throughout the breeding and post-breeding seasons.
     Wastewater treatment flow through marshes and other 
manmade wetland features are increasing within the southeastern United 
States and are used by wood storks as both foraging and breeding 
habitats. For example, in Florida, management for wastewater treatment 
now supports 200 acres of wetlands at Viera Wetlands and 125 acres of 
wetlands at Sweetwater Wetlands Park; and wastewater treatment wetlands 
now support a wood stork nesting colony each at Wakodahatchee Wetlands 
(50 acres of wetlands), Orlando Wetlands (1,200 acres of wetlands), and 
at Se7en Wetlands (1,600 acres of wetlands).
     Wetlands negatively impacted by encroaching woody plants 
(e.g., willows) have been and continue to be restored by combining 
herbicide and mechanical methods; these projects have opened up 
impacted wetlands and made them available for wood stork use as 
colonies and foraging sites.
     Colonies occurring on State and Federal lands (e.g., the 
Service's National Wildlife Refuges, National Park Service lands, 
Department of Defense lands, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration lands) are and will continue to be afforded some 
protection from development and large-scale habitat disturbance through 
State and Federal regulations, and on private lands through 
conservation partnerships and landowner stewardship.
     Partnerships developed through conservation easements, 
wetland restoration projects, and other conservation means, have and 
will continue to minimize potential loss of colony sites.

Current Condition

    The U.S. breeding population of wood storks (i.e., the Southeast 
U.S. DPS of the wood stork) has been categorized as a single population 
by genetic analyses to date, which have been corroborated by documented 
intra-regional movements of breeding-aged individuals and shifts in 
nesting throughout the range (Stangel et al. 1990, p. 618; Van Den 
Bussche et al. 1999, p. 1083). Within the breeding range, wood stork 
colonies cluster into the South, Central, Northwest, and Northeast 
breeding regions (see figure 3). These clusters vary by climate, 
geography, and landscape features, as well as their influences on wood 
stork ecology, habitat, and behavior.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 9841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15FE23.006

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Current Resiliency

    Demographic factors such as abundance, adult survival, reproductive 
success, juvenile recruitment, and population growth influence wood 
stork resiliency. To assess the current condition of the wood stork, we 
focused on those factors that contribute to resiliency, including 
nesting population size (number of pairs/nests); population growth 
trend; number of large, persistent nesting colonies (colonies that 
consistently support over 200 pairs); and productivity (fledged chicks 
per nest), which are all described in greater detail in the SSA report 
(Service 2021, chapter 4). We categorically assigned a condition of 
high, moderate, or low to each of these factors for each breeding 
region and for the DPS as a whole (see table 4).

                 Table 4--Wood Stork Population Condition Categories Based on Population Metrics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Population metric                 Low condition          Moderate condition         High condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Size (Nests/Pair).........  <1,500.................  1,500-2,499............  >2,500.
Large Persistent Colonies............  0-1....................  2-4....................  5 or more.
Productivity.........................  <1.3...................  1.3-1.7................  >1.7.
Population Trend.....................  Declining..............  Stable.................  Increasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9842]]

    Finally, we assessed the current overall resiliency of each 
breeding region based on the average condition of each category of the 
demographic factors, resulting in the overall current condition of each 
breeding region ranging from high to moderate (see table 5).

                                              Table 5--Current Condition of Each Wood Stork Breeding Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Large persistent                            Overall demographic
          Breeding region                Population size        Population trend            colonies             Productivity            condition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast..........................  High..................  High..................  High.................  High.................  High.
Northwest..........................  Low...................  High..................  Low..................  High.................  Moderate.
Central............................  High..................  High..................  Moderate.............  High.................  High-Moderate.
South..............................  Moderate..............  Moderate..............  High.................  Low..................  Moderate.
Southeast U.S. DPS.................  High-Moderate.........  High-Moderate.........  High-Moderate........  High-Moderate........  High-Moderate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because wetland habitat throughout the wood stork's range is widely 
available and does not appear to be a limiting factor, we did not 
include a measure for habitat resiliency factors in the analysis of 
current condition. The southeastern United States has nearly 48 million 
acres of wetlands, which account for more than 43 percent of the 
nation's palustrine and estuarine wetlands (Sucik and Marks 2015, p. 
11). However, potential future impacts to core foraging area habitats 
that support nesting colonies were considered for the analysis of 
future condition. Thus, we used population demographics to measure the 
current condition of each breeding region, and then we used habitat 
condition as a proxy for population resiliency in order to project the 
future condition of each breeding region based on the primary threats 
to wood stork into the future (see Future Scenarios, below, for more 
information).

Current Redundancy and Representation

    As previously described, the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork 
is a wide-ranging, single population, with all breeding occurring in 
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. However, for our 
analysis of current and future condition, we identified four breeding 
regions (see figure 3, above), as defined by the clustering of nesting 
colonies and nesting numbers (within and across the geographic borders) 
among the four States, in order to assess redundancy, even though there 
is no biological or ecological distinction among individuals in these 
four areas. Wood stork nest numbers often fluctuate among breeding 
regions within and between years, due to environmental conditions 
(e.g., rainfall amounts and timing). In contrast to historical trends, 
40-50 percent of wood stork nesting now occurs in the Northeast 
Breeding Region. The wide spatial extent covered by the Southeast U.S. 
DPS of the wood stork across the four breeding regions reduces the risk 
to the DPS, because it is unlikely that a single catastrophic event 
would impact all four breeding regions. Furthermore, the impacts of 
stressors in one region may be mitigated by the fluid nature of 
breeding throughout the range. In addition, having several large and/or 
persistent colonies as anchors within each breeding region provides 
resiliency within each region and represents a form of redundancy for 
the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork.
    Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological 
diversity is important to sustain the capacity to adapt to future 
environmental changes. As previously discussed, there is little genetic 
diversity among the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork. However, 
ecological diversity within the range of the species is extensive. Wood 
storks use a mosaic of wetland habitats for nesting, roosting, and 
foraging. These include shallow and persistent (i.e., short and long 
hydroperiod) wetlands, marshes, and shallow open water habitats 
(including freshwater, brackish water, and saltwater habitat associated 
with natural and anthropogenic landforms). Negative impacts to the 
wetlands of the Everglades and other wetlands in south Florida from 
development and agriculture was a major contributor to the population 
decline that led to the listing of the U.S. breeding population of the 
wood stork, but also may have influenced the regional shift in 
abundance of nesting storks northward. Although wood storks have always 
had the ability to nest in other parts of their range, they 
historically concentrated in south Florida because the reproductive 
rewards there were higher for less cost, resulting in greater 
reproductive success. However, as conditions deteriorated and dried in 
south Florida, the extensive salt marshes, coastal wetlands, and old 
rice impoundments in Georgia and South Carolina offered greater 
stability, and as such became better options for foraging during the 
breeding season; the result was that the wood stork population center 
shifted north. The wood stork now consistently breeds in four 
distinctive coastal plain regions within its range: Southern Florida 
Coastal Plain (South Breeding Region), Southern Coastal Plain (Central 
and Northeast Breeding Regions), Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 
(Northeast Breeding Region), and Southeastern Coastal Plain (Northwest 
Breeding Region). Further, current wood stork nesting in North Carolina 
appears to indicate range expansion, which is likely a response to 
climate change as it has been documented in multiple other bird species 
worldwide (Hitch and Leberg 2007, p. 534). Thus, the shift of wood 
stork breeding colonies in response to habitat conditions, and the 
expansion northward of its historical range, may demonstrate an innate 
behavioral and adaptive response to deteriorating or long-term changes 
in habitat conditions and climate, which ultimately indicates a certain 
degree of adaptive capacity and adequate representation in wood storks.
    Some wood storks are ``residents'' (remain in one area all year), 
some exhibit migratory movements among breeding regions and other areas 
in Alabama and Mississippi, and others employ both strategies (Picardi 
et al. 2020, p. 9) depending upon habitat conditions. In response to 
climatic conditions in the fall and winter, most wood storks move south 
into Florida, especially towards South Florida, or to coastal habitats 
if residing in South Carolina, Georgia, or north Florida (Coulter et 
al. 2020, unpaginated). These patterns indicate plasticity that allows 
individuals to respond to current environmental conditions and to move 
(or not) depending on local resource availability.
    Wood storks also use human-made wetlands such as canals, ditches, 
impounded ponds and lakes, and other urban habitats rangewide, which 
they were not known to use historically. Historically, wood storks were 
thought

[[Page 9843]]

to be intolerant of human disturbance (Burleigh 1958, p. 119). However, 
with the increase in use of urban habitats, wood storks appear more 
tolerant of human activity, to the extent that they will nest and 
forage in highly urbanized areas like stormwater retention ponds in 
housing developments, in commercial shopping areas, and along busy 
roads (Evans and Gawlik 2020, p. 1; Tsai et al. 2016, p. 644). Thus, 
wood storks will use suitable foraging wetlands and nesting habitats 
found in a variety of natural and human-influenced and -created 
habitats.
    As mentioned previously, representation is the ability of a species 
to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and 
biological environment. Species adapt to novel changes in their 
environment by either: (1) moving to new, suitable environments or (2) 
altering their physical or behavioral traits (phenotypes) to match the 
new environmental conditions through either plasticity or genetic 
change (Beever et al. 2016, p. 132; Nicotra et al. 2015, p. 1270). 
Thus, representation reflects the ability of the species to respond and 
adapt to changing conditions (adaptive capacity), either by changing 
themselves, or by responding to changes around them. Representation is 
often measured in the genetic, morphological, ecological, behavioral, 
or other types of diversity present among populations, but as noted 
previously there is little evidence of these types of differences among 
populations of wood stork. However, the wood stork's innate behavioral 
capacity to respond to deteriorating and changing wetland conditions on 
a daily, seasonal, annual, and long-term basis, and to exploit novel 
habitat types such as human-made wetlands, indicates adaptive capacity. 
Wood storks in the Southeast U.S. DPS have gradually shifted and 
expanded their breeding range (e.g., northward into three new States) 
and increased their habitat use (e.g., to include urban wetlands, 
impounded wetlands, and coastal salt marshes of Georgia and South 
Carolina) in response to changing conditions. Ultimately, these 
responses demonstrate a degree of adaptive capacity despite a lack of 
evidence showing genetic diversity within the DPS.

Future Scenarios

    To analyze the wood stork's viability, we considered the current 
demographic condition and future availability or condition of resources 
important to wood storks. To examine the potential future availability 
or condition of resources important to wood storks, we developed three 
future scenarios based on projections for land development, sea level 
rise, impacts of changing climate conditions, and beneficial 
conservation actions. More detail on how we assessed each of these 
metrics can be found in the SSA report (Service 2021, chapter 6). Note 
that we did not model how population demographics will change under 
future conditions, nor on how wood storks will respond to changing 
habitat conditions; rather, the future scenarios consist of habitat-
based analyses that project the future condition of the current core 
foraging areas in each breeding region, employing the condition of 
required wood stork habitat as a proxy for the condition of the wood 
stork population, or its resiliency. Core foraging areas are suitable 
foraging wetlands within a set distance from each colony that is based 
on regional follow flight study data: 30 kilometers (km) (19 miles 
(mi)) in south Florida, 25 km (16 mi) in central Florida, and 20 km (12 
mi) in all other regions/States (Borkhataria et al. 2013, pp. 8-9; 
Bryan et al. 2012, p. 293; Cox et al. 1994, p. 134).
    The best available data to inform our wood stork future condition 
analysis was limited to consideration of currently-occupied wood stork 
habitat and how the major habitat threats may reduce or degrade that 
occupied habitat. We used modeling to project the future condition of 
the habitat in currently occupied breeding colonies and core foraging 
areas. However, models cannot account for the potential expansion, 
change, or shift of the nesting colonies into currently unoccupied, but 
suitable habitat. Models cannot account for the expansion of wood stork 
breeding regions, or of the overall breeding range, in response to wood 
stork population growth or changes to habitat, which is a phenomenon 
that has been underway since the 1980s and is still occurring. Based on 
recent and current trends, we expect that the Southeast U.S. DPS of the 
wood stork will continue to grow and respond to changing environmental 
and habitat conditions, and to human-caused degradation, conversion, 
restoration, or creation of wetland habitats on small and large scales 
as they have in recent history. As a result, because our future 
condition analysis is limited to currently occupied habitat, it is 
conservative and likely considerably underestimates what the true 
condition of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork will be into the 
future as it continues to expand and inhabit suitable but currently 
unoccupied habitat.
    We considered a 30- and 60-year timeframe into the future (2050 and 
2080) for the future analysis. These time elements are within the 
predictive range of the model used to project future development for 
the southeastern U.S. coastal plain, and within the climate change 
forecasts (Sweet et al. 2017, entire) that cover the southeastern 
United States. These scenarios are probable representations of how the 
primary stressors to the species and their sources have the potential 
to impact wood storks rangewide.
    Potential future impacts associated with changing climatic 
conditions (i.e., estimates for precipitation, drought, temperature, 
and sea level rise) were based on climate model projections downscaled 
for Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. However, as discussed above 
under Threats, climate metrics such as precipitation, temperature, and 
drying will likely be variable on regional and local scales and could 
result in positive and/or negative impacts on the wood stork's breeding 
success. As such, we cannot reliably project effects to wood storks 
from these climate metrics. Therefore, we have focused our future 
climatic impact scenarios on varying degrees of sea level rise because 
modeling of sea level rise impacts to occupied habitat is available 
throughout the range of the wood stork, and the effects on occupied 
habitat are reasonably predictable, although we acknowledge potential 
effects to wood storks due to other climatic variables as well. To 
model sea level rise, we used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) sea level rise projections (Sweet et al. 2017, 
entire).
    To forecast future urbanization/development, we considered future 
scenarios that incorporate the SLEUTH (Slope, Land use, Excluded area, 
Urban area, Transportation, Hillside area) model, which simulates 
patterns of urban expansion that are consistent with spatial 
observations of past urban growth and transportation networks (Terando 
et al. 2014, entire).
    Biologically, the 30- and 60-year timeframes cover 7 and 15 wood 
stork generations, respectively, assuming a generation time of 4 years 
(Coulter et al. 2020, unpaginated). These multi-generational timeframes 
allow for adequate time to detect a downward population trend, and to 
subsequently formulate responses with appropriate conservation actions.
    The future scenarios we assessed include varying time frames and 
magnitude of stressors that relate primarily to climate change and land 
conversion, but also to ongoing conservation actions that help to 
mitigate stressors. All are based on the best scientific and commercial

[[Page 9844]]

information available at this time. Details on future scenarios can be 
found in the SSA report (Service 2021, chapter 6.1). Scenario 1 assumes 
a continuation of current land conversion trends projected into the 
future, a NOAA ``intermediate'' sea level rise projection, and that 
wetland restoration and management efforts and conservation 
implementation continues at least at the current rate. Scenario 2 
assumes a continuation of current land conversion trends projected into 
the future, a NOAA ``high'' sea level rise projection, and that 
regulatory protections of wetlands and conservation implementation 
continue at least at current levels. Scenario 3 is the same as Scenario 
2 in relation to the current land conversion trend and a NOAA ``high'' 
sea level rise projection, but it assumes a significant decrease in 
regulatory protections and conservation management (e.g., due to 
changes in interpretation or implementation of wetland protection 
rules, lower funding levels for conservation or management, and wetland 
restorations not targeting benefits to wood storks specifically).
    We considered three plausible future scenarios, with variations in 
the future influence of the primary threats, over a 30-year (to 2050) 
and 60-year (to 2080) projection (see table 6).

 Table 6--Three Potential Future Scenarios for the Southeast U.S. DPS of
   the Wood Stork Based on Climate Change, Land Use, and Conservation
                                 Efforts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Land use change/      Conservation
         Climate change               development           actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Scenario 1--Intermediate Sea Level Rise; No Change in Conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea-level rise: NOAA              SLEUTH 2050 & 2080  Wetland habitat
 ``intermediate'' projection.      Nesting colony      protections,
                                   core foraging       conservation,
                                   area habitat        management,
                                   impacted by         acquisitions, and
                                   development (70     restoration
                                   percent             efforts at least
                                   probability or      at current
                                   greater) by 2050    levels.
                                   and 2080.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Scenario 2--High Sea Level Rise; No Change in Conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea-level rise: NOAA ``high''     SLEUTH 2050 & 2080  Wetland habitat
 projection.                       Nesting colony      protections,
                                   core foraging       conservation,
                                   area habitat        management,
                                   impacted by         acquisitions, and
                                   development (70     restoration
                                   percent             efforts at least
                                   probability or      at current
                                   greater) by 2050    levels.
                                   and 2080.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Scenario 3--High Sea Level Rise; Reduced Conservation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea-level rise: NOAA ``high''     SLEUTH 2050 & 2080  Wetland habitat
 projection.                       Nesting colony      regulatory
                                   core foraging       protections,
                                   area habitat        conservation
                                   impacted by         management, and
                                   development (70     acquisitions
                                   percent             decreased due to
                                   probability or      changes in
                                   greater) by 2050    regulatory
                                   and 2080.           mechanisms and
                                                       lower funding
                                                       levels.
                                                      Restorations: No
                                                       longer target
                                                       providing
                                                       benefits for wood
                                                       storks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Future Condition

    We measured the future condition of wood stork habitat resiliency 
by the changes in the current core foraging areas due to the primary 
influence factors (sea level rise, land conversion/urbanization, and 
conservation implementation). We assessed habitat condition based on 
the percentage of acres remaining after projected urbanization impacts 
on the core foraging areas; percentage of the wetlands, nesting 
colonies, and large persistent colonies remaining within the core 
foraging areas after sea level rise; and varying degrees of 
conservation implementation, projected over a 30- and 60-year future 
timeframe.
    Our analysis accounts for changes to habitat within the current 
core foraging areas of a breeding region but does not predict the 
response of wood storks to changing habitat conditions (e.g., 
relocation to other areas due to declining conditions, colonization of 
new sites and core foraging areas, etc.). Historical evidence from wood 
stork response to the ditching and draining of wetlands in the 
Everglades and south Florida indicates that some storks will continue 
to nest in areas with declining habitat conditions, and other wood 
storks will move and seek more optimal habitat conditions and either 
locate other active colony sites or pioneer new colony sites. Thus, our 
analysis may overestimate the loss of wood stork resiliency as a result 
of changing habitat in the current core foraging areas, as it cannot 
account for new habitat that may be colonized for breeding and foraging 
as conditions in currently occupied areas deteriorate.
    As previously described, we measured the current condition of each 
breeding region by demographic metrics (population size, population 
trend, the number of large persistent colonies, and productivity). We 
then used the current condition as a proxy for the baseline habitat 
condition for the future condition analysis; the underlying assumption 
is that habitat condition reflects demographic conditions and vice 
versa. We considered the future under 30- and 60-year timeframes (to 
2050, and to 2080). A more detailed account of how we assessed the 
projected effects of each of the primary influence factors on habitat 
in the future to determine the future condition of each breeding region 
can be found in the SSA report (Service 2021, chapter 6).
Future Resiliency
    As mentioned previously, climatic variables such as periodicity and 
amounts of rainfall, drought, and hurricane frequency and intensity, 
will vary annually in the future and impacts to individual colony sites 
and foraging habitats will be dependent on an extensive range of local 
conditions. Thus, impacts of these climatic variables to habitat are 
less predictable, as is the species' response to these impacts. In 
general, temperature and precipitation increases are projected in each 
of the wood stork breeding regions. An increase in evaporative deficit 
can lead to drought conditions that would impact wetland habitats and 
foraging resources. The evaporative deficit is projected to increase at 
a similar rate under both RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 in the wood stork's range. 
Overall, this change will affect the long-term trend in wood stork 
resiliency. Projected drought and stronger hurricanes will directly 
impact wetlands and individual colony sites across the wood stork's 
range. This

[[Page 9845]]

change could affect nesting both negatively and positively and will 
contribute to variability in annual nesting success. If available in 
the future, downscaled climate models for each of the breeding regions 
could be helpful in predicting localized impacts and developing future 
management options to support wood stork breeding ecology in each 
region.
    All future scenarios in each breeding region project some impact to 
wetlands and colonies from sea level rise, and a reduction in the 
current core foraging area. However, the analysis does not account for 
suitable habitat created by the same sea level rise conditions that 
result in the loss of some currently occupied habitat (i.e., we cannot 
project the width, breadth, or increase in elevation of salt marsh 
transgression upslope along the land-water interface). Further, these 
scenarios do not account for how wood storks respond to the changing 
habitat conditions. For example, while we expect that in some cases 
individuals displaced by lost habitat may pioneer new colony sites and 
foraging habitats within the same or other breeding regions, or into 
new unoccupied areas that contain suitable habitat, our analysis of 
future condition could not account for these potential outcomes. There 
are a limited number of wood stork colony losses that have been 
documented, primarily due to anthropogenic factors (e.g., draining). It 
appears that these colony losses did not result in losses of individual 
storks, but rather in individuals not breeding in a given year and/or 
shifting to nearby sites for breeding in that same or the following 
year (Service 2021, chapter 6.1.1). Wood storks may shift habitat use 
in response to future inundation of coastal colonies from sea level 
rise; therefore, the projected loss of existing colony sites in the 
following future condition discussion may not result in an equivalent 
reduction in the number of actual colony sites in the future (but 
rather a shift in location from current to new colony sites in some 
cases), or in a reduction in the number of breeding pairs present 
rangewide.
    South Breeding Region Resiliency--Currently, the total area within 
the South Breeding Region core foraging areas is 7,577,090 acres, which 
includes 3,840,486 acres (51 percent) of wetlands and 1,367,663 
developed acres (18 percent). This breeding region supports 36 
colonies, of which 5 are designated as large, persistent colonies.
    Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 11 and 14 
percent of the wetlands in the core foraging areas by 2050 and 2080, 
respectively; the area impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level 
rise will include 8 (22 percent) of the 36 colony sites. None of the 
five large, persistent colonies will be impacted by sea level rise in 
either timeframe. Land conversion will increase from 18 percent to 24 
and 30 percent of the core foraging areas under the 2050 and 2080 
timeframe projections, respectively; however, as stated previously, 
habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for wood stork 
resiliency. Conservation efforts, such as wetland conservation 
easements and regulatory mechanisms to avoid/minimize/mitigate impacts 
to wetlands, remain at least at current levels under Scenario 1, making 
wood stork resiliency at these colony sites under Scenario 1 similar to 
that under Scenario 2, and better than that under Scenario 3.
    Under Scenario 2, sea level rise is projected to result in loss of 
16 and 18 percent of wetlands in the core foraging areas by 2050 and 
2080, respectively. Of 36 colony sites, 9 (25 percent) will be impacted 
by (and potentially lost to) sea level rise in both the 2050 and 2080 
timeframe projections. None of the five large, persistent colonies will 
be impacted by sea level rise in either timeframe. Land conversion in 
the core foraging areas will increase from 18 percent to 24 percent and 
30 percent by 2050 and 2080, respectively. Conservation efforts are 
maintained under Scenario 2 and reduced under Scenario 3. However, in 
this breeding region the conservation efforts under Scenario 2 would 
not likely counteract the other negative influence factors considered 
(e.g., habitat loss due to sea level rise and development trends); 
therefore, conservation efforts would be unlikely to significantly 
affect the overall future condition of the South Breeding Region 
between Scenarios 2 and 3. Overall, we expect resiliency in this 
breeding region to decline to some degree under all three future 
scenarios.
    Central Breeding Region Resiliency--Currently, the total area 
within the Central Breeding Region core foraging areas is 8,270,482 
acres, which includes 2,302,543 acres (28 percent) of wetlands and 
2,045,622 developed acres (25 percent). This breeding region includes 
48 colonies, of which 3 are designated as large, persistent colonies.
    Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 7 and 9 
percent of the wetlands in the core foraging areas by the 2050 and 2080 
future timeframe projections, respectively; the area impacted (and 
therefore potentially lost to) by sea level rise will include 10 (21 
percent) of the 48 colony sites in the 2050 projection, and 13 (27 
percent) of the 48 colony sites in the 2080 projection. One of the 
three large, persistent colonies (33 percent) will be impacted by (and 
potentially lost to) sea level rise in both future timeframe 
projections. Land conversion will increase from 25 percent to 32 and 39 
percent of the core foraging areas under the 2050 and 2080 timeframe 
projections, respectively. Conservation efforts are maintained at least 
at current levels under Scenario 1, making wood stork resiliency at 
these colony sites under Scenario 1 similar to that under Scenario 2 
and better than that under Scenario 3.
    Under Scenario 2, sea level rise is projected to result in losses 
of 10 and 12 percent of wetlands in the core foraging areas by 2050 and 
2080, respectively. Of the 48 colony sites, 13 (27 percent) and 16 (33 
percent) are projected to be impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea 
level rise by 2050 and 2080, respectively. One of the three large, 
persistent colonies will be impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea 
level rise in both future timeframe projections. Land conversion in the 
core foraging areas will increase from 25 percent to 32 percent and 39 
percent by 2050 and 2080, respectively. Conservation efforts are 
maintained under Scenario 2 and reduced under Scenario 3. In the 
Central Breeding Region, conservation efforts under Scenario 2 would 
partially offset negative influence factors, resulting in slightly 
better wood stork resiliency at colony sites under Scenario 2 when 
compared with Scenario 3. Overall, we expect resiliency in this 
breeding region to decline to some degree under future Scenarios 1 and 
2, and slightly more so under future Scenario 3.
    Northwest Breeding Region Resiliency--Currently, the total area 
within the Northwest Breeding Region core foraging areas is 5,306,878 
acres, which includes 1,286,773 acres (24 percent) of wetlands and 
397,523 developed acres (7 percent). This breeding region includes 30 
colonies, of which one is designated a large, persistent colony.
    Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 4 and 6 
percent of the wetlands in the core foraging areas by 2050 and 2080, 
respectively; the area impacted by sea level rise will not include any 
of the 30 colony sites in either future timeframe projection. The one 
large, persistent colony in this region will not be impacted by sea 
level rise in either future timeframe projection. Land conversion will 
increase from 8 percent to 15 and 22 percent of the core foraging areas 
under the 2050 and 2080 timeframe projections, respectively. 
Conservation efforts are at least at current levels

[[Page 9846]]

under Scenario 1, making wood stork resiliency at these colony sites 
under Scenario 1 similar to that under Scenario 2 and better than that 
under Scenario 3.
    Under Scenario 2, sea level rise is projected to result in the loss 
of 8 percent of wetlands in the core foraging areas in both future time 
projections. Of the 30 colony sites, none are projected to be impacted 
by sea level rise by 2050, and one is projected to be impacted by (and 
potentially lost to) sea level rise by 2080. The one large, persistent 
colony will not be impacted by sea level rise in either future 
timeframe projection. Land conversion in the core foraging areas will 
increase from 8 percent to 15 percent and 22 percent by 2050 and 2080, 
respectively; though suitable habitat is widely available, and it does 
not appear that habitat is a limiting factor for wood stork resiliency. 
Conservation efforts are maintained at least at current levels under 
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, and reduced under Scenario 3. However, in 
this breeding region conservation efforts would not likely counteract 
the other negative influence factors considered (e.g., habitat loss due 
to sea level rise and development trends), and, therefore, conservation 
efforts would be unlikely to significantly affect the overall future 
condition of the Northwest Breeding Region among the three future 
scenarios. Overall, we expect resiliency in this breeding region to 
remain stable under future Scenario 1, and to decline to a minor degree 
under future Scenarios 2 and 3.
    Northeast Breeding Region Resiliency--Currently, the total area 
within the Northeast Breeding Region core foraging areas is 9,204,711 
acres, which includes 3,607,715 acres (39 percent) of wetlands and 
1,034,357 developed acres (11 percent). This breeding region includes 
76 colonies, of which 6 are designated large, persistent colonies.
    Under Scenario 1, sea level rise is projected to impact 33 and 37 
percent of the wetlands in the core foraging areas by 2050 and 2080, 
respectively; the area impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level 
rise will include 4 (5 percent) of the 76 colony sites in the 2050 
projection, and 15 (20 percent) of the 76 colony sites in the 2080 
projection. None of the large, persistent colonies in this region will 
be impacted by sea level rise in either future timeframe projection. 
Land conversion will increase from 11 percent to 16 and 21 percent of 
the core foraging areas under the 2050 and 2080 timeframe projections, 
respectively. Conservation efforts are maintained at least at current 
levels under Scenario 1, making wood stork resiliency at these colony 
sites under Scenario 1 similar to that under Scenario 2 and better than 
that under Scenarios 3.
    Under Scenario 2, sea level rise is projected to result in losses 
of 37 and 41 percent of wetlands in the core foraging areas by 2050 and 
2080, respectively; the area impacted by (and therefore potentially 
lost to) sea level rise will include 15 (20 percent) of the 76 colony 
sites in the 2050 projection, and 43 (57 percent) of the 76 colony 
sites in the 2080 projection. None of the large, persistent colonies 
will be impacted by sea level rise by 2050, but 2 of the 6 (33 percent) 
will be impacted by (and potentially lost to) sea level rise by the 
2080 future timeframe projection. Land conversion in the core foraging 
areas will increase from 11 percent to 16 percent and 21 percent by 
2050 and 2080, respectively. Conservation efforts are maintained under 
Scenario 2 and reduced under Scenario 3. However, in this breeding 
region, the conservation efforts under Scenario 2 would not likely 
counteract the other negative influence factors considered (e.g., 
habitat loss due to sea level rise and development trends); therefore, 
conservation efforts would be unlikely to significantly affect the 
overall future condition in the Northeast Breeding Region between 
Scenarios 2 and 3. Overall, we expect resiliency to decline to some 
degree in this breeding region under future Scenario 1, and more so 
under future Scenarios 2 and 3.
Future Redundancy
    Overall, the future scenarios project either the continuation of 
current conditions or some deteriorated conditions within each of the 
four breeding regions. We project that overall wood stork breeding 
conditions will be adequate and all of the breeding regions (as 
currently defined) will be maintained despite varying degrees of 
potential habitat loss, conversion, or degradation; effects from 
climate change, such as changing precipitation patterns and prolonged 
droughts; reduced reproductive success; and increased mortality in eggs 
and young. We expect that each breeding region will maintain at least 
one large, persistent nesting colony and several other colonies, and 
that there will be no major reduction in the wood stork's overall range 
even with some habitat loss due to sea level rise. No extirpation of 
any of the breeding regions is anticipated. Local losses of current 
core foraging habitat due to environmental, anthropogenic, or 
stochastic changes at currently occupied colony sites and foraging 
areas are likely to continue to displace some individuals (as has 
occurred in the past). However, we expect that the Southeast U.S. DPS 
of the wood stork will also likely continue its trend of population 
growth and range shift or expansion into existing nearby suitable 
habitat and to new colony sites to replace colonies that are impacted 
or otherwise rendered unsuitable, leading to the continuation of all 
four existing breeding regions into the future. Thus, despite lowered 
resiliency at some occupied sites given certain future scenarios under 
consideration, we expect that the wood stork will maintain its current 
level of redundancy in the Southeast U.S. DPS.
Future Representation
    No behavioral, genetic, morphological, or observable variations 
have been described within or among the breeding regions in the 
Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork. However, current representation 
is thought to be high due to the wood stork's historically demonstrated 
ability to continuously respond to changing habitat conditions and 
maintain and increase abundance while expanding its range northward. If 
current trends continue, it would be expected that the wood stork's 
range will continue to shift and expand. The large majority of the 
breeding range, which extends across four States, is predicted to 
maintain resiliency into the future, and thus we expect that the wood 
stork will continue to be represented within the southeastern U.S. 
coastal plain within the current range of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. However, any decrease 
in future resiliency in populations could translate to a modest loss of 
representation (i.e., decreased resiliency may result in fewer 
individuals, which provide less opportunity for diversity). Regardless, 
the wood stork has exhibited a proclivity to respond to historical 
changes, so despite potential losses in resiliency within the four 
breeding regions and the associated implications for representation, we 
expect that representation will remain relatively high among breeding 
regions in each of the future scenarios we considered.

Determination of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the Wood Stork's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in

[[Page 9847]]

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (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.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the wood stork and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that, based on the best available information, the 
wood stork in the Southeast U.S. DPS is not in danger of extinction now 
throughout all of its range.
    Currently, all four wood stork breeding regions are either 
increasing or stable in the number of nesting pairs and are in an 
overall moderate to high condition based on demographic measures 
including productivity; large, persistent colonies; and abundance. 
Thus, the wood stork exhibits adequate resiliency in all of the 
breeding regions.
    There are more than 3.5 times the number of wood stork breeding 
colonies in existence today as there were at the time of listing (103 
now compared to 29 in 1984), indicating that redundancy in the 
population has been increasing over time. There are currently over 100 
colonies spread throughout the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork's 
historical range and beyond, making it unlikely that a single 
catastrophic event could threaten the existence of the species in this 
DPS, and indicating that redundancy in the wood stork population is 
adequate.
    The shift in concentration of the wood stork population from 
primarily south Florida northward into Georgia, South Carolina, and 
North Carolina since the 1980s makes the population more resilient, as 
it is now less dependent on one geographical area and ecotype. Further, 
wood storks are now exploiting many more types of foraging and breeding 
habitats than they did historically, including coastal salt marsh and 
manmade wetlands in addition to inland freshwater wetlands, and they 
are using both native and exotic vegetation as nesting substrate, and 
foraging on native, exotic, and novel prey items. Coastal salt marsh is 
abundant throughout the southeastern United States and provides a more 
consistently reliable food source year-round than does the inland 
freshwater wetland habitat upon which the population was dependent 
historically. The wood stork's shift from dependence primarily on 
freshwater wetlands during the breeding season to use of coastal salt 
marsh as well means that it is less reliant on favorable climate and 
weather patterns, and less vulnerable to unfavorable anthropogenic 
influences, all which influence the seasonal hydrological cycles that 
dictate prey availability in inland freshwater wetland ecosystems. All 
of these factors indicate high adaptive capacity and, therefore, 
adequate representation within the population.
    Further, conservation and favorable management have increased since 
the time of listing in 1984, and many regulated wetlands are now being 
managed in ways that allow for public water management goals to be met 
while also providing suitable conditions for wood stork breeding and 
foraging. With moderate to high resiliency in each breeding region, and 
adequate redundancy and representation in the Southeast U.S. DPS of the 
wood stork, the wood stork is not currently in danger of extinction 
throughout the DPS's range.
    We next considered whether the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork 
is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range in the 
foreseeable future. We determined the foreseeable future to be 60 years 
from present because that is the timeframe in which we can reliably 
predict both the threats to the wood stork and the wood stork's 
response. Two time-steps (30 years from present and 60 years from 
present) were considered for the future condition analysis. These time-
steps are within the predictive range of the model used to project 
future development for the southeastern U.S. coastal plain (Terando et 
al. 2014, entire) and are also within the climate change forecasts 
(Sweet et al. 2017, entire) that cover the southeastern United States. 
Biologically, the 30- and 60-year timeframes cover 7 and 15 wood stork 
generations, respectively, and thus allow for adequate time to predict 
a population response to the influence factors we analyzed.
    Climate change (Factor E) is likely to lead to increased hurricane 
intensity and changes to precipitation patterns in the future, but 
these impacts are likely to vary locally and the wood stork's response 
to these changes could be positive, negative, or both. Projections of 
increased temperature may lead to increased evaporative deficit and 
greater potential for drought-like conditions, which over time would 
likely reduce resiliency of wood stork populations to some degree, 
although these effects would likely vary locally. In addition, sea 
level rise will displace wood storks from some of their currently 
occupied habitat in the future. However, sea level rise will also 
create new salt marsh habitat that wood storks will be able to exploit. 
Further, habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor, as there is 
an abundance of suitable freshwater wetland and salt marsh habitat 
available that is not yet being used by the expanding wood stork 
population. The southeastern United States has nearly 48 million acres 
of palustrine and estuarine wetlands; this is by far more than any 
other region of the country and accounts for more than 43 percent of 
the nation's palustrine and estuarine wetlands (Sucik and Marks 2015, 
p. 11). Most of these wetland acres in the southeastern U.S. are 
located in the coastal plain, and currently the core foraging areas 
that support the active wood stork colonies include over 11 million 
acres of suitable foraging wetland habitat (Service 2021, p. 129). 
Thus, while sea level rise will render some currently occupied habitat 
unusable for wood storks, there will likely be an adequate amount of 
additional unoccupied suitable habitat available for use even under 
scenarios of future sea level rise.
    We now know that there is a fair amount of plasticity that exists 
within this species, with some individuals readily responding to 
environmental conditions by employing facultative migration and 
optimizing use of breeding and foraging habitat within and among colony 
sites, breeding regions, and breeding years. This behavioral 
flexibility suggests that the species will have the ability to adjust 
to changing habitat conditions into the future, just as they do now and 
have done historically in response to anthropogenic changes to the 
Everglades. Thus, wood storks in the Southeast U.S. DPS are expected to 
be able to tolerate future shifts in suitable habitat caused by climate 
change.
    Besides climate change, habitat conversion due to urbanization 
(Factor A) is the other population-level threat to the wood stork. Land 
use modeling shows that urban expansion and development will continue 
to impact currently occupied habitat to a similar degree throughout the 
range of the wood stork. However, conservation efforts are expected to 
help to mitigate this threat.

[[Page 9848]]

    Regulatory and voluntary conservation programs are currently 
underway that benefit wood stork foraging and breeding habitat, and 
include efforts to maintain and protect existing wetlands, acquire new 
wetland habitat for maintenance and protection, create new wetland 
habitat, and restore previously impacted habitat. There are many 
Federal laws and regulations for the restoration, management, and 
protection from degradation and destruction of wetland resources 
(Votteler and Muir 2002, entire), including, but not limited to, the 
Clean Water Act, National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), North American Wetlands Conservation Act 
of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.), and Coastal Zone Management Act of 
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
    Even in the absence of the Act's protections, as a wetland 
dependent species, wood storks will continue to benefit from wetland 
restoration and protection. For example, the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan (CERP), authorized by the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), remains among the highest 
national conservation priorities for the Service. The CERP includes 
performance goals for wood storks, such as achieving 1,500 to 3,000 
nesting pairs annually and ensuring that the initiation of breeding is 
no later than January each year (to maximize productivity). As such, 
this unique Federal/State partnership drives Everglades and Big Cypress 
restoration efforts, and we anticipate will continue to facilitate an 
increasingly robust wood stork breeding population in the future.
    The wood stork's past and continued recovery is owed in part to 
conservation efforts to protect and restore wetlands. Because many of 
these conservation efforts are aimed at wetland protection and 
restoration, and therefore unrelated to species-specific protections, 
we expect that they will continue to benefit the Southeast U.S. DPS of 
the wood stork into the foreseeable future regardless of its status 
under the Act.
    Further, the wood stork's increased use of urban and suburban 
environments, and human-made and -altered wetlands, indicates that the 
wood stork is more likely to tolerate at least some degree of 
urbanization more than species that rely more exclusively on relatively 
unaltered natural ecosystems.
    We anticipate that the wood stork's positive population growth rate 
will continue into the near future. We expect wood storks will continue 
to pioneer new colonies within the four breeding regions, and the 
expansion of the breeding range will continue. As such, we expect that 
the wood stork will maintain robust (sufficiently resilient) breeding 
colonies comparable in size and distribution to those that exist today 
in each of the breeding regions, across and beyond its historical range 
(redundancy), and continue to demonstrate high adaptive capacity 
(representation) by making use of ecological and behavioral plasticity 
in order to optimize survival and productivity now and into the future 
despite varying degrees of threats due to habitat loss and climate 
change. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we 
conclude that the wood stork is not in danger of extinction now or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its 
range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Having determined that the wood stork is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of 
extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its range--that 
is, whether there is any portion of the wood stork's range for which it 
is true that both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species 
is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more 
efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question or the 
``status'' question first. We can choose to address either question 
first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a 
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we 
do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the wood 
stork's range.
    In undertaking this analysis for the listed entity of wood stork, 
we choose to address the status question first. We began by identifying 
portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be 
different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this 
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that 
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
    We evaluated the range of the wood stork to determine if it is in 
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in any portion of its range. Because the range of a species can 
theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways, 
we focused our analysis on the four wood stork breeding regions 
described in the SSA report (Northwest, Northeast, Central, and South) 
(Service 2021, chapter 3.2).
    At the outset we note that, while the wood stork recovery targets 
originally established in the recovery plan have been met or exceeded 
in the Northwest, Northeast, and Central breeding regions, they have 
not all been met in the South Breeding Region. However, these recovery 
targets were developed at a time when it was believed that the status 
of the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork as a whole largely depended 
on this region. As previously described, we now know that the wood 
stork is much less dependent on the South Breeding Region, and, as 
such, these targets may no longer represent the best available science 
now that the wood stork has expanded its range substantially and is 
thriving in more abundant habitat types such as salt marsh. Further, 
even though productivity in the South Breeding Region is slightly under 
the target identified in the recovery plan, this metric is stable and 
would not indicate a different status for the individuals that breed in 
the South Breeding Region (i.e., would not indicate that the 
individuals that breed in that portion of the range would be at risk of 
extinction now or in the foreseeable future).
    We also considered whether the threats or their effects on the wood 
stork are greater in any portion of its range than in other portions 
such that the wood stork is in danger of extinction now or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the 
following threats and influence factors: climate change, urbanization 
(land conversion), and regulatory and voluntary conservation efforts, 
including cumulative effects.
    Climate change is projected to result in warmer temperatures, 
increased precipitation, increased evaporative deficits (drought-like 
conditions), and increased intensity of hurricanes, but the effects of 
these factors on the resiliency of the wood stork are expected to vary 
locally depending on ecological conditions and landscape attributes at 
each colony site. While downscaled climate models may in some cases 
provide higher confidence projections for localized effects, they are 
not available for comparison across all

[[Page 9849]]

of the wood stork's distribution. Instead, projections for climate 
variables that are available for comparison across all colony sites are 
at the scale of the South Atlantic-Gulf Region, which includes the 
entirety of the wood stork's current U.S. distribution. We consider 
this regional climate projection to be the best available scientific 
information regarding the potential effects of climate change that may 
affect the wood stork in this region. As such, our analysis of these 
projections does not indicate that any one portion of the wood stork's 
range will be more impacted by the effects of increasing temperatures, 
changes in precipitation patterns, and drought-like conditions than any 
other.
    Sea level rise projections are similar across the range of the wood 
stork, with an increase of 1 to 2 or 3 feet expected by 2050 across all 
breeding regions, and 3 to 5 or 6 feet expected by 2080 across all 
breeding regions, depending on whether the intermediate or high sea 
level rise scenario is considered. While sea level rise projections may 
be similar throughout the wood stork's range, impacts to wood stork 
resiliency are expected to be most pronounced in the Northeast Breeding 
Region, as it is in closer proximity to the coastline when compared to 
the other breeding regions. Tidal freshwater marshes will shift and 
possibly decline in size as saltwater intrudes and brackish marshes 
migrate inland to replace them. Some currently occupied wood stork 
habitat will be lost as sea level rises, but new habitat may also 
become available. Given the wood stork's tendency to shift both 
geographically and behaviorally in order to take advantage of optimum 
breeding and foraging conditions, and the abundance of unoccupied 
suitable habitat that still exists in this region, it is likely that 
the Northeast Breeding Region will remain sufficiently resilient, and a 
valuable and productive part of the wood stork's distribution into the 
future. As such, despite changes to habitat that result from sea level 
rise, we do not expect individuals in this breeding region to be in 
danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
    Models project that urbanization and land conversion will continue 
to occur into the future across the range of the wood stork, and 
impacts will be relatively evenly distributed among breeding regions. 
Specifically, the urbanization model projects that under the worst-case 
future scenarios and over the longest timeframe (to 2080), developed 
areas within the core foraging areas will increase by a maximum of 10 
to 14 percentage points depending on the breeding region (i.e., 
increasing from 18 to 30 percent in the South Breeding Region, from 25 
to 39 percent in the Central Breeding Region, from 8 to 22 percent in 
the Northwest Breeding Region, and from 11 to 21 percent in the 
Northeast Breeding Region). As such, no one area of the wood stork's 
range will be impacted significantly more by urbanization than any 
other. Regulatory and voluntary conservation efforts that help mitigate 
the impacts of urbanization are also well distributed across the range 
of the wood stork, and multiple examples of ongoing efforts in all four 
breeding regions can be found in the SSA report (Service 2021, chapter 
5.1.4).
    In general, while the degree to which threats such as sea level 
rise and urbanization will impact the wood stork varies to some extent 
at different locations, the populations within the various locations 
are stable or increasing, and we project these trends to continue in 
the foreseeable future. Additionally, the Southeast U.S. DPS of the 
wood stork consists of a single, genetically undifferentiated 
population where a proportion of the individuals move between and among 
breeding colonies and breeding regions, both inter- and intra-annually. 
The fluid nature of the wood stork population across its range means 
that even if certain colony sites or geographical areas experience an 
increase in exposure to a certain threat at a given time and location, 
the movement of individuals among colony sites throughout the range 
would prevent any one group of individuals from being 
disproportionately affected.
    We found no portion of the wood stork's range where threats are 
impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting 
individuals elsewhere in its range, such that the status of the wood 
stork in that portion differs from its status in any other portion of 
its range. Therefore, we find that the wood stork is not in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any 
significant portion of its range. This does not conflict with the 
courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, 321 
F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, 
in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final 
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its 
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), 
including the definition of ``significant'' that those court decisions 
held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork 
does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In 
accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(e)(2) currently in 
effect, the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork does not meet the 
definition of an endangered or a threatened species. Therefore, we 
propose to remove the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by 
removing the Southeast U.S. DPS of the wood stork from the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through 
sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to this DPS. Federal agencies 
would no longer be required to consult with the Service under section 7 
of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry 
out may affect the wood stork. There is no critical habitat designated 
for the wood stork, so there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species (which includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature; see 16 
U.S.C. 1532(16)) that have been delisted due to recovery. Post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify 
that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of 
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The 
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status 
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to 
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is 
not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period data 
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we 
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency 
listing.
    Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with 
the

[[Page 9850]]

States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, we 
remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, 
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume 
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
    We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource 
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as 
appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the wood 
stork. The PDM plan will build upon current research and effective 
management practices that have improved the status of the wood stork 
since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management 
strategies that have been developed to sustain the wood stork will be a 
fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify 
measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and 
reacting to significant changes in wood stork numbers, distribution, 
and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these 
thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants, 
will investigate causes of these declines. The investigation will be to 
determine if the wood stork warrants expanded monitoring, additional 
research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of Federal 
protection under the Act. We will draft the PDM plan and will notify 
the public on our website, https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services, when it is available. Copies will also be 
available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological 
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). We 
anticipate finalizing a PDM plan at the time of making a final 
determination on this proposed delisting rule.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

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 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes.
    On June 20, 2019, the Service published in the Federal Register (84 
FR 28850) a notice of initiation of a 5-year review for the U.S. 
breeding population of the wood stork and requested new information 
that could have a bearing on the status of this DPS. On November 21, 
2019, the Service informed the affected Tribes that we had initiated 
the SSA process, and we invited them to participate in the development 
of the wood stork SSA. On February 1, 2021, the Service contacted the 
affected Tribes with an opportunity to review the draft SSA report. We 
will continue to work with Tribal entities during the development of a 
final listing determination for the wood stork.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Florida Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 
Florida Ecological Services Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


Sec.  17.11  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by removing the entry for ``Stork, wood [Southeast 
U.S. DPS]'' under ``Birds''.

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-03123 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P